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.

The Gamma-ization Of Superman

I have been meaning to write this post for some time after numerous discussions withNSR, but never got around to it. However, Cane Caldo’s latest post, The Judgement of Freaks, finally convinced me to get something down on electronic paper. Cane’s post exams Sci-Fi/Fantasy fans and their nature and how it interacts with the market. The part that interested me was this:

But if we talk about the collective of fans, a great many of whom are strange and ill-formed, then I must say that it does have to be this way. What these strange and ill-formed SF&F fans want is a structure of the superficial. The less substantive the better, for under it they can do a couple things.

1. Transform their crippling weirdness into a minor flaw which is subsumed under the temporarily-irrelevant category of real life.
2. Practice a wide assortment of perversions disguised as make believe.

That’s why there are so many freaks in the comicbook store. That’s why there are so many freaks at the Star Trek conventions. That’s why there are so many freaks at Renaissance festivals, comic conventions, anime conventions…there are a lot of freak conventions.

I have no idea how much experience Cane has with this sort of folk. I’ve always had the impression he was a jock in high-school, and not the nerd type. Unfortunately, I was the nerd type, and so I am all too familiar with these freaks. And freaks they are.

Oh, not all of them. I’ve been to comic shops and conventions and Ren fairs and the like. Not everyone there is a freak. But plenty are. Perhaps even a majority at many of these events/places. The thing is, this didn’t always use to be the case.

Years ago comics used to be much more “mainstream,” for want of a better term. But somewhere along the way that changed. Both the fans and the writers started to shift in their overall make-up, and it shows. This structure of the superficial became more predominant, and then finally dominant. Depth is out of the question in most places, and what “depth” you do get is typical SJW political drivel for the most part. The exceptions are just that, exceptions.

From my perspective comics started as a form of light fantasy entertainment. Superpowers sort of took the place of magic, and allowed for fun and interesting characters and stories. But then as the fandom and writers changed, this shifted. Light fantasy morphed into what I can only think is escapism. People created weirder and weirder characters and situations because they themselves were weirder and weirder. As for the existing characters, they were transformed in varying ways, few of them good.

Superman provides an excellent example of this. As originally conceived and as the character was written in the golden and silver age, Superman fits many of the qualities that are often in these parts called “Alpha.” I mean, really, he is the Alpha. Strong, confident, dominant and admired/envied by everyone. And of course women throw themselves at him.

But over time the character of Superman has changed. Some of this might owe to the Comics Code, put in place in the mid 50s, which made things “tamer.” However, I think that only helped lay the groundwork- it didn’t actually lead to the character changing. Instead, it was a new generation of writers (and the fans with them) that transformed the character.

An interesting fact that NSR told me is that DC Comics originally figured they had only a 3-5 year run with most of their readers, who happened to be young boys. After that the boys would start getting interested in girls and their interest in comics would wane. Apparently that influenced the business model. However, at some point super-fans showed up and started to make noises about continuity and the need to collect every comic and the like. Over time these fans became writers, and they started to change the character.

I mention this because it seems to me that the super-fans, if we can call them that, evidently didn’t get caught up in the whole “chasing girls” thing. This to me suggests that they were “out there”, perhaps in a socio-sexual way. Enter Vox’s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy. I don’t subscribe to it in full, but I think there are some useful descriptions there. Here is the description of Gamma:

The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex. This mostly depends upon whether an attractive woman happened to notice his existence or not that day. Too introspective for their own good, gammas are the men who obsess over individual women for extended periods of time and supply the ranks of stalkers, psycho-jealous ex-boyfriends, and the authors of excruciatingly romantic rhyming doggerel. In the unlikely event they are at the party, they are probably in the corner muttering darkly about the behavior of everyone else there… sometimes to themselves. Gammas tend to have have a worship/hate relationship with women, the current direction of which is directly tied to their present situation. However, they are sexual rejects, not social rejects.

What I suspect is that over time many of the writers in the comics world started to fit this description. Their own nature as “Gammas” influenced their writing. They projected some of their own nature onto the characters they were writing. This is something you can see in the character of Superman. Some examples of the changes:

• Superman was always an alien, but he still fit in while on Earth. During his Gammization, however, two things happened. Some writers had him basically disregard his Kryptonian heritage- an example of deliberately denying pride in one’s ancestry. Other writers went to the other extreme, and emphasized his alien nature. They made him feel as if he was an outcast/outsider- which is just how many of them happened to feel.
• The way that Superman interacted with women, especially as Clark Kent, changed. In the beginning Clark was always mild-mannered, but his bumbling nature with women was also a disguise. Superman actually enjoyed pretending to be the fool who didn’t “get” women. It was all a joke to him. But over time that disguise sort of disappeared, and he lost his humor at playing people. Instead he was confused and conflicted with how he should interact with women. This can be seen in the original Superman movie from the 70s.
• After 1986, Superman was often displaced within his own comics. Other characters would be the ones taking all the action, and he would just stand there. Along with this came a huge decrease in his power. While Superman certainly had some “power creep” in the early days, he was almost neutered once the Gammas took over the writing.

There is more, but those examples in particular stand out. Putting all of it together, we have seen Superman as a character be twisted by a wave of writers less masculine , and more freakish, than the ones who came before. Of course, he isn’t the only character so affected. And it is important to note that many comics writers from the start were freaks who wanted ways to live out their perversions- see the character of Wonder Woman, for example.

Unfortunately, I see this trend only continuing. So those of us who enjoy the old comics- the light fantasy and not the shallow escapism and perversions of today, are sort of out of luck. At least we have the old ones to enjoy.

A Validation And A Warning

Vox at Alpha Game tipped me to this article a few days ago. I couldn’t resist addressing it myself. He quoted the money part, and so too will I:

My husband has a life that many people who are “rule-followers,” like me, would envy. When I first met him, it was undeniably a passionate love affair. I’d never dated anyone or known anyone like him before. He took risks, lived all over the world, had many passions and has been a loyal friend. He’s seven years older than I am, and we met at work, where his power and seniority at the office was insanely attractive to me. The year we got married, he wanted to take a risk and go back to graduate school to find his dream job. I trusted his judgment, and between his savings, my new job, and some sacrifices, we comfortably lived while he went through two years of graduate school. My husband now has his dream job. I’m proud of everything he’s accomplished and what we were able to do together to make it happen.

Over the past four years, my career has skyrocketed in ways I never could have dreamed of. I’ve broken through the hypothetical glass ceiling in a male-dominated industry. I am a huge believer in women in the workplace and always will be. If they become the breadwinners in marriage, more power to them.

Now herein lies my problem — I became the breadwinner in an extreme way. I committed to supporting us for two years, but we’re going on four now, and it will likely be five. Our income divide is so extreme that I pay for 90 percent of our living expenses. What I’ve found is I can’t live this girl-power lifestyle that I believe in.

I’m very close to a breaking point, and I never stop thinking about leaving my husband. And no matter what other reasons I come up with, it always leads back to money, power and sexual attraction.

This sordid tale is yet further validation of my LAMPS/PSALM model. In particular we see the role of Money/Status (they are often linked) in affecting sexual attraction. The woman here was drawn to her husband because his M and S values were high, both in general and compared to hers. However, the shift in their job situations has altered the equation dramatically. Now he makes much less than her. And as a result she finds him much less sexually attractive.

Ouch time.

I feel sorry for this guy. He bought into modern egalitarian thinking, and believed that his wife really would be ok with this change in breadwinner status. And he is probably going to lose his marriage as a result.

This brings us to the lesson…

Men: marry down, not up.

Be wary about letting your woman take your place as breadwinner. Perhaps she won’t be as bad as this woman here, but it will not be easy on her. Her nature inclines itself against this model, and you don’t want her to fight that throughout your marriage. Even if it lasts, it is a recipe for misery.

That isn’t to say it cannot be done, but I caution men all the same against it.

There is wrath and impudence and great disgrace
    when a wife supports her husband.

(Sirach 25:22)

Edit 1: This post went live before I had intended. So instead of trying to integrate additional thoughts above, I will make them here instead. This will likely involve several edits over time.

I mention above that men should marry down, not up. That is of course the first step. The second step, just as important, is to stay above her in social rank. That dream job you’ve always wanted? Well, if it lowers you in relation to her… you just might want to give it a pass. Sure she may say she is ok with it, but what her conscious and unconscious minds want can be two entirely different things.

Of course, life has a way of messing with that plan. And if you do find yourself on the down angle, you will have to adapt. Hypergamy is a trait all women share, but some seem to keep that more under control than others. If you do decide to marry in this age (a risky proposition to be sure), keep an eye out for that kind of woman. Again, it isn’t necessarily the end of the world if you find yourself outside breadwinner status. But it does mean you will need to step up the rest of your game in maintaining sexual attraction.

Edit 2: Something else which I hinted at above was that this woman was especially affected by Status and Money. It is worth remembering that no two women are exactly alike. While each is influenced by one of the LAMPS/PSALM factors, the prominence of each factor will vary from woman to woman.

What I am curious about is how one should go about using this info. Should some women be avoided based on their preferences? Should a man try and figure out which factors influence a woman most? How do you even go about figuring it out? Food for thought.

Money Matters

In his most recent post, Blue Pill Alphas, Rollo asks the following question:

But does that make a capacity for provisioning inherently a Beta trait?

Before I try and answer that, here is the surrounding text for context:

While I do concur with the assessment about women’s exaggerated sense of entitlement, I would also argue that this difficulty is a result of women’s prioritizing long-term security (emotional and provisional) as part of their sexual strategy reprioritizations that come in the wake of their Epiphany Phase. Ergo, this would explain the ease in gaming women pre and post Epiphany Phase. Provisioning and long term security are low sexual priorities for these demographics of women.

But does that make a capacity for provisioning inherently a Beta trait? I think it’s easy to misconstrue that capacity as Beta, because provisioning is a high-value attribute that is expected from Beta men according to their own sexual strategy. Provisioning is associated with Betas because it is integral to their sexual strategy, and also part of the Blue Pill plan for which women are hoping to fulfill at a point in their maturity when they are subjectively at their most necessitous.

What do you think?

It is easy to presume that provisioning, or a man’s access to resource/Money is something that is purely “Beta.” After all, a steady job hardly moves the needle when it comes to sexual attraction from a woman. However, this does not mean that Money/resources mean nothing.

In my page “What do Women Find Attractive in Men?” I lay out what attributes women look out for when it comes to male sexual attractiveness. Some snippets:

While visual features do play a part, and other physical features have their role as well, there are other things which can make him attractive to women. It is well established throughout history that money is something which women find attractive in men, along with that undefinable characteristic known as charisma, and women have long been known to be drawn to men of high station. When all of this is analyzed in the context of female behavior like hypergamy, it is possible to discern the triggers for male attractiveness to women, and categorize them based on their nature. There are three principal categories under which male attractiveness is analyzed: Appearance, Personality, and Externalities, or APE for short. Under these three categories are five more specific subcategories which contain the sets of attributes which determine male attractiveness: Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status, or LAMPS for short.

Incidentally, you will see this model sometimes called the LAMPS or PSALM model (the reason for which I explain next).

There is no universal female measure of what makes a man attractive. Some women are more attracted to one attribute over the other, just as men are attracted to different women in varying degrees. Each woman has her own set of preferences, so there is no single standard. As a mental exercise, one can view these as a point system, where a man has a certain value from 1 through 10 in each LAMPS subcategory. Then they are added together some sort of weighted average is applied. Theoretically, as long as you have enough in certain areas, it can make up for deficiencies in others. However, based on personal observations, anecdotes and the vast amount of empirical research provided by the PUA community, it is clear that certain attributes/subcategories tend to be more important than others for most women. In general the (not universal) order of importance:

1) Power- Clearly the most important set of attributes, well above the others. Charisma is king.

2) Status- Also extremely important, plays a significant role in interacting with female hypergamy.

3) Athleticism- Of middling importance, perhaps because resources are plentiful, but still something which women like in men.

4) Looks- With the exception of height, this set of attributes provides little bang for your buck; it might get you initial attention but won’t keep it for you.

5) Money- Great wealth is required for this attribute to be meaningful, likely a product of a resource-rich culture where women can easily provide for themselves.

Money comes last in importance, and let me repeat again what I just said: Great wealth is required for this attribute to be meaningful, likely a product of a resource-rich culture where women can easily provide for themselves.

We live in an age where material comfort is the norm. The overwhelming majority of Western women have no concept of what it is to “do without.” They can support themselves, or they can rely on the state (i.e., other anonymous men) to support them. Thus, it takes a lot of Money/resources for this particular attribute to move the needle re: sexual attraction. I would argue that 6 figures isn’t enough, not any more. Now it takes millions, at least.

With that in mind, we should also remember that Money/resources plays into those Desirable traits that women want as well. Since “desire” and sexual attraction are not the same, the fact that Money is also a desirable trait only really matters when women are looking for desirable traits in the first place. And as Rollo and others (myself included) have explained elsewhere, most women in the West care about them the most while in their Epiphany phase.

Hence, it just seems like Money or provisioning is a “Beta” trait. Rather, it is a low priority PSALM/LAMPS trait that rarely affects a man’s sexual attractiveness. After all, most men aren’t millionaires. And those who are usually have other traits going for them, blurring the lines somewhat.

 

The Necessity Of A Secret Identity

Post full title: Superheroes And The Necessity Of A Secret Identity From A “Red Pill” Perspective

 

[I enjoyed my last comic book post so much I decided to write another one. It should go without saying that this might be less than entirely serious.]

Not too long ago I had a conversation with a friend wherein the subject of superheroes came up. One of the things we talked about, that was interesting from a sociological perspective, was the effect that the presence of superheroes would have on general society. But what really got me thinking was to wonder what it would be like to actually be a superhero.

Oh, I’m not talking about what it would feel like to be able to fly, or have super strength or speed. No, what I was wondering about was the effects that superpowers and a superhero persona would have on someone’s everyday life. Would an everyday life be even possible? Maybe, but it might not be ordinary. Guess it depends.

There is one area of life, however, that would be dramatically affected by one’s superpowers and super-heroic persona: romance.

As I was pondering the impacts that being a super would have on one’s love life, I came to the realization that any hero, male or female, who wanted to marry would need a secret identity. I would go so far as to argue that in today’s climate a secret identity would be a necessity, even.

Why? Well, lets examine it for men and for women separately.

For men who don’t want to marry, and who otherwise don’t care about the possible benefits of a secret identity, then being an “open” Super would be quite a perk. The PSALM/LAMPS boost that a man would enjoy from being a super would have to be enormous. The Status alone would push you into the very top tier of men (unless powers were super-plentiful, I suppose). Then throw in a likely boost to Masculine Power from the confidence of super-powers, and possible athleticism boosts, and yeah… you are set. Oh, and you could probably make bank with endorsements, too. You would be the ultimate player.

But what if you want to marry? Well, here is the problem- that huge PSALM/LAMPS boost from being an open Super would make you a huge target for gold diggers and ultra-hypergamous women. [I imagine that female Supers would fall here.] Sure you might be able to get a 10… but will she stick by you? The thing about Supers is that their Status would probably fluctuate. Just like sports teams, some Supers might be seen as more “hot” at one time than at another. If your “stock” as a Super goes down then your attractiveness will drop (and your bankroll as well re: endorsements). This risks your wife leaving you if she is ultra-hypergamous and thinks she can find greener/fresher pastures elsewhere.

Besides all of the regular problems with divorce, any Supervillain foes you might have could possibly use that ex-wife as a source of info. She might blab all kinds of secrets that you don’t want out. Whether that is any kind of weakness (like kryponite), or merely something embarrassing, it could really hinder your heroics. Even if she didn’t leave you, she would be an obvious target for seduction. And lets face it, if anyone could pull off “Game”, it would be a Supervillain.

Heck, even if she doesn’t leave you, you might still need to constantly “game” her if she is “needy.” Since super-heroism is probably pretty demanding all the time, is that really worth it? I would say not.

Given all of this, a secret identity makes perfect sense. Setting aside all the other benefits, it means you can woo women without the danger they are marrying you just because of your powers. It also makes her less likely to blab your secrets, and reduces the potential of her being targeted for seduction by a foe.

Now on to women…

As a female Super, you would have a number of things to worry about as well. One thing worth mentioning is that the status of being a Super won’t be a boost to your attractiveness like it is with men. Since female attractiveness/beauty is nearly all physical, unless your powers affect your looks, it is a wash- at best.

The first issue that I can think of is that some male Super would marry you just to have super-powered children. That assumes it is genetic, of course. But if it is, then you risk being used as a breeder. Maybe it isn’t so malevolent, but still, there is always the possibility that he marries you just to marry a female super. Perhaps it is a family dynasty thing, like race can be.

Another issue is the concern over being perceived as an Alpha Widow. An open female Super who dated male Supers in the past will have trouble with non-Super men. And I mean trouble aside from her own hypergamy. The problem is that non-Super men might worry (reasonably, I might add) that they would have trouble competing with a male Super, either in terms of memories or future faithfulness.

A secret identity would protect against both problems. Men looking for genetic mothers of super-powered kids would skip you by. At the same time female Supers would be mostly insulated from the association of uber-Alphaness with male Supers and being able to compete.

I am sure there are more reasons to use a secret identity for both male and female super-heroes, so if my readers think of any feel free to add them below. Also feel free to critique my thoughts to your heart’s desire.

In Defense Of George

In my recent posts The Way We Met and None The Wiser I was accused of being uncharitable towards George and the young woman he had been infatuated with for a long time. Looking back, I can see that this was true. Pretty much nearly every inference was drawn against both George and the young woman on my part. I implied that he was being foolish, and pointed out numerous indicators that she was probably poor relationship material. Mind you, I didn’t accuse her of being malicious or manipulative. [One thing to keep in mind is that she always appreciated his good qualities; they just didn’t matter until she saw him as sexually attractive]. Rather, I just pointed out that she was questionable as a partner, and said George could have probably done better.

People came to a lot more conclusions about the two of them than I was intending with that post. This is my fault- I tried to do too much in a single post. My original focus was on how the young woman’s change in feelings towards George was based on his SMV growth over anything else. However, at the same time I also  devoted space in the post towards expressing sympathy towards George, in that I believed he was making a poor choice by entering into a relationship with her. Given that I had included photos of them, that put me on morally shaky ground- especially without any defense of them in that post or admonition against coming to unwarranted conclusions.

Today I will, in the spirit of fairness, offer the defense I should have included from the beginning. I will draw all the inferences in their favor this time. Of course, to do that I need to cover where I drew it against them. So what where my inferences again? Here they are:

• George was a Beta Orbiter
• She has had numerous bad relationships where George had to help her pick up the pieces- a.k.a., she had numerous failed sexual relationships in the past
• She believes in soul mates
• Her mother was probably a divorcee

Those are the big ones, anyways. So lets flip them around, and then extrapolate on what they mean.

The first one is about him and his behavior. If we assume the best about him than he wasn’t infatuated with her for 10 years. Instead, he was using that time to build himself up, and perhaps consider other options as far as female company are concerned. In those ten year he was a friend, but not someone stuck in the friendzone. This conclusion would make George more confident and aware of his own value. His decision is not the product of years of frustrated pining for a woman who ignores him, but a more deliberate, and hopefully informed choice.

For the second inference, and first red flag, we assume that those were not sexual relationships. Perhaps the reason they ended badly was because the young woman wasn’t sleeping with her boyfriends. It would certainly be understandable to see how she could have numerous failed relationships if she was saving herself for marriage. Given how rare chastity is these days, most men she would run across, including the “Christian” ones, would likely dump her if she wasn’t putting out. Now, if this were true- that the reason for her failed relationships was because she was saving herself- then it would be a huge green flag. It would be a huge sign in her favor, one that George would be a fool to ignore. [There is of course the whole frigidity thing, but I believe that is reasonably rare as to be a minor concern- especially since she is still in her 20s.]

The third inference was the most solid of all- that she believes in soul mates. For those curious, that is not a good thing- those who do believe in soul mates are more likely to divorce. To draw it in her favor would mean to assume she was just making a figure of speech. She didn’t really mean soul mate in the typical -pagan- way of looking at it. Rather, she just wanted to say that her relationship with George felt like it was destined.

Finally, we have the fourth inference. To infer in her favor would be to assume that her mother was a widow. In this case, she did have a father, but lost him at some point. Hopefully it would mean that she had a strong and positive male influence in her life. Also, it would mean that she would have a living example in her life of how marriage is “until death do us part.” This is not so much a “green flag”, but would obviate the harm that comes from being a child of divorce.

If all four of these points were true- George wasn’t a Beta Orbiter, the woman wasn’t sleeping around, she didn’t believe in soul mates, and her mother was a widow, then it would change how we would view the relationship. George wouldn’t be a fool. After all, she appears to have long recognized his good qualities- he just needed to become more attractive for them to really shine. He would be in a relationship with someone who valued those qualities, who valued her body, and who saw that marriage was until “death do us part.” Compared to your average American female, she would be well ahead of the pack. One could even argue he would be a fool not to pursue her.

And that brings my defense of George and his woman to a conclusion. If you can see other ways to buttress that, feel free to add them in the comments below.

None The Wiser

One of the important points which I raised in The Way We Met that I think bears repeating is that the woman gained no wisdom in the process. She didn’t come to any great realization that she needed to accept George. As I explained:

You see, reading the piece and looking at those photos tells me that the woman here wasn’t having issues accepting that she was supposed to be with George. Rather, the problem from the beginning was that George just wasn’t sexually attractive. He was too “Beta”, if you will. Since he wasn’t sexually attractive to her, his other great traits meant jack. However, as the years passed by George grew in confidence, and it shows in that second photo. Eventually his attractiveness grew to the point where she no longer dismissed him as a sexual partner. At that point his other great traits were able to come to the forefront[…]

It is a not infrequent refrain these days that women “wise up” when they get older. This is why they ignored “nice guys” and “good men” for so long, only to start paying them attention once they get older. Beforehand they were young and foolish. After some worldly wisdom sets in, they realize the error of their ways and shift their attention and affection (and impliedly their attraction) towards such men.

Nothing could be further from the truth in nearly all cases.

What is really happening is that women are adapting to changes in the sexual markeplace as they get older. At least, changes as it relates to their change in position vis-a-vis age. For ease of reference, Rollo’s chart again:

As women age their value in the SMP declines.  Depending on the woman, this can be a gradual shift, or a disturbingly rapid one. Meanwhile, as a general rule men increase in value over time. Due to a variety of factors their LAMPS/PSALM attributes will increase as they age, making them overall more and more attractive to women. So when young, very few men have a high SMV, at least in relation to women.

Now, at the same time remember that women are far, far picker than men when it comes to sexual partners. They find far less men attractive out of the general population than men find women attractive in the general population. In addition, the woman’s own SMV will affect how she views the attractiveness of a man. The higher her SMV relative to that of the men she meets, the fewer and fewer she will find acceptable/sexually attractive.

Taken together, this means that when women are young and are at their peak, they tend to pick find only a handful of men to be attractive. [Again, there are always exceptions, but we are talking about the general population here.] Those men are almost never “nice guys” or “good men.” In other words, guys like how the woman described George. It is these men who women tend to favor with their affections.

However, as they age, and men increase in their SMV value, and women decrease in SMV value, this all shifts. All of a sudden a bunch of men who otherwise weren’t attractive in the eyes of a woman suddenly start to be more and more attractive. Many will actually reach the threshold where she actually rates them as attractive. At this point the man becomes a viable option, and all his other traits “click in to place.” Think George.

All of which brings us back to the point of this post- women are none the wiser at the end. They change, sure. But that change comes about from their decrease in relative SMV, and their understanding of their change in SMV. Otherwise, the real change takes place in the men she considers her peers. They are the ones changing… by becoming more attractive to her.

Wisdom requires a certain amount of reflection and self-examination. And that is simply not happening here. Instead, women are just adapting reflexively to changes in the SMP around them. They are not developing a newfound understanding about “Beta” traits. They are not suddenly finding them sexually appealing. Don’t let anyone fool you with notions that women naturally get wiser when they age- especially when romance is concerned. Keep a level head, and hopefully you will avoid a potential pitfall which others will try and lead you towards.

The Way We Met

[See update at the bottom of the post.]

I ran across the following story via a friend. Apparently it is part of some Facebook feed called The Way We Met:

“I was best friends with George for 10 years before we started dating. We met in High School and developed a really special friendship over the years. I always felt more comfortable telling George something than anyone else I knew. He became my most trusted companion and we hung out all the time. People who didn’t know us always thought we were dating. When we went our separate ways for college, we didn’t talk as much anymore but our friendship remained just as strong. George was always there for me after every bad relationship ended to help me pick up the pieces. I would often say to people, “I think friends can be soul mates, I really think George is mine.” It was odd how we would say the same thing at the same time and always knew what the other person was thinking. I always knew how much George meant to me, but it wasn’t until after my Mom got remarried that I started to look at him in a different light. The day of my Mom’s wedding I came down the stairs and he looked up at me with a big smile and said, “You look beautiful baby,” and then kissed me on the cheek. I don’t know why but something about that moment has always stuck out so strongly to me. The rest of the evening I kept staring at him and thinking about how handsome he was, what a gentleman he was, and how much I cared about him. We danced with each other all night and I realized how perfectly we fit together. It felt like home. After that, it took a couple weeks of nervous deliberation but we finally decided we wanted to be together. It’s crazy to think that my soul mate has been with me this whole time, I just wasn’t ready to accept it yet.”

There are a couple of images that accompany this. They are side by side for comparison:

Now some of you might recognize these images. That is because I featured them in my recent post, Telling Photos. Now that I have included the text that accompanies the photos we can finally start with the making of sense.

So what do we learn from both of them together? Here are a few things:

• The guy (George), was a beta orbiter for a long, long time.
• The gal (whose name I don’t have), had numerous broken relationships. A reasonable inference can be made that [those relationships, or at least some of them, were sexual, although it is not certain].
• The gal believes in Soul Mates. Ouch.
• The gal’s mom was either a divorcee or was a widow. That is not good news for good ol’ George [if it is the latter].
• They are probably somewhere between 24 and 28 years old.
• George majorly stepped up his attractiveness over those ten years.
• She was somewhat overweight at first, and it seems she has managed to get at least some of that weight off.

[A number of these are red flags. They are indicators of possible problems with her as LTR material. That doesn’t necessarily mean she is poor material, but they should prompt caution.]

Here is the thing- if someone who wasn’t “Red Pill” savvy read this piece, they would probably find it sweet. Those of us who are savvy, however, would probably have an entirely different reaction. I found the story sad, not sweet.

You see, reading the piece and looking at those photos tells me that the woman here wasn’t having issues accepting that she was supposed to be with George. Rather, the problem from the beginning was that George just wasn’t sexually attractive. He was too “Beta”, if you will. Since he wasn’t sexually attractive to her, his other great traits meant jack. However, as the years passed by George grew in confidence, and it shows in that second photo. Eventually his attractiveness grew to the point where she no longer dismissed him as a sexual partner. At that point his other great traits were able to come to the forefront, and before you know it you have this:

“I realized how perfectly we fit together.”

Among other things, this story serves as further evidence in support of Rollo Tomassi’s SMV chart:

What happened here is that the girl’s SMV started out much higher than George’s. However, as time went on his SMV continued to climb and climb. Meanwhile, age has reduced the girl’s potential SMV. However, her (presumed) weight loss had the effect of reducing the effective loss of SMV that she felt. The end result of all of this is that both are pretty close in comparative SMV at the time of this photo.

I mentioned before that I find this sad. The reason why is simple: George is now attractive enough that he can get the attention of decent looking girls (I suspect that while most readers would disagree about the actual number, most would agree that she is at least attractive). Yet what does he do with that newfound power? He goes after the girl he has been crushing on for a decade. A girl with all kinds of baggage (which she freely admits to). A girl whose mother probably was a divorcee. A girl who might very well be reaching her “Epiphany phase,” and thus looking to “cash out”on what remains of her SMV.

George seems like a decent guy, and now probably one with options. He should have focused on younger women with less baggage. Instead he married a girl with more red flags than a Communist parade.

Now that I have fleshed out the rest of this story, I invite my readers to comment further. I believe some good solid lessons can be derived here. Sure, most will already know them, but a refresher course never hurts. Plus you never know, there is always the chance for some newfound wisdom.

*For the record, the couple put all of this out there. They made it public, not me. I am merely commenting on what is effectively a public statement of theirs.

Update: Made a few corrections to try and clarify things; they are in brackets. People came to more conclusions than I was expecting in this post.

Update 2: I wrote a followup post which addresses the problems with this one- In Defense of George.

Beta Farming

In my post Of Fighting And The West, blogger Rollo Tomassi left a comment which included the following gem:

The modern church is a Beta farm and only exists to produce the same masculinity-confused men that the secular world has perfected today.

I want to touch on that issue of “Beta Farming” today.

To start with, I agree with Rollo’s first contention- that the “modern” church is a “Beta farm.” What is taught and enforced in most churches these days is a theology which wrings the masculinity out of men. Most of the time this leaves the young men growing up in church as hapless, servile “Beta” males who exist to do whatever women want.

However, I disagree with the second part. I don’t think that most churches exist to produce these kinds of men. They have other purposes, and not necessarily good ones at that. For example, they often preach a theology which provides moral cover to women and places moral blame on men. All the same, some might have good intentions. Some of those within might genuinely intend to serve the Lord. All the same, the modern church’s purpose has been hijacked. While these churches don’t exist to create “beta males”, that is their functional end purpose at this point (or one of them, anyways).

This all leads to the interesting question of how this all came to be. Reader Lost Patrol left this speculation:

I wouldn’t say the modern church “only exists” to produce hapless men – I see it more as an unintended consequence of having ceded so much ground to secular feminism.

My view is somewhat different- I would argue that this has come about because we have ceded so much ground to women.  As I explained:

The more power women were given, the more natural this outcome was. Once you understand female nature, it is easy to see how this outcome was inevitable once women were given the power and control they were in our present system.

Lost Patrol responded by reaffirming that women were given this power. They could never have taken it from men. The why of men gave women that power I will discuss in another post. But before I close this one I want to cover why this ceding of power to women lead to our present troubles.

My theory is that the present “Beta farms” inside modern churches is a natural result of women influencing matters to reassure their native insecurity. This insecurity is something that I believe most men have no idea about, and even those who have some inkling of its existence usually fail to grasp its extent. I have covered this before, but to briefly sum it up:

Women are far and away more insecure in their lives than men.

Much of this insecurity comes from the gap in physical prowess between men and women. We men are much more capable of defending ourselves and imposing our will on our environment than women are- at least at the individual level. But whatever its source, it has a profound effect on female behavior. Women are constantly, and often at an unconscious or subconscious level, trying to alter their environment to make it feel more secure.

I believe that this behavior is responsible for the “Beta farms” in modern churches. As women were given more power inside the church and its environs, they began to exert their influence. This influence was used to shape how men were raised, and what they were supposed to be as Christians. The goal, whether realized or not, was to create the hapless Beta nice guys who populate most churches these days.

Why? Simple- “Betas” are far less threatening to women. They are safer and do things on women’s behalf. So women reinforce this system to create more and more of these “safe” men. As long as they have any degree of power in a church, they will keep it this way. [Of course, this has the effect of leaving those men as unattractive, but female nature is known for wanting two opposites at once.] If we want to shut down the “Beta farms,” we need to reassert masculine control over the church. Otherwise this wicked cultivation will continue, and likely only get worse.

Masculine Monday- #8

*Men Only*

Short and simple post today, with a short and simple message to men:

Learn how to say “No” to women.

Seriously, if you have trouble with it now, learn to do it. Your life will become so much better for it.

And, dare I say, so will the lives of most of the women who are part of it.

I might be a bit presumptuous here, but I think most men spend a lot of time trying to get women to say “Yes” to various things. But learning to say “No” to when when necessary can get you just as much. In fact, I would warrant a guess that you saying “No” just might be a factor in her saying “Yes.”

This is easier said than done, of course. We men have an instinctive desire to please women. We don’t like it when when are upset. And of course, we are fearful of being tagged a misogynist or the like.  Couple that with a Western upbringing indoctrination, and most men in the West end up as the ones saying “Yes.”

So perhaps some of my male readers would be kind enough to offer their advice on how they learned to overcome all of that.  Guys, what happened you learn to say “No” to women?

[This post was inspired by Dalrock’s recent examination of how many Christian leaders are fearful of telling the women in their congregation “No” in any way, especially the important ones.]