Muh Hypergamy!!!!! | Nah, Sometimes We Are That “Better Offer”
What an odd day for this humble daygamer. First, Heartiste wrote a post about a comment I made on that very fine blog (much respect to CH). They completely missed the point of my comment, but some of the readers got it. And then, after I made a comment on Chris Shepard’s thread, Chicken Little himself got after me for challenging his scared (cash) cow. This of course is all about the worlds most obvious concept: Muh Hypergamy!!!!
“When I see guys that get frothy about MUUHHH HYPERGUUHHHMEH… I increasingly read all that as signals of beta reality/paranoia. And a waste of our time as men to go over this again and again.”
— Nash
I shake my head at this whole controversy. We are all much cooler than that concept. If this was middle school, I wouldn’t let that concept sit at our table.
The Manosphere is a loose configuration of guys, with a wide variety of viewpoints. Some of them brilliant. Some not so much. And some of them… are an intellectual dead-end. Muh Hypergamy is in the category of less-than-useful concepts.
Girls go after status and aren’t loyal. This has implications for society.
I get it. Yeah. If you’ve been in the sexual marketplace for more than a minute, you know that girls like status (or shiny things in general), and will swing toward benefits (perceived or real). Got it. It’s hard out there. It is. Good men will face many challenges. Opportunistic, disloyal women may be one of the many dragons we have to slay.
Who is really surprised about that at this point?
Do women branch swing? Yes. Of course they do. Should you assume loyalty from your girl. Well, probably not.
I assume every girl I’m dating is fucking someone else (or has, or will). I know that’s not always true (when I’m running very good game, maybe it doesn’t happen at all), but it’s a belief that keeps me “honest.” Don’t get me wrong, if I even get the feeling she is with some other guy… she is kicked to the curb. But beyond that, I’m personally not that worked up about it.
Meanwhile, I’m also fucking someone else. Of course I am. Afterall, this is the Secret Society. And I know how the Secret Society works…
“A secret society exists. Around 52% of people on this earth are a part of it. Of that 52%, 50% are women, 2% are men.”
— RSD Tyler
Tyler is saying that ALL WOMEN, and the class of men that earn the title of “players,” are the constituents of the Secret Society. I think he’s right (mostly right). And that’s ALL women. So yeah, branch swinging for love or profit is real. Again, I’m not surprised.
Most of the bitter betas that howl about Muh Hypergamy are that vast majority of men that don’t understand the Secret Society and are not in it. You can make a claim that you are holier than thou “Redpill Royalty” all you want, but if the “secret sexual dealings” of women are a surprise to you, perhaps you’re not as advanced as you think you are.
Hypergamy is women looking for the best offer. And very often, that despicable “better offer”… is one of us.
That’s the fatal flaw in the withering panic of Muh Hypergamy. Strong men are the real source and power behind that dynamic. If we weren’t better than that other guy… what is her incentive to swing?
Without alpha Players and Patriarchs, hypergamy doesn’t exist. That is the truth about that silly concept. Hypergamy is about men, not the whims of little girls. It’s about us. We are that “better offer.” This is actually what it means to be alpha.
That is a different take on it, isn’t it.
Ironic, isn’t it? All day long the manosphere is high on alpha, but then shivers with the thought of Muh Hypergamy… when those concepts are two sides of the same coin.
When we look at the sexual market place through the beta-lens of Muh Hypergamy, we’re being reactive, and small. That is the position of doubt. Only the fear peddlers benefit by pushing that narrative. You should turn your back on that concept forever. It is not helping you.
Personally, I’m increasingly bored by this concept. The real version of hypergamy is that men of game (precisely because we are about working on our value) are the benefactors of that phenomenon. Us, and the girls in the Secret Society (= all girls).
Who’s left?
Yeah, some guys get burned. Maybe more so in modern times (although I’m not convinced that’s true… maybe the Secret Society is just a little less “secret” these days). And I feel for those guys. I want them to wake up. And I want them to find more useful strategies than the ones offered by Chicken Little and his crew.
And we already have a solution for that. In fact, getting burned by a girl is often the wake up call that brings men into game. It’s a phoenix-like moment, and it is the redpill rebirth for so many guys. It was for me. Not because I got burned (I’m sure I did, I just was too “asleep” to see it), but because I read about game and I wanted in. I wanted my spot, so I did what good men do… I earned it.
(In some ways, I see Muh Hypergamy as the men’s culture equivalent of SJW red-faced desperation and entitlement… guys wishing for “fairness” and “equality” in the SMP. Sad. And not gonna happen.)
And it’s a pity that this concept saps the energy of so many of our brothers. All that thrashing around, completely wasted energy, ranting against “gravity,” instead of learning to swim with the current of human evolution. Biting our nails and chanting “Muhhhh Hypergaaammmmy!!” over and over is not the answer.
The alpha path is a much better solution. Or introvert sigma style, if that’s a better fit. The path of game. And if not game, something like traditional Patriarchy. Both will work to give a man currency in the SMP.
For those guys that are addicted to that nonsense… hooked on Chicken Little’s crack… what exactly do they get out of that concept for their efforts? They get nothing. It’s obvious. If hypergamy could potentially rob them of a connection with a women, endlessly masticating on the concept itself robs them further. It’s Buddhism’s “second dart.” It’s insult to injury. It’s a sickness to continue that patter.
I think the popularity of Muh Hypergamy — the functional “utility” of the concept — is that men that are looking to grind their axe about society, or women, or their divorce, or their low SMV… can use the concept as fuel for their bitterness. And as an excuse to give up. It’s fuel for the MGTOW class. That’s not us.
And I’m not trying to mock those guys. I feel for them. And for any man that is stymied and frustrated by women. And that is the point of this post:
How can we take the possibility of a woman branch swinging, or the fallout of such an event, and grow as men?
Or better yet:
What other strategies are there that would get us what we want, without ever having to drink Chicken Little’s poison “cure?”
Back in college I read Steven Covey’s book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Like most books, I forgot 99% of what I read, but I do remember this part:
“Instead of reacting to or worrying about conditions over which they have little or no control, proactive people focus their time and energy on things they can control. ”
— Stephen Covey
Huh, that sounds pretty good.
I have better things to focus on that Muh Hypergamy, but if I was looking for a way out of that morass… to me that says it all. But I’ll keep going…
Muh Hypergamy is desperately reactive. It’s about being at the “effect” of life and those girls choices… as opposed to being the cause of events in our lives.
“Be at the cause, not at the effect.”
— RSD Julian
I love that line. Endless magic in those words.
How is Muh Hypergamy being at the cause of anything? It’s not. It teaches men to worry about things over which they cannot control, in an almost hysterical way. If your whole business model was about selling fear… you might like pushing that kind of thinking. But if you want what’s best for men, you might scratch your head at the billions of collective hours we’ve spent rehashing that topic… if we can’t do anything about it? It’s most literally, not in our control.
More importantly… is that the way real men put their limited time to good use? Is all that hand-wringing the path of a Patriarch or a Player? No, it is not.
“Proactive people focus their efforts on their Circle of Influence. They work on the things they can do something about: health, children, problems at work. Reactive people focus their efforts in the Circle of Concern–things over which they have little or no control: the national debt, terrorism, the weather.[.. Muh Hypergamy!!!]”
— Stephen Covey
Right.
It’s about knowing the difference between life events we can only get anxious about (our Circle of Concern) and the things we can actually do something about (our Circle of Influence).
What a girl does… we have zero control over. We have some control over why she might make a move (=our value, or lack of it), that is true. And we have even more control over our own mindsets and SMV. That later part is where our opportunity lies.
It’s interesting to note that men that give solid, practical advice in game don’t talk about that concept much. Think of the guys you know that are the best with women… how often do they preach “hypergamy?” Rarely, if at all.
Why would they? It’s a fear based strategy that makes you smaller. It’s “away motivation.” If game is about growth, we need a different path. We need “towards motivation.” We have to be FOR something.
Part of that “towards motivation” might be to try to be the guy that that girl goes after… but that is its own kind of middling strategy. It’s basically reactive too. Like Muh Hypergamy, it puts her actions at the center of our lives.
The way you deal with the potential reality of some girl branching swinging (which is always a possibility), is to be a high value man. Period. To live life for yourself. To man up in all you do. To be up to “big things.” To keep your edge sharp, always. And… to hone your game.
I have recent experience of losing a girl… and it was having options and game that was my solace. And it worked.
If game is a delivery mechanism for value… the value is where it all starts. First value, then game.
There is no such thing as security. But working on value and game is how we can be anti-fragile in the face of uncertainty.
For all the lamentation about Muh Hypergamy, some guys are winning in that game. If you’re getting laid a lot, you are hypergamy. You are that shiny thing.
It’s an obvious fact that you can be on the winning side of that equation… at least some of the time, with some girls. If you make your life about you (not the girls) and you arm yourself with useful concepts (that lead you, boldly, toward something), you have a life worth living. Chin up, chest out. That’s attractive. And that kind of life will attract a range of upside: including friends, business, family… and even YHT.
Yes to that. Feels better, doesn’t it.
Beyond just feeling better, the path of the Player and Patriarch goes beyond the bitter, lonely protest of the Muh Hypergamy advocates… working on value and game is real. It’s a plan with teeth. It’s action (and Pook likes action).
If Muh Hypergamy is about girls swinging to a better offer, the untold story is that some man, in fact, IS that better offer. We can be that man. We already are, much of the time.
Onward and upward.
Here’s to working on ourselves. To increasing our knowledge of (and first-hand experience with) female psychology. To choosing strategies that carry us off in productive directions. To “being at the cause, not at the effect.”
That’s the man I want to be. And I’ll look for leaders and others in this Tribe of Men that take me toward the light. Hopeful, bold, badass men.
Let’s get into the light. And bring our brothers with us. Once we’re there, don’t be surprised if there is plenty of “miniskirt” to go around.
I don’t care how often Chicken Little says it…
The sky is not falling, gentlemen. And it is by our own effort that we ensure that that is so.
Here’s to proper Players. Here’s to powerful Patriarchs. Viva daygame.
Game is hypergamy. Your desire to be a better man maches women’s desires to find a better man for themselves. Men compete to climb the male ranks and women want the winners. So hypergamy is the only thing there is. Or, there’s nothing out there for hypergamy. It also means that success with women is a given if you’re the kind of man that women see as having more value than themselves – which is the whole point of Game.
Whatever bitterness comes from the realization that women don’t care about men but only about the top tier men, and that this upscaling never ends – comes from something in men that tells them they don’t have what it takes.
Or, it’s bottom guy resenting women for wanting top guy, after realizing that none of that slaving himself and servitude will end up well.
The study of game is the study of Hypergamy.
The “what she responds to” means “what triggers her hypergamy”
All you do in Daygame is checking which girls you can trigger hypergamy on.
Etc.
Hypergamy is female attraction, and it responds to your own Alpha or Top Guy nature when you can pull it of, display it and incarnate it.
>> Whatever bitterness comes from the realization that women don’t care about men but only about the top tier men, and that this upscaling never ends – comes from something in men that tells them they don’t have what it takes.
Yeah.
And it is disabling to feed men this Muh Hypergamy BS. If we as men can have a natural tendency toward inertia… to weigh us down further with mal-adaptive strategies is criminal.
Often when we think we don’t have what it takes…we’re wrong. It’s just work. Men can work.
If no man ever had game or would consciously try to improve himself, like in a Dystopia or sth., I believe women would still have the hypergamic need to get the top genetics guy. I think Hypergamy is not just ‘everything tries to make the best of itself’ but also an additional power trait exclusively found in women. Might be overrated, but the trait is there.
Why make myself a victim of Hypergamy? It’s neutral, I use it and build my life.
Best wishes
-IJ
Where does the manosphere’s in-house word “hypergamy” come from? Well, men are accused of being polygamous – of wanting many women, so that we cheat.
Good answer: Men want sex with many women, it’s an instinct we have – those with this instinct spread their behavior genes more, so that eventually all men ended up with it. It is an instinct that leads to competition, with the strongest spreading their genes more. So it’s not bad. But men ALSO have the competing instinct to stay with one woman and help bring up the offspring, so that they get the best possible chances of survival. This instinct is stronger among those living in colder climates, where “spray and pray” wouldn’t work since you have to care more for the young or they’d die. Both of these instincts need to be mentioned and understood when you talk about us. Men are not “bad for being polygamous”, as feminists would have it.
Bad answer: Oh yeah? Well, men may be polygamous, but women are … hypergamous!
Take that, eh? What a retort!
Officially this means that women look for the best possible partner. Oh, the horror. Men do the same.
But what this actually turns into in the comments on manosphere blogs is this: “Watch out, your wife will leave you at the drop of a hat when she finds someone with a thicker wallet.” “Women have no honor and therefore no loyalty.” “Women can’t feel love, only men can feel love.”
This is qualified bullshit. But loners like to comfort themselves with this Women Are Evil talk. And there are a lot of perpetual loners with a lot of time to write comments in the manosphere.
Women feel loyalty to partners, and no doubt more so than men – women have the instinct to find a partner and stick with him to care for the children, after all. Women feel love – if it needs to be said, the chemicals involved are confirmed, but there is also all of world history to prove it. No society on earth would say women don’t feel love, it’s ludicrous. And women aren’t always looking over a partner’s shoulder in search of someone better. Sorry, loners. Your failure is probably to a large degree the result of your own low quality.
But at this point someone will drag out the one and only “proof” of hypergamy: “Women initiate twice as many divorces!”
It is never mentioned that this is in the U.S. only. Where women are paid alimony – half a man’s paycheck. Such an enormous prize will be a great incentive for callous types whether they are men or women, and now it happens to be women who get to cash in most of the time. Had it been men who received the alimony, men would have initiated more divorces than women.
You don’t think so? Then look at the never mentioned fact that in UNMARRIED U.S. couples, men initiate far more of the breakups. “Hypergamy” indeed.
>> But what this actually turns into in the comments on manosphere blogs is this: “Watch out, your wife will leave you at the drop of a hat when she finds someone with a thicker wallet.” “Women have no honor and therefore no loyalty.” “Women can’t feel love, only men can feel love.”
Yeah. ^ Crabs in a bucket. Why not just sit on the couch and do nothing. There’s “no hope.” Chicken Little told me so!
>> women have the instinct to find a partner and stick with him to care for the children, after all.
in many cases, I think you’re right.
The issue with women stepping out, again, is us. It’s the *REAL* hypergamy of ATTRACTIVE men, men with game, stepping up, and tempting them into an indiscretion or a change of partners.
And the deal is… women, on average, have more perceived value in the SMP. That an “average” woman is in much higher demand, than an “average” guy. Eggs > sperm. That leads to “bidding up” for those girls. Even average girls get sooooo many offers…
I do believe they step out more than men… but not because they’re sinister… it’s because they get soooo many offers. The step out more than men, only because they have much, much, much more opportunity. And some of those offers (a small %) are from very high quality men. Sometimes… they accept the bid.
The bids they accept, are likely from Patriarchs and Players.
I agree. Once you’re aware of the concept, move forward and deal with it, yes.
To expand on societal hypergamy (really female perception of choice), you can limit feminine control of garnering offers (fuck tinder) and give guys the tools so they all seem like “better offers” by implementing game.
I might be idealist, but if Alpha is an attractive mindset, then the contextual alphas (which will always only be a few) won’t be the only ones getting all the attention; I think we’ve experienced that as participants in the game. Sounds like a better, more stable society.
I’ve been questioning the whole Alpha good genes / Beta provider model lately. I think it’s flawed. Girls’ evolutionary directive is to find a good provider for a family, that’s it. Heartiste linked a study where having more cash made a guy more attractive (even where the girls weren’t getting any of it). A girl always wants to tame a bad boy because yes good genes, but the genes are good because they would make good providers for her and her future family. It’s all in what she values in a good provider: charisma, muscle, money, status, or something else – it all goes to one strategy, provision. Yea, she’ll ride the carousel with a guy who has options, but not for “good genes”; she’s hoping to win his commitment because she thinks he’s the best provider potential, and doesn’t mind putting in the time early. She hits the wall, and if she hasn’t gotten the commitment from #1, she’ll hit up sure thing #2. I’ve seen this personally many times. So, it’s not a question of alpha/beta or R/K strategies, it’s only one strategy – provision – and whether you offer her a valid reason to invest with her sex either before or after she receives the benefits of the provision: really, your scarcity value. And finally, if she’s ovulating, that’s very important for getting sex before provision. Blasphemy!
Hey, man.
>> Yea, she’ll ride the carousel with a guy who has options, but not for “good genes”; she’s hoping to win his commitment because she thinks he’s the best provider potential, and doesn’t mind putting in the time early.
I’m chewing on this.
For me… I like the “hierarchy of needs.”
She is about resources… until she has them. So if her actual dad has her flushed out in a nice apartment, pays her bills, etc… then, she’s on to the next need… cock… and cocaine… and $700 pairs of shoes… this is assuming she’s young.
Or, if she’s married, and the situation is “stable,” then she fucks the pool boy… because her other needs are met, and desire always leads us to the “next thing.”
But if the shit hits the fan… if she’s feeling the lack of resources… then, she scales back down the hierarchy, back to resources and protection. Back to increased “loyalty” and chaste.
….
Politically… if there was a war on our soil… the value of men, of strong bodies and determination, would skyrocket. If there was a serious recession, women would cling to their men. It’s that hierarchy of needs…
We see girls doing outrageous shit right now… because we are in high times. It’s indulgency. 10 years of upward mobility for this country. When this spins around… I predict girls will feel the fear, and the pain, and reign in their behavior… and politics will dial back toward the conservative spectrum… for as long as that lasts.
…..
Cheers to you, man.
She fucks the poolboy presumably because he’s well-built and good looking, two qualities which move the world, and make for good provisioning prospects for any young they would produce. I’m not saying that’s her goal, I’m saying that’s where her attraction stems from, just like how our attraction to women stems from fertility signals. There are small exceptions and add-ons, but that basis is usually always there in some form. If she fucks the guy who gives her coke with any passion, it’s not because she passionately wants coke, it’s because he can move the world to the point of breaking the law to get what he wants; that’s a strong provider signal for potential offspring, creating real attraction. It goes beyond her hierarchy of needs because women have shown time and again they will fuck abusers and return to them – she’s thinking of his provisioning skills for her offspring, and the provisioning skills her offspring will inherit genetically; if she’s gotta take a few slaps for evolution’s sake, that’s what she does, and willingly.
The whole point of this throwing out of Alpha fucks/beta bucks as a half-assed concept is because it improves our game. Just change the “provider” definition from one of derision (I think this began from bitter men and hurt egos) to one of a basic truth. Instead of being petrified at being seen as a “provider,” realize that at the end of the day, we are all being weighed by our ability to provide for her offspring based on our qualities which move the world, whether it’s money, good-looks, charisma, special talent, muscles, etc, and that this ability is the root of her real attraction. As she ovulates, the bar decreases for what’s an acceptable level of whatever signal she values that will cause her to fuck you first before you are expected to fully deliver. That’s what we’re trying to do in game. Her perception of your scarcity helps too. This doesn’t mean be less dominant or jump to open your wallet because she’ll salivate. Those are totally different ballgames. But you know how you were a little unsure if taking your dates to dinner was a good idea because it might be a little too “provider” type? If those girls valued money as being an important signal for offspring provision, I’ll bet you created real attraction just by taking them out to eat. Also, by figuring out what she values, you’ll know how to provide it, and that puts you in a position of alot of power.
By the way, I love how you stirred up the sphere last week. Making waves, awesome!
“I’ve been questioning the whole Alpha good genes / Beta provider model lately.”
But question it while you experience reality (aka don’t do this on your head)
“Girls’ evolutionary directive is to find a good provider for a family, that’s it.”
There are several body parts involved in the evolutionary directive – same applies to men really. So no, provider is not just it. Good semen is at the top of the list. Providing for the offspring is second on the list.
For women the two are interconnected as in her whole life revolves around securing her position on the tribe, which allows her to *both* resources and access to the best semen. But it’s not necessary that all come from the same source. She’ll take resources and semen from different sources if needed. This is partially what bothers Rollo so much and he coins as “hypergamy is also beta bucks”
But question it while you experience reality (aka don’t do this on your head)
–“I’ve seen this personally many times.”
Providing for the offspring is second on the list.
–One in the same.
She’ll take resources and semen from different sources if needed.
–This is a poor evolutionary strategy that only the dumbest of women pursue.
For women the two are interconnected as in her whole life revolves around securing her position on the tribe, which allows her to *both* resources and access to the best semen.
–Kind of. But securing her tribal position is based half on luck (her genes), and half on getting along with other women.
Well you’re making a mistake by wrapping it up and calling it ‘provider’. It’s not the same desire – actually there are 2 desires and they balance and fight each other.
The woman wants a man who is high enough in value she can never have – but she also wants a man who will put her on a pedestal and sacrifice everything for her. These two are not the same man. So the cycle of a woman is try to snitch the high value bad boy and turn him into her personal chihuahua.
Compare that to men. Men have the whore / madonna split. Men want the girl who will be highly sexual and fuck the shit out of them, but also want the virginal good natured wholesome good girl to have loving and stable emotions with.
So you could try to succint and merge both and conclude that all the attraction revolves around fertility cues, therefore all revolves around finding a female partner who would be a good mother for your children. That’s what you’re doing when you wrap up the two male archetypes and encapsulate both as ‘provider’.
Except that doesn’t let you predict and put things in perspective.
When men go for the big boobed crazy girl who will be an emotional roller coaster, that has nothing to do with ‘finding a good mom for your kids’ aka, when you’re going for the whore it’s not because you want the madonna. Actually most men get blinded by this madonna illusion and don’t see what’s actually in front of them – but I digress.
There are several body parts and distinct mechanisms involved.
When you say that getting resources and quality semen from different sources is something ‘only dumb women do’ you’re missing the mark by a mile. Look around – EVERY WOMAN who can earn her own money is doing precisely that: getting the resources for herself so she can be free to hunt down the actual high quality semen. The providing angle of a man is an obstacle, a barrier, and in the current state of things, it’s even an overcompensation thing, it can actually devaluate your value if your providing factor (resources, contextual position) is all you have. Though it multiplies your value if you have the good stuff (genes, behavior, charisma, dominance).
So there’s that. Do yourself a favor and don’t oversimplify to the point you can’t see what’s going on.
Check the romance novels and movies women consume – it’s always about the fight of these two very distinctive hungers. Usually even split in two men she has to choose from, but when not it’s the two forces on the same man driving her crazy.
Two, not one.
I happen to be well informed when it comes to soft-cover chick literature. In all these stories there is just one man and one woman, there is never a love triangle. The man is intelligent and with a good physique, often wealthy, always active and in control of his life. Never backing down from a challenge.
He couples his active life with a caring attitude when care is needed. If he had an ex-wife he loved her before she died, and he loves the woman he meets in the story. He may have dated plenty of girls before her, but settles down with her. She may help him resolve issues from his past and learn to trust again, but this doesn’t affect his work or his strong qualities. (It is more to give her something to do in the story.)
My point being, what women dream of is a man who is strong/tough and caring at the same time. Not a rich man to marry and another man to cheat with.
The women in the story are caring, and motherly if they have children, while they have hot bodies and love passionate sex. Or learn to love it if they didn’t experience it before. They are decent women in public and hot in the bedroom. There is no conflict there either. This is how every girlfriend I’ve had has been. It’s simply a matter of well-rounded people. I don’t see why we would have to perpetually choose, or cheat on one to get different qualities from another.
“there is never a love triangle.”
Im not familiar with the depth of the genre so Im referring to Twilight, Hunger Games, Divergent, Bridged jones diary and so on.
“what women dream of is a man who is strong/tough and caring at the same time. ”
Yep.
“Not a rich man to marry and another man to cheat with.”
Well I’ve know a few who have that stated goal, but sure, as a general rule they all want to marry the prince. That’d be putting all the eggs in one basket – just like the dream for men is to find the virginal madona pure princess and then have neverending sex with her.
Which doesn’t pan out in general.
“There is no conflict there either. ”
The books sound boring :-D I thought Fifty Shades of Gray is what all of them were reading. But this is not my market.
“I don’t see why we would have to perpetually choose”
It’s just what happens. Women want to trade up and economically independent enough to not have to settle with a lower value men (till they are 35 and need to use these eggs), so they spend all their youth fighting to have access to the top men, all while all the top men are spinning plates and banging all the hotties and all the sixes. By the time the woman is 35 she’s burned and jaded and snags a beta who will never be able to measure in fun, or in backbone, or in raw value, or in anything that matters other than stability, to any of the top guys she managed to get involved with when she had more sexual market value, so she grows to hate him, all while the beta tries his best to cooperate, thus devaluing himself more. Then that relationship either ends and the cycle repeats, or the relationship endures and deteriorates.
That covers about all the relationships I’ve ever seen other than a few rare and sparse outliers.
So it’s not that ‘we have to do that’, that’s simply what’s going on, and there are not incentives to do anything else.
Tenet… first off… very glad to have you here. Great comments. You’re a smart guy. I whitelisted you, so you should be able to post without approval now. Thanks for being here and bringing what you bring.
….
>> My point being, what women dream of is a man who is strong/tough and caring at the same time. Not a rich man to marry and another man to cheat with.
— Tenet
Yes… but this is why they are “stories” and not “biographies.” You’re right, IT IS A DREAM. This IS what women dream of… but not what they find… and not how they act.
>> Which doesn’t pan out in general.
— Yohami
Yeah.
>> she grows to hate him, all while the beta tries his best to cooperate, thus devaluing himself more. Then that relationship either ends and the cycle repeats, or the relationship endures and deteriorates.
— Yohami
This ^ is how I see it, as well. And there’s another version that’s pre-wall, but has the same ending. For slightly different reasons.
Sometimes you get a “quiet happiness,” but that is about being “friends,” not lovers.
I could say more, but I promised RIv (I believe), that I’ll write a post about BETATIZATION (a concept from PRACTICAL PSYCHOLOGY FOR THE PRACTICAL MAN) in relationships… I’ll do that someday. I think it helps explain some of why it will almost always be two DIFFERENT MEN, not “one man meets all.”
Meanwhile, who cares what the girls want. This is about us. We as men should focus on what we want.
Being the center of our own lives starts here… with how we phrase our sentences.
So for me, the question is… how can a man do his job as a provider/protector, and still inspire heat, years into a marriage. I mostly think it can’t be done… mostly. But if you’re going to try… not all strategies for MEN are created equal.
>> The books sound boring :-D I thought Fifty Shades of Gray is what all of them were reading. But this is not my market.
— Yohami
And Yohami… this is exactly what Tenet is describing. That guy is the provider/lover combo. And she gets him. And again… it’s a fairy tale, not real life.
good stuff, yohami.
i think this is the idea of being the bad boy with a heart of gold.
THAT is the ultimate man she is looking for.
Yep, and she’ll still shit test that one and try to trade up. You can win at the game but you can’t change the rules.
I get the concept, it’s been paraded in the sphere forever, but it’s half-wrong. The only concept that matters here is whether an activity creates desire in the woman. If the woman values “Alpha” or “Beta” activities, her real desire will be there. Turns out many modern women don’t get wet thinking about their husband’s salaries anymore for the modern reasons we all know. Doesn’t mean it isn’t possible, just means their values changed. But it’s still about what values are best, in her mind, for providing for her and the potential kid, which creates real desire. Putting her on a pedestal means you’re making yourself a doormat – that is not my argument. You can display “beta” qualities without compromising your integrity, which will create real desire in a girl. My point is the current alpha fux/beta bux model is too constraining and childish.
You can’t make a direct comparison between madonna/whore and alpha/beta because the sexes are not the same in what creates desire. You get a boner from big boobs girl. Women get wet from cues that show a man can provide for her and her kids, depending on the traits she values, ‘alpha’ or ‘beta’ notwithstanding. Charismatic ‘alpha’ leader can get her wet. Big bank account ‘beta’ can get her wet. All I’m saying is you reduce your flexibility when you throw out ‘beta provider’ traits because they create desire in some girls depending on their values.
Since ‘many women’ are doing something, that makes it smart? Isn’t this exactly the problem we talk about that’s hurting society? Money and genetics from different sources creates divided loyalties and weakens the tribe. The poorer you get, the more women you see who have kids from different fathers. Anyway, different sources for resources and genes don’t matter; she still wants genes from good providers which will create more good providers.
I agree that a display of “alpha/beta” traits in one man is a smart move. But is it really your contention that any woman, across the board, never gets wet from things like a man’s dedication or kindness towards her? That seems too extreme.
” My point is the current alpha fux/beta bux model is too constraining and childish.”
You’d have to define what you mean by alpha and beta.
“Big bank account” is not beta.
“Since ‘many women’ are doing something, that makes it smart? ”
No, you introduced the idea of the ‘dumb’ ones which means NAWALT, Im telling you AWALT.
“she still wants genes from good providers ”
No, she wants the genes from the strongest – not the most provider one.
“I agree that a display of “alpha/beta” traits in one man is a smart move.”
It’s not a smart move. Actually any beta display is a bad move. But we’d have to clarify what we mean with these words.
“But is it really your contention that any woman, across the board, never gets wet from things like a man’s dedication or kindness towards her”
They get wet when a man they already consider attractive gives them attention. The same attention from a non attractive man doesn’t make them wet. The attractiveness doesn’t rely on the dedication and kindness.
Take away the alpha elements of a man and his dedication makes him a creep.
But we’d have to clarify what we mean with these words.
Indeed. I have a definition of alpha – a man who shapes his surroundings to his liking – but it seems meaningless to write it, since this discussion is never nailed down anyway. And I think the words are overused. For a great many commenters they become shorthand for “I’m elite for having read manosphere stuff, other guys are weaklings.” It’s a way to pat oneself on the back. This is not how they should be used. So I usually never use the words at all, and it works perfectly fine to write without them. It makes what I want to say clearer, because I define the specific traits I am talking about at any point.
Also, I remember what was said about alpha/beta way back: “They are a sliding scale, and few men are pure alpha or pure beta”. This is completely forgotten today. People talk as if the male side of the species is clearly divided into the cool and the chumps. The Dannys and the Eugenes in Grease. I rarely see people who so clearly fit into one or the other category, and I see both alphas and betas with very different traits. And if we look at the world at large, like some scrawny man working in a rice paddy, it becomes even more “diverse”.
No matter what definition the words get they certainly don’t catch everything, and again, there will be no clear divisions. It might even be that most men are somewhere in the middle. That’s why arguments that assume this clear delineation seem flawed to me.
Great comments, Yohami.
My whole journey in game was not to “find some interest from women.” I’ve always had “some interest” from girls, them giving me lots of time, etc… but not, necessarily, lots of sex.
My journey was to get THE OTHER KIND of interest.
I might as well have had “provider” tattoo’d on my forehead. I was smart. Had some athletic appeal. I was an artist… and those were all side dishes to my provider/safety role.
I wanted what the bad boy had. I didn’t call it that at first, but that was basically it.
If it was all the same thing… what was the difference?? What changed in me that got me to where I am now?
A lot changed. A is not B.
…
And even if you have some home/family goals (which are completely nobel and cool, IMAO)… to start with the bad boy edge, and then reveal potential for provider… that is the best path into that arena.
Not only are they different, but there is an order to it all.
She wants TWO THINGS (almost never from the same guy), and it’s almost impossible to be taken seriously if your start at provider and try to reveal bad boy. She knows that’s not real… because it’s not real.
https://www.artofmanliness.com/2015/06/29/youve-got-to-be-a-man-before-you-can-be-a-gentleman/
>> Gentlemanliness presupposes manliness. It’s a softening, a harnessing of the core characteristics of masculinity: strength, courage, mastery, and honor. A gentleman, as scholar Harvey Mansfield put it, is a manly man with polish.
>> The respect given a gentleman is thus premised on constraint.
>> A gentleman has the ability — the power, cleverness, confidence, and even the desire — to ride roughshod over your interests, muscle you aside, and manipulate you…but, he has instead voluntarily chosen to restrain himself to follow a more moral course. He’s a coiled spring, and his self-control showcases one of the timeless markers of manhood: will.
…
It goes like this…
Yes, there is a lot value (to yourself and others) to have the kind of success/attributes (aka VALUE) that would allow you to MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS to your tribe and to PROVIDE.
But you are nothing but a PAYCHECK, unless you are also a MAN (aka bad boy) to some degree, above and beyond that earner/provider/security role.
But flip that around. Be the MAN first. Do that for yourself.
Let that help you in your education/work/search to become capable enough to make contributions that might have value in terms of provision.
And never forget that you’re a man. Never “hid you dick.” Embrace your strength and your shadow.
But you can SHOW RESTRAINT.
This is close to the PETERSON VIDEO Yohami posted…
You have the LIGHT and the SHADOW. Not one, but TWO SIDES. And you know both, or your are a paper tiger.
We want to be REAL TIGERS, fucking dangerous… but with enough restraint to be considered more than just cavemen. More than just animals.
TWO SIDES. Classic design from nature. TWO SIDED… and balanced.
How to develop both sides, Nash? Any practical ideas or ways you would tell your 35 years old self if you could go back in time?
What would you tell yourself to do to get to the man whose light and shadow sides are developed, the most effective and efficient route?
Nash said, “In some ways, I see Muh Hypergamy as the men’s culture equivalent of SJW red-faced desperation and entitlement… guys wishing for “fairness” and “equality” in the SMP. Sad. And not gonna happen.”
Totally agree. This is why I can’t read guys like Rollo…too much negativity.
The sexual marketplace will always require you to compete. Top tier girls mate with top tier men. Bitching about hypergamy comes from the guys who don’t want to have to compete.
We have to accept that we need to compete. This means building value and applying game. It doesn’t end until we die.
But the good news is, as the video Yohami shared on the last post points out, people are happy when they have goals to strive for and not by the actual attainment of those goals. So embrace the never-ending journey. It makes you better and it gives you the struggle you need for sanity. It’s what nature intends for us.
“So embrace the never-ending journey. It makes you better and it gives you the struggle you need for sanity. It’s what nature intends for us.”
beautifully said, magnum.
“All day long the manosphere is high on alpha, but then shivers with the thought of Muh Hypergamy… when those concepts are two sides of the same coin.”
this is a good point, nash — but i think rollo’s main concept behind hypergamy is that a woman will never love a man the way he wants to be loved. i think THAT’S the real tragic message that hypergamy is delivering.
and this applies more to men who want to get married and have kids, because it creates a real threat and a real fear.
or, if maybe that’s not rollo’s point, that’s my point, and my sadness. but i am getting over it, and i slowly i am accepting all the red pill tenets — and i still do want to fall in love again and get married — because even if she will never fully love me the way i want to be loved, i want to love HER the way i dream about loving a woman.
apart from that, i am not 100% sure what this big fight about hypergamy is. maybe i am missing something.
i am much more interested in TOP GUY stuff, RAMP stuff, PUZZLE stuff, your excellent, excellent field reports/case studies, and all that great things i am learning from you and yohami!
i love my girls, but i remember that it’s my game which makes it possible to love em.
“this is a good point, nash — but i think rollo’s main concept behind hypergamy is that a woman will never love a man the way he wants to be loved. i think THAT’S the real tragic message that hypergamy is delivering.”
I have read Rollo Tomassi, and his main point is simply that women are evil creatures while men are good. Women break up with the poor men because they want more money and care nothing about love or what they have built together. A pox on them!
One wonders what kind of evolution would turn half an advanced species of mammals into evil creatures with no sense of loyalty or community with the other half.
The mantis do this well, so do ants, so do hienas, etc. Rollos problem is he’s playing ingroup vs outgroup against the female imperative, without checking what the male imperative is as well.
He’s missing that the two are mirroring each other.
When he’s good, he’s great https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhlvqmy-3UI
Still a painful surprise to see the same old same old dismissive response Rollo (aka Chiken Little – haha) gave to you Nash, on twitter.
That’s just disgusting, and heartbreaking. What a waste of a midwit mind, talent and effort.
Such incredible arrogance. It’s freshly heartbreaking and surprising every fucking time. Makes me angry too. I’m so glad to see others starting to call him out, and a full movement against his one sided overly simplistic cartoonish diaromah reality.
Thanks, Xsplat.
The “Chicken Little” comment makes me laugh, he deserves it. It’s a “Trumpism” that is perfect for him.
….
>> Still a painful surprise to see the same old same old dismissive response Rollo (aka Chicken Little – haha) gave to you Nash, on twitter.
To be fair, his POV is valid as far as it goes. If he were here, making those arguments, we could disagree (and it seems like we do), but that would be fine.
What I want to do is have more public voices pushing back against the pathetic aspect of his arguments. So I’ll give him shit, in public… not because I expect him to come around… I’m not because I’m worried about us, here… but to create room for other men to see he isn’t the final word on anything.
There are other voices that build that guy up to be a hero. And in many ways, I think he provides some kind of insight and balance… he’s not a dumb guy, even if he is a sour one.
But Chicken Little is like salt. A bit here and there, actually good for you. Too much… will kill you. I want guys to see that. That his mentality, if followed… can only hold you back.
And I have him nailed on the “reactive” thing. He is clearly “at the effect” of women. I wouldn’t trust that guy to lead himself out of a paper bag.
Alpha / Beta are steps on pyramid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVVmhnmUj6A
I’m coming up a level, as the nested comments are getting pretty deep:
I appreciate your tenacity, David. And I’m trying not to be knee-jerk about my thinking here. Good excuse to think through all this.
Back to DAVID BURN’S THESIS
>> The only concept that matters here is whether an activity creates desire in the woman. If the woman values “Alpha” or “Beta” activities, her real desire will be there. Turns out many modern women don’t get wet thinking about their husband’s salaries anymore for the modern reasons we all know.
— David Burn
I think where you go off track is here:
>> women [get] wet thinking about their husband’s salaries
I’ve edited that. I think you do believe something like ^ this. You say they don’t “anymore…”
They never did. GETTING WET and getting RESOURCES are fundamentally not the same thing. When CHASE both things, but for totally different reasons. They are completely different activities, that’s why they often get assigned to different men.
>> Doesn’t mean it isn’t possible, just means their values changed. But it’s still about what values are best, in her mind, for providing for her and the potential kid, which creates real desire.
Desire as in WANT… not as in WET. Totally different things. She wants resources, but getting those is not a “turn on.” That’s why it’s not weird that she has “two pairs of shoes”… one for the garden, and the other for the ball.
To borrow from KRAUSER… I think you’re confusing hind brand/forebrain functions. Not exactly, but something like that.
I like me HIERARCHY OF NEEDS explanation…
She doesn’t get wet from resources. Never, ever. I think I hear you when you say certain SIGNS OF FITNESS might give her BOTH wetness/comfort. That might be true. It IS possible that she could get this from one man… but it’s different MOTIVATIONS. And it is super unlikely one man will give her both… because of what the man wants.
BECAUSE OF WHAT TOP GUY WANTS. This is the story to follow. Not what the girls want. The girls follow us. Always have.
She wants safety/resources, for HER and her KIDS, first. That’s job #1. None of that is about getting wet.
Once that’s resolved… then she has time to pursue getting WET. She has time… to run off and play in TOP GUY’s world… where the rules aren’t up to her, not at all.
You can tell by the TIMING, that they are not the same thing. And she needs safety/resources first, or she can’t get wet… she’s distracted by survival. “Sexy danger” is a turn on, but “survival danger” is not, that kind of need shuts down sexiness…
>> all while all the top men are spinning plates and banging all the hotties and all the sixes
— Yohami
For me, Yohami’s comment brings me full circle on REAL HYPERGAMY, which is about great men getting the sex they want (not bad behavior from women). It starts with us. It’s about us.
And it’s why David’s argument doesn’t work for me. A lot of it is about timing.
— Some MEN ARE GREAT (starts here)… they are TOP GUY
— Women want those men
— Most TOP GUYs want sex, novelty, “strange pussy,” they are not dying to be a provider
— So women that want great men, play toward what men want… sex
— Thus “muh hypergamy” is a retarded view of how this works (it’s about the desire of great men)
— TOP GUY will be LOVER FIRST, provider second (sometimes, temporarily)…
— TIME and TIMING and TIMELINE are a big factor in this story…
— His craving for NOVELTY means he’ll move on, or never settle down at all…
— This ^ tendency keeps things sexy… “uncertainty = desire* ”
— The reality of ^, but also the “dark triad” bits where she knows this is true, so she works hard(er)
— Women mostly can’t get provider/resources from TOP GUY…
— Because he is charge, and that’s not what HE WANTS… he wants new pussy (Coolidge effect)
— If girls have basic resources covered (by some other man), they can have SEX WITH TOP GUY
— If they don’t have basic safety/resources… they hustle BOTTOM GUY (or dad) for that
— When TOP GUY is too old to be Top Guy… he degrades into provider/omega
Rinse, repeat. This is how it goes.
EX: The King does have a family, raises children, stays with his Queen, provides resources. All that. But isn’t he Top Guy? Yes, he is. That’s why he is ALSO fucking the chambermaid, the courtesan, other ladies of court. So he can provide for his Queen, but he gets his sex elsewhere, mostly. We know this is true. He might even “provide” for a side-girl, but only while she is useful (=sex)… after which she is on her own.
I like this EX, as we are thinking from OUR POV, not some girl’s plan. We also know from history, that POV is incredibly realistic. History is full of stories like that.
She can’t have BOTH lover/provider… because of timing. The timing of WHAT TOP GUY WANTS. He’s not willing to leave his roles as lover… why would he, he calls the shots. So she is smart to enjoy him as a lover, because that is good too… might even be her first choice, depending on where she is in the TIMELINE of her own life.
Even in the KING story above, the QUEEN is getting resources, not sex. In that case, because the KING isn’t interested in her sexually… he is fucking other girls. So she is fucking some guy in court, or the stable boy, if she is fucking at all.
Two different men. Because of timing. Because of different levels of needs. Because sex is the main currency a girl has with TOP GUY. Because TOP GUY has choices… TOP GUY is “REAL” HYPERGAMY. He has choice. He’s not looking for the work of provider… he doesn’t need to do that job. Because her sexiness/power is temporary with TOP GUY, and she has to move on to “man #2.”
TOP GUY is sex. BOTTOM GUY is resources.
………………………….
* “Uncertainty = desire” is Credit: Esther Perel
^ David, you might check her out, and see if her works impacts your theory.
Another REAL LIFE EXAMPLE.
Just this minute, MISS LIPs messaged me. Right now.
I fucked her in JULY. She is the girl I had the 2-day date with. But I got tired of her quickly… and she could sense it, she basically told me so.
I should mention that MISS LIPs is hot by my standards, has a great body, I thought she was late-20s when I picked her up, but in fact… she is mid-30s. She is also the kind of girl that doesn’t suck cock. All of this makes her less ideal than she might otherwise be…moves her back in the pack, assuming I have any other choices.
She came back to my city in Sep, I think, and I fucked her again. One time. And it was fun, but I wasn’t that into it… I didn’t try to see here again while she was in my town (it was a two week trip).
As long as she was NOVEL, I would play with her… but not beyond that.
I’m not always TOP GUY, not all the time, but I dabble in that world (and am working to get better in that role).
In OCT, I was out daygaming and I approached a hot Vietnamese girl (I still remember her), had a great interaction, and when she/I split off… I turned around and ran right into MISS LIPS on the sidewalk. She was in town, and her favorite hotel is right in the middle of my daygame territory.
She watched my whole approach. She said, “oh, you got another one.” The look her face is hard for me to pin down… she was vaguely slack-jawed about it. My wing walked over right as I noticed her (he didn’t know I knew her, didn’t see it coming) and I introduced them… which helped me avoid the awkwardness of the moment.
I didn’t contact MISS LIPS after that exchange… even though I knew she was in town for a while, and knew I could fuck her. I’m just not that interested. I was having the best sex of my life with MISS THICK, so MISS LIP really couldn’t complete at all.
If you were MISS LIPS, you could read that as insult or dismissal. That’s a good read. We had been lovers, on two different occasions, and I paid her no attention at all. Not even a coffee date. I’m not trying to be mean, but I’m just not that interested. I certainly didn’t treat her like a princess.
So… I’m not particularly sweet to Miss Lips, I didn’t really “honor” her with my time (or even my cock) while she was in town. I certainly haven’t offered her any resources…
Why is she putting up w/ that? Why is still chasing, after I’ve been dismissive? What is the MOTIVATION of her DESIRE?
It’s sex. Only sex. Sex, entertainment, pleasure… it’s “sport,” not survival. And she puts up with all this, because she’s at her wall. That means she has less access to TOP GUY than she had earlier in life. She is a great looking girl, but she’s at her wall…. right at it. TIMING is part of this.
AND… she has her own resources. She makes a lot of money. She has some family money. She doesn’t need resources. That’s not her motivation, different needs. So… she can go for job#2… which she knows is sex, and only sex. If she can get it.
And she does this hustle… pinging me now… because I am some kind of TOP GUY to her. I’m cool enough, not needy, I am successful, and I fucked her well. And she’s seen me with other women (in that pickup she watched, which went awesome). She has proof. And it is ONLY about sex for her, in part, because I’ve never offered her any resources that didn’t directly lead to sex for me.
She has PROOF I am not a provider. And yet she still engages… it’s because she has a “dual mating strategy.” Yes, AWALT.
She is hot enough to get SEX from other guys. She is hot enough to get RESOURCES from other guys. She is not a desperate girl. She is a dream package for a provider… or a lesser tiger.
She is chasing me a bit… because she thinks I’m TOP GUY. She has zero reason to think I’ll give her anything but fun/sex. And she’ll try to keep me in the mix… because sex with TOP GUY (for my sperm, or just the pleasure of it), is a priority, and one she can afford to pursue, because she has her resources covered.
She knows I am not a provider. Not for her.
“What is the MOTIVATION of her DESIRE?”
Hah it’s like you are repeating this to yourself to let it sink in.
Yes. Your behavior towards her shows that you have more value than she does. So she’ll want you. It’s that simple.
“It’s sex.”
It’s been always. Your read about provider here is good too. That’s why I’ve been saying all the hoops and all the provider signals (like amount of dates) you (and most men) try to insert on the courtship are sabbotaging the frame and deflating her interest.
Top guy doesn’t have time or space to take it slow and sweet. Unless that’s his mood. But never as a chase uphill to her pussy.
Thanks for this breakdown. I agree that real hypergamy is determined by the skills and characteristics of the top men.
“She doesn’t get wet from resources. Never, ever.”
I think this might not be true, especially if the resources signify fitness as you mentioned. I might be unclear with exactly what I’m trying to convey. It’s an issue with the transactional/validational delineation of motivations for sex. Yohami says don’t simplify it, and I can see why simplifying might be bad to those who don’t understand the model, but then you limit your game going forward.
Let’s go with your example of Miss Lips. She doesn’t need money resources. But you’re still showing, subconsciously to her, you’d be a good provider for any kids you’d make because she presumably values charisma more than money as a characteristic for successful provision at this point. My thought is to alter the definition of ‘provider’ as more of a fitness marker because it widens the number of tools you can use in a seduction to things that are normally seen as more transactional (like paying for a dinner), which may actually increase her attraction (aka make her wet). It also includes positive attention from men that girls are already attracted to, to include Yohami’s point. I’m not arguing that “validational” qualities are not needed; I’m suggesting that transactional qualities might just be able to do the same thing (not entirely alone), so we don’t have to worry so much about showing those qualities if we think they will help the seduction. I’m breaking down the view of transactional displays as anathema by suggesting that no matter if a display is more “transactional” or “validational”, we are always the “provider”. The girl who has “validational” sex feels great about it because she’s fucking a guy who she sees as a top provider for any potential offspring, whether or not it’s logically possible.
It seems like you don’t have to worry so much about showing more provider/transactional traits because it’s all about your fitness as a provider anyway. This gives you more flexibility to create a good seduction, it opens more possibilities you might’ve dismissed as being too “transactional” or “beta” to get the job done, especially with girls Krauser would identify as being more ‘K’.
We’re going too far down the rabbit hole here compared to how useful this debate has become, lol.
I’m just going to be less wary of “transactional” displays in my game if I sense she values them. Cheers guys.
“But you’re still showing, subconsciously to her, you’d be a good provider”
Nope. But it becomes clearer when you put an actual provider to compete with the bad boy, and the bad boy wins every time.
“which may actually increase her attraction”
Paying for her dinner doesn’t increase her attraction – it may be neutral, or make her happy, but not increase attraction. If your mannerism when paying for her dinner is dominant and self reassured – then the dominance and self reassured attitude may make wet. Paying for her stuff, no.
It may make her comfortable though, and you may want that.
The main thing Im trying to split for you is this:
A provider is a man whose doesn’t have intrinsic value, and “buys” her and couldn’t have a shot with her unless he’d do or provide X things.
A non-provider, or a top guy, or an alpha, is a man with intrinsic value and can have her even if he does absolutely nothing for her, even if she’s the one doing everything for her, so anything he provides or gives is a plus, not the reason she’s there.
So – the second guy may have a lot of attributes she wants and finds attractive, but it’s misleading to use the word ‘provider’ for him. The provision is not the nature of his value. His own value (genes, personality, dominance, swagger, manliness, talents) is the value, and his provision comes second.
For the provider, provision is all there is. When you’re a beta / provider you see the girl and feel she’s out of your reach and you feel like you have to jump through hoops and prove your value and climb and trick and X. That gap between you and her is what you try to fill with ‘provision’. And that gap makes you unattractive – she may take the provisions you’re giving her, but ultimately she wont take ‘you’.
“we are always the “provider”. ”
Nope and nope.
Try imagining you’re the one with the value and she’s there just to please you.
About women screening for resources –
Women want safety and resources. They want to be in the ingroup. They will switch lower tribes for higher tribes, ditch old friends for new friends, etc, it’s a never ending quest for getting to the center of the tribe, which is also the hierarchical pyramid built by men, but it’s flatter in the eyes of women because it’s not climbed through work and competition, but in relationship nodes, social cues, idioms, slangs, ideologies, identification markers, signaling. It’s a soft net or relationships – all destined to secure her position on the tribe and advance her to the center.
What’s in the center? unlimited security and resources. What also is there? the King. What will the king do? fuck her wild.
So that’s the fantasy, that’s the script.
Turn that script reverse and from the eyes of men, you build and climb that pyramid with work and competition, becoming a better man in the process, build a world, that then spins around you and erects you as a god, and then you see the never ending flow of women coming your way.
So as a man you’re at the center or you’re a transition point to the center, or a supportive cast, or a step on a ladder.
As a woman you’re a node on a net, pulsing to get closer to the center of the net.
So.
Women are always moving there, entering new social circles, and screening the men there. The tribe, social status, level of competence is where the screening starts. Girls start by screening the men who are higher on the tribe, all the way up they can, and then screen down for alpha male traits and try to get the best balance.
So the girl will find the “big salary guy” attractive even if he’s not alpha, will move into his life as a friend or as a soft girlfriend, connect with his tribe, then ditch the guy for one of his friends or his boss or whoever the alpha guy of that tribe is. Rinse and repeat.
Climb up in the ladder of the tribe and get the king there. Then trade up.
That’d be the basic normal.
—–
Also why Daygame is flawed in that it targets the girls who’re not actively in that cycle – unless you can communicate in seconds that you’re a king of a tribe she’d like to belong to, you’ll get the outliers who wont or can’t engage in the normal female script, aka are broken somehow (more than normal), which would match your also broken script, because you didn’t go and became the king but are looking for the outliers.
The exception for this would be to be the king of something and then ‘flirt’ – the difference is in all the things being subcommunicated. RSMax pulls that one of – like he’s just picking girls along the way but his interest and castle is somewhere else. So daygame is fine when an alpha does it – a guy who’s already top guy will go out at anytime and flirt with girls who’ll react with a Yes because they sense the top guy and it’s all congruent, but it will also lead to something. While a guy who’s not top guy (yet) will just reinforce the wrong things and communicate that he’s a man who can’t do the thing yet, is not a king yet, and relies on the girls who don’t actually want a top guy. Which is just asking for trouble.
Peterson is on fire on this subject lately. It’s probably his exposition to the attention and having a castle and a megaphone – he’s embodying alpha more and more as he goes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvmlIZwunHE
This Peterson video explains it even better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fesSvXKxYd0
That one is good too – but the one I posted talks about pyramids of dominance, which is what I was writing about earlier
I don’t understand this:
I always get concerned when people get hard and fast rules for how the world is supposed to work.
Are you creating a world or describing one? MUST a “top guy” be relatively sexually disinterested in his bottom bitch?
Yohami said:
People get very, very strange around the idea of provider. I can only imagine that there must be quite a lot of ego investment and emotions around the subject, as it triggers such black and white thinking, it must be emotions that cause this lack of nuance.
Paying for dinner does not cause a lack of sexual attraction.
Paying for dinner might not cause sexual attraction.
But it might cause sexual attraction.
Saying hello does not cause a lack of sexual attraction. Saying hello does not cause sexual attraction. But it might cause sexual attraction.
Money is tits. A man can never know this in his body directly, because a man only gets hard for tits – he never cares how much money a woman makes. He is not mentally capable of putting himself into a womans shoes. So all he is physically wired with his neurons to understand is that money is money.
Money is a suit.
Money is power. Status.
It’s not THAT you say hello, it’s HOW you say hello. It’s not THAT you wear a suit, it’s HOW you wear a suit.
It’s not THAT you have money, it’s HOW you have money.
Money CAN be attractive, in an additive way – adding to the value that you already have.
It does NOT diminish what you already have.
As Yohami points out, you don’t use money to make up for deficits. You use it to add to strengths. Just because you don’t have to pay for dinner in order to be attractive enough to fuck her is no reason to be a skinflint for the sake of it. Why not pay for dinner if it’s inconsequential to you and you want to? It’s not a penalty against you. And of course if your life goes easily in the financial realm it’s an overall lifestyle plus.
Agreed
This reminds me of a great comment I once read online.
The manosphere guys always moan that girls ride the cock carousel in their 20s before they settle with a beta boring guy.
Well, some dude wrote: “I am the cock carousel.”
Yes, in this case, we are the cause of hypergamy. Nash, you are so insightful with this post.
If it weren’t for high quality men, and us who are improving our value every day, there would be no temptation for women to brand-swing.
Instead of complaining about hypergamy, become the guy women leave their man for.
Instead of gambling in a casino and losing your money, become the casino, the house always wins.
1. Rollo, Heartiste, Krauser, Roosh and the rest of them were BORN gammas, and they will DIE gammas. No blog or ebook can change that, and that’s where their resentment comes from. Their stupid one-sided analysis of concepts like hypergamy are a consequence of that, so I am glad to see those concepts tackled from the masculine perspective, since as you realized, the PUA gurus are tackling them from the feminine perspective.
2. At the SAME TIME, being the cock carousel yourself is NOT the solution if you want to create a strong family for the 20-30 years that it will take to rear proper supermen and superwomen. I am the coolest man alive by a huge margin, and girls have still left me. Even if you are the Overman, the problem is that GIRLS CAN’T SEE THAT. They are NOT perfect judges of value: they are in fact fairly mediocre ones, so even becoming the best man on the planet won’t guarantee your family’s survival. It will IMPROVE your family’s chances of survival, but it won’t GUARANTEE it. and the way to GUARANTEE it, to some extent, is by shaping society in such a way that women simply CAN’T leave you no matter what. This shaping was done by our ancestors, and the institution that resulted from it is called MARRIAGE, an institution that, due to the weakening of males due to civilization, has finally been debased to perfect uselessness.
TL;DR
1. PUA gurus are all resentful gammas, and it shows in every attempt they make to theorize, and nothing can be done about it because it is genetic. It’s simultaneously their weakness and their strength, since if they were not gammas they would never had had the reason, or the capacity, to become PUA gurus in the first place.
2. Hypergamy is not a bad thing for top guys who want to have fun — indeed it is the MEANS by which they have fun — but it is a HUGE issue to those who want to raise the supermen of the future. And that is a chapter in PUA theory that remains to be written. The long-term solution is, of course, machines, clones and cyborgs, with no women left at all on the planet (no biological ones, at any rate).
Love the blog, just discovered it, will read more. Keep up the good work! And whatever you do, please don’t ever become resentful like the gurus.
I am a huge fan of Krausers, but other than that… I love everything you said here.
>> At the SAME TIME, being the cock carousel yourself is NOT the solution if you want to create a strong family for the 20-30 years that it will take to rear proper supermen and superwomen.
I agree. And this POV is inspiring.
I am increasingly sold on the idea that “players” are mostly NOT good for civilization. I also realize it is so hard to be an effective player (for most men, that is), that the guys that can actually do it, are so few, we won’t be a problem for civilization… but we may be a problem for ourselves.
I have my own reasons for not stepping up to raise supermen and superwomen… I may grow into that role.
>> Even if you are the Overman, the problem is that GIRLS CAN’T SEE THAT. They are NOT perfect judges of value: they are in fact fairly mediocre ones
Excellent comment.
>> and the way to GUARANTEE it, to some extent, is by shaping society in such a way that women simply CAN’T leave you no matter what.
Edgy and interesting.
Related: The three men I know (among the 20 something couples that come from oldest group of friends) that have the most “solid” marriages (marriages I at least vaguely respect) are basically tyrants. I’m not pro-tyrant… but I think I am saying something like you’re saying. I think I am seeing something like what you’re seeing.
>> This shaping was done by our ancestors, and the institution that resulted from it is called MARRIAGE, an institution that, due to the weakening of males due to civilization, has finally been debased to perfect uselessness.
Hot comment. I’m listening.
>> it is a HUGE issue to those who want to raise the supermen of the future
This is a noble perspective. I respect it.
>> The long-term solution is, of course, machines, clones and cyborgs, with no women left at all on the planet (no biological ones, at any rate).
Here you lose me… as I have a personal fascination with the exploration of women’s minds and bodies and psychologies. And with my own mind/body/psychology… a I use the pursuit of women to sharpen my edge… and see myself more clearly.
And I also note that this fascination is the luxury of my station in life… that it’s an indulgence of the civilization I operate in… and that while I can most certainly add to civilization, that is not what I talk about on this blog.
Here… I mostly talk about hunting Asian girls. Which I love to do. And is a indirect path toward me becoming a much better, more able man.
………………
This is friendly blog. Hard truths are cool, but keep it constructive toward the other commenters (but if you want to tear down “famous” guys, that’s okay with me). Keep it constructive to the other men here.
And with that said, please bring more of your thinking.
We’re going to talk about pickup… and that may bore you. We have a lot of different levels of men here, with different goals.
But if you want to step up and lead toward proper Patriarchy, I personally would love to hear it. I can tell you are ready to teach on that topic.
Even if you only want to clean me up… bring it here.
And I could use the education. I’m going to keep chasing skirt… but I’m very interested in Patriarchy as a larger arch of my life.
dear C[H]ulo4Life;
“Instead of complaining about hypergamy, become the guy women leave their man for.
Instead of gambling in a casino and losing your money, become the casino, the house always wins.”
It always amazes me thinking different people with different backgrounds can come up with the exact same statement. As I was reading through the comments i was literally thinking thats what I should add.
Preach brother!
PS: I’m high in competitiveness and intelligence but not so healthy on the intentions. So the way I will use this idea is => make myself better and get revenge from girls tht rejected me by being the most successfull man 5 – 6 years later and also sleeping with them while they’re married or later in a relationship.
It will take me 5 years to get there and what I’m thinking is; they will stil be alive and at their peak ( at 18, 18+5 = 23) while I will peak in smv too so instead of crying over hypergamy I tend to think it is a process which enables us to push ourselves to the limit of our potential.
I mean come on,
What can be more of motivation to a man than sex?
Cheers :D
Great post on this healthy view of hypergamy. It’s not some evil conspiracy that forebodes the downfall of society. No, it’s a beautiful feature (not glitch) of the matrix that propels each of us to be better men. Either we maintain the best version of ourselves and keep our lady, or we move on to the next girl to feed our appetite.
To be alpha is to embrace the open market of hypergamy. To be truly alpha means are confident in our ways. Say a girl leaves our sexual circle for whatever reason, our reaction is our choice. Those of who are alpha let her go, plain and simple, as we dedicate the newly relinquished spare time to fuel our search for a replacement. Hypergamy is variety; hypergamy works better for men than it does women. Hypergamy is beautiful.
Also, I really like your “hierarchy of needs” idea. I think that would make for a great blog post, with a visual pyramid. Food, shelter, security at the bottom, then upwards towards lifestyle and good, non-committal sex.