A horse is a creature much-loved by women because of the feeling they get of having a large, powerful animal between their legs. Manosphere writers, however, have cautioned that a fascination or obsession with horses is often a danger sign of a mentally unbalanced woman.
Switch comments that if a woman says, "You're not the biggest I've ever had" a suitable reply is that "in most cultures it's considered weird to fuck horses".[1]
Consent is willingness to engage in an activity.
Informed consent
Feminists often argue that sex with a woman is rape unless she not only consents but is able to give informed consent. Arguably, "informed consent" means being informed enough to be a responsible member of the pussy cartel – a whore who knows her price and who won't undercut other women.
American women typically have little to recommend them in as companions due to their unattractive appearance—including short hair—and their bizarre, unnatural attitudes.[1][2] They make poor wives due to their tendency to treat their husbands with disrespect, cheat on them, deprive them of sex, accuse them of abuse because of minor transgressions in word or deed, and ultimately leave them. As a result, their only remaining utility is for busting a nut.[3]
Most American women cannot compete with Latinas[4], Ukrainians[5][6], or really anyone else at all[7][8] except perhaps women from New Zealand[9].
Causes of Disfunction
Michael Sebastian identified five environmental factors that have ruined American women: Disney princesses, girl power culture, unrealistic expectations, feminist media, and a lack of parenting—all of which derive from cultural Marxism.[10]
Louis Stuart has also identified white knights as key enablers for delusional and dysfunctional American women.[11]
The socio-sexual hierarchy consists of alphas, betas, gammas, and omegas, among others. According to Jammyjaybird, “Women’s hindbrains are constantly scanning for alpha, tolerating beta, and ignoring omega”.[1]
Classes
Alphas
Alphas are socially dominant men. They are higher in the sexual hierarchy than women.[2]
Women will try to tame an alpha by taking the edge off of some of his Alphaness. This is the plot in pretty much every romance novel ever written, but unlike their fictional counterparts, real life women are rarely successful at pulling it off.[3]
Alpha males don’t usually engage in bullying because their value is high enough that they can afford to be magnanimous to lessers. It’s usually those men just below alpha status — the lesser alphas — who love to bully, because they see it as an opportunity to raise or maintain their “pack” status.[4]
Betas
Betas are providers. They tend to be post-carousel material.
Women need serious levels of social support and self delusion to make a beta palatable. Some women are direct about their lack of love for their man, however that is usually after the valuation period. Facebook, Instagram and other forms of social media seriously aid women as she can publicly claim her beta is different and is a real man because he cuddles with her and confesses his deepest fears to the her. What he doesn’t know is he is setting up a codependent/compensatory narcissist relationship with the woman. As such, the storm clouds gather.
There are greater and lesser betas. A greater beta is nice to women because he genuinely wants to be nice. A lesser beta is nice to women out of insecurity. He thinks that by being nice and supplicating, he can get success. He reeks of “loser”, and women hate him with a passion.
Gammas
Gammas are pussybitches who tolerate mistreatment that even betas wouldn't put up with, such as being openly cucked.[5]
Omegas
Omegas are men who can't get laid. Omegas are repulsive not just sexually but are a reflection of dark days for women. Most modern women has thrown herself at some retreating alpha, offering up her body as a salve to a failing relationship. Deep down, they know they spend way too many resources — emotional, financial and temporal — trying to keep said man around.
This is applicable to omegas because the rank desperation reminds them how unattainable alphas often are for them — omegas sometimes are a reflection of a woman’s position vis-a-vis alphas. Further, they remind women of the lengths they would go for alpha approval by the lengths omegas will go to secure female approval.
Many bloggers have theorized that men and women have different value in the sexual market place relative to age. This concept is commonly referred to as "sexual market value."
Under this theory, a woman's sexual value is highest from age 18 until about 27 years old. As a woman ages into her 30s and 40s, her sexual market begins to rapidly decline as she ages. In contrast, a man's sexual market value is lowest in his teens and twenties, and then gradually increases as he ages. A man's sexual market value does not peak until he hits approximately 36 years old. As men age into their 40s, the decline is much less rapid than women, in contrast to a woman's more rapid decline. The practical affect is that women stand the best chance of mating with a male whose value is high early in life, while men stand the best chance of mating with a woman whose value is high later in life.
Some have suggested that modern society, which pushes women into traditional careers, is not compatible with the reality of the sexual market value.[1]. By the time American women have graduated college and become established in their career, many are too old to bear children absent serious health risks.[2]. Notably, scientific studies have concluded that women are racing against a biological clock, as having children past the age of 35 is a serious risk.[3]. However, men can have children well into their 40s and 50s. [4]. This would seem to suggest that from an evolutionary, cultural, and biological standpoint, women benefit by bearing children earlier in life, while men benefit by bearing children later in life.
Rollo notes:
Now class, please address your attention to the critical 15-16 year span between a woman’s peak SMV and that of men’s. It should come as no surprise that this span is generally the most socially tumultuous between the sexes. The majority of first marriages take place here, single-motherhood takes place here, advanced degrees, career establishments, hitting the Wall, and many other significant life events occur in this life stage. So it is with a profound sense of importance that we understand the SMV context, and the SMP’s influence as prescribed to each sexes experience during this period.
At age 30 men are just beginning to manifest some proto-awareness of their sexual value, while simultaneously women are becoming painfully aware of their marked inability to compete with their sexual competitors indefinitely. This is the point of comparative SMV: when both sexes are situationally at about the same level of valuation (5). The conflict in this is that men are just beginning to realize their potential while women must struggle with the declination of their own.
This is the primary phase during which women must cash in their biological chips in the hope that the best men they can invest their hypergamy with will not be so aware of their innate SMV potential that they would choose a younger woman (22-24) during her peak phase over her. . . .
The confluence between both sexes’ comparative SMV is perhaps the most critical stage of life for feminine hypergamy. She must be able to keep him ignorant of his SMV potential long enough to optimize her hypergamy. In men’s case, his imperative is to awaken to his SMV (or his potential of it) before he has made life-altering decisions based on a lack understanding his potential.
Every man who I’ve ever known to tell me how he wished he’d known of the manosphere or read my writing before getting married or ‘accidentally’ knocking up his BPD girlfriend has his regret rooted in not making this SMV awareness connection. They tended to value women more greatly than their own potential for a later realized SMV peak – or they never realized that peak due to not making this awareness connection.
Christian views on sexual refusal by spouses have been expressed on various blogs as this has become an epidemic. The Forgiven Wife is a blog that says its purpose "is to encourage Christian wives as they break away from sexual withholding and gate-keeping. After 20 years of restricting the sex life in my marriage, I have learned to dance with desire and enjoy the full intimacy that comes with passionate and joyful sex with my husband."[1] Biblical Gender Roles has a multi-part series on "sexual denial in marriage".[2]
The boyfriend objection is when a girl says "I have a boyfriend." The boyfriend may or may not actually exist. According to The Shit Test Encyclopedia, the correct translation of this phrase is, "I have Schrödinger’s boyfriend, demonstrate to me you’re high value and I'll fuck you regardless."[1]
Motives for using this objection
An unemotional "I have a BF" response can also be a way of telling you to fuck off. On the other hand, if the situation has been escalating up till this point, it's probably last minute resistance.
Part of her goal may be to avoid responsibility for what she's about to do, since she can think to herself, "I put up resistance by telling him I had a boyfriend, but he went ahead and seduced me anyway." It can also be a way of telling you that she wants alpha fucks with no strings attached. It can also be a way of telling you that she needs you to be discreet (so that she doesn't get a reputation as a slut).
Possible responses to this objection
• "Good! He'll listen to your emotional problems and take you to romantic dinners, while I'll use you for sex/fun/[whatever you find appropriate that alludes to sex]."
• "Damn, I've only known you x mins/hrs and already you're telling me your problems."
• "Oh, so when's the wedding?" Usually the shock of that question will help loosen the mood and show how serious she is about her SO or if she's just using it as an excuse to get you to fuck off.
• "Where's he at?" "(Not here)" "Aww, how come?"
• "Don't worry, I'm not the jealous type."
• "What's that have to do with me?"
• "I won't tell if you don't."
• "Sorry, he's not invited."[2]
• "I know." (Kisses passionately)
• "Me too"
• "lol"[3]
• "So?"
• (Ignores it altogether and continues escalating)
• HB10: "Oh did I mention I have a boyfriend/husband?" 1026: "Yeah, you did. Like 5 seconds ago" *continues to plough ahead*[4]
Australian girls are becoming American girls alas with a different accent.
Thanks to SJW's and other faggot types who continually push the gender agenda, these Australian Girls believe that they are so fucking special. These women tend to be heavily masculinised and steeped in feminism, especially the ones who live in the country's two biggest cities, Melbourne and Sydney. Due to the country's climate, their skin tends to age earlier than that of other Western women.
However, any discussion of Australian Girls should also mention the fact that whilst we can judge them as a whole, perhaps we also need to identify the significant multicultural element that makes for a significant difference dependent upon which cultural group you may approach.
Whilst the natural citizens and European heritage females may well fit the description discussed on ROK as sluts, lazy and obnoxious little moles, we must also be aware of some of the outlier groups with a far stronger and more appealing value set. Girls from the sub continent, parts of Asia or the eastern bloc may well be considered a diamond in the rough for a lucky man.
Some women of immigrant background can also be assimilated into the Western cultural Borg, therefore ending up like your average Australian or other Western woman, but with an accent from their country of origin.
A shit test is a test by a woman of a man's mettle. To pass a shit test, a man must simply hold his masculine frame,[1] and put her in her place if necessary. Shit tests have been written about since no later than 1910.[2]
SmellyJelly22 notes, "A shit test is basically when a woman challenges a man with a bit of anxiety she has been feeling. If a man reacts with masculinity, he passes. If he reacts with anxiety, he fails. . . . If I can show the insult doesn't faze me I show myself to be a suitable partner because I can destroy weak emotions in a way she can’t."[3]
Rollo notes, "Women will shit test men as autonomously and subconsciously as a men will stare at a woman’s big boobs. They cannot help it, and often enough, just like men staring at a nice rack or a great ass, even when they’re aware of doing it they’ll still do it. Men want to verify sexual availability to the same degree women want to verify a masculine dominance / confidence."[4] According to Powers, everything women say is either a shit test or "Her telling you exactly what she wants or likes about you (e.g. 'you"re an asshole')." Chateau Heartiste advises, "Shit tests are essentially a woman telling you 'Please train me to respect you.' Oblige her."[5]
Women find it sexy when men don't take their shit and call them out on their shit.[6] Charles Sledge notes, "Women want you to put them in their place. They want you to tell them 'no'. To stop them, to put your foot down. They want a man they can submit to but they know that it must be a real man who isn’t going to change for them. So they test you and when you remain your dominant masculine self they love it because they know you are really what they thought you were and wanted."[7] He continues:[1]
Most men fail shit tests as most men have been trained by the media, overbearing mothers, the government, the school systems, and just about everything else that he is supposed to give in to women. Despite that this goes against the natural order of how nature works. The woman gives into the man not vice versa. This false belief that men should give into women has given many men problems with their relations to women. They get stepped on or a woman loses all attraction for them because the man gives in to them. . . . .
When a girl is giving you a shit test, she is challenging you. What she is doing is testing your balls to see if you actually have any or to see if you’re going to be like ninety nine percent of guys and give in to her (in which case she loses all attraction). She is seeing if you are actually a man or if you are a little boy pretending to be a man. She wants to see your masculinity, that is why she is testing you. To see if there is masculinity there.
While a guy can just look at a woman and see if he is attracted to her it doesn’t work that way with women when seeing if a guy is attractive. So a shit test is to see if the guy is actually attractive. Imagine if all women wore burkas a shit test would be the male equivalent of seeing what was under the burka. Is she hot or not. That is what women are trying to see. Is he masculine (and therefore attractive) or is he submissive (and therefore repellent)?
Oneitis as a reason for failing shit tests
The Rational Male notes:[8]
The reason men fail most shit tests is because they subconsciously telegraph too much interest in a single woman. Essentially a shit test is used by women to determine one, or a combination of these factors:
a.) Confidence – first and foremost b.) Options – is this guy really into me because I’m ‘special’ or am I his only option? c.) Security – is this guy capable of providing me with long term security?
Responding to shit tests
Heartiste also advises, "Learn to love the pregnant pause. When a girl shit tests you, don’t respond like a wind-up beta. Give her a blank, serial killer stare and wait— wait——. waiiiiit for it—. ANSWER!"[9]
Agreeing and amplifying
Agreeing and amplifying tends to be an effective response to sarcastic shit tests.[10]
The ages of women and their characteristics and experiences at these ages are as follows.
Age 18
According to Heartiste, "This is the age — from teenager to mid-20s — when a woman is in her nubile prime. Physically and emotionally she is at her horniest, her most feminine, and, not coincidentally, her most discriminating. She’s on the prowl for an alpha male, and specifically for a charming jerkboy whose devil-may-care attitude speaks so forcefully to her deep desire to submit to a top tier man with limitless lover options."
He also notes, "Hard to believe, but it is often easier to bed a very young woman than an older woman, if you are an older man. This is because 20-40% of women are specifically attracted to older men. It is hard-wired in them, and this hard-wiring can be reinforced by poor family upbringing resulting from divorce of parents or absentee fathers. Single moms are the greatest source of future generations of slutty daughters the world has ever known. . . . You can bang an 18-21 year old surprisingly quickly because they have little ASD (anti-slut defense). This is because they do not have the long history of sluttiness common to older women which needs to be rationalized away by posturing as a paragon of chaste virtue. A young woman simply won’t perceive sex with you as an admission of sluttiness. She is innocent to herself as well as to you."[1]
Roosh notes, "She is child-like and mostly intolerable. Her speech sounds like another language. She will only have sex when completely trashed, and has few redeeming qualities beyond her body. Says a lot of things that make you think you’re wasting your time. Best game to use: jealousy."[2]
Age 21
Hank Moody notes that a girl 21-25 "appreciates that I'm not writing her odes about my undying love and affection, and seem to want to keep things casual. They're getting hit up at every angle, and they're confused about whether they want to fuck the bartender or the lawyer. Then they realize they can do both with little ramification. I like being seen around town with them. Horrible conversationalists, and I have to dumb down my text messaging. Most of their texts are 'lol ur funny..' Society has told these girls that they can be total whores with no consequences, and eventually some good looking rich guy will scoop them up."[3]
Age 22
The four-year carnival called college is coming to a close. During this time, she’s enjoyed the absolute ride of her life: non-stop parties (as a true Carousel rider), trips, and gorging herself on the buffet of cock available to an American college girl—without the uncomfortable social stigmas of generations past. At a time where previous generations of women were getting nervous if they hadn’t snared a husband, today’s girl is “just getting started.” At this age, today’s girl is irretrievably drunk on her power. Any cautionary advice will be greeted with hubristic ridicule and disbelief.
Age 23
Roissy notes, "The 23-27 year old feels she is at her attractiveness peak, despite her peak having passed a few years earlier. This is because she is surrounded by many more high status men than she was while in college (or working at the Piggly Wiggly) who are expressing sexual interest in her. This social dynamic will work to inflate her ego beyond the bounds of her actual beauty ranking."[1]
Age 25
The first alerts—which go unheeded—that this ride isn’t forever start to rear their heads. The combination of a few harsh pump-and-dumps, and the knowledge that some of her smarter friends are getting hitched, start to impart a hard edge on her personality. Still, with ample beauty left over, most girls will continue to draw from the bank account with impunity. Heartiste writes, "During this age window — late 20s to late 30s — a woman is powerfully aware of the beginning of decline in her number one asset: her beauty. Physically, she is noticing small changes in herself — the first nascent signs of decay — that, assessed from a distance relative to womanhood as a whole aren’t so horrifying, but compared to what she was herself just a few years earlier will split her id wide open. Urgency compels her (if she’s psychologically healthy) to escape the single lady lookatme scene and start seriously buckling down to achieve the goal of snagging a man who will commit to her and, hopefully, help her become part of a family. Naturally, this pressure to settle limits her options and the longer she waits, the more her “Mr. Right” will deviate from the Mr. Right of her teenage dreams."
According to Roosh, "After you wear the t-shirt a couple of times, the fabric loses elasticity. You no longer get excited when wearing it because people have already seen you in it. Your eye starts to wander on new t-shirts (25-29 years old)." Also, according to Roosh's T-shirt analogy, "When you leave the loaf out, it gets a little hard. You have to heat it up with a toaster first, but it still won’t taste fresh. (25-29 years old)"
Roosh also writes, "single women over 25 are emotionally damaged in some way, are alpha widowed, or are professional daters who are incapable of making the proper relationship sacrifices."[4]
Age 26
Hank Moody notes that a girl 26-30 is "Still hot enough to be seen around town with, but they start throwing serious girlfriend vibes - particularly public displays of affection. Sex is practically thrown at you after a few months of dating. You're that good looking rich guy who is going to scoop them up. They know the biological clock is ticking fast, and their family is pushing them to 'settle down.'"
Age 27
Rollo notes, "By the age of 27 women’s SMV decline has begun in earnest. That isn’t to say that women can’t remain stunningly attractive and vivacious in their post-peak years, but comparative to the next crop of 22-23 year olds, the decline progressively becomes more evident. Competition for hypergamously suitable mates becomes more intense with each passing year. The age’s between 27 and 30 are subliminally the most stressful for women as the realization sinks in that they must trade their ‘party years’ short term mating protocol for a long term provisioning strategy."[5]
Age 28
Roissy notes, "28-30 year olds are a mixed bunch. Some are riding a wave of career and social success that has nowhere to go but down, and their bloated egos reflect that. Others, less conventionally successful, are emotionally frazzled by the disappearing act of their heady youth and by the intractability of their singledom. You will find some of the cuntiest, and sweetest, girls in this age range."[1]
Age 29
After repeated pressings of the snooze button, it starts getting harder to ignore the clangor of the alarm clock. Having gotten her fill on the party lifestyle—and starting to feel, if not fully understand, the diminished effectiveness of her fading looks—she declares herself “ready to settle down.” Regrettably, the combination of having very little beauty-capital remaining and impossibly high standards—the product of years of enjoying the high life at the expense of her future solvency—will conspire to keep her single.
Age 30
According to Roosh, "If you leave the bread out for too long, mold develops. You can cut away the mold, toast the bread, and still be able to eat it, but you won’t enjoy it. You’d have to be starving. (30-34 years old)"
Hank Moody notes that a girl 30-36 "Is either divorced or has never been married for a reason. Anthropomorphizes their dog or cat. Struggles with depression issues. Sex is thrown at you. They know that the good looking rich guy is never going to come, and you're simply here for sex and conversation. At this point they would settle for almost any beta willing to commit and risk a geriatric pregnancy."
Heartiste notes that "a man marrying an over-30 woman is investing everything he has in a rapidly depreciating pleasure provider that has already lost a lot of its aesthetic value."[6]
The over-30 woman has likely amassed an impressive knob count. When you marry a 30+ woman, you’re marrying her 30+ cockas. Hope you like getting phantom cucked! As magically prehensile as your penis may be, she’ll never look up to it in cross-eyed awe like she did with her first cock when she was younger, hotter, tighter, and inexperienced.
The over-30 woman is bitter from a wasted prime spent on failed relationships she hoped would lead to marriage. Now that you’re marrying her, she should be grateful, but she's not. . . . .
There’s another, subtle, reason to refuse the wedded diss of marrying the over-30 woman. Now, naturally, if you marry an under-30 woman, the day will come, ostensibly, that she’ll be your over-30 wife. But you’ll have something that chagrined men who married women on the cusp of sagging cups don’t have: Years of very fond, very monopolized, very supple memories. If you maritally snag a 21-year-old minx and occupy her sugar walls for the next ten years, the spermatomically bonded cervix-splattered glue of all those splendid tumbles of passion accrue into something larger than the sum of your individuated speckles. All that young woman heat, heat which will never be replicated with the older version of your wife, captures into limbic amber a network of interlocked, superconductive emotions with the power to sustain lovingrapture a good ways past the poignantly brief era of peak wife ripeness, onward into the elevator muzak era of bland marital inertia (50 years, plus or minus).
You marry an over-30 woman and you’re left grasping at a grease truck menu of curdled, pear-shaped memories and wrinkled recollections for sustenance.
According to trav777, "a woman at 31 is looking for a marriage and kid as a BUCKET LIST ITEM. She is not looking for a husband or a partner or obligations. If she were into that more than herself, she’d have landed a decent man 10 years prior."
Relampago Furioso notes that at 30, the thousand cock stare often develops.[7]
Age 31
Roissy notes:[1]
In some ways, women in the 31-34 age range are the toughest broads to game. (By “toughest”, it is meant “most time consuming”.) It’s counterintuitive, yes, but there are factors at work besides her declining beauty which mitigate against the easy, quick lay. For one, it is obviously harder to meet single 31-34 year old women than it is to meet single younger women. Marriage is still a pussy-limiting force to contend with for the inveterate womanizer, but Chateau apprentices are hard at work battling the scourge of mating market disturbances caused by the grinding and churning of the marriage machine.
But the bigger reason 31-34 year olds are harder to game than any other age group of women has to do with the wicked nexus of entitlement and self-preservation that occurs at this age in women. When you combine a disproportionate sense of entitlement fueled by years of feminism, steady paychecks and promotions, and cheerleading gay boyfriends with suspicions of every man’s motives and a terrible anxiety of being used for a sexual fling sans marriage proposal, you get a venom-spitting malevolent demoness on guard against anything she might perceive as less than total subjugation to her craving for incessant flattery and princess pedestaling.
Age 32
The magical years are officially gone, and the long descent to complete invisibility to the opposite sex is well underway. Thanks to social programming (e.g., Sex in the City and the myth that “a woman’s sexual prime is in her 30s”), she can rationalize that her “Mr. Right” will arrive any minute. However, she’s likely to become little more than a second- or third-stringer in a player’s long roster of options. A few of these women will get bailed out by blue-pill betas, who still buy into the marriage trap, and don’t realize (or care) they’re buying a used car with the odometer rolled back. But this marriage is almost certainly doomed to divorce-failure, since nothing can ever compete with her 15-year prime-time binge. She will be nagged by dissatisfaction the moment her last party–her wedding–ends.
She enjoyed the Sweet 15, but she’ll enjoy little more.
GBFM writes that with 32-year-olds, it's necessary to get a "leaf-blower to get all the dust off".
Age 35
According to Roosh's T-shirt analogy, "Eventually, holes develop in the fabric. It has been used too many times. Now it is only good to clean the toilet bowl before finally being placed in the trash. (35 and up)." Also, according to his bread analogy, "If you leave it for even longer, mold takes over and completely destroys the bread. There is no way to excise the toxic portions. You must throw it away before the mold makes you sick. (35 and up)" Relampago writes:[8]
Women “expire” at age 35 for numerous reasons. Their fertility declines sharply at this age. Their beauty declines, no matter how much makeup they cake on. If not already married to her, from this moment forward she offers nothing to a partner but a well-used piece of anatomy and a manipulative, even predatory disposition towards men and their finances.
The expiration date may fluctuate around age 35 for a couple of reasons, i.e. good genetics or a sweet personality (usually being faked) but this age is a good baseline for the “expiration date” for females.
Age 40
Heartiste writes, "The final romantic life cycle for women (ages 40-death), this stage is the longest and, sadly from the perspective of one who adores women when they are at their most womanish, the dreariest, though it does offer as consolation a tranquilizing serenity that can safely usher a woman through her middle years without resort to painkillers. In this cycle, a woman still harbors those tingles for the alpha jerk, but they are sufficiently suppressed by biomechanic winding-down and stone cold circumstance — her wilted bloom — to allow the flourishing of her other female needs. Those other needs center around her desire to a) not be abandoned to a cold cruel sexual market and b) enjoy at least facsimiles of reciprocal love so that she does not feel abandoned within her relationship."
Harem management, also known as plate-spinning, MLTR, OLTR, or multiple women, is an advanced aspect of game. André du Pôle notes, "Can a man who is busy banging several women ask at least some of them to accept the other girls? If the answer is yes, be the man a pornstar, a musician, a community leader or someone able to wife several women at once, then he has reached the highest levels of game. Such a man’s competition ranges from rare to nonexistent. Only a woman who worships a man can tolerate him to bang other girls and even be glad that he deigns to bang her too."[1]
The two kinds of harems are the soft harem and royal harem. In a rotating soft harem, a man dates multiple women, with no expectation of commitment from anyone. He bangs other girls, and assumes his girls bang other men. In a royal harem, the women in a man's harem know he dates and fucks other women. But they still remain loyal – monogamous to him. Women in a royal harem tend to be more stable, since they’re fucking only the man of the harem. They’re more bonded, physically and emotionally. Younger women are more tolerant, more likely to agree to be part of a harem.[2]
Heartiste notes, "Women have a natural instinct to sort into concubinage under a sole alpha male. Now, this does not mean women favor such an arrangement to the exclusion of all others; ideally, women would like an alpha male all to their own. But given a world full of competing choices, a woman’s evolutionarily guided hindbrain impulse pushes her, continually like the slow but forceful eddies in a tidal pool, into an arrangement where she feels more sexually fulfilled, as a woman, being the second or third or even thirtieth concurrent lover of a powerful man instead of the first and sole lover of a weak man."[3]
Love is an emotion of fondness and admiration.
Definitions
Roosh writes, "Philosophers and poets have given many wonderful definitions of love, but to keep it simple, there are only two main components: 1. Mutual attraction 2. Lack of other options".[1] According to Cato's Letter No. 112, fondness for posterity is nothing more than self-love.[2]
Illimitable Men writes, "Women’s love is admiration built upon respect. Women are drawn to men of experience and power. Man’s love is respect built upon desire. Men are drawn to women of innocence and vulnerability. When a woman no longer admires, and a man no longer sacrifices, love is lost. It is a delicate balance, for respect is lost when either fails in their capacity. Man sacrifices, woman admires, that is love."[3] He continues:[4]
The epitome of a woman’s love is infatuation. To define it, this is a lust for your power and an obsession with how your character makes her feel, secondary to your power. It is put crudely: opportunism and emotional self-appeasement alchemised with lust.
Man oft forgets that love does not flow upward in the sacrificial sense. He makes the mistake of thinking that because he can love a woman without lusting for her, that a woman can do the same. She cannot, because her love is not based on sacrifice, it is based on the appreciation of man’s sacrifice met with lust. The more man sacrifices for a woman, the more likely he is to fall in love with his investment. The more a woman sacrifices for man absent of animal lust, the more repulsion she feels for him, interpreting her need for investment as a shortcoming on his part. And so there it is, unspoken in word but detected in sentiment; woman expects man to love her more than she loves him, reinforcing the hierarchy of love. Female sacrifice is predicated on lust and mental entrapment. Male sacrifice is expected, and freely given.
Pragmatic approach
André du Pôle writes:[5]
In a relationship, whoever loves the other most is dominated whereas who loves less has more room to take action. If a man falls in love, he falls in the sense that he gets dumbed down, pedestalizes the girl, who in turn will get bored and look for a more challenging partner. Thus, seduction must be used to stir love in women: they must love us as well as their children. Both as a mistress and a mother, both as sexual and nurturing, a woman exerts love.
In men, love must be exerted in a more distilled and thoughtful form: when we protect our dear ones, toil for them, care about their interests, these efforts are an expression of love as well—although this form of love must be more distant as to allow ampler room for action. In any case, the feminine element must love the most and more directly.
Female love is an emotion that is very temporary and situational. According to kaotic, "Love dies out in an LTR and all you're left with is if they complement your life or not. In the majority of times, a woman is 'annoyed' or 'isn't haaaaapy' or 'it just isn't there anymore'. Men gradually erode their own foundation of game and frame and lose everything."[1]
Netanderthal Man writes:[2]
The reason people accept the existence of unconditional love script is childhood. Your parents loved you with all their hearts and the template for what love is supposed to be was set during those early years. You loved them back in the same unconditional manner. And it was great. But your woman is not your mom. She is a fickle-minded person who’s most likely looking out for a prettier branch to grab right now.
Make no mistake, even when a woman is deeply “in love” with you, her love is not unconditional.Most likely she’s madly in love with you because you are the man who rocks her world.
Keep being that man if she makes your life better, or discard her if she doesn’t. So, she loves you because you’re the best high-quality man she can get, but this sooner or later be subject to change. If at some point she feels she can get a man perceived as higher quality than you, her love for you will decrease exponentially. This is what we call conditional love—a woman’s love.
Smartphones are reducing women's ability to love even further.[3]
The Red pill refers to the acceptance and embrace of truth, even when it is painful. In the manosphere, red pill thinkers reject comforting blue pill maxims such as NAWALT and that being a nice guy will get a man sex or secure a LTR.
The red pill viewpoint includes the villainy of women, the degeneracy of Hollywood and mainstream culture, hypergamy, the need for game, and the destructive nature of feminism—especially White knights.[1][2]
While the red pill is considered a more accurate view of reality, taking it is said to have a price, including possible isolation, loss of enjoyment of popular media, and the pain of self-aware self-censorship.[3]
The 1-to-10 scale is used to rate women's physical attractiveness. Tuthmosis states, "I use halves (.5s) to achieve a little more precision. The idea is that a girl who’s almost at that next level—but doesn’t quite have it takes to get the rating outright—will get a .5. I’ll also occasionally grant (or deduct) halves for “intangibles”—things like extraordinary sweetness (or bitchiness), a sexy vibe (or awkwardness), or a personal preference (though I’m quick to disclose the latter)."[1]
Tuthmosis has argued that the scale is pointless because "It seems we have to account for taste after all. . . . Guys rate their own catches high and others' low. Big-ballerism is rampant. . . . Most guys can't extrapolate. . . . Conversely, guys are easily fooled by camera tricks. . . . It's mental masturbation that breeds pointless arguments."[2] General Stalin notes, "Unfortunately, and I hate to say it, the 1-10 scale is difficult in practice. Generally men can agree whether or not a girl is attractive or not, but to get specifics on how attractive, as Tuth said, calls upon a lot of discretion. Using objective and universal characteristics like symmetry, physical fitness, hip-to-waist ratio, hygiene, etc. are decent points to go on, but everyone has a particular level of preference and ego that makes true objectivity impossible. Men have been referencing the 1-10 scale for an awful long time so I don't see it going anywhere and everyone has a general understanding of it. Dispute over specifics is where men just get into a pissing contest."[3]
MrXY writes, "A 7 is a girl I would describe as being 'pretty'. A 6 to me is 'cute' and an 8 is 'beautiful'".[4]
General Stalin writes:[5]
6/10 is average OK looks. Bangable and respectable but nothing to write home to mom about (not that you should be writing letters to your mom about your conquests)
7/10 is sort of perfect "girlfriend" territory. Where the girl is good looking enough to keep you interested in the long term, but not too good looking where she has a crazy ego or you get anxious about having to mate guard when you go out.
8/10 is where a girl is good looking enough to be able to start making money on her looks. Could be a stripper, bartender, IG hoe, fitness chick, etc. These girls are often crazy, especially where they live a fine line between normal and glamorous life style.
9/10 is a stunner. Model good looks. Gets tons of attention everywhere she goes because of her beauty. Can make a good living off of her looks alone. Most women at this level of physical beauty tend to shack up with wealthy/famous men because they can.
10/10 doesn't exists. No one is perfect. The idea of a "10" would be a girl that has something that a 9 has that makes her specifically more attractive per your personal tastes. Maybe you really fucking love gingers and this girl is a 9 who happens to have long red hair and freckles. There is your 10.
Hume's cheat sheet
L D. Hume notes that the appropriate level of investment in a girl?? depends on her rating:[6]
<table>
| Rating | Long term relationship | Short term relationship | Fuck buddy | Booty call | One night stand |
| 1-4 | No | No | No | No | Rarely |
| 5 | No | No | No | No | Sometimes |
| 6 | No | No | Sure I guess | Yes | Yes |
| 7 | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 8-10 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Scale
0
Tuthmosis states, "No Such Thing. Has a dick."
1
Tuthmosis states, "Hideously Unattractive. A monster. Disfigured or irretrievably mutilated. Has two heads, is missing an eye, etc."
2
Tuthmosis states, "Very Unattractive. Disproportionate, morbidly obese."
3
Tuthmosis states, "Unattractive. Ugly, fat, and/or old."
4
Tuthmosis states, "Almost Bangable. But definitely doesn't pass the boner test. Still not good-looking." According to L.D. Hume, girls 4 and lower on the scale are suitable only for one night stands, and even then only when blackout drunk or when one has had sex with fewer than five girls in one's life and is trying to gain experience.
5
Tuthmosis states, "Merely Bangable. Barely passes the boner test. You’d be pretty embarrassed to be seen with her." Hume notes that having sex with such girls is "Almost always a result of excessive, yet not blackout amounts of alcohol. The 'last call at the club' slut coupled with a dry streak."
6
Tuthmosis states, "Almost Cute. She might be cute if one or two things were different, but they’re not. You may not be super-embarrassed to be seen with her, but you certainly wouldn't be proud, and you definitely wouldn't willingly bring her around to anything." Hume describes this as "actually the most dangerous category. The 6s are the most likely to finagle you into a relationship. The sheer number of 6s means you are bound to run into some that have a decent personality, or amazing blowjob skills. Your male hamster will start spinning, thinking about how her tight body overlooks the weird haircut and acne she has. Or how her cute face overrides her baby fat."
7
Tuthmosis states, "Solidly Cute. Zero embarrassment, even some nascent pride in being seen with her. You could bring her to things without looking bad, or losing any of the luster on your game." Hume notes that they are suited for short-term but not long-term relationships:
As to why they are not suited for a long term relationship, the reason is simple—there is just better out there in the world. There are 8s and above. So why, even though she is a cute girl and may have the personality traits to go along with it, settle for a 7? It’s a very very tough thing to advise against and even harder to put in practice. I’ve fallen into the trap myself several times.
The answer of course lies in something that most men have yet to experience. The feeling of dating an 8, which is exponentially better (though admittedly harder to pull off) than a 7. I’ve dabbled in this before and it does make a difference. Try to keep the 7s at bay for the short term relationships and everything below. Instead, use the time you would put LTR’ing a 7 into bettering yourself for the 8.
8
Tuthmosis states, "Hot-Cute. Would be straight-up proud to be seen with her or bring her to things. This is often the sweet spot for long-term relationship material."
9
Tuthmosis states, "Smoking Hot. This is a girl who can easily monetize her beauty. You’re going out of your way to be seen with her."
10
Tuthmosis states, "Perfection. A theoretical abstraction that only exists in the laboratory." Athlone McGinnis agrees.[7] According to Donovan Sharpe, tens don’t get hit on as often, are much more pleasant than you think, are extremely insecure, are so-so in bed, and are people too.[8]
Alternative Scales
philosophical_recovery notes, "The 1-10 as a rating scale will be debated until people stop using it. It's been pointed out before that a much better scale is something more like WNB->WB->WHR->WI, or, Would Not Bang -> Would Bang -> Would Hit Raw -> Would Impregnate".[9]
The late comedian Patrice O'Neal devised a thirty-point scale, with 0-10 being degrees of "ugly looking women", 11-20 being degrees of "alright looking women", and 21-30 being degrees of "beautiful women."[10]
Roosh mentioned both the 1-10 scale and the "binary scale" (with 0 being WNB and 1 being WB) in an early article.[11]
Male desire to own women
The male desire to own women is part of masculine psychology. Ownership of women can include the right to sex on demand and to the woman's faithfulness. Women have a complementary desire to be owned by men.
The Red Introvert argues, "She is not yours. It’s just your turn. It will always be 'just your turn'. It may last decades, but it won’t ever be a ‘sure thing’. This is one of the fundamental lessons betas don’t understand that ends up with them asking the questions such as ‘why did she leave? We were perfect together'".[1]
Henry Makow writes, "My wife recently asked me why I loved her. Instead of enumerating her good qualities, I simply answered honestly: 'Because you belong to me.'"[2]
Brigadon notes:[3]
EVERY man wants a slave for a wife, because a slave is property, something you own, possess, and care for. How can you love something that is not yours? How can you love someone if you do not maintain your own will? How can you love if you cannot be a true man, and prove that you are not just independent, but independent enough to support one or more others as your belongings?
Marriage is NOT about interdependence, It is about sharing your independence with someone else to ensure, what little you can have, of your immortality... It is the ultimate demonstration of your manliness to have, not only what you need, but surplus enough yo care for others.
Only a fool falls in love with what he cannot have... and if you cannot own your wife, you will never, ever have her. It is not beautiful, it is not honorable, it is not noble, it is simply showing that you are an idiot... sorta like 'making love' to a sheep with Gonorrhea.
Dark triad
The dark triad is a combination of three personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Put another way, the "Dirty Dozen" dark triad traits include a desire for attention, admiration, favors, and prestige; the manipulation, exploitation, deceit and flattery of others; a lack of remorse, morality concerns and sensitivity, and cynicism. The Dirty Dozen is a condensed version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Mach-IV, and Psychopathy Scale-III.
In practice these traits essentially allude to the following principles which make an alpha male stand out from his beta brethren:
Narcissism - Respecting oneself and putting one's own needs before others' wants. Many beta males do not respect their own needs and go out of their way to try to please others or "be liked".
Machiavellianism - Having street wisdom or good social intuition and being able to make good judgment calls; many betas are naive and take what people say at face value; such as betas who don't read between the lines when girls say they want a "nice guy".
Psychopathy - Not caring about what "society" thinks of you but what you think of yourself, similar to the above, many betas let society or parents decide their own values out of fear of disapproval.
Several mainstream academic, peer-reviewed studies have confirmed that women are sexually attracted to men who exhibit dark triad traits, likely because of women's hypergamous nature.[Sources]
Vinita Mehta notes:[Source]
What might explain this result? Carter and his colleagues offer two possible explanations. First, sexual selection might be at work. This would mean that women are responding to signals of “male quality” when it comes to reproduction. And with respect to short-term mating, women may be drawn to ‘bad boys’, who demonstrate confidence, stubbornness, and risk-taking tendencies. Second, sexual conflict may be at play. The investigators state that “Women may be responding to DT men’s ability to ‘sell themselves’; a useful tactic in a co-evolutionary ‘arms race’ in which men convince women to pursue the former’s preferred sexual strategy.” They note that like a “used-car dealer,” Dark Triad men may be effective charmers and manipulators, furthering their success at short-term mating. The authors are also careful to note that though women rated the DT character as comparatively more attractive, it does not necessarily mean that they would have sex with them.
Domestic violence is violence that occurs among family members. When directed by a man toward his wife, domestic violence has been correlated with the couple's having more sex. Possible reasons that have been cited for the positive relationship between violence and marital sexual activity are that some couples are more likely to express themselves physically, whether they are expressing love or anger; or because of the honeymoon stage of the cycle of violence; or because physical violence is being used to induce the weaker partner to have sex.[1] A study by Carol Apt and David Farley Hurlbert confirmed, "the abused women reported a significantly greater frequency of sexual intercourse in their marriages than did the nonabused women."[2] A study by Alred DeMaris found that only a husband's violence, but not a wife's, is associated with greater sexual activity in marriage.[3]
Donovan Sharpe notes:[4]
Women are aroused by violent men whether they admit it or not. It doesn’t matter if that violence is legal (boxing, MMA, etc) or if it’s turned onto them, men who trade in violence, domestic, professionally, or otherwise, moisten the panties of females.
Of course females would never say this out loud. A girl would never tell her friends “My physically abusive boyfriend scares the shit out of me but it turns me on” lest she make herself look bad and be subjected to a battery of questions and furtive glances.
But we here in the ‘sphere know the truth. Anyone who doubts this needn’t look any further than the case of Chris Brown. He’s the butt of plenty of jokes but his career hasn’t suffered. In fact, since he beat the shit out of Rihanna, his celebrity has increased exponentially as most of his fans are females.
Buzzfeed and Huffington Post both posted articles in the wake of what they described as “disturbing reactions” to Brown’s domestic abuse charges. They were just beside themselves with befuddlement as to why women would openly admit to being aroused by Brown’s violence toward women.
It should come as no surprise to anyone here the two reconciled at one point when Rihanna decided to “put the incident behind her.” But their torrid love affair is hardly the tip of the iceberg. Women have always been drawn to violent men. From women who fall for serial killers, to females who date, and even marry men behind bars this phenomenon is nothing new.
Girls can say whatever they want but their biology will always win out in the end.´
According to Bonecrker, "violence against women is the normal, instinctual defence mechanism to prevent insane behavior on the part of women, from threatening survival."[5]
Emmanuel Goldstein advises that a juror in a domestic violence case should vote "not guilty" if a man is facing jail time for slapping his wife after she was caught cheating on him.[6]
Selfishness is an alpha trait. Victor Pride writes:[1]
It takes a selfish man to have a woman or women completely devoted to his happiness.
Alpha simply means ‘to be selfish’. And women love selfish men.
An Alpha is completely unafraid of being selfish.
Alpha literally means ‘first’. It’s a selfish ‘me-first’ attitude.
What does an alpha Lion do? He sits around while the women go out and hunt for him. When they bring the food back what does the alpha Lion do? He eats first. Pretty selfish, huh?
The Lion doesn’t tolerate others eating before him. The best food is his. The alpha Lion doesn’t let other, lesser males mate with his pride. The Lion doesn’t act in a fair and noble manner. The Alpha Lion doesn’t raise other Lion’s children. He’s selfish. And because he is selfish, the Lionesses do everything to make him happy.
Now, I know a lot of guys will say “man, that’s a real douchebag thing to say!” to which I only have one reply: I hope you enjoy jacking off.
Political incorrectness does not make something false.
Women line up for the selfish men. Women run as fast as they can from the guys who aren’t selfish.
Charles Sledge writes, "To be the alpha essentially means to be a man fully and completely. To be dominant, unapologetic, and strong. To never apologize for your masculinity and to always put yourself first. . . . . Put yourself first and the women will come."[2]
Oneitis is a situation where a man will become obsessed with one woman. Often the man is delusional and believes that a certain women is his "soulmate", and that he can't live without her. The man's obsession with this one woman virtually ensures that the relationship is doomed. Symptoms can include feelings of hopelessness, heart palpitations, dry mouth, depression, anxiety and an inability to seek out other romantic or sexual relationships. Oneitis is the opposite of spinning plates.
Troy Davis says that oneitis is "the high watermark of ‘blue pill’ thinking".[1]
The Great Gatsby contains one of the most famous instances of oneitis in fiction.
A partner or ex-partner of a woman with borderline personality disorder probably experiences the most severe kind of oneitis.[2] An alpha widow can also experience something like oneitis.
Heartiste describes the difference between acute and malignant oneitis as follows:[3]
Beauty + proximity = acute oneitis
Beauty + former proximity + memories = malignant oneitis
Rollo notes, "One of two things generally happen for the Blue Pill guy who gets his wish and achieves intimacy with his ONEitis girl. He either defaults to supplication with her, or his ONEitis idealization of her is dispelled, and she and womankind are brought back down to earth to mingle with the mere mortals. It’s important to really understand what ONEitis really is; an unhealthy attachment to an idealization."
He also notes that "part of Blue Pill conditioning is promoting the idea that the women men ought to pedestalize should base that idealization on intrinsic rather than extrinsic factors. You will find that some of the most pathetic guys with ONEitis will often pine over some of the least physically attractive women. I’ve stood in wonderment over the weeping and gnashing of teeth Blue Pill guys will display over women whom they exceed in SMV by as much as 2 points. That’s the ‘real’ ONEitis; when a guy who you know could easily do leagues better than his ONEitis girlfriend in the SMP is bawling over her, head in hands, because she’s his ‘One’. Looking at this from the outside we think ‘what the fuck man?’ and try to deductively reason with him about how much better he can do, but what we don’t wrap our heads around is that this guy was conditioned since his earliest years to believe that his ‘snowflake’ is unique in her intrinsic qualities."[4]
Illimitable Men writes:[5]
Oneitis is this dreaded genetic curse men get where they think they'll never get to pass their genes to such a high quality woman ever again, its like trauma of failing to secure/maintain a high quality woman causes a man to lose his collective shit/sense of reasoning and starts pedestalising the bitch. When you fuck other women, even if they are inferior to the woman you lost, your body is like "eh, genes getting passed on, fuck it." And that is thus how the oneitis is quelled. If you get it really bad you'll need more than one woman to move on, we're talking dozens. Voice of experience here. Fucking oneitis, the bane of mankind.
A pump-and-dump is the term for a "one night stand" from a masculine perspective; that is, quickly meeting then having sex with a girl followed by breaking contact with her without remorse. Slutty women are sometimes referred to as "pump-and-dump material". In the manosphere, the pump-and-dump is controversial because men naturally want woman to have sex with them easily but at the same time cannot respect a woman who gives up sex with next to no commitment.
It is advisable to take precautions when planning for sex with pump and dumps, including but not limited to, ensuring contact information is not exchanged and/or she does not know your last name since the risk of a false rape accusatibon is increased.
Woman who have been pumped and dumped on multiple occasions begin to take on characteristics of Thousand cock stare. More pump and dumps tend to wear heavily on the female psyche and instances of it are generally kept secret from her friends.
A pump-and-dump is nothing more than a one-time answer to a physical necessity, requiring no maintenance and a very low investment of time. It is the lowest rank of "relationship", lower even than fuck buddy.[1]
Variants
Smash-and-dash
Hit it-and-quit it
Fuck-and-chuck
Nail-and-bail
Bash-and-dash
Leeching is when someone tries to piggyback on a man's game. For example, they stand near, hoping he'll bring them into his set. A countermeasure is to ridicule the leecher without mercy for your benefit (in an ostensibly kind way that doesn't discredit him with the babes, but lowers the leecher's value). One can use them as props for the conversation, pivots to lower the girl's value, or decoys for the fat friend.
Another example of leeching is when, after a man isolates a girl and starts talking to her, within a few minutes some dude will come up and awkwardly stand there without saying anything. A countermeasure is to engage in conversation in both instances for a minute, and then say "excuse us for a second" and grab her hand and isolate.
Trading up for a younger wife is a practice that men are sometimes accused of using divorce to accomplish. In reality, it more often happens when divorce is forced upon a man by a wife who imagines she is getting her ultimate revenge by dumping him (as well as perhaps "trading up" to a better husband by branch swinging). In many instances, his sexual market value will have increased since his first marriage, and he may also have learned from the mistakes he made in choosing the woman who divorced him. Therefore, he may be in a position to "trade up" to a significantly better new wife, even though he would have preferred to keep the original family together.
Divorced men in their 40s, 50s, or 60s will often resort to a foreign woman as their most feasible opportunity to marrying a girl in her early 20s, and find that she also has a much better personality than a typical American woman.
Heartiste notes one reason why men who married a woman in her 20s rarely feel the need to trade up for a younger wife:[1]
Now, naturally, if you marry an under-30 woman, the day will come, ostensibly, that she’ll be your over-30 wife. But you’ll have something that chagrined men who married women on the cusp of sagging cups don’t have: Years of very fond, very monopolized, very supple memories. If you maritally snag a 21-year-old minx and occupy her sugar walls for the next ten years, the spermatomically bonded cervix-splattered glue of all those splendid tumbles of passion accrue into something larger than the sum of your individuated speckles. All that young woman heat, heat which will never be replicated with the older version of your wife, captures into limbic amber a network of interlocked, superconductive emotions with the power to sustain lovingrapture a good ways past the poignantly brief era of peak wife ripeness, onward into the elevator muzak era of bland marital inertia (50 years, plus or minus).
I think sociopaths will always exist, and may even increase in number, and in ability what they want, because of the feminist/manginist revolution. Situations are gonna arise where wives refuse to submit to their husbands, and at that point it's up to the husband to decide whether he's going to hold frame and keep trying to get her to submit, or give up and retreat from the battlefield, and surrender the fight for dominance. (Note that I don't say, surrender HIS fight, but rather, surrender THE fight. Because the outcome of surrendering isn't that he's going to be an equal partner. When there's war, one party to the conflict or another is going to be the occupying power. Enemy troops are going to be marching into someone's capital, and it's only a question of whose capital.)
The husband is not like a boyfriend, who can just walk out and find another woman. His own conscience won't let him do that, if he has a conscience. But the sociopath doesn't care about rules or anything else but his own desires. He will put himself first.
When the husband looks around and sees that he has no moral support in his struggle, but rather than people blame him for the conflict and advise him to submit to her wishes, he will tend to capitulate, just because it's the easiest path. But the narcissist will put himself first because he believes he's entitled to it. Meanwhile, the Machiavellian will realize that putting himself first is the way to win the fight, because he knows how her mind works.
The beta, even though he may have some Red Pill awareness, is just gonna have trouble keeping frame when the world is against him. He will succumb to the temptation to hand in his balls when she tries to break his spirit. Maybe it was a shit test, but there will come a point where he gets weary and doesn't care whether he fails it or not. He'll just want rest.
There won't be anyone to tell his wife, "Maybe you're carrying these shit tests a little TOO far" or to tell the husband, "Stand firm and win." And to the extent there is someone telling him to stand firm, it's probably going to be someone who doesn't matter, like some misogynist on the Internet (as opposed to, say, a member of the family whom the wife complains to about her husband's dominating ways).
After the husband surrenders, his time is limited, but he doesn't care. When she starts banging another dude, that will be his call to rest and relaxation. He can receive the restraining order and divorce papers, which tell him that his duties toward her are over, except for the financial duties of course, but that's just a matter of writing a check rather than listening to her blaming him for everything. Society will continue to blame him, but he can simply refuse to fight their blaming. He can passively allow his spirit to be crushed rather than insisting he's right.
The dude she'll be banging will be a dark triad guy who won't stand for her shit. He'll slap her around and insist on his way, or else he's walking. His dread game will be effective, and they will live happily ever after. The beta schlub, on the other hand, will just put in his time until he dies, and then perhaps be pleased when he's on his deathbed that it's finally over.
The handing over of the balls is a momentous event, like the cop's handing over his gun to the criminals who have him cornered, or the general's handing over his sword to the victorious conqueror, or the speaker of the house handing over his gavel to the other party's leader. The surrendering husband will always remember it, even though it happens with little fanfare, taking place solely in his mind. He will always recall what finally prompted it, after many battles in the struggle for dominance. He'll remember that last fight when he finally said to himself, "I can't do this anymore."
And yet, paradoxically enough, when you can ask your wife and her new guy, "Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?" from the drive-thru window, and tell the Colonel down the street "you know what? I don't care", it's actually when you regain your balls
Objectification is when someone treats another person like an object. Drexel Scott notes, "Generally, we love and appreciate our tools for helping us to build better things in our grand designs in life. A woman’s role in a man’s life is to provide her sexuality, femininity and childcare duties so that the man’s work in the external world will be supplemented and it brings them both to new heights of happiness and satisfaction."[1] CamelJockey notes, "The only women that against the objectification of women are unattractive women that no one wants to objectify to begin with. Pretty girls love being objectified. The ugly ones are mad they never get any attention. It's not that they're against the objectification, they are jealous of the objectification they're not getting." TrulySovereign notes, "Or has been stated here many times before, they do not like being objectified by men that are below the SMV male they are trying to attract."
NAJALT is an acronym for Not All Jews Are Like That. It is usually an argument used in defense of a Jew considered to have interests or viewpoints friendly toward non-Jews or contrary to their own collective interests.
Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) is a subset of rhetorical communication specifically designed to target the subconscious. Properly employed, NLP allows you to bypass critical thought to implant ideas, emotions, or lines of thought into the subject.
Theory
Common NLP Phrases and Patterns
Some common phrases and patterns of communication associated with NLP follow:
"_______, because ______".
This exploits the subconscious tendency to trust anything which has a reason to be true. The statement following "because" can be directly related to the first statement, or it can not - it makes surprisingly little difference.
"_______, which means ______".
This is basically "because" in reverse.
"______, and _______, and _____".
The human brain can only store between 5 and 9 unique thoughts at a time. Connecting thoughts together bombards the critical factor of the mind and allows some of those thoughts to enter the subconscious without criticism.
"You don't have to _______ right now".
This phrasing turns a command into a suggestion, which is less heavily scrutinized. The phrase "right now" directs the subconscious to consider doing that action immediately, but also grants permission to wait for a time. It's a common sales tactic - "You don't have to decide to buy this car right now."
"Now, you can choose whether or not to _______."
This is a sort of false choice - you are implanting the command without providing a real alternative. The mind is bombarded with the course of action, and the fact that it is not a direct command allows the subject to internalize it without heavy scrutiny.
"Many experts agree that ______."
This is an appeal to unspecified authority that causes the subject to weight the statement more heavily than they naturally would. We see it all the time in media.
"Albert Einstein/A friend of mine/My father once said something like ______".
This shifts the communication from the actual communicator (you) to a non-present entity (Albert Einstein). While you can be questioned and grilled, the non-present entity cannot, so the statement is often received more readily.
"I can see you doing ____."
This prompts the subject to do some imagining, whether or not they realize it. Because an imagined scenario is somewhat real to the imaginer, this influences them toward that action in the near future (until the image is forgotten).
"I cannot imagine that you would ______."
The negatives are often ignored in rhetorical communication. While you say you cannot, they are prompted to imagine that they can.
"[bad option], or [good option]"
We tend to heavily weight the last option presented in a list. By placing the good option last and playing up the badness of the bad option(s), you increase the odds that the subject will pick the option you want.
Baking soda, or Sodium bicarbonate, is a substance which finds multiple applications among Manosphere readers. Roosh V even claims that it changed his life[1]. RVF member Moma "feels like MacGyver"[2] using it because of the many possible applications.
Applications
While baking soda is capable of much more, these are the most popular usages.
Deodorant
Applying a tiny amount of it into the wet armpits after showering will prevent them from smelling for up to 24 hours.[3]
Shampoo
Instead of using traditional shampoo it is recommended to apply baking soda on the scalp once a week to help clean out any major impurities and grease chunks.[4] The other six days one should only use water.
Toothpaste
Baking soda can be used as a simple toothpaste, but can also (according to the major toothpaste companies, which have a financial vested in interest in the matter) can supposedly break down the enamel.[5] Baking soda can also be messy and gritty compared to packaged toothpaste.[6]
image
A black knight is one who wears an armor of confidence, charisma, charm; whose weapons are lifting, Machiavellianism, narcissism, powertalk, social proof; and who is trained in the art of social and sexual warfare, not because he wants to but because he must.
Opening doors for women is a chivalrous activity that gives men an opportunity to check out and/or smack women's asses.
Abu al-Qasim Muhammad ibn Abd Allah ibn Abd al-Muttalib ibn Hashim (570 - 8 June 632) was a prophet of Islam. He recited the Qu'ran.
Married game is controversial in the manosphere, since one is supposed to be able to depend on one's wife to refrain from cheating and frigidity without the need to use game. At the same time, women's AWALT tendencies remain in effect after the wedding and they will be repulsed if a man let himself go (e.g. by abandoning all of his interests outside of the relationship and dropping his workout routine). Donal Graeme writes:[1]
Game is perhaps the only method available to most married men to bring some measure of control to their marriage. The State no longer provides that control. The general culture no longer provides that control. And increasingly religion, Christianity itself, no longer provides that control. Married men (most of them anyways) need Game in order to combat an environment that encourages self-destructive behavior in women. Should they need it? No, of course not. If our civilization was sane Game wouldn't be necessary. But it isn't sane, and men need every tool at their disposal to make marriage work. This includes Game.
Not everything that is included under the umbrella of Game is necessarily proper in marriage, mind you.
According to Roosh, "The extreme of this inauthenticity is the married man who must apply “game” on his wife, even though she pledged to dedicate her life to him unto death, just so that she doesn’t get bored with him and cheat before draining his blood in a divorce. While the player has to put on a clown suit when he goes to the club to pick up women, the married man has to permanently wear the clown suit and hope she never strays, especially if he married an attractive Western woman." He continues, "The problem is that if you can’t be honest with someone and express your true thoughts, you’re in a relationship that can’t possibly last. If you’re applying game to your wife, and that game is not congruent with your beliefs, the marriage will end."[2]
In Roosh Q&A: Patriarchy & Tradition, Roosh noted that married game involves taking the lead and being strong.
Game is the sum tools meant to increase a man's sexual worth,[1] or any technique a man uses to better attract women. It is one of the preeminent topics discussed at Roosh V Forum and Return of Kings. Feminists have branded game as "manipulative", while the men who practice game uphold it as a form of self-improvement and a path to better sexual success. "Gaming" a girl refers to actively using game techniques to attract her. Roissy describes game as "The practice of challenging women."
How Game spreads and evolves
Game spreads and evolves as men share their techniques, experiences, and observations of women with each other. Other men then test and report back on this input, creating a continually evolving consensus. This process accelerated with the Internet, which allows men to share instantly.
Denial
Game denial is a rejection of the techniques with which men are reporting success, in favor of techniques that men are reporting as failures.
Since Game deniers have little if any real support for their positions, they almost always resort to unfounded attacks on the consensus group.
An inversion of morality occurs when the weak, the poor, the meek, the oppressed and the wretched are virtuous and blessed by God while the strong, the wealthy, the noble and the powerful are the immoral and damned by the vengeful almighty Yahweh for eternity.
Kino is the touching of a girl, taking place continuously throughout a conversation or date. Though it can be difficult for some men to do with a girl they have only just met, it has the benefits of helping to sexually escalate the conversation and to display the man's confidence.
Windom Earle notes, "There's legal issues in using the word "touch". If you say you touched a woman, you're basically admitting that you're a rapist. We use kino in place of that word. It's more refined and doesn't attract the rapist tag as much."[1]
The busted dudes test is, according to Roosh, the only quality one needs to look for when deciding where to stay while abroad: "Is it common to see a busted guy with a pretty girl on his arm?" If within my first day in a country one sees pretty girls with busted dudes who aren't decked out in Hugo Boss or gold jewelry, one knows the sexual market is skewed in the man’s favor.[1] According to Roosh, the busted test "Includes everything. A guy with an okay face but 30 pounds overweight wearing jean shorts and white tube socks would be classified as busted."[2]
Game denialism is the act of denying that game works. Feminists, white knights, incels and some White Nationalists are examples of game denialists.
Arguments
A common game denialist argument is that the only reason men who apply game techniques are able to get laid, is that they are doing a lot of approaches and therefore are succeeding at a numbers game.[1]
Coquetry, the default method of seduction for women, involves going from hot to cold, interest to feigned disinterest, the promise of fantastic sex and then a complete disconnected indifference. The trick to feminine coquetry is incrementally rewarding her target(s) with marginal intimacy while simultaneously resisting him enough to keep him in the limbo necessary for her to assess the best options for breeding and provisioning from a pool of potential suitors. Coquetry is a woman’s socially approved methodological equal of Plate Theory for men. And just like Plate Spinning, it requires a woman to keep a covert stable of potential suitors in rotation. They can’t implicitly know about each other. If they did, she runs the risk of them losing interest in frustration.
Allah is the god of Islam. He is said to be a continuation of a Mesopotamian moon god that was retained after the conversion of the Arabs to Islam.
There's no such thing as "provider game" in the West. While in traditional cultures this might work like a charm, in the west girls will demand for you to self improve even if you are paying them. For instance, even if you find a girl from Seeking Arrangment she'll still ask for you to have perfect teeth or a very clean before she makes out. Or she'll asks for you to give her a massage with your strong hands and if you are a beta with fragile hands this will be a turn off.
The most important thing to understand is the western girls are looking for a lover who happens to be rich not the other way around. The best strategy is to master game and then make wealth if you want for your own sake. I would NOT recommend making money and then seeing what happens since unless you are throwing $500 dollars at her she'll give you very little. Game is the only way to stand out in such a competitive sexual market place for men.
The death of provider game shows just how destructive western culture can be. Provider game is attacked by both feminism but also because of App culture (Tinder/Instagram/Facebook/bumble) where the hordes of american men throw themselves at average looking women. This girls, therefore, demand game as a prerequisite to even consider you.
Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes. According to Illimitable Men, "All people with narcissistic personality disorder are narcissists, but not all narcissists have a personality disorder. A healthy dose of narcissism is a performance-enhancer, for it improves one’s effectiveness by amplifying their self-love, confidence and boldness."[1] According to Bonecrker:[2]
women do not ever want to hear anything about you (sad but true). Women always find this offensive and think the guy is narcissistic (a projection of what they actually are) even if his talking about himself is brief and in context to the situation. On the other hand, if you spend all your time asking leading questions about her and then fleshing out the details of her life, only pausing to add various compliments to her, she will think you are the most brilliant conversationalist in the world, even though you have basically said nothing. You can do this for hours and hours and she’ll never even think to ask anything about you. It’s downright bizarre and disturbing, once you’ve experienced it. But not as bizarre and disturbing as the effect it has on how they see you.
Illimitable Men notes that "whilst narcissism is a suit well-worn on a man, it is one ill-fitting for a woman. Whilst women are inherently drawn to male narcissism as overconfidence is the linchpin of good masculine game, female narcissism is unattractive to the majority of men. In women it manifests as bratty, spoiled 'hot girl behaviour' and men, especially top-tier men, don’t want to feel like they’re babysitting an overgrown child."[3]
It also notes, "Being grandiose never hindered a man’s chances of getting laid."[4]
The two types of narcissism are infantile and grandiose.
Heartiste advises, "Be narcissistic. There is no greater divergence than that between a woman’s stated disapproval of male narcissism and the rapidity with which she jumps into bed with a male narcissist."[5]
Romance is whatever will get a man laid.[1]
Women's expectations of romance
TornadoByProxy notes:[2]
Women want the emotional jolt from romantic movies but not all that faggy bullshit in real life.
Men want the emotional jolt from horror films but not all that murder and blood in real life.
Do you see the similarities?
Khan notes, "One of these tricks women often play is the notion of romance. Sure, they say they want romance. But they only want romance from men who sexually arouse them in the first place. Betas fall for this trap and believe they have to be nice to women in order to get laid - a type of behavior women find sexually repulsive, which a lot of us have learned the hard way - and thus weed themselves out of the game in favor of alphas."[3]
Man as true romantics
It is often said that men are the true romantics. Mage writes:[4]
[N]otice how there are almost no songs in modern times where a woman proclaims her undying love for a man. Most songs with a female singer today are about girrl power, how she needs no man and get some dude to pay hard for his cheating/lying/looking at other woman/not being perfect/just being a bore.
There are plenty of songs where a male singer proclaims his undying love and willingness to self sacrifice for a woman while deifying her . . . .
To answer the question generally why men are the romantic sex - it's because men like to follow ideals. Not all men but many men have ideals about family life too and would like to have a house, a good wife and children. For other men political ideals are more important for other men the religious or scientific thoughts are more exciting, but generally most non-degenerate men will have some ideals in some or multiple areas of life that they fight for. and take pride of being warriors for this ideal.
For women generally no ideals are important they act based on combination on their procreation instinct, survival instinct and current social norms. This makes them more adaptable, shallow and treacherous. They are also given bigger rationalization powers to keep themselves and others in denial about their nature at expense of an ability to retrospect and understand themselves.
Disco_Volante notes, "Women are passive, men initiate and must run the seduction process. Creating attraction, knowing what her 'mood' is, etc.. Women control sex and only react to attractive behaviors, that's why men have to put in so much work to 'figure it out', whereas women are passive and don't really have to do anything."[5]
Fifty Shades of Grey is a a 2011 erotic romance novel by British author E. L. James that was adapted into a 2015 film version. It is the first installment in the Fifty Shades trilogy that traces the deepening relationship between a college graduate, Anastasia Steele, and a young business magnate, Christian Grey. According to David Garrett Brown, "feminists are fucking scared. At least 100 million people, the vast, vast, vast majority of them women, voted with their feet, eyes, purses, and credit cards and purchased the woefully-written book, which is nonetheless simultaneously a masterpiece of anti-feminism. Now comes the film, which will only further titillate millions of middle-aged and young women, and underscore the female desire for male assertiveness and their own submission to such masculine control."[1]
Of note is that the book was originally written as a Twilight fanfiction.
Filipinas, Philippines women, are arguably some of the best wives, mothers, and lovers in the world.[1] Henry Makow, Matt Forney, and many other anti-feminist authors have sung their praises. Filipinas' willingness to have no strings attached sex with visiting American men in hopes of having a half-white baby is legendary.[2] Filipinas are very open to dating and marrying older men, they tend to be conservative in terms of sexual values, they value family and motherhood, and they are proficient in English.[3] Although cultural changes are afoot as Filipinas develop a fascination with smartphones and enjoy waistline-expanding American fast food,[4] the Philippines is not yet a poosy paradise lost.[5]
Inner Game
Inner game
Inner Game is the sum of the confidence, momentum, attitude, and mindset that a man applies to sexual relations. If outer game is how a man presents himself, inner game is how he carries himself.
Relationship to Self Improvement
Areas of Self-Improvement will help your Inner Game, but only if you translate them into sexual marketplace.
Feminism is a series of movements that address supposed issues of discrimination or inequality affecting women. According to Heartiste, "The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality."[1]
Modern feminism typically takes the form of far-left identity politics, focusing on frivolous issues while ignoring areas in which men are likewise affected; many may also favor forms of affirmative action (reverse discrimination) designed to achieve equality of outcome.
Feminists may adhere to the view that gender is only a social construct which has been used to oppress women, and may object to any notion of differences or inequality between men and women (such as differences in physical strength) even when the claims are backed up by scientific evidence.
Likewise many modern feminists may be comfortable with traditional notions of chivalry when it benefits them. Such as women being exempt from the selective service despite now being allowed to serve in combat, or divorce and child support laws which favor women (having their roots in more "chivalrous" times in which men were considered the primary provider, and therefore the primary financially responsible individual).
According to Roosh, "Because of feminist attempts to brainwash the masses, you may think that sluts only exist in the Western world, that only they are 'empowered' enough to fuck around. My dick is laughing at that premise. You don’t need feminism to have a healthy sex life with a lot of women."[2]
Sexual property, under patriarchy, is what wives are recognized as. Adultery is a crime against sexual property.[1] In the Jewish faith, women were seen as man's sexual property, but equal in comradeship, homemaking and parenthood (e.g. Fiddler on the Roof).
Carole Pateman notes, "The patriarchal construction of sexuality, what it means to be a sexual being, is to possess and to have access to sexual property. . . . In modern patriarchy, masculinity provides the paradigm for sexuality; and sexuality means sexual mastery. The 'individual is a man who makes use of a woman's body (sexual property); the converse is much harder to imagine."[2]
Stanford M. Lyman writes, "A nearly unbounded wrath is sometimes aroused by the appropriation of another's sexual property. Treated in the classic sociological essay by Kingsley Davis as jealousy, this emotional state and its attendant response are also understandable as an angry reaction to lost self-esteem. . . . Of all the types of properties over which dominion is sought, sexual property seems to evoke the most intimate connection to self-worth. The bonds of love or affection express not only one's own feelings toward the other, but also an implicit reciprocal image of these feelings toward oneself. . . . Sexual property above all others is likely to engender vanity and pride in, and satisfy a fundamental need of, its possessor. Accordingly, an attack on one's sexual property usually cuts a deep wound in one's self-esteem. . . . A jealous regard for one's own dearly purchased prize in the marketplace of love may arouse the most intense fears, deepest insecurities, and ultimately his most ferocious wrath as a threatened possessor fights to preserve his pride, passion, and property. And precisely because jealousy arises out of the most significant elements of self-esteem, its fury might know no bounds."[3]
Thus, it should come as no surprise that when wives refuse to fulfill their proper roles as sexual property, their husbands sometimes get angry, as she is essentially appropriating herself.
The Kingdom of Sweden (Swedish: Konungariket Sverige) is a country in Northern Europe, bordered by Norway and Finland. It is known for its far-left policies and extreme liberalism.
Recently, Earth Hour had to be cancelled in the country in order to protect women from sexual assault by the Rapefugees.
Sweden's official Twitter account
In 2011, the government of Sweden started allowing its citizens to run its Twitter account. The idea was that each week, a normal Swede would get to use the account to illustrate daily life in Sweden.
In late August 2016, the account was given to a woman named Elin, who was harshly criticised by members of the Alt-Right for general harlotry. Many comments pointing out the rapefugee situation were made. On 6 September 2016, the account was handed over to a transgender man calling herself "Gavin". She instantly began to receive the same reaction as her predecessor.
Sweden as Islamic caliphate
Due to the high amounts of rapefugees (Islamic economic migrants) that the country takes in, many believe that Sweden will become the first Islamic caliphate in Europe since the days of the Ottoman Empire. Recently, a prosecutor declared that the flag of ISIS did not constitute hate speech[1], practically legalising it.
Counterintuitive tendencies of women are those that work contrary to what beta conditioning teaches men. For example, "Be less accepting of women, and women will be more accepting of you" is contrary to the idea that accepting women for who they are (as opposed to qualifying them) will help one get laid.[1]
Examples
Buying women stuff, especially before sex has occurred, makes them more likely to make a guy wait for sex.[2]
When a woman says "That's so sweet" it means "I have no respect for you." When a woman says "You're an asshole" it means "I don’t know why I’m attracted to you."
References
1. CH (23 May 2016). "The Patented CH “How normal are you?” Opener". Chateau Heartiste.
2. CH (9 November 2011). "The Unpalatable Truth About Giving Women Gifts". Chateau Heartiste.
The male desire to own women is part of masculine psychology. Ownership of women can include the right to sex on demand and to the woman's faithfulness. Women have a complementary desire to be owned by men.
