When it comes to dating, mating and gender issues in the sexual marketplace young men need to understand that they’re up against a genetically engrained and tightly knitted phalanx of social policy that gets regularly re-emphasized on a broad level to maintain power. Let me explain…
For men any sex is good sex. For women only specific sex is good sex. That’s why the main focus of most versions of game is on the beginning stages of a relationship from approach to getting to know to penis into vagina. Men prefer a mass approach. That’s why one of the most popular dating seminars for men is called “Double Your Dating”, whereas for women the most popular is called “Catch Him And Keep Him”. There aren’t any routines/models for men out there on how to keep her for a lifetime or how to master marriage and living together after retirement (if there actually are, they are just compromises). Although young men sometimes wish for such a thing, because they don’t take aging (and thereby loss of attractiveness and sexual marketplace value) into account, once they suffer from “she’s the only one”-syndrome.
If you left your tribe back in the day to conquer foreign pussy, it might not have been morally ok, but genetically even more so. Nature encourages such behavior. It’s ok to put the tribe at a higher survival risk by substracting one grown man from the tribal’s collective fighting power in order for him to try and spread his genes. This is a crucial distinction. This is the root of why men will never stand a chance against feminism and similar social issues. Men will survive and do ok regardless of social winds, but they will never flock together in a way women will. Men will never speak with one voice and proclaim to now correct things after angry spinsters have taken it too far.
Feminism and everything that comes along with it is the result of a collective effort. As long as only one woman steps out of line you can call her a whore or a witch and be done with her – that’s socially ok. Look at history. But as soon as women combine their efforts to provoke social change, men stand no chance, because they lack that very mechanism of combining powers. From nature’s standpoint it’s simply not necessary and thereby restricted to the fighting realm. Men understand honor and respect on a much deeper level than women do. And when the tribe gets attacked, men are able to put personal issues aside and fight with the very men they might have argued with only minutes earlier. But that’s it. Within the social realm men lack this higher arch of weaving personal agendas into one big social agenda. Hence feminism and no male counterpart. Hence every other female social issue and no male counterpart.
Even beta males are a result of this. If we can agree upon the fact that there indeed is a social hierarchy within human societies based on status and power, then the mating strategy of “the beta male” would make no sense on first glance and beta males shouldn’t exist. But they clearly do. So we must assume that it is in nature’s best interest to have weaker males betray, trick and manipulate in order to reproduce. It’s a form of competition, which is survival of the fittest.
This is the most powerful dynamic shaping western societies today. A guy can go: “I’m a democrat and you’re a republican! I hate your values and the way you go about them, but as soon as the Russians set foot, I will fight side by side with you to the bitter end in order to protect this great country of ours and everyone in it!”
It’s behavior by design, because it increases chances of survival. There is a really great book on this that should be on every red pill reading list: “Warriors vs. Worriers” by Joyce Benenson.
On the social side of society though, a guy can never proclaim: “I’m weak and you’re strong, so you get all the pussy. It is what it is, fml ok bye!”
He will instead go by the following: “I’m weak and you’re strong, so you get all the pussy. BUT as soon as a tiny window of opportunity opens, I will go all in no matter what and make my move, fuck you buddy!”
So because honor, respect and the ability to quickly form cohesive fighting groups don’t transfer into the social realm, women will ALWAYS have an upper hand on social issues. That’s why equal pay, female CEOs, Sandberg’s Lean In, women’s rights and every other female issue of its time will always be societally more important and more visible than the corresponding male issue. Women can socially speak with one voice and like a secret sisterhood can all unspokenly agree to some higher agenda. They seem to have the upper hand because they have more collective force behind them.
If one male politician would propose to revert third wave feminism and put up a really solid, stringent and logical argument that every sane mind would have to agree with, he would end his career in an instant and had to leave the country the same day. The content wouldn’t even be discussed. Women would immediately speak with one united voice and declare war through different kinds of social warfare where men lack weaponry and armour. All kinds of men would even show solidarity in order to follow their own mating strategy of “it’s ok to betray the tribe as long as it might spread genes”.
One recent example of this dynamic in action is this piece in Vanity Fair, that has a “modern western woman” post-smv-peak arguing that dating apps like Tinder and OkCupid are ruining dating culture for women for good, because men all of a sudden have so many opportunities (Tinder = digital 24/7 pussy ordering drivethru), that women get degraded and objectified and can’t do anything about it. The article even provoked an unexpected outburst of beta male rage straight from the Tinder headquarters via Twitter. That’s how it got my attention, because that outburst allowed the best weapon of female social policy shaping to come forward: shaming. Tinder got shamed for their response by a collective female response in various outlets.
The headline of my post right here is “It seems like the boys don’t have any control over the situation, and it should not be like that at all” quoted from the above Vanity Fair article. One of the girls interviewed about the current state of Tinder and modern dating said it.
Actually, I’m kidding. It’s a sentence that doesn’t exist.
It literally doesn’t exist, because I changed one word. The original sentence says: “It seems like the girls don’t have any control over the situation, and it should not be like that at all”.
That’s what the interviewed woman said. Now she sounds more sane.
And not only does my headline not exist in that article, it doesn’t exist at all, because no sane guy would ever say this or complain about it. Men can’t speak with a collective social voice and women are exclusively concerned with their own issues. Nature intended it that way.
So you end up with such a narcotic irony that you feel mentally butt-fucked after reading that article.
I’ll show you. Follow along.
Tinder is a dating app.
It’s magic is digital database pre-selection.
Only if both parties approve of each other beforehand through swiping, it’s a match and contact can be made.
That’s why the app is profitable/successful and soon after every other dating service copied this methodology.
This is tremendously empowering to women and their sexual marketplace agenda of mating with the most high status male available – by their own choosing.
Before Tinder women had to exhaustingly sift through endless piles of messages in order to find a worthy guy.
So if men were able to speak with one united social voice, there would have been a crazy backlash of ““It seems like the boys don’t have any control over the situation, and it should not be like that at all” after Tinder’s first release a few years ago. But there was none. Although the “both parties need to approve thing” is actually a beta male censor, highly hindering/sabotaging many males in their dating efforts, but it’s subtle enough that it got through and as we know, men didn’t care, because they aren’t even aware of it and mankind’s history has quite worse reproduction bottlenecks up its sleeve: famine, war, societies ruled by one king/emperor, fixed ranks of status adopted with birth (knight – peasant), conquering the new world where there possibly are no women, etc.
So, now that the initial idea and usecase of Tinder gets turned around from “beta male filter” to “pussy buffet” women rise and complain. Again. Hypergamy at its collective best.
And that’s why marrying more than one woman will very likely stay illegal for many decades to come, althoug we proclaim to be a tolerant society that is on its way to have fully legalized gay marriage and is about to fully legalize weed. But multiple wives is a different beast. It would be the end to Hypergamy. And for Hypergamy to end we would need a different (arabian) god or the ability to speak with one voice as men on the social stage. Neither we have or will have. So single awareness is all a man can do in these crazy times.
And while you raise your awareness by reading “Warriors vs. Worriers”, I’ll have a quick look at today’s pussy buffet… ;-)