The "Rational Male and Female"? - Biology and Programs in Relationships

Andi

Padawan Learner
Probably not the best choice of words on my part...

I think of "diving into something" as getting down to the nitty-gritty details, really thinking about it, taking it apart and seeing how it works.

IOW:

1. We must be able to look at something without becoming identified with it (i.e. embracing it)
2. We also need to be able to look into something without rejecting all of it because we disagree with or react to parts of it

Obviously, that's not easy to do most of the time because naturally, we will feel one way or another about the subject matter. But the reality of the subject matter is what it is, and it doesn't care how we feel about it.

In any case, I'm sure there are MANY more pieces of the puzzle yet to be found!
Thanks Scottie for clarification, although I have understood it the first time. I was unclear when asking you to expand, I apologize. My mind was set to understanding why and if there was a good enough reason to suggest Tomassi's books to others that come across this thread.
I understand your points fairly well and even in the beginning of the thread I have understood your points and agreed in as far as there are things to consider and accumulate insight..however I was drown to come to a conclusion and see if Tomassi's books were of sufficient enough insight as to be worth the read for others here.
My own opinion and I still hold it, its that its not worth it, but that is not to say I do not understand your point of view it that there are things in the book that are valuable and worth the time spent reading given one is not in a life situation that demands an explanation when shet hits the fan.
In that case , in the case a man comes across this kind of book and gets inspired by Rollo Tomassi's tweets, I can't see why there is any chance of a good influence. On the contrary the advice implied is horrific and borderline pathologic. The book is arguably scientific and imo nothing a man does not intuitively know by his late 20's.
The burden is on us to understand these socio cultural inter-sexual dynamics but there is a fair stretch from that to taking into account implied advice like Game, PUA, spining plates etc. I would not consider giving my son such a direct and distilled version of "all women are like that".
I hope this does not come as negative or contrary to your points because here on the forum we can talk with a different mindset. With the forum mindset and the knoladge accumulated already, it's easier to distill however I am quite curious to the opinion of female here,so far it's mostly guys.
On another tone, there is hardly any guy who cannot find someting to attach to in Tomassi's book and drive it to the bank since so many of us have been through these king of experiences and the model presented in the book is border line imoral despite the Eureka moments.
This is the reason why communities like the red pill and MGTOW and MRA are for the biggest part dulling themselves into black and white beliefs, imo.
 

Andi

Padawan Learner
Men...what a ride...this is the stuff I desperately needed. I knew something is not right, but could not identify exactly what. Or what I did/am doing wrong in my LTR. I literally feel unplugged. Thank you all for starting and discussing this thread.

Actually, I started seeing when and where I started my own Betaization.

What a catch 22......thinking that being more and more nice will certainly help, but it's actually deteriorates the whole situation even more. As they say, you end up like a mouse pulling the lever and getting the reward at random.
Doing the same thing over and over aka. being nicer and nicer, believing that you will get your reward aka. partner appreciating/respecting you more, love you more, looking at you as real male partner and a "good soul", more sex etc., but...it ends like reward being given only randomly and as more time passes and you end up full Full Beta, also that reward becomes so rear, almost nonexistent, and what do you do than? - Thanks God I never gone Full Beta...I just reached that moment where I saw that something was not right and it had to be fixed, and whatever I did in correlation with "Nice Guy" trajectory, it failed - her "reward" to me became even more infrequent, and my "reward" to her happened more often. So...First hand experience, for more than two and half years.

Thinking of my higher Agreeableness, Beta traits and "smoothing the waters" is a habitual way of thinking/operating for me. But that's changing, especially now, after these realizations. I'm learning to be less and less agreeable when situation is appropriate for that (sh*t-testing, confidence, decision making etc.)


Also, one of the biggest lies I fed myself with is "Communication is the key". You cannot negotiate sexual desire with women and dopamine pathways generally. Even if your partner knows how hypergamy operates, knows about material and wisdom here, listens to Jordan Peterson and loves you, it's simply not possible. End of story.

So..what then can?
- We, men, have to create it by our own behavior, way of thinking, fitness, decisiveness/confidence etc.

And this implies next..."communication" is not just verbal. That's the key here. There are other ways of "communication":
- "Communicate" determination and confidence by your behavior AND words AND being disagreeable when situation requires you to be (confidence, decisiveness, sh*t-test endurance, leader qualities (not tyrant ones) all in one package)
- "Communicate" that you have other options and that you are desirable by other girls whom are being interested in you aka higher "Sex rank"
- "Communicate" physical fitness
...and on an' on an' on...

I think that these books and articles can teach men how to acquire that power we desperately need. And that power is not tyrannical and manipulative one, quite the contrary, it's a power to lead. Power that puts you at the head of your army in the first rows, as a protector and a leader, just like Caesar or Putin.

Anyhow...thank you guys for starting this thread because I felt and I'm still feeling like someone punched me in the head...with a sledgehammer...attached to a harvester...at speed approximately to that of light. I feel like I knew all this instinctively, but forgot it as LTR developed further.

I think this is crucial for men right now. Especially those who are in LTRs/Marriages and those more agreeable...

P.S. I have read many of Tomassi articles(haven't read his books) and in one of them he adverted a book, for those in LTRs/Marriages, - Athol Key - Married Man Sex Life Primer.
I started reading and...men...It already helped me A LOT!
Hi Balance, I feel for you. I have so many cases in my near friends in your situation and have also read a hundred more in the attempt to understand the complex. I am not myself affected but never the less, my interest has grown imensly seeing the heartbreaking truth of this rather increasingly phenomenon.
I have taked to others and some have even said they might go look for relationships in another country due to the laws in North America. The situation is clearly different in say Eastern Europe.
It's easy for men to become black and white when faced with a life threatening scenario that has become inevitable for many, and assume all relationship will end up bad.
Tomassi is right on the money in his books and you probably will find it rather helpful. There is no help in Western society and men are as disposable as bottled water, but never think for a second women are to blame for want is happening more and more. It is Westen society and it's insanity of all new record.
I hope you well, and my advice is to not talk to other men because they are just justifying their existence and suffering by all means possible without comming to terms with want is really happening.
I suggest watching Karen Straughan on YouTube ; she's a men rights activist with a lot of good insight. Cheers
 

Adaryn

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Beau said:
I would be very interested to get more opinions from women on the forum on this. I also think we ought to define "hypergamous dualistic sexual strategy" as well.
Probably :-) I myself am confused by what it entails exactly (despite reading TR's blog posts and other blogs on the manosphere). It appears too limited/restricted, and some RedPillers quickly bring up the "hypergamy card" to explain any and all female behaviour wrt relationships. Though it probably goes a long way towards explaining certain typically feminine tendencies, and we might use it as a basis from which most women operate "by default", there are so many other factors that would also contribute to a seemingly "dualistic sexual strategy" (as I think I understand it, since I'm not entirely sure what it means) - such as early trauma, imprinting, absent father, dysfunctional family, characteropathy (NPD, BPD…), or just plain emotional immaturity. So it's not so simple (I know nobody here said it was). "Patterns within patterns" indeed.

I have observed real life examples that seemingly contradict the hypergamy theory, with women making completely irrational choices by, for ie, sticking to a relationship that (in terms of hypergamy) didn't serve their interests in any way (whether financially or emotionally). However, these behaviours might still be described as hypergamy by some. Ie: she sticks to this relationship because it provides her with the emotional roller-coaster/"dread" feelings that women crave so much (according to the promoters of the "it's all about hypergamy" theory). I disagree with that stance.
I have also witnessed cases that would fit the "classic" hypergamy strategy to a T.: childhood friend partying hard in her early 20's, then settling down around 25 with a "solid" guy. To the best of my knowledge, she's still married to him (they have 3 children) and they seem to be happy with their life.
Young people are naturally selfish and self-centered, and sure girls crush on hot alpha guys and test they 'seductive power' when "entering the market", and indeed, as they age they want someone stable, both psychologically and financially, someone emotionally mature who can be a leader/dominant while not being an asshole (as in, "shut up and do as I say"). Well, is it hypergamous dualistic strategy, or just basically growing up and wisening up? Whatever the case, I don't see it as negative if it's used for "the good" by normal, decent women (yes, such a thing does exist).

Beau said:
Also, it seems that at the most simplistic level these ideas are not all that new to me. It's been pretty common knowledge for us guys that to get the really pretty woman you have to have a good job, drive a nice car and have your own place. I feel like anyone that resents the reality about male and female natures is just tilting at windmills.
I think it's pretty much good old wisdom, and healthy advice for young men: not to marry too young, wait to be settled professionally before thinking of committing to a long term relationship if that's your choice (so, getting your shit together), and we can add: watch out for red flags/signs of pathological/crazy-making behaviour, or any sign that she's only in it for the money.

But, the same advice applies to women as well.

As for young women seeking Alphas during their party years purely for reasons of sexual gratification, well men and women are not wired the same way, and except for abnormal cases (maybe very high levels of testoterone) I don't think normal women (esp. young, 20 something girls) can "crave" the act itself without a minimum of emotional bonding (barring the use of alcohol or any substance that removes inhibition). Which is why I find some articles on the topic laughable and caricatural - like the one about "if she doesn't have sex with you within 3 dates, move on, it means she's not really into you/you're not her priority". I think on this particular point, RT's very much deluded. I'd venture to say most women don't crave sex per se as they crave male attention, and often it has to do with daddy issues.

When wondering what a real man is or could be, Putin comes to mind. A natural leader, I don't think he "became" that way in order to attract women, to be a "gamer". His sense of self-worth doesn't depend on what men or women think of him. Women are not his goal, and yet, many women probably "crush" on him. I think ultimately, normal women will love and respect a man who has a "higher" goal in life. So in a sense, it would be men's job to change the course of the destructive trajectory we're in by simply learning to become men again, independently of what 'wimin' want or need (of course, a strong, independent man is precisely what 'wimin' want/need, but he's not like this to get 'wimin', he's only himself/expressing his masculinity without focusing on how it could benefit him sexually --> and this is where I disagree with RT and most of the Redpillers)

So whether you are a crazed feminist who berates men for having masculine traits and having a beautiful wife, or an angry bitter man who thinks women are soulless gold diggers intent on fleecing you of your life's earnings and leaving you for an alpha, it seems like different sides of the same coin. All that's accomplished is more divisions between normal people.
That's probably my biggest issue with Tomassi's work, that people reading his material don't seem to be using the knowledge in the book for anything but personal gain. I formed that opinion doing what Adaryn did, spending time reading comments on his blog from his fans and through Twitter. Certainly appears as though Tomassi enables and even encourages rather selfish behavior from his followers.
It seems to be so. I've continued to read his articles, and to be fair, he does have some good points (though as already said, I think he's too much anti-women/AWALT, and a lot of comments from his followers are really crass). I wonder however whether he may have taken his personal experience and extrapolated it to everyone, everywhere, all the time? Maybe he's mostly seen hypergamy applied in the most negative way, in big US cities where interactions are really superficial and artificial, in wealthy circles, where a lot of women only care about their looks, are quite "plastic", and their sole aim is to compete for the best Alpha on the market? So indeed, such places must be rife with gold diggers and bimbos.

Anyway, I might give his books a go sometime (for now, I'm a bit sick with the word "hypergamy"… :rolleyes:).
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Well, is it hypergamous dualistic strategy, or just basically growing up and wisening up?
Good point, and I must admit that sometimes this kind of "evolutionary thinking" that seems so fashionable these days (probably as a reaction against the biology-denying social constructionists on the left) gets on my nerves. David Berlinski made fun of it in one of his talks, saying that these guys make arguments like "people get a pang from their conscience when they are shoplifting at a department store, because, well, in our distant hunter-gatherer past, people were punished for shoplifting at department stores!".

Thing is, Darwinism is dead wrong. Consciousness lies at the root of reality, not material, and definitely not "random mutation and natural selection". That isn't to say of course that we all are lofty spiritual beings; of course there are strong biological pressures towards reproduction and so on. But there's also a whole lot more going on. So we should be careful when invoking wild claims about evolutionary pressures because these could potentially blind us to the complexity of the situation and indeed simpler solutions. Which brings us to...

When wondering what a real man is or could be, Putin comes to mind. A natural leader, I don't think he "became" that way in order to attract women, to be a "gamer". His sense of self-worth doesn't depend on what men or women think of him. Women are not his goal, and yet, many women probably "crush" on him.
Again good point. It's a truism that if you want to "conquer" someone, you need to pretend you're not interested, make yourself rare and so on. But that's just a manipulation tactic pick-up artists use that builds on something real: good men (and women too) with a strong character don't just pretend they are not interested in cheap adventures and conquests; they really are not interested. Because they're busy doing their thing, working towards their goals and aspirations, building their character and experience. Women love that in men, and men love it in women too if they are not "cheap to get" and show strength of character.

Now, you could come up with all kinds of evolutionary stories why this is so. Or, you could simply acknowledge the obvious: that men and women of strong character make great partners. They are not the type of guys (or girls) who are likely to run off with the next best thing once there is a problem, or cheat for self-aggrandizement or the fun of playing pointless games. Guys like Putin :)

So yeah, I think the story is really complicated. Simplistic evolutionary speculations don't cut it; ignoring biology doesn't cut it either; neither do grand spiritual theories or rationalizations of our basic urges and drives...
 
Last edited:

Siberia

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Now, you could come up with all kinds of evolutionary stories why this is so. Or, you could simply acknowledge the obvious: that men and women of strong character make great partners. They are not the type of guys (or girls) who are likely to run off with the next best thing once there is a problem, or cheat for self-aggrandizement or the fun of playing pointless games. Guys like Putin :)
There is a very famous song in Russia 'I want a guy like Putin'. It goes like:

I want a guy like Putin
Who is full of strength
A guy like Putin
Who doesn't drink
A guy like Putin
Who doesn't abuse
A guy like Putin
Who will not run away
12 million views on YouTube and 139k likes. :-P:thup:

 

Keit

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
There is a very famous song in Russia 'I want a guy like Putin'.
Yes, there is no doubt that many women in Russia see Putin as the epitome of "The Man". And not only Russian women. ;-) Here, take a look at the following news report from the Eurasian Women's forum. I think there is definitely something deeply seated and subconscious that attracts most of women (no matter their status or money) to competent, strong, AND caring men. Their charm is totally disarming. :love:

 
Last edited:

Balance

The Force is Strong With This One
Hi Balance, I feel for you. I have so many cases in my near friends in your situation and have also read a hundred more in the attempt to understand the complex. I am not myself affected but never the less, my interest has grown imensly seeing the heartbreaking truth of this rather increasingly phenomenon.
I have taked to others and some have even said they might go look for relationships in another country due to the laws in North America. The situation is clearly different in say Eastern Europe.
It's easy for men to become black and white when faced with a life threatening scenario that has become inevitable for many, and assume all relationship will end up bad.
Tomassi is right on the money in his books and you probably will find it rather helpful. There is no help in Western society and men are as disposable as bottled water, but never think for a second women are to blame for want is happening more and more. It is Westen society and it's insanity of all new record.
I hope you well, and my advice is to not talk to other men because they are just justifying their existence and suffering by all means possible without comming to terms with want is really happening.
I suggest watching Karen Straughan on YouTube ; she's a men rights activist with a lot of good insight. Cheers
Thank you Andi for your post. :-)
Anyhow, I am from Eastern Europe. We still do not have laws to define gender, pronounces or inter-gender behavior directives as those in Netflix and similar. And thank God for that, but...if this craziness continues in West, it will transfer here in in the future probably. I'm thinking more and more that Betaization/"falling in love"/"being a Nice Guy"/"submitting to women frame" etc. is problem everywhere and especially for people who score more in agreeableness and even more for those who score higher in both agreeableness and neuroticism. (Again, thanks god I only have elevated agreeableness and very low neuroticism score - otherwise I would end up as fried potato honestly :whistle:)

What pulled me to this material (Athol Key, Tomassi, Red Pill etc.) are my own observations about skewed inter-relationship dynamics and especially lack of sex (or not such great quality as before). So Ok, traditional way of thinking is along these lines: "Well...it's a long term relationship, what can I expect? It's normal, people get used to each other and things like this can happen...that's natural...".
But in fact, that's not true. I was wrong. It's a way of least resistance, which is bad for mental health...as they say, being crazy means doing the same thing repeatedly, thinking that results will change. Problem is that results are in our favor only randomly which again reassures our flawed logic. So we are in constant torment. It sometimes work, and more times not...but it still sometimes work, right? etc.

For few weeks I have used and I'm still using knowledge from these authors and it's helping a lot...helping in the way that dynamics are changing, influence of her frame decreased almost instantly when this knowledge is utilized (this is also a great battlefield for practicing disagreeableness(enduring sh*t-testing etc) if your are more agreeable person), also her appreciation increased despite not being a "Nice Guy", so...!

For anyone who thinks that this approach is "cruel", "amoral" or similar - read again Timothies post. Level of your repulsion may indicate level of your "Nice Guy" programming and please do yourself a favor and separate the wheat from the chaff.
 

Balance

The Force is Strong With This One
As for young women seeking Alphas during their party years purely for reasons of sexual gratification, well men and women are not wired the same way, and except for abnormal cases (maybe very high levels of testoterone) I don't think normal women (esp. young, 20 something girls) can "crave" the act itself without a minimum of emotional bonding (barring the use of alcohol or any substance that removes inhibition). Which is why I find some articles on the topic laughable and caricatural - like the one about "if she doesn't have sex with you within 3 dates, move on, it means she's not really into you/you're not her priority". I think on this particular point, RT's very much deluded. I'd venture to say most women don't crave sex per se as they crave male attention, and often it has to do with daddy issues.
I won't comment sex in first 3 dates part, because there's no point in that, but red part is totally true. And, as always in life, every phenomenon has extreme poles, right? So I now understand that:
- If you give too much attention to your partner, inflation happens and your attention is not worth anymore as it was (same as value of money) AND if you stop paying attention to your partner, deflation happens and relationship stagnates (money is not circulating, production stops etc.).
- This is exactly the reason why Nice Guy(Full Beta) is polar extreme of being a Jerk(Full Alpha). But, in ether way LTR/Marriage will deteriorate or someone will greatly suffer in long term.
 

Andromeda

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Thing is, Darwinism is dead wrong. Consciousness lies at the root of reality, not material, and definitely not "random mutation and natural selection". That isn't to say of course that we all are lofty spiritual beings; of course there are strong biological pressures towards reproduction and so on. But there's also a whole lot more going on. So we should be careful when invoking wild claims about evolutionary pressures because these could potentially blind us to the complexity of the situation and indeed simpler solutions.
Indeed. Although both individuals, and society at large, are suffering from the dark side of both the feminine and masculine imperatives, that's not all there is to the story by a long shot. I definitely detect the hand of intelligent design! :-P

Here's how I see it.

At the most basic level I think the feminine imperative is to seek protection and providence and to offer inspiration and organization.
The complementary masculine imperative is to seek inspiration and order and to offer protection and providence.

On the strictly physical/biological level for women, this will manifest as looking for an alpha (protection) or a stable guy (protection and providence), depending on her maturity. On the strictly physical/biological level for men, this will manifest as looking for a beautiful (inspiring!) and fertile (organizing) woman. If he's more mature, he may want someone who can also care for people and a household (both inspiring and organizing).

Most people have this as their base and totally buy into romanticized narratives for why this is actually love until the hormones wear off. Then drama happens and people learn a particular set of lessons. For those who become aware of the dynamic they can either choose to incorporate the good and rise above the rest in a giving and forgiving way, or to just run with it and play the best game they can. That is a matter of knowledge and choice. At this level, it is mostly about keeping the living system going.

But that's just the basic level. At the next level, emotional/psychological programs become the basis for selecting a relationship partner. This is pretty common too. It doesn't have to exclude the basic drive from above (they are actually commonly seen together), but it just as often runs seemingly contrary to those directives. Women or men will marry a 'fixer uppers' or a mommy or daddy to try to recreate and fix something from the past (even a past life). In this situation, it's also usually seen through the lens of romance until reality sets in. Then drama happens and people learn a particular set of lessons. For those who become aware of the dynamic they can either choose to incorporate the good and rise above the rest in a giving and forgiving way, or to just run with it and play the best game they can. That is a matter of knowledge and choice. At this level, there is opportunity for emotional development.

But that's just the second level. At the next level, with some awareness of the previous two, spiritual curiosity/loneliness becomes the basis for selecting a partner. This one is tricky because it is often what the previous level pretends to be. And indeed there is often a bleedover as with the first two. Annnd, it can also run contrary to the above (as in committing no matter the feelings due to programs). Here women and men will be more aware of their own and others biological and emotional/psychological drives and consciously decide to commit to a relationship and try to figure the rest out along the way. For the sake of true love and companionship. In this situation, it's also usually seen through the lens of romance slightly more grounded in reality. Until the really tough times come along. Then drama happens and people learn a particular set of lessons. For those who become aware of the underlying dynamics they can either choose to incorporate the good and rise above the rest in a giving and forgiving way, or to just run with it and play the best game they can. That is a matter of knowledge and choice. At this level, there is an opportunity to develop will (which can make regular emotions turn into real emotions).

Well, I'm sure there are more levels, but we are only human after all! :-O

And I think it's pretty safe to say that in any of the above scenarios, the basic energetic feminine and masculine imperatives of inspiration/organization - protection/providence are playing out either physically, emotionally/psychologically or spiritually. Sometimes they can even switch between partners depending on the specific situation. A man can inspire or organize a woman emotionally and a woman can protect and provide guidance for a man spiritually, for instance.

Anyway, I think it's true that it's important to not lose sight of the most basic impulses and over romanticize. I think it's equally true that romance is VERY important. It can either be used as a narrative to just get what you want, or it can be the motivating factor to keep you going through the hard times and thinking of the other and higher ideals. Same with knowledge. They BOTH have the potential to take you from the 'imperative' to actual love. But only when that is your goal and only when used together.

As far as the imperatives on a societal level, I think that right now western society is mostly geared toward the feminine. More like in the Jordan Peterson type of way, though. As in the dark side of the feminine energy that will try to care you to death with all the liberal snowflake nonsense. That's only because it's been taken too far. When feminine energy is balanced, a mother knows when she needs to be strict for the sake of her children. But then, perhaps it's just the other side of the coin to what's going on with the dark side of the masculine imperative when it comes to foreign policy.

As for soy boys and bimbos (who I think are more each others equivalent response to hyper feminine or masculine mating strategies) it's certainly not a noble expression of femininity or masculinity and is perverse, but at least they're still talking to the other in their way. I think the rabid feminism and rabid masculinism is far worse in the long run because it's completely trying to do away with the other. That seems to me to be some serious soul smashing stuff.
 
Last edited:

Timótheos

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Well, according to Wikipedia's article on hypergamy:

Today most people marry their approximate social equals, and in much of the world hypergamy has decreased; for example, it is becoming less common for women to marry older men, although hypergamy does not require the man to be older, only of higher status.
This is an unusable definition. It is too limiting, overly simplistic and inadequate for the topic being discussed.

Even though the books provide a comprehensive understanding of hypergamy, who’s definition only becomes clear by actually reading the material, I will attempt to describe this abstract idea using my own words.

The Rational Male series of books are about sex. Or more specifically, the intersexual dynamics between men and women and how each expresses their innate sexual strategy .

For me, I think there’s more to it than that. The fundamental root of the issue is actually one of procreation, or the instinctual impulse for a species to propagate itself. Every living thing in nature is driven and has developed strategies to proliferate, to replicate itself, and human beings are no exception.

These are deep hard-wired unconscious biological programs. and sex is simply the means by which they are expressed.

Men’s biological drive is singular in its focus. The urge to spread his seed among the largest population of women available to him, in order to successfully pass on his genetic material.

It’s a drive that is well documented, easy to recognize and is socially accepted in the old trope of of the guy who “can’t keep it in his pants” and “lets his little head do his thinking for him”.

From the distant past into the modern age, men’s behaviours are so obvious and predictable that they have almost become caricatures of themselves.

Women’s biological drives are dualistic in nature, and up until recent rise of the Manosphere, have been largely hidden from public consciousness. Because of her unique biology, a women must serve two competing drives simultaneously.

This of course likely results in some understandable cognitive dissonance in women, because often the two drives are at odds with each other.

The first is genetic (heritable fitness traits) and the second is provisioning (long term safety and protection for her offspring).

Alpha seed versus Beta need.

The heritable fitness traits of men that women are instinctively drawn to are the appearance of robustness and good health. Physical attributes such as height, muscularity, symmetry, a deep voice, all act to stimulate a woman’s innate desire for sexual mating, because these are the traits that would most likely ensure the survival of her offspring in nature.

That’s why naturally handsome, good-looking men tend to be more successful in the sexual arena.

There’s another aspect to the genetic component of women’s primary drive that is often misunderstood, because the outward manifestation of it seems to defy all logic and common sense.

And understanding this second aspect helps explain why women are paradoxically drawn to the quintessential “bad boy”. The man with an attitude, who acts arrogant and dismissive, who is unlikely to be a good long term provider, and who may not even be conventionally handsome, but still manages somehow to enthral and get beautiful women to go to bed with him.

This is also a commonly accepted social trope.

For some reason nature has also selected for the Alpha qualities of confidence, aloofness, and self-assured indifference to become strong unconscious attractors to women’s basic desires.

I don’t know why this is, but I suspect that when a man demonstrates his own worth by outwardly showing that he’s indifferent to the sexual charms and lures of woman, he triggers something in a women’s brain (which has otherwise become accustomed to the constant attentions of men), marking him as “special” and “different” .

They instinctively recognize him as a real Alpha male, the leader in his group, a high value potential mate, or a “man worth having”, and must compete with other women for. Again, I stress that these are deeply held biological drives, and no amount of superficial understanding or rationalization will make them go away. It is an undeniable biological reality that can only (hopefully) be mitigated through conscious awareness and deliberate action.

The second part of women’s dualistic sexual strategy (hypergamy) is that of the biological drive to secure long-term provisioning. - Beta need.

Because it is so rare to find both Alpha (genetic) and Beta (provisioning) traits in the same man, women must both reconcile and often compromise one aspect of their hypergamous nature at the expense of the other.

Interestingly, the dualistic nature of women’s biological impetus is expressed on both a micro and macro scale.

On a micro scale, one can see the distinction within the natural ebb and flow of her menstrual cycle.

During her ovulatory or proliferative phase, a woman will be aroused by and drawn to men with more Alpha-like qualities, because her biology tells her it’s “time to mate”, so she will select from the highest level Alpha that she can attract.

During her luteal phase, when the estrogen level decreases and her uterus is preparing to shed, she will then become more attracted to the Beta qualities of long term provisioning.

On a macro scale, women’s unconscious hypergamous nature is expressed in her sexual behaviour and mate selecting patterns at different stages of her life.

During the height of a woman’s fertility, in her early to mid-twenties, she’s likely go through a phase of active sexual activity with a number of short term Alpha males - often called her “party years”. In one sense, when viewed through the long lens of history, the modern young woman of today ends up squandering her prime reproductive years hopping from one bed to another.

It is only when a woman reaches her late 20’s early 30’s, and she can no longer successfully compete against younger more attractive women, when she turns her focus of her mate selection towards Beta-Type males to secure her long-term provisions needs.

It’s at this point that many women in our modern society, now well past their reproductive peak, aim to secure and husband and start a family, complain about the lack of “good men”.

That, in a nutshell, is how I understand the concept of hypergamy as it is outlined in the books.

Lastly, I’d like to touch upon how this information could be potentially useful to us here in the forum, and I came up with one good example related to Sandra Brown’s book - Women who love Psychopaths.

On the surface, the calm, self-assured confidence of a naturally (but good-hearted) Alpha male is virtually indistinguishable from the haughty narcissistic arrogance of the psychopath. Their outward expression is so similar that many women, unaware of their inner biological drives, will be fooled by them.

If a woman had a deep understanding of how these unconscious biological drives were influencing her behaviour and decision making process, and could bring this understanding into her conscious awareness, then she could potentially avoid a major catastrophic life-changing relationship that would bring her nothing but sorrow and harm.

By making the unconscious conscious, even if it only helps one or two women avoid getting entangled with a predator, wouldn’t the information contained in these books be useful for them to learn, understand and assimilate?

Something to think about.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
men are far less likely to divorce and leave the family for a younger mate
Are they? Statistically speaking I mean? It would be interesting to see if any such number exist. The idea of the older guy ditching his wife for a "younger model" IS something of a meme.

No blame for women if they divorce due to Hypergamy since the blame is placed back on men for not being man enough.
That, however, also seems to be a general truth. Then again, in the specific context, maybe it's objectively true. Many men aren't "man enough" to give their best in a relationship/
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Again good point. It's a truism that if you want to "conquer" someone, you need to pretend you're not interested, make yourself rare and so on. But that's just a manipulation tactic pick-up artists use that builds on something real: good men (and women too) with a strong character don't just pretend they are not interested in cheap adventures and conquests; they really are not interested. Because they're busy doing their thing, working towards their goals and aspirations, building their character and experience. Women love that in men, and men love it in women too if they are not "cheap to get" and show strength of character.
This is related to one of the things I've thought of and asked people: can you "teach" a man to be an alpha? A better way to put that question is, can a man fake his way into fooling a woman that he's an alpha? I personally don't think that you can, either you are an alpha and alpha behavior comes naturally to you, or you're not and anyone with half a brain can tell you are acting.

Frankly, I think people should be who they are and be confident. If someone doesn't like that, oh well. Plenty of fish in the sea. But of course, seeing someone like Putin and trying to emulate his behavior is certainly worthwhile. But what I don't like is this idea that you need to be the alpha jerk. Do you really want to be with someone who likes being treated that way? I understand the psychology behind it, that women respect a man who they feel is not falling over himself to please her and get her to like him, probably because they get that all the time especially if they are conventionally attractive. That can lead to all sorts of weird pick up strategies if one finds the PUA material, like negging, ignoring and even using NLP. If you want to essentially trick someone into sleeping with you, by all means. But I find it to be rather awful.

I will say that if you're in a relationship already, there's probably merit to these ideas in a sort of keeping the fire going way. But this whole 'instilling dread in your partner' so she doesn't stray. I dunno, I feel like if you need to do that then things are already broken badly.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
You might say that's not very exciting or spiritual, but as we understand things now, getting a grip on oneself and understanding the machine IS the spiritual work. Ergo, most likely our high and mighty and sparkly ideas of relationships are just as distorted and corrupted as hardcore Redpillers' ideas of being a Macho Man who just uses women or the rabid feminists' ideas of being, doing, and having everything and to heck with Evil Men.
That's true, but in the case where we have to pick one or the other to be 'weighted' towards, it seems a better option to be weighted towards "sparkly ideas" than towards the "it's all biology" because, in the end, it's a) NOT all biology and b) we are trying to gain a handle on biology rather than exploit it for our own ends. Dawkins is wrong on his overall thesis on evolution, but there genes ARE programmed ot be "selfish", and will be unless consciousness is brought to bear on them.

"We're all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars". The gutter is known, safe and appealing, but the stars call to us. People can argue that it's best to stay in the gutter, it's what we're made of, where we belong, so just try and become king of it. Others say, yes, you're in the gutter, you're part of it and it is part of you, and you need to understand the gutter part of yourself to be able to free yourself from it and focus on the stars. *** End of excessive analogizing.
 
Last edited:

Scottie

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
That's true, but in the case where we have to pick one or the other to be 'weighted' towards, it seems a better option to be weighted towards "sparkly ideas" than towards the "it's all biology"
I'm definitely not a big fan of the "pure biology" route, because when you think about it, it's like looking at the 3d world like a materialist and seeing only atoms and molecules and genes - and no wonder, inspiration, intuition, higher densities, or whatever. It's basically ignoring an entire chunk of what appears (to me) to be reality.

It's definitely not easy to wrap my head around all of this without my noggin' exploding.
:shock:
That's one reason my current book is about UFOs. Can't miss with that one...
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Notice that a lot of men get quite worked up when they 'finally realize the horrible truth about hypergamy' etc. There's a tendency to denounce female wiles and manipulations, and I'd say the invariable reason they do this is because they DECIDE that they have suffered as a result of those 'wiles' in the past. Basically, they complain about female biological imperatives that prevented them from getting what their own biological imperatives were telling them they should get. It's almost like complaining that 'her biological imperatives are better than mine!'

The thing that is missing here in many men, obviously, is knowledge about those "wiles". And if there had been knowledge, they wouldn't be called "wiles". It's like feeling victimized because you keep falling into a hole in the road and lashing out at the evils of holes in the road, when the real problem is you obviously have not yet learned that holes in the road exist. When you do, they're not "evil" any more, and in fact, you realize they never were.

More importantly, what is missing is broader knowledge about THEMSELVES, NOT women. I'm pretty sure that the main problem men (and women) encounter in relationships is NOT 'hypergamy' etc. but lack of SELF knowledge. Knowledge of self by definition leads to knowledge of others, but the reverse is not true. It is very possible (and common these days) to focus on the issues of others, often defining them accurately, while remaining oblivious to our own issues. In fact, focusing on the faults of others is often used as a reason to NOT look at ourselves.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom