Set Up To Fail

Today I would like to revisit this comment from “Hungarian Girl,” one which I have addressed already in my post Tissue-Paper Walls. Here is the same money paragraph again:

it’s very difficult to have high self-esteem when you do everything “right” but still have poor luck with the opposite sex, and it creates a very lonely feeling when you follow your values but end up getting victimized for it. Our society is simply set up so that selfish people appear to get ahead–that goes for Chads sleeping with hundreds of women, and the slutty girls having “fun.” Eva is the equivalent of the beta male looking on confused, and just because you can’t imagine a woman sharing that experience with you, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. In fact, most women are profoundly insecure. The ones who are open about it–like Eva–haven’t learned the lesson that YOU perceive all women to be adept at–hiding their feelings and vulnerabilities.

I have put in bold those parts of the paragraph that I want to go over this round- most of the beginning, as you can see.

Before I go further, let’s break this comment down into its constituent parts:

  • A lack of success with the opposite sex + doing everything right= lack of self-esteem
  • Following your values + being victimized for it= extreme loneliness
  • Society is set up for the selfish folks
  • Women can experience the same kind of confusion that “Betas” feel when the market runs over them

Now to tackle each of those points in order.

The first point is something that many men, especially the young ones, in the sphere completely understand. Anyone who has spent time as a “Beta”, or whatever point in Vox’s model that you think applies, knows the confusion that this system creates. We have been told many things which, when applied, fail utterly. Or when we compare what see with what we have been told, nothing adds up. And over time, that just crushes your confidence and spirits.

The second point is again pretty easy to understand. That is just human nature. We will just naturally feel lonely when we do what we think is right, and get blasted for it.I am sure the Prophet Elijah felt that way after he fled Ahab into the desert.

As for the third point, I think our society goes beyond just being set up for the selfish. It is also set up for the short-sighted and the short-term focused. It benefits those looking for immediate gratification (pretty much always sexual), and punishes those who try to plan or optimize for the long term. Otherwise stated, short term relationships are favored (and the shorter the better), and long term relationships are disfavored. We have set up a SMP/MMP which is an enormous version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, only this one is far more likely to end in betrayal.

The fourth point is one that I think many, if not most, men in the ‘sphere have trouble with. However, if we look back to the first point here, they can see there is nothing which really restricts the principle of crushed self-esteem to men. Women can experience it too, although the circumstances might be different. Now, their confidence won’t affect their attractiveness like it does for men, but it will impact their desire to play the market. So there is a strong negative effect, even if it is less direct that men feel.

Now that is just self-esteem. There is nothing which makes it so women cannot face a similar kind of confusion that men feel. Do I think it is less common for women to experience that confusion? Yes. But some will no doubt experience it.

So where does all of this take me? It goes back to a simple conclusion that I made in my post Market Failure:

However the Marriage Marketplace worked in the past, one thing is abundantly clear about how it works today: it doesn’t. The current Marriage Marketplace is broken, and is almost completely subsumed into the greater Sexual Marketplace (“SMP”) which has largely taken its place. This process has been a complete and utter disaster, whose consequences will be felt for generations

The present Market does its very best to set up for failure anyone who aims to “do it right.” In fact, it goes even further than that. It attempts to hide what “doing it right” actually is, and also creates confusion about what constitutes “doing it right.”

The end result is that the present Market is really great for short-sighted and selfish people who are only looking for immediate gratification. They benefit while everyone else suffers.

Advertisements

20 Comments

Filed under Alpha, APE, Civilization, Marriage Market Place, Red Pill, Sexual Market Place, Sexual Strategies, Sin

20 responses to “Set Up To Fail

  1. Everybody suffers in this current mmp, just at different times. Men suffer it early on, while women don’t suffer it until later, with the distractions of careers, youth and the ever present carousel.

    Since culture downplays men’s issues, our struggles are downplayed and ignored. Meanwhile, the laments of aging, childless spinsters receive sympathetic coverage across the feminist media.

    The destruction of the family is intentional, of course. And the falling birth rate in the west to below replacement levels clearly indicate that women’s priorities are all that matters. At least until the lights go off.

  2. fuzziewuzziebear

    This post struck a chord with me. The bold faced quote is an understatement. This marketplace is not only crushing self esteem, it is turning away the virtuous from faith.

  3. it’s very difficult to have high self-esteem when you do everything “right” but still have poor luck with the opposite sex

    This is the problem, and too many Christians fall prey to it too. There is nothing ‘lucky’ about Game, but the Blue Pill mindset (men or women) will chalk failure up to fate, luck or “it’s just not God’s will that I get a married”. If you believe God truly directs your path or if you believe that intersexual dynamics are eminently knowable and not a mysterious superstition, there is no ‘luck’ involved – there is only you and the decisions you make in your head and in the moment.

  4. Novaseeker

    The present Market does its very best to set up for failure anyone who aims to “do it right.” In fact, it goes even further than that. It attempts to hide what “doing it right” actually is, and also creates confusion about what constitutes “doing it right.”

    The end result is that the present Market is really great for short-sighted and selfish people who are only looking for immediate gratification. They benefit while everyone else suffers.

    Interesting.

    I guess I’d say that the market is great for people who compete well in the market, given that what the market values, in terms of pricing decisions, has changed quite a bit in the space of say 2 generations or so. That older market also rewarded people who played the best by its rules and fulfilled the value pricing requirements to end up with successful market transactions. The present one does the same, but what is valued, and how that factors into pricing, has changed fundamentally, precisely because women no longer need to choose men for economic/social reasons (for the most part) in the advanced countries. So the “value” that women are looking for is very different in this market than it was 2 generations ago, and that value is what they are seeking as a price for access to themselves. If you bring that value, you will succeed in this market, but if you try to bring the value that succeeded in pricing decisions in the old market, you will fail. It’s about adapting to the current market’s pricing expectations, and bringing value that equals current prices.

    Now, of course the “ask” is different than it was 2 generations ago, again, because women do not need men economically for the most part (individual men, or do not need to stay put with one at least for economic reasons). So the emphasis shifted entirely to pure attraction. Whether this is good or bad depends on where you stand in that pecking order. If you’re highly placed, it’s great because the selection is more genuine and the woman you marry really is very hot for you and so on — that’s kind of a win/win situation for people who are both very attractive. If you’re a weaker hand, however, it’s not so great, again because the market values pure attraction and, if we’re being honest, most people of both sexes just aren’t really attractive and so not only will they be suboptimal selections for others, but the ones they are selecting will also be perceived by themselves as being suboptimal, because the main market criterion is attraction, which is based on attractiveness. So it’s a system that works well for the strong hands, and less well for everyone else. Moral of the story being: be a strong hand, or don’t be in the market, period.

    Of course, this pattern is not only seen in the SMP/MMP. It’s the same in the stock market, it’s the same in the job market, it’s the same in the career market. Liberalism’s development has brought liberalization everywhere, and what that does, in effect, is make things great for the strongest hands, but not so great for everyone else. So be a strong hand, and don’t be one of the “everyone else” people. Play the market by its current rules — there is no other choice.

  5. MK

    I challenge the term “success” in the SMP equating to raw sex with quality women, like it’s used here. Sex measured by n-count or partner quality does not define fulfilling (heh) sex at all. Sex is deeper than this. It’s why we are not surprised when a famous actor at the climax of this version of the SMP sticks a gun in his mouth the next day (count the puns!).

    So what is “success” in the SMP when defined logically? Clearly, the “fruitfulness” or “meaning” of sex matters too. Remove children & family (i.e. life itself) from the SMP? Ridiculous. That’s like gorging on food in order to throw it up later. Not a successful meal, no matter how tasty. Or frequent.

    The best objective, rational, & scientific measure for “success” in the SMP: one’s contribution to their genetic linage (i.e., # of grandkids and great-grandkids).

    Men can trick themselves into a faux SMP “success” by nailing genetically fertile women. Yet even a HB10 remains an objective SMP failure until the condom breaks & she skips the abortion.

    Women, sadly, cannot avoid the truth of their SMP failure early on (29/31) when they slowly begin to grasp they will not secure commitment from a relatively attractive man to husband their 2.1+ children and 8.4 grandchildren. Hence, the psychological collapse of the modern woman. Sheese, it’s obvious, It’s everywhere. The panic is palpable. And this is the genesis of the “Hungarian Girl” angst.

    Men have a similar experience in old age if no linage is in tow or they have not furthered the genetic success of their tribe by war or material help. But like their 40 yo female counterpart, they rarely figure this out until it’s too late and their chuckles at the hapless women at the wall have long faded. God remains clever but never malicious.

  6. Anonymous Reader

    The best objective, rational, & scientific measure for “success” in the SMP: one’s contribution to their genetic linage (i.e., # of grandkids and great-grandkids).

    For people who think in the long term. Most people don’t do that, obviously.
    Stop assuming that everyone else is like you, or perhaps like your Platonic ideal of “self” and you’ll think more clearly. There’s a world outside of your bubble where people of both sexes have been sold an equalist bill of goods that fails to benefit anyone outside of the top 10%.

  7. Never base your metric of SMP success on who is doing the breeding. It’s generally the salve of the Beta mind to believe that he’ll eventually ‘win’ in the Darwinian Olympics because it’ll be his genes that go on into the future. This just deliberately ignores the uglier aspects of the real mechanics involved in Hypergamy. Those mechanics don’t change because you bred successfully with a women you subjectively convinced yourself is “quality”.

    Are Cads Outbanging Dads?
    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/are-the-cads-outbanging-the-dads/

    You’ll notice I titled this post “Are the cads outbanging the dads?” That was deliberate, because there remain questions about whether cads are actually breeding more or less than dads. Outbanging is different than outbreeding. A woman could casually ignore potential beta dads throughout her teens and 20s (her prime years) for a sterile ride on the cock carousel with alpha males, only to settle down later with a beta male and bear him 1.8 children. Cheap and easy contraceptives thwart the natural procreation advantage that alpha males would normally have over beta males in the state of nature, so it is very possible that alpha males could be winning the Banging Sweepstakes while losing the Breeding Sweepstakes.

    Evidence that cad outbanging and supercharged female hypergamy is occurring resides in the later age of first marriage rates, and the lower overall marriage rate, as well as the higher STD rates among women.

    And there is evidence for cad outbreeding as well. Serial monogamy — which is a form of soft polygyny — is on the rise, and men who have had more than one partner have more children than men married to one woman.

    On the other side of the debate are the GSS (General Social Survey) gurus who marshal self-reported evidence that dads are winning the breeding wars over cads.

    I remain skeptical of the GSS data, but give it its due. My contention has never been that cads are having more children, but rather that cads are having more premarital sex than dads with higher quality (read: better looking) women when those women are in their sexual primes. This, not the discrepancy in fertility rates between alpha and beta males, is the contraceptive-aided shock wave that is roiling the sexual market and upending organic rules thousands, perhaps millions, of years old.

    A society of both cad ascendence and civilization is unsustainable and incompatible. One or the other will go, and the pendulum with either swing back to dads or civilization will regress to accommodate the rise of women choosing cads. All social and economic indicators (particularly the debt overhang), and my personal experience in the bowels of the dating market, lead me to be pessimistic about a happy resolution to this building tension. Hopefully, I’m wrong, but in the meantime I’ll do what is necessary to secure my pleasure.

  8. @ Novaseeker,

    I think it is important to distinguish between successful people (the “Elites”) doing well in the market, and the market being designed around their interests. I would argue that the market is not designed for them. Rather, they do well because they are, well, successful. Their very nature means that whatever the market, they will do better than most. So even though the market favors STRs and short-term “gains”, they do ok because they have the tools to make the best out of the lousy situation. Those not in that top 10 to 20 % are not so fortunate.

    @ MK

    You lost when you started to use words like reason and logic. The system is not set up with those things in mind. The “winners” of this market don’t care and aren’t motivated by a logically crafted market. All they care about is immediate gain. That doesn’t necessarily negate anything you say, it only points out that their perspective is so short-sighted that it will be of any meaning to them.

  9. @donalgraeme

    However, deregulated markets (whether economic or sexual) tend to result in more inequality than more regulated socialist markets. And this applies to the SMP as well, which has become more winner-take-all after the end of monogamy, and elites win a lot more in this SMP than in the previous monogamous SMP.

  10. I see lots of cads getting girls pregnant…lots of girls with babies by several dads

  11. @ SirNemesis

    Good point about market regulations. That, in the context of inequality, is worth talking about in further detail.

  12. MK

    theasdgamer: I see lots of cads getting girls pregnant…lots of girls with babies by several dads

    R-style SMP operations are often successful (when resources are plentiful). But remember, it’s about the number of grandkids (8.4 to break even) that tells the take of long-term success in the SMP (the culture of sex is passed down from father to son, for better or worse).

  13. MK

    Rollo, Never base your metric of SMP success on who is doing the breeding. It’s generally the salve of the Beta mind to believe that he’ll eventually ‘win’ in the Darwinian Olympics

    No. Remember, many, many alpha thugs breed quite well over time. Do they have the “beta-mindset”? I think not; women love them & wish to have their kids. You have lost sight of the actual SMP, likely due to your culture bias. I repeat what I said above, which is true:

    So what is “success” in the SMP when defined logically? Clearly, the “fruitfulness” or “meaning” of sex matters too. Remove children & family (i.e. life itself) from the SMP? Ridiculous. That’s like gorging on food in order to throw it up later. Not a successful meal, no matter how tasty. Or frequent. The best objective, rational, & scientific measure for “success” in the SMP: one’s contribution to their genetic linage (i.e., # of grandkids and great-grandkids).

    Rollo:…because it’ll be his genes that go on into the future. This just deliberately ignores the uglier aspects of the real mechanics involved in Hypergamy.

    I’m the only one here accepting the bio-mechanics of the SMP based on science, reason, and the human condition. If my memory serves,, you have psychological training? Bulverism is likely your issue.

    Rollo: Those mechanics don’t change because you bred successfully with a women you subjectively convinced yourself is “quality”.

    Again, Bulverism. Remember, God (or nature, take your pick) has aligned beauty & sex with fertility. That’s “quality”. So quality in the SMP means “quality” fertility (HB10 is max children) and “quality” motherhood (a kind, resourceful, loving wife is the best for sex). Hey, even thugs enjoy a happy HB10 more than an unhappy HB10. The SMP and bio-mechanics never lie.

    Our disagreement? I believe and know that man is “more” than just his physical body. Sex thus must be more too (note that doesn’t take away from the HB10 physical requirement at all; remember: more, not less). When you remove things from sex (children you your view) you get less. I want it all. And the SMP factors this in.

  14. Fully 40% of births are now out of wedlock. That is clear evidence of cads being increasingly successful at breeding compared to dads.

  15. Nemo

    Yitta Schwartz won! In every conceivable (heh) sense!

  16. That is clear evidence of cads being increasingly successful at breeding compared to dads.

    This implies that every one of those children has a cad for a biological father. Color me extremely skeptical of that.

  17. I am with Elspeth on that. Some of those children have cad fathers, true. But increasingly people are pairing up without marriage, but living as couples.

  18. Too bad that most of those children of non-cads will eventually end up with divorced parents. It’s pretty clear that women married to men who aren’t cads aren’t all that attracted to their nice, kind, stable, stalwart, boring non-cad husbands.

  19. MK

    DG, Some have cad fathers but people pair up w/out marriage

    I’m with you here. The term “marriage” has lost any coherent meaning.

    women married to non-cads aren’t that attracted to their husbands

    I would go even further. Think about it: the term “cad” makes no sense in our era of BC, abortion, & child support. Women are now the “cads”, using sex as a game & any kids as fodder. Said another way? The modern “cad” is, by definition. not a “dad”. It’s a “mom”.

  20. Kate

    “it’s very difficult to have high self-esteem when you do everything “right” but still have poor luck with the opposite sex, and it creates a very lonely feeling when you follow your values but end up getting victimized for it.”

    I think there’s something false in this. Following your values should not lead to victimization. Victimization happens when you compromise them. You should be able to see red flags (in almost all cases) long before that. So, you might think you’re doing the “right” things, but you actually aren’t. You need to find self-esteem through your talents and abilities, the love of your family and friends. No matter how virtuous you are, if you’re not signalling comfort with yourself and realistic expectations for behavior from others, you’re a magnet for those who want to prey on your insecurities. It’s not that others are victimizing you; it’s that you’re letting them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s