War and r/K

That’s the connection I see.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/nation-wimps/201510/the-mating-game-is-changing-and-you-wont-believe-how

A paucity of men would naturally recreate this condition post-war. The remaining men would be the fittest by Darwinian standards, connote status and unconsciously wish to repopulate. Yes, we called this the Baby Boom.

Women do not like sharing their resource, husband, as men do not like consolidating theirs (on one woman, if they are not in love). Men see women as a valuable resource when scarce (a society where most were married and time on the market ‘in society’ was short) but in modern times, most young people are on the shelf, and have advances from their elders to contend with too.

It won’t remain this way. Already I see this happening in real time.

As resources (economic) contract, women will find their voice and demand (marriage or nothing) what they wanted to ask to begin with. Women don’t want to date. It gets boring. Neither do men. Both want something else. What else do the men offer now? ‘Muh dick’ is going to be a sick reply, a base animal response, some women will no doubt become prostitutes to fill the demand when the economy tanks and continue to fund their lifestyle. This is the traditional way and it’s going to happen. Men are not entitled to sex (read: female fertility) but believe this because it’s been practically free for so long. They have forgotten its value and with it the value of women. Why grow up? Why be a real boy when they have all the ‘rights’ and none of the responsibilities? Women are not entitled to male resources either but many aren’t even being given the chance at marriage, and the divorce system can be understood as a form of social reparations from this. It encourages marital settling in women, because if it doesn’t work out with the manchild Mr Second Best, you get a cash bonus from his failure to be a fit husband and can try again, with a persuasive dowry.

The original fault lies with men. If they refuse to grow up and lead, the other issues usher forth.

Feminism has robbed women of the confidence to ask that ONE important question (you want to be a housewife???) and subsequently taken away many of the attributes a man would seek in a wife for good measure.

Further, at least some of what is being reported as rape stems from regret over drink-fueled encounters devoid of emotional connection.

Bingo. Alcohol makes people desperate. Women don’t want casual sex, feminism told them they did. It’s the man’s fault, men have the active role and refuse it (they won’t ‘man up’), then wonder why society is slowly collapsing around their ears. He deceives her, to get sex, then he wonders why she uses his lies against him in a trial.

I describe you, you hate me. Really, you hate yourself and everyone knows it.

Promises are verbal contracts, college students are mature enough to know this. Consent is based on verbal conditions, so promises become vitally important. The seduction laws will end up coming back in and that will be the end of PUA forever. Hallelujah.

A symptom of this manchild phenomena is that women have had to become more masculine to compensate, simply to survive in an atomized society alone. Certainly, there is a little more competition but it’s simply out in the open now. We’re told it’s empowering to be a bitch. Any man wishing to criticize women for doing what it takes to survive in a world without men is a male gamine, a manic pixie dream boy, yet to grow up.

They meet a guy, he calls every couple of months, they spend a night or two together each time, and then they’re miserable because they’re emotionally attached to him and want more from him—for which he might even call them “needy” or “greedy,” should they summon the courage to ask.

That level of entitled bullshit from men (love, affection, sex, cooking, company – the role of a wife, free) is going to fly straight out the window and clear into the Sun, never to be heard from again. She plays her poker chips too early and loses them. Women are beginning to see their fault and Millennials are beginning to reject feminism.

The imbalance is being corrected.

“Relationship preferences and sexual behavior of individuals are responsive to context,” Schacht says. “Men want fundamentally different things from relationships when males are rare than when they are abundant. The rare-male male is the stereotypical fling-seeking cad we expect him to be. However, the abundant-male male is the committed, devoted male from the age of Camelot.”

Patriarchy is coming back.

The manboys should be scared. A boy has a natural enemy – man.

p.s. This explains the entitled character of the stereotypical Baby Boomer.

p.p.s. The ‘alpha genes’ are the ones that get passed on in a Patriarchy. The genes of the titular Patriarch, the dad. Cads are scum in these societies, along with tarts, not fit to lick their work boots. The beta male in a Patriarchy is the man who cannot or will not become a responsible husband and father. Alpha genes build and reaffirm their own societal structure, they aren’t cucked out to the reckless hedons. Cad and tarts who cannot settle down (even settling with one another) will have an atrocious later life. Nobody will support them. There is no support network. Those who will not, for whatever reason, will not be given the opportunities by Patriarchs, created by Patriarchs, that should go to the other Patriarchs (this is why men only got hired in certain fields beyond requirement, because women weren’t Patriarchs either) in the hope of future reciprocal investment or family connection (by marriage). The old boy’s network has no room for bachelors. They cannot get on professionally, nor will any respectable family introduce them to their daughters. You’ve heard the idea of hiring a man preferentially because he had a family to support, right? The Patriarchs network at play. Just like voting rights being accorded by property ownership aka societal investment to support a family. Once rooted in a place for life, you’d better behave. It’s a check, it’s all a check. Pass or fail.

laughing rdj crack up

The ‘alpha female’ does exist, much to the hatred of cads because she shows them up. Feminists have tried to emulate this woman unsuccessfully. She is respected by these men, these Patriarchs, and allowed as an exception despite her sex because she fits the criteria and behaviour (character, honour, must support a family for practical reasons) and doesn’t cause trouble. She becomes a woman at home as a man ceases to be a professional upon leaving work, there is role flexibility, the family and its structure and support are important.  Alpha females are rare (the product of two alpha parents and their quality) but demonstrably exist. Weak men (virginTOW, many PUA) hate them the most for supplanting ‘their’ role they refuse to take up and further insult, out-competing them. They will imply they are promiscuous (in spite of contrary evidence) because they need to believe it would be possible for them to achieve it themselves (and reaffirm their ego) and so insult their lucky mate too (like saying he’s being cucked when he clearly isn’t and we live in a world of DNA testing). IF the barriers to entry aren’t one sex (m/f) like they mistakenly thought it was but the other sex (promiscuity/quality scale, r or K) their worldview collapses. They become ‘bad men’. They fail in life. It was entirely their choice, they cannot blame women for it. The music stops. Their reaction to this is a furious rush to Have it All (settle in the case of feminists and ‘players’) and convince themselves they’ve beat the system (sound familiar?). Predictably, they fail because people see them for what they are – desperate and faking it. They can’t stand happy monogamy. They hate it. Of course they can’t fake it. Of course no one in their right mind would take them after their ruin and shame. If they do manage to trick a poor sap (see the Simple decision game theory post), they will still cheat. If their spouse is Mr or Mrs Perfect they will cheat even more. They hate their spouse and they hate their marriage. They deserve divorce. The support network and opportunities dry up and they blame…. the system.

p.p.p.s. You know it’s bad when Roosh, of all people, suddenly wants to get married. He senses the window closing. He doesn’t get it – you can’t switch sides. You can’t change teams. As an adult, you choose by your actions and on those he will be judged. We don’t ask job applicants whether they think they should get it, we look at their CV. Self-respecting women will look at the way he’s treated women, the verbs he uses like bang as if we’re ketchup bottles and make up some excuse.

Sexual selection in females evolved for – Dads, not Cads

http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/sexual-selection-has-been-done-mostly.html

Yet another topic where the manosphere is wrong, totally off the reservation. It’s lies, damn lies.

They keep focusing on the sexual elements like teenage boys (perhaps in some part to abstaining from porn, a psyche fixation they project to women for the comfort of distance) and totally omit the social gravitas, a whole half of the formula that only an autist would remove.

Many of the evolutionary terms they misuse apply to the Marital Marketplace (MMP), only, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Sexual (SMP) – which is sterile. (n.b. Abortions count in this case).

No, women don’t ‘sexually select’ Dark Triad. And if you care about shit like that, you aren’t DT either. It only counts as sexual selection anyway if she gets pregnant (aka all that PUA sex, when real, cannot count).

fury anger hades

I shouldn’t keep having to point this out. They’re straight up abusing the academic definitions like feminists using ‘equality’. It’s all one huge ego prop. On the flipside, what’s the man supposed to be agreeing to? When saying Yay or Nay to a potential wife? That can’t be SMP based. Come on.

They’re separate things. Completely. Yet the manosphere doesn’t play in that gene pool and gets jealous to be left out of anything (keyboard alpha syndrome) so they pretend there’s crossover. As license to pontificate on it.

Look at the life outcomes of Dark Triad and their children. The crime, the death, the disease. Psychopathy is characterized by social parasitism (makes you unpopular) and aimless (nobody trusts you). Their children are genetically inferior to survive (lower fitness value) and more prone to pronounced mental illness. Read Dr Hare’s book about working with psychopaths and how they think. They’re hollow, hardly human. They are ill people who cannot be cured.

You wanna know why it keeps popping up in studies? It’s a costly signal. It’s exactly like the peacock tail. It isn’t attractive for itself but in spite of it. When you look at the whole picture, excluding that piece. Any other signal works the same way. In fact, as far as signals go, with mentally stable women it can act as a serious turn-off, as in Proteans;

These signals often indicate that the sender is trying to decide whether he or she is interested in the “receiver”. However, some individuals, instead of playing along, will overestimate the sender’s interest and do something more obvious, like asking for a phone number. This can be clumsy and confusing to both parties, and understanding the concept of protean signals is useful for avoiding such missteps. Misinterpreting those cues and responding to them overeagerly is commonly said to happen to men more than women, although both can suffer when this happens.

Sound like anyone we know?

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

Related: I’ve written before about both negging and plowing.

I think many of those newcomers must be on the autism spectrum because they just don’t get it and never shall.

There’s a reason James Bond doesn’t have a family. (Giving Archer one is preposterous, it jumped the shark with that one). What sort of Patriarch would he be? A great one? A good one? Mediocre? Deadbeat, often absent? In evolutionary terms, James Bond is a failure. Mother Nature is a bitch. He isn’t a Patriarch. He’s a boy playing dress-up. He’s the stereotypical man and he is an island. A cardboard cut out of insecurities (money, status, sex). The flash cars and gadgets give it away.

In an evolutionary equation, men who pass on their genes, secure a faithful attractive woman for decades and raise those children into success is the alpha because he is the Patriarch.

These PUAs count meaningless notches like arcade scores. Evolutionally, they don’t count. They don’t exist. The fertile value is zero. Evolutionally, they are virgins.

The term beta orbiter is preposterous when the manosphere admits these are the men who constantly reproduce. The alpha is dominant by genetic legacy as in lions. Whoever has the most, successful children, wins.

Inb4 “cuckoldry” – in the most promiscuous society in millennia, that rate is about 10%. Pipe the fuck down. 9/10 of those men are fine and we live in an age of easy DNA testing so I don’t see what the big deal is.

 

Love/hate “drama” and the romance lovemap

I’m in a pub mood. Story time.

Disclaimer: This is about bringing together a lot of ideas in a correct way, instead of the misconceptions from multiple angles that wear blinkers and assume the tip of the iceberg is the whole thing. It’s difficult for me to put into words because I’ve never had to explain it before, so bear with me.

Common observations;

  • Why do women love “drama”? (Not a modern thing).
  • Why do women prefer so-called love-hate relationships to just… love?
  • Why aren’t they happy in an easy relationship? (n.b. This is often called hypergamy by the manosphere. This is wrong. The man isn’t actually anywhere near the centre of that problem, let alone a conveyor belt of them).
  • Finally, why do feminists and other moody women choose inferior status men only to blame the men for their later irritation?

There is a connection.

The concept of a lovemap was invented by a paedophile sexologist but it’s somewhat accurate, he simply gave it a name. A better way to think of it is as a set collection of impressions and beliefs regarding sex and the courting of the sexes similar to a schema. Everything from fairytales, to comic books, to the Bible, to family stories, urban legends, town gossip and so on. A big puddle of information related to the topic, from a genetic perspective this is priority #1, hence the strength of this lovemap/template/schemata.

The most valuable resource on this topic is the written projection of the Female Lovemap General onto paper, billions of times over. I’m referring, of course, to romance novels. Consider the almost monomythic similiarity between these stories. That’s the Romance Lovemap of Women. There is no choice, all women are aware and affected by it to some extent. There is a probably a parallel for men too. I dunno about that.

What does this schema call for?

In essence, a submissive beautiful woman clashes with dominant noble man.
(n.b. This is not “tingles” or other infantile descriptions of lust by the manosphere that make women cringe in disgust, it would be like calling male lust the Flow for the blood movement; this is a purely psychological phenomena of attraction which is sexual, but only to the extent that it requires both the sexes, one man and one woman, it has nothing to do with sexual congress per se).
The course of true love and all that jazz (Shakespeare merely noticed this).

By being submissive, the woman conquers the strong man in a way even other men cannot. This is how women win. Feminine wiles and control from the King’s ear. Various stories aimed at men are based on warning them about the potential for this, it’s likely part of their Lovemap and the moral of the story is in choosing a (non-crazy, good) woman who will at least guide you in a prosperous direction for you both (behind every good man…).
It isn’t twisted logic that you may be strong by being ostensibly weak when you realize the sexes are unequal but complimentary. It reminds me of a passage of Taoism, by Laozi naturally;

In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong nothing can surpass it. This is because there is nothing that can take its place.

The manosphere, and MGTOW especially, would do well to meditate on this symbol on a daily basis.

Women are not the enemy. Modernity is.
No man would exist without a woman to birth him.

I digress.

What explains the above examples of seemingly irrational behaviour? (Irrational if you are a simple man who prefers to look for the easiest possible solution to feel better about himself instead of the correct one).
Their lovemap is being damaged. Something has gone wrong. Just like women nag a man to do a DIY project they’ve left for weeks with increasing irritation, as the man isn’t pulling his weight on the gender scales, this becomes a central issue in their mind long-term.

[Also yes, that’s why. Women keep the nest and men guard it in one piece. When pieces start breaking it becomes their job but happens to be on our primary territory.]

How does this hypothesis match up, case by case?

well doctor

*deep intake of breath*

  • In romance novels, there is always an external social conflict in the plot i.e. “I want to be with you! -We can’t!” *swoon* This is usually family, protective fathers and clucky mothers, but may be as generic as a disparity in social class or later on, an occupational hierarchy. This introduces an element of taboo common to most relationships however innocent between the sexes before there was even a word for social mobility. Hence you get the same pattern repeating in literally all the bloody stories: humble girl/aristocrat, good girl/rebel (n.b. not for his damaging behaviours or Dark Triad psyche, but the taboo of socialization with him whatsoever), Teacher/Student and recently, Rich Man/Secretary Underling. The difference in social power adds a certain spice. When the gap is broached, and they overcome the difference, the attraction fizzles like a firework in April.
  • Love/hate relationships are tricky because it’s often a synonym for entirely different emotions and women certainly feel multiple emotions simultaneously in love (it isn’t crazy, it’s processing) so we give it the first relevant-ish word that pops into our head. Essentially we’re discussing the balance between positive and negative emotions. Every healthy relationship, platonic to sexual, has both, because needs are being met or unmet and desires exchanged and negotiated. A woman expects to play the role of woman deep in the subconscious, and this is largely Second in Command barring Special Conditions. It isn’t a bad thing, it’s like sitting with the popular kids at school, a kind of halo effect making you feel wanted and crucially, needed, which means you are worthy to be in the social proximity to this person, who needs and wants your company in turn. (Women compete socially, men compete sexually). A man who solely inspires lovey-dovies is going to make us pause and think Is he gay or something? [another topic of concern] Since we all know men like the chase more than the actual capture. If it’s too easy, there must be a bad reason, and we aren’t going to like it. He’s cheating behind your back and being sweet to keep the guilt at bay is among the most common, we’re totally out of his league and he tricked us into undervaluing ourselves is the runner-up. Others includes He’s totally fake and I fell for it, He doesn’t have a personality what am I doing and the ever-reliable He wants something I don’t care to give and he’s buttering me up as emotional blackmail. I believe this sense of “everything is easy, too easy” is part of supposed Woman’s Intuition. Since when did the course of true love run smooth? Therefore, it’s highly logical on our part to deduce that – It’s going smoothly – with, -It’s going to go wrong – or, – Something is wrong here. That’s totally rational.
  • The “easy” question somewhat relates to the point above with a difference. Few relationships today are marriages, and the only true relationship statuses, as men secretly know in their hearts, are single and married. That’s all folks. Marriages bring in clear responsibilities and duties which many modern nancyboys are allergic to (inc. the DIY). Replace easy with lazy and it’s obvious the problem resides in the unmet needs of a woman who may not be able to vocalize the problem or be heard on the issue, who also senses the man is phoning it in i.e. he communicates she is no longer worthy and the path to commitment she believed she had been building up is revealed to be yet another cruel trick. It’s like the female experience of a pricktease, it’s hard not to hate the entire sex for a while after it occurs. Every relationship has exchange requirements to be met, needs to be fulfilled and simply, both parties need to pull their weight or there is no relationship. Notice how the manosphere never mentions lazy husbands? Yet the mystery of female-instigated divorce goes unsolved…
    Obligations don’t end at the altar, they begin there. 
  • The last example is a basic transgression of the lovemap. The type of boy who will allow himself to be browbeaten by such a useless harpy is essentially the double negative image and type of the Lovemap template. In any other society in history he’d die without touching a boob, he isn’t a fit mate to any woman. You see, they, the feminist, consciously believed they could switch out the roles and take the (apparently) bigger and “better” one, because men and women are the same, right? /sarc Eventually, this schema truth from the lovemap rises and stirs from the slumber of the subconscious, shaking the woman out of the temporary thrill of being “boss”. It grows with each demonstration of the reverse expectation in the male chosen, from his behaviour, to his manner and his dress. She knows deep down she bought a lemon. She begins to doubt him because naturally, feminists never correct themselves on anything. This spirals into a deep resentment until the relationship fails or she checks out mentally to preserve her ego. The ‘men’ go along with this because they know it’s the only way they’ll get laid, subconsciously they know they are an unfit male, probably in total contradiction to any male Lovemap, and that’s how male feminists are born.

A simple introduction but I hope you will permit me to end it there for now.
I’m sure you can apply these concepts to your own observations.

friendly happy nice smile relaxed pretty

Effete beta males and the Sneaky Fucker Strategy

http://mouthed.blogspot.co.uk/2007/03/sneaky-fucker-strategy.html

You’ll be happy to know you’re not alone in your confusion; in fact this very phenomenon has been documented in other animal populations and even been given a quite unscientific name, Sneaky F—er Strategy … ..

dis gonna be good anticipation pull up a chair listen watch

I must point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateman%27s_principle

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29509301/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/dude-fish-looks-lady-why/#.VW76-LlFDZ4

Around the world, increasing numbers of male fish are developing female traits — growing new sexual organs and sometimes even producing eggs. The phenomenon that has been blamed mostly on chemicals that get into the water and mimic the female hormone estrogen.

But a new study puts some of the blame on an entirely different class of chemicals — ones that block the action of male hormones called androgens.

http://jasoncollins.org/2014/01/08/the-origin-of-the-phrase-sneaky-fcker/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/30/amok-time-for-crayfish/

What’s the advantage to the ladies here? It’s the incitement. The crayfish live in high population densities, and stirring up a little trouble and getting the males to fight provides an opportunity to select a winner. It may also produce a local population of desirable contenders: a whiff of urine may encourage wimpy males to run away and avoid potential trouble, while the more aggressive males may home in on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apistogramma_cacatuoides#Breeding

One of the more interesting traits of Apistogramma cacatuoides is that of “sneaker” males. Due to the aggressive, territorial nature of the males, a submissive male will not develop the full “cockatoo” finnage nor the full male coloration. He will “pretend” to be a female and take any opportunities presented to mate with willing females. If the dominant male then dies, this submissive male will then develop the full finnage.

http://www.livescience.com/21374-cuttlefish-gender-bending-disguise.html

When a male cuttlefish is wooing a lady, he often “cheats” by painting typical female patterns on one side of his body, while the other side ? the one facing the female ?  shows off typical male patterns. This gender-bending disguise fools rival males into thinking they’re seeing just a couple of ladies hanging out. That means more of an opportunity for the cheater cuttlefish to mate.

You’re intelligent people, draw your own conclusions.

Lovers and fighters in male competition for sex

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25812074

These extend existing evolutionary mating research by specifying the mechanism of intrasexual or intersexual selection in shaping men’s weapon-like or ornament-like situational response and personality development.

PDF at http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP1302660282.pdf