Rollo Tomassi recently posted a well written and laser-sharp article on one of the most common beta-male-narratives in today’s SMP and the resulting conflicts attached to it:
Read it and then get back.
When women settle and intend to start a family, they oftentimes choose a partner from the second-tier range of status. This is a predictable pattern for the majority of western society governed by the laws of the SMP and each gender’s respective SMV. In order to not have those second-tier guys’ brains melt, women are secretive about their sexual past and partially cater to the desired narrative of their beta male partners. As you just read over at The Rational Male things can get interesting, when suddenly there’s a glitch in the Matrix and a beta can see through the fog.
In one of Rollo’s comments to his own post, he noted:
@Jeremy, while I understand your point regarding women’s N count, I really think that the root of that discontent for men is wanting to get the best a woman has to offer sexually. Of course fidelity and the potential for secure attachment and bonding are very important, but what men want to determine is sexual access above all, especially when he’s betting his future life and family on that access.
On some level of consciousness men toss out all of the underlying sentimentality and understand the reality that they’re exchanging their current and future resources for that sexual access and want the best bargain for that exchange. If some other man received better sexual service than he will in his investment for the rest of his life, that’s hardly the best bargain he can secure. Thus women have evolved personal and social failsafes (social conventions) to be as secretive about this as possible.
If this woman’s N count was just one guy, but that guy took her in the ass, gave her facials and basically received enthusiastic porn-star sexual services she genuinely desired to engage in with him, yet wouldn’t give her husband of 7 years so much as a perfunctory blow job, does it really matter if she had gang bangs or 20 men before him? The result is still the same.
This is completely on point and I agree, but there’s a second psychological element to the plot. Oftentimes overlooked, but equally important.
A beta male’s perception of reality is rather weak and he needs constant, external validation to keep up his identity. His attitudes and actions are easily influenced depending on which TV program, newspaper or other authority he is exposed to at the moment. Thus his need to buy, consume and surround himself with status objects. Belief fluctuations result in frustration, which leads to the attempt of seeking fulfillment in possessions. This is not to be confused with open-mindedness and one of the great beta male paradoxes. His capacity to understand new things such as Red Pill ideas is quite narrow to unexistent, but within his realm stronger opinionated entities have a walk-over with him. He hasn’t come to understand that the world is neither bad, nor good. Things happen for no reason and that’s what it is. Life is just a complex, multilevel, coincidental mess exponentiated by 7 billion and because nothing lasts, the only constant is change. This normative element of nature is not a disadvantage to mankind, but it’s not in alignment with the socially conditioned narrative either. As a result of him neglecting an adult version of reality, the beta male is still plugged into an idealized fantasy promised by Disney culture, with him playing the regular (=average), good (=shy) guy entitled to a happy ending (=things he believes will make him happy forever). In terms of gender dynamics this weak, twistable structure of opinions (beta male reality) reinforces the prevalence of “The Feminine Mystique” and in terms of professional success it reinforces the notion that wealth is mostly achieved by exploitation and disregards concepts like Stephen Covey’s Win-Win. Beta males are stuck in a ME-focus mindset. They haven’t understood that the more you mature, the less it is about you and the more it is about others. That’s why I repeat “1st half of life = ME-focus / 2nd half of life = YOU-focus” like a mantra and position it as one of the core ideas of my whole body of work. At some point you have to give back to the world in some form, because you want to leave the world better for your kids and the ultima ratio of that is to leave the whole planet better off.
Giving back means stormy weather ahead. You have to knock on the door many times, until someone opens. Such resilience to proceed is only possible within an Alpha frame of thinking. And in contrast to those Alpha males, betas lack a fire in the belly. They don’t want to give their gift fully regardless of feedback or acknowledgement. They are not driven from within. They lack a concept of masculine purpose and walking your path. They resemble Peter Keating from Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead. They live through the eyes of others. If people’s feedback is good, they feel good about themselves. If it’s bad, they cry, get angry and eventually seek revenge. They can’t understand how a Howard Roark – the other main character in Any Rand’s Fountainhead – can even exist. The only voice Roark follows is his own, inner voice. This is foreign and alienating to betas. They are therefore massively inclined to structure their life circumstances in a way that feeds into their illusionary identity narratives, they keep telling themselves to preserve self-worth and confidence surrogates. That’s why they prefer comfort over challenge in a job, routine over curiosity. That’s why they are loyal to brands and tend to spend their holidays at the same place each year. That’s why they are not worried about the Standard American Diet, but trust in what the labels say. That’s why they don’t work out, because sickness is of tomorrow’s concern. Everything providing the risk to question their perceived self-worth gets eradicated. If you are fragile, even little harm is dangerous. The world gets turned into a nice, padded prison cell. They don’t do public speaking and “responsibility” is something for white collars that almost made the world end 5 years ago.
This is the psychological underlining of the Madonna/Whore Complex. On pragmatic levels it wishes to secure reproductive access, deal indirectly with competition for the same birthing chamber and force monogamous relationship commitment, while simultaneously enjoying uninhibited, exclusive sexual kinkiness. On a psychological level a publicly “virginesque”, privately slutty woman is nothing but a Rolex watch to a beta male. It signals to its owner “You are James Bond”. And only James Bond can pull this off. The actual value is found in the meaning it’s given. Branding 101. A Rolex shows the time no better than a Timex, but anyone can have the ladder. It’s the “I don’t want what everyone wants”-Dilemma. Although my wife is a Timex, both of us have to put tremendous effort into making us believe she is a Rolex. It has to be delusional to a degree, that in this mindset noone can afford a Timex anymore. Powerlessness expressing itself as grandiosity. So, how can I exert control from a position of impotence? I hop on someone else’s convention and make use of it: slut shaming. Mother nature’s sense for irony allowed beta males to highjack the sharpest sword in women’s intrasexual competition arsenal and make it their own.
So, the full realization of slut shaming as an outlet of the Madonna/Whore-Complex is: You be Queen, so that I be King.
It’s classic role reversal. Only necessary, if you’re inferior to begin with. With free choice because of inherent alpha worthiness comes the capacity to see the woman for what she is. A person with a past. A squirrel trying to get a nut aka wanting to feel good about herself. A watch is only a watch again. You don’t have to objectify people and things, so that they fit your narrative. Change is good. (And don’t mistake this for a beta rationalization of mating choice.)
The virginal, high standard appearance is necessary though to tell the beta male: “Only you could get me. Only you could deflower a special snowflake like this. Only you can bring me to orgasm. I’ve never done this before and wouldn’t do with anyone else.” So, the selfishness of “wanting the best a woman has to offer sexually” is one part of the dynamic. The second is its abusive implementation of trying to complete the fragile beta ego.
Beta males depend on Madonnas, publicly positioned as unexperienced, good girls to remotely feel masculinity. Their women have to be noble Queens (or as Rollo Tomassi coined it: giving him the best of herself), so that the beta male can feel like a King.
Otherwise he’d collapse.