Have Yourself A Very Red Pill Christmas

As the countdown to the holidays begins in earnest, there will undoubtedly be times in which you are thrown into a social situation with a self-declared SJW.  This can happen at virtually any time, and you can be accosted for just about any perceived transgression in an airport, on public transportation, at company parties, and, of course, the informal social gatherings that proliferate at this time of year.

In years gone by our attitude has been, traditionally, to clench our jaw and excuse ourselves at the earliest possibility, reluctant to engage.  That's not cowardice - that's a survival technique in a situation which could have long-lasting consequences.  

But some tides have begun to turn, and as feminism, in particular, has made 2014 The Year Feminism Jumped The Shark, you may be feeling a renewed sense of purpose as you consider squaring off with a loud SJW.  

If you are inclined to capitalize on the current wave, and have a desire to become a - albeit small - agent in the greater Culture War, the you might just consider exposing yourself to these relative strangers and doing a bit of Red Knighting.

Black Knighting, as we are all aware, is the overt process of using the established rules of liberal social justice against its very proponents.  A Voice For Men does this on an institutional level, and recently some serious overtures between the MHRM and the Manosphere have resulted in the metaphor of the MHRM being guerrilla warriors to the independent sniping of the various Manosphere blogs and other outlets (lookin' at you, r/theredpill).  Both, it was reasoned, were valuable techniques that could work in concert.  

I tend to support that idea.

To that end, consider Red Knighting: the covert agency of advancing Red Pill memes and ideas in conflict with the established feminist paradigm.  The purpose of this is not to convince or convert any SJWs - gods forbid, they're our best recruiting tool! - but to be seen engaging in dialog with said SJW with amused mastery.by others who are less convinced of the shrill righteousness of their cause.  

A good Red Knight may never publicly reveal his allegiance to TRP, but can turn what SJWs call "microagressions" into a verbal martial art, with a little practice.  You don't have to go all SJW-y to do it, either. You, too, can be a subversive Red Knight in your life, particularly on your travels during the holidays, quietly perfecting your own approach to TRP while also subtly lending your voice and (most importantly) your actions to relentlessly (but quietly) fighting this battle underground.

Our strength is not in our ability to organize and form a great, grand movement that can force social change at the meta level.  The guerrillas of AVfM can guard that flank.  In the Manosphere, our strength is in our decentralization and pervasiveness in society.  Here's how "microaggressions" can really be used to the benefit of positive masculinity.

You can start by refusing to rubber-stamp the "conventional wisdom" about a lot of our key issues by simply stating your opinion in short, controlled bursts. Your refusal to participate in the madness is, in and of itself, a statement. Short, pithy, borderline-trite come-backs that tend to shut down the conversation are best, and the holiday season - with the SJWs festively coming home to spread their crusade of bitter outrage to their families - is an outstanding place for a nascent Red Knight to pursue some entertaining bits of guerrilla ontology.

Some examples:

"Pay equity? Not until draft equity."

"Police report or it didn't happen."

"Feminism? I prefer science."

"Thankfully feminism broke the traditional gender role of me having to give a shit."

"One in five? Not according to the Department of Justice. Of the Obama Administration."

"Yeah, it's sexist. So is biology. I'm OK with that."

"If gender is a social construct why aren't little gay boys socialized straight by our dominant cishetero patriarchal culture? Oh, because their sexuality isn't a choice? Either is mine. I'm comfortable with that."

"You don't get to tell me how to be a man. Any more than I get to tell you how to try to be a woman. Thanks, feminism."

"Marrying a feminist increases your chances of divorce. Kinda like buying a pretty house on a fault line. But I'd love to hear of some actual evidence to the contrary."

"Equilibrium is a far more effective and pragmatic approach than equality."

"You cannot negotiate desire."

"Men love idealistically. Women love opportunistically."

"I'd be more inclined to consider pay inequity once there were more than 70 men employed for every hundred women."

"Which do you think has more rapes, UVA or a Federal Penitentiary?"

"Women control sex. Men control commitment.  Everywhere.  Always."

"Women talk. Men act."

"Equality or special treatment? Pick one and stick with it."

"It is not my obligation to change our society so that you may feel better about your life."

"Do not mistake my devotion to civility as approval or acceptance of your behavior."

"End sexist gender roles? That's just what I wrote on my Selective Service application. What did you write on yours?"

"Men have the right to withdraw their participation when it is not in their best interests. If it's a woman's body and her choice, then that is ours."

"How is reproductive coercion different from rape?  Just curious."

"In every presidential election in the era of mass media, the more attractive candidate has won. Why will this cycle be different?"

"Fatherhood is a sacred responsibility. Do not mock it."

"My sperm is viable until I'm in my 70s. I can afford to be choosy."

"Any reasonable man considers his relationships with women fungible. Occasionally he might find worthy of further investment. But that's a rare thing, these days. Like the last crap of a dying unicorn."

"I really just don't see the point to most men getting into a real relationship, these days. Really, what's in it for them?"

"The heart wants what the heart wants. And sometimes the heart wants a girl with a sweet-disposition, a pretty smile, big boobs, and no interest whatsoever in social justice causes."

"Feminists make great employees and lousy wives."

"If I was really ever going to treat you as an equal, we'd be fist-fighting already. You should value my sexism."

" 'Decent' is just another term for 'suppressed.' "

"Remember that your ability to complain about misogyny was purchased with the blood of patriarchs."

"Most men feel that feminism is about equality the way that most African Americans feel that the Confederate Battle Flag is about Southern pride and heritage."

"Nature makes a Woman. It takes other Men to make a Man."

"Why is the answer to fixing society's problems constantly hinging on convincing men to behave more like women?"

"Men built Western Civilization. You really don't think we could bust it? Or let it die from neglect out of spite?"

"There is as much evidence of 'The Patriarchy' as there is of the 'Vast Satanic Sexual Abuse Conspiracy' the FBI found exactly no evidence of."

"How is your definition of feminism functionally different than the definition of humanism?"

"If you had a choice between true social and economic equality that left you single until you die alone, or a lifetime of bliss with a loving partner in an overtly sexist society, which one would you choose to live in?"

"Sure, your partner count doesn't work against you. Unless you believe in science."

"If you're strong and independent, why would you want a man?"

"Do you need a man? No? Then don't worry. You probably won't get one."

"Wan't to stop campus rape? Stay out of college. Not you, Cupcake, I'm talking to you fellas. Seriously. It's a money pit and a minefield of bad decisions. Take a couple of years off and figure out what you want to do, first. It's not like your looks are suddenly going to collapse. Cupcake can date what's . . . left on campus."

"It's not 'Madonna and Whore'. It's 'Wife and Future Ex-Wife. Get it straight."

"The rarest of delicacies among die-hard feminists is wedding cake."

"Among the gender stereotypes feminism managed to successfully smash were chivalry and the incentive to commitment. You're on your own."

"If it 'shouldn't matter' who leads the relationship, then it shouldn't matter to you who will lead mine. Here's a hint: it will be me."

"So what will women do in a few years when cheap temporary vasectomies essentially rip their control over their reproduction away? Start hanging out in bars begging for fertilization?"

"Oh, yeah, that's just what a man wants to come home to: an aging, bitter executive with a freezer full of eggs and a predisposition toward divorce. That's a manly dose of marital and domestic bliss, right there."

"Men of quality are not attracted to your resume, no matter how many times your girlfriends tell you they are."

And so on. You get the gist. Subtle but direct jabs of Red Pill goodness. Use it sparingly, with amused mastery, and best against those outside of your immediate social circle.  Never get angry, never raise your voice, never loose that cocky grin and steely gaze. 

But when that perky SJW with the nose ring starts screaming about rape culture, or that embittered corporate feminist starts talking about gender oppression, smile . . . and then go at it like a gentleman.

Merry Christmas, Red Knights.  Go forth and be Men for the holidays.

Red Pill Marriage: "Don't Call Me That!"

 
I was expecting to break my blog silence with one of my traditional wall-of-text posts, which is still in the works and forthcoming.  But as I was flipping channels, after the last of the mid-season finales aired, I came across one of those unscripted reality shows featuring one of those super-huge, I-can't-believe-I-ate-the-whole-box-of-fertility-pills families. The scene showed the brood enthusiastically participating in the rituals of Christmas, and frequently cut from shots of cute kids doing horrible things to gingerbread to the husband-and-wife post-mortem interview.

The husband was bravely trying to put a good face on the Christmas-gone-awry, and in typical adoring Blue Pill fashion he gave all the credit to his wife.  In fact, he said something along the lines of

"...and none of it would have come together without the hard work of my wife."

But, apparently, such a self-deprecating and humble bit of praise wasn't adequate.  Instead of smiling thankfully and gratefully of his acknowledgement of her hard work and planning, she grimaced and growled:

"Don't call me that!"

Ouch.

 He didn't call her a bitch, a cunt, a whore, a slut, a goldigger, or any number of other bits of borderline misogyny to cause offense - the thing she objected to was being referred to as "his wife".  Blue Pill Boy immediately corrected, restating the latter half of the sentence using her proper name, but the look on his face said everything.  This, clearly, was a woman who did not value either her husband OR their marriage enough to embrace the title.

This would be shocking, if it wasn't also so abysmally common.  One of the most insidious cultural factors eroding the support and strength of modern marriages is the post-modern equal-partnership model (Blue Pill Standard) popular amongst the college-educated and forward-thinking.  This model evolved following the Great Divorce-a-Thon in the 1970s, in which newly-empowered wives took Second Wave feminism to the end-zone, essentially re-writing the script on men without their consent or consideration.

The BPS marriage emphasizes equality, of course, but in doing so it neutralizes those gender-based traits that actually help a marriage survive and thrive.  Women who insist on keeping their maiden name or hyphenating are sending a clear signal to the world - and their husbands: "I'm more concerned about my own aggrandizement than I am the success of this family".  Women who refuse to be called "Mrs.", and who even get angry if you refer to "her husband", as if such a dirty secret should be whispered in hushed tones, have helped denigrate the cultural underpinnings of marriage.

And then we come to those who actively eschew being called "wife".  After all the struggle for the dress and the ring and the party, they don't actually want the title.  Or, as far too many poor idealistic men have discovered over the last two decades, the job.

If the current Sexodus of men from marriage is disturbing to women, feminist and non-feminist alike, part of that reluctance for men to marry or even to commit is due to the injury feminism has made to the institution.  Feminism de-valued marriage from a monumental life-altering event in two people's lives to an aggrandized cohabitation agreement.  Feminism sees marriage as a temporary condition, a perspective at odds with most men's conception of marriage.  And the reluctance to embrace the idea, much less the term, of wife-hood has in turn given men little incentive to marry and every incentive to reconsider the entire topic of marriage.

"Don't call me that!" is an acid blast of feminine imperative to the masculine solar plexus.  When a woman openly - publicly - repudiates her union with her man by treating the title "wife" as an insult or slur, then that woman is demonstrably unsuitable for marriage.

Nor is this the first time I've noticed this.  I watched a feminist friend of mine almost have a mental meltdown when she had to refer to her former fiance as "her husband".  She looked guilty and ashamed . . . of him, not the ring.  She waved that sucker around like she was trying to land a jetliner.

I've seen other women admit to having husbands like they'd admit to having herpes.  There's an almost apologetic air to the admission, as if they have lost a bet or assumed an unfavorable mortgage. In conversation they may even go so far as to praise their husbands for some little thing, but this is almost inevitably followed with a disclaimer, as if a husbandly achievement is so remarkable for its own sake that no further elaboration is necessary.  "He actually got the kids up and off to school on time.  Even made lunches."

Seeing a woman openly bridling at being referred to as a wife by the ONE PERSON ON THE PLANET with the right to do so is brutally telling.  As a means of psychological control in the relationship it is almost ideal.  In rejecting the idea of "ownership" feminism considers implicit in the patriarchal oppression of matrimony, feminism also poisons the well for non-feminists by devaluing their own service and devotion to family.  When "wife" becomes a curse-word, you can just bet men will be glad to use that as a rationalization to further avoid commitment.


The Red Pill approach to this matter is very straightforward.  For single men, believe it or not it is actually in your best interest to respect the institution of marriage in your speech and actions, no matter how galling the expression.  Treating husbands as the de facto heads of households during social events will infuriate feminist wives, as will being referred to as "Harry's wife."  Denigrating marriage almost never gets you laid - even if you're looking to spin her into a plate, every woman looks for that impossible ideal of the bad-boy-turned-super-dad.

That doesn't mean you have to be vocally enthusiastic about marriage, either.  By cultivating the idea that marriage is a rare and special privilege reserved only for the most elite among women, you establish by your attitude the context you need to inject Preselection into your Game without actually having another woman around to do it for you.  By expressing your great reverence for marriage along with your cynicism that you will find a worthy-enough woman to become your wife, you set up a high bar that any woman of your intimate acquaintance is going to pay attention to, regardless of whether or not she is actually entertaining thoughts of a commitment.  Being pro-marriage earns you feminine respect, and being inherently reluctant to spend that precious coin on anything less than a unicorn makes you exceptional.

In fact, it's a single dude's benefit to point out bad marriages, and bad marriage practice to the women in his circle . . . if he can simultaneously point out good marriages, and marital practice to be emulated to his women.  It can't help but make them try harder.

The other advantage to being pro-(good) marriage is that it can cultivate you allies among married men. While a number of single dudes rightly suspect marriage in general, when they do meet someone who does it successfully the last thing you should do is try to pick apart a man's relationship.  The code among gentlemen has always been to support a man, once he has made the decision to commit.  It may have been the last free decision he ever made, but once made it should be respected, not denigrated.  When some young buck calls you an idiot for the sacrifices and hard work you've made over the course of your marriage, the inclination to intervene on his behalf with the police later that evening when things get out of hand will be far less compelling.

Similarly, when an old girlfriend shows up to the party and you can hook your solid, single pal up, you're going to be a lot MORE inclined if he didn't talk shit about your marriage.

There are those who maintain that marriage is essentially a Blue Pill sucker's game.  I disagree.  The growing number of Red Pill marriages (plug for r/marriedredpill and r/redpillwomen) prove that there are ways to do it right . . . and they don't involve shying away from calling your wife by her title.  Indeed, the embrace of "outdated gender roles" and the glorious acceptance of a complementary approach to matrimony based on equilibrium, not equality, are hallmarks of these marriages.

Call your wife "your wife".  It's helpful social mate guarding and yes, it does imply a sense of ownership.  You do have papers on her, after all.  Go further, if you wish, and call her by title: "Wife! Can you fix me a cup of coffee, please?"

Similarly, for Red Pill Wives calling your husband "Husband", as a proper title of address, helps reinforce not your chattel property status, as feminism claims, but your mutual roles and areas of responsibility in the common enterprise of running the ship.

"Husband" and "Wife" are job titles, and by referring to them you help shape a family culture that emphasizes the dual and complementary nature of the endeavor.  And yes, that implies a lot of "baggage": preconsent (in general) to sex, common property, inheritance, differing gender-based responsibilities to house and home.

A woman who shuns the term doesn't deserve it, A woman who embraces it should be celebrated by having the title used as it was meant, as a term of social respect.  Men socially ennoble women by virtue of our commitment, and it's rude of you not to re-affirm that commitment publicly by not using it.

So this holiday season don't shy away from using the terms - instead, help combat the rising tide of anti-marriage propaganda by treating the institution with the respect it deserves.  When most men make it clear to most women that wedding cake is only for the very best among them, then you will inevitably see a shift in perspectives.  And when you make it clear that the title you respect most isn't "CEO", "CFO", "President" or "Director", but "Mrs.", you will begin to see some erosion on the other side of the river.  Because when feminism runs afoul of the Feminine Imperative (which prizes male commitment), feminism inevitably loses.

AFC Spreadsheet Challenge Ends This Friday!

If you recall, a few months back I issued the AFC Spreadsheet Challenge, inviting all married men who were curious about the Red Pill to track their sex lives with their wives over a 90 period, starting August 1 and ending October 31.  As that day draws to a close, I encourage all of you to make that final push to get your numbers up or, conversely, begin the painful process of data analysis with the data pool that you've assembled.

How many times did you approach?  How many times did you initiate? How many times were you successful?  How many times were you rejected?  What reasons/excuses/rationalizations did your wife give you?

Remember, there is no right answer, except in the sense that you are evaluating raw, hard, objective data about your sex life.  Every relationship is different, so don't feel competitive with other men about your stats.  What's important is what you feel when you look down at those raw numbers, and realize what they say about you, your wife, and your relationship.  Without real data, it's impossible to spot a problem, much less fix one.

Feel free to share your results here (Anonymously, if you like), because while this isn't a competition, the whole secondary purpose of this exercise is to share data with your peers for review.  If you're working a Red Pill strategy, how does it stack up to the Blue Pill strategies?  Let's see what the data says.  And no embellishments, Gentlemen.

I'll probably leave this post up awhile.  As a brief programming note, I'll probably be neglecting this blog for a few months, thanks to one of my projects being green-lighted (could be an Ian Ironwood-written porn movie coming out, it seems) along with some other writing projects I need to focus on.  I'll still be lurking, don't get me wrong, but if I'm not as active on Twitter, here, and Reddit for awhile, don't get worried.  This is one of my most productive times of year.

Lastly, Happy Hallowe'en, and to my Pagan brethren, may you have a productive and reflective Samhain!

"Making Responsive Desire AWESOME": Feminism still has no answers.

I was hanging out over at Feminist Sex Nerd Dr. Emily Nagoski's blog, The Dirty Normal today, and I came across this post about how to make responsive desire (which most women possess most of the time) "awesome".  

Problem is, Emily's answer to it falls somewhat short of "awesome".  But she does invite her readers to tell how "spontaneous desire" people (i.e. most men, most of the time) deal with "responsive desire" people (i.e. most women, most of the time).

The responses that followed tended to be straight-up Blue Pill methodology, i.e. the "responsive desire" spouse still maintains the sexual control in the relationship and the "spontaneous desire" spouse is advised to "self regulate" (i.e. masturbate).

While I'm all for a good wank, the plain fact of the matter is that men don't get married so that they can masturbate.  Our desire for sex is paramount to most other considerations.  Open, honest communication, which Dr. Emily suggests is the winning strategy, tends to flow out of our mouths as "I'm horny and I'm bitterly disappointed that you rejected me again", to which the RD spouse usually says "deal with it."

So . . . no win for Emily, there.

Most of the following (my comment, too long not to turn into a post and in danger of being deleted in moderation) will not be a big surprise to most of you, but might be instructive to those who are new to the Red Pill.  Here is, in a nutshell, how I got here and why:

I'll bite.

My partner (wife of 23 years), like most women, falls into the standard 70%/30% responsive/spontaneous category, dependent primarily on her place in her menstrual cycle.  I'm about 80% spontaneous, 20% responsive.  For the first eighteen or nineteen years of our relationship we followed the Standard Model of post-feminist marriage, with hit-or-miss sexual encounters involving a large number of initiations on my part and a large number of rejections on hers.  Once we matured as a couple, things got a little better, but we were still largely depending on random variables and crappy timing.  Attraction was high, arousal was not.  That's mostly because we didn't truly understand the functioning male/female cishetero dynamic, until I started studying the potential for Female Viagra, which (among other areas) led me to this blog and Emily.

Emily's work has led me to conclude that the Standard Model used by most married couples post-1965, depending on the ideal of presumed equality of sexual experiences and outcomes between the genders, is highly flawed and works in a minority of cases at best.  It ignores the essential gender differences between cishet men and women, and depends on a range of low-return strategies that lead, eventually, to divorce.  It discourages, rather than encourages, pairbonding and long-term relationship survival, and encourages infidelity, socio-sexual polygamy, divorce, and the dissolution of families.  As sexuality is the root of marriage in every human culture, and as "married sex" is highly denigrated by both popular mainstream culture and feminist subculture, using the Standard Model as a workable theory is a recipe for failure.

In breaking down a workable replacement for the Standard Model, Emily suggested to me the SIS/SES mode, which makes far more sense and fits with the observable reality of cishet LTRs.  And when examining the Context Dependence elements of the SES, it became clear that no amount of chemical monkeying around with female sexuality is going to increase a given woman's over-all sex drive and satisfaction.  Pink Viagra doesn't exist.  Female sexuality is, as Emily has explained, just far too complex and sophisticated to respond to cheap neurochemical theatrics.

So . . . what's a standard model, spontaneous desire-driven husband to do? 

Current literature on the subject includes lots of "helpful" advice which falls into two categories: Treat Your Wife Like A Princess (let's call it Mode A), essentially using your resources to decrease her SIS until she's just so darned relaxed that she has no real reason to say no to sex; and then there is the much-smaller Mode B, which, among other things, does not advocate treating your wife like a princess. 

The problem is, Mode A doesn't work.  Oh, it can have a few short-term positive effects, but if the goal is to increase your sex life (as it is with most husbands with strong spontaneous desire) then Mode A involves expending a lot of resources for very little return.  It will make your wife feel good, no doubt, but . . . well, anecdotal evidence demonstrates that subservient, attentive husbands just are not having the crazy amounts of sex with their wives suggested by the Treat Your Wife Like A Princess model.  Quite the contrary.  There are so man Very Good Men who are doing everything under the sun for their wives, and their wives are still divorcing them for no particularly good reason.  It's a big enough deal that major news outlets are writing about it.

So, just how does your standard cishet married couple learn to deal with such issues?  For one thing, I educated myself about the difference between arousal and attraction.  Mode A emphasizes trying to build desire by fueling attraction - being supportive, communicative, and other stuff to work on the SIS.  All well and good . . . but it does jack to build desire.  As studies have shown repeatedly, doing laundry and housework does not actually lead to more sex for a married couple, despite two generations of feminist rhetoric to the contrary.  It might make the wife happier, but it actually decreases the amount of sex.  So Mode A is a fail, for this purpose.  Waiting around for her to ovulate so that you can take advantage of her brief spontaneous desire window is not the kind of sex life most husbands signed up for.  Indeed, once-a-month sex is the clinical definition of a "sexless marriage".

If Mode A builds attraction but not arousal, then . . . what?  Emily has little to say about stimulating the SES, in any helpful fashion.  And there's a reason for that.  Because the one thing that DOES consistently (and scientifically) tend to build arousal in women, as opposed to attraction, is dominant male behavior.  That's Mode B.  That's the mode that Emily and the rest of the current crop of sex educators doesn't want to delve into, for two reasons.  One, it's dangerously close (ideologically speaking) to nasty ol' patriarchy, denies women's agency, encourages male sexual "entitlement" (because men wanting to have sex is "entitlement") and otherwise contradicts the feminist narrative about How Sex SHOULD Work.  All that consent stuff Emily wrote about, after this post, for instance.

It's good stuff, don't get me wrong . . . but it ignores (as much of Emily's writing on the subject does) the ugly reality that regardless of what genderless pronoun constructions you try to use to describe it, generally cishet men and cishet women are very different in generalizable ways, when it comes to their approach to sexuality.  And while those generalizations do not describe every situation adequately, the do so well enough for most folks to be of use.  The fact is, if a man wants to learn how to invoke reactive desire in his wife consistently, then the only certain way to do that is to cultivate a male-dominant attitude and approach to both his sex life and his personal life.

And that really damages the whole "equal partner" construct that modern marriage is supposed to reflect.  Problem is, modern marriage is coughing up blood trying to swallow that particular pill.  That's not an issue for folks who view marriage as a temporary thing, as most modern women often do, but for men who value their commitment and wish to establish a permanent relationship, being an "equal partner" in a marriage seems about the surest way to kill it beyond criminal charges or an unemployed live-in brother-in-law.  The "equal partner" dynamic insisted upon by Mode A does not encourage female arousal.  It discourages it.  Husbands working under the "equal partners" mode do not initiate often, they do not persist after an initial rejection, and they are so mindful of their partners mental-emotional state that they will fail to initiate even when circumstances present themselves, leading to frustration on the part of both parties. 

Mode A "equal partnerships" do not encourage male-dominant behavior, they discourage it.  And in doing so, they discourage the arousal triggers that allows a man and a woman to properly function as a sexually-fulfilled cishet monogamous couple.  In short, the wife grows less and less aroused by her husband, even if her attraction for him waxes, and eventually an opportunity or a growing sexual dissatisfaction encourages her to seek for sexual novelty outside of the relationship to make up the lack.  Equal partnerships lead far more frequently to infidelity than male-dominated marriages.

That's the uncomfortable truth that Emily, and the other feminist-oriented sex researchers (and that's the vast majority, these days) don't want you to really understand.  There is no Pink Viagra, because women's sexual psychology is too complex to respond to a drug.  The drug it craves is psycho-sexual stimulation brought on by the context or observation of male-dominant social behavior.  Every time a wife exercises her "independence" at the expense of her husband, socially, she is sabotaging her own arousal for him, and her own possible sexual fulfillment as a result.  Every time a husband defers to his wife’s judgment, presenting a submissive side to her, he squashes his own hopes of a fulfilling sexual experience.

You want “concordant desire”?  You want “enthusiastic consent”?  You want “joyful succumbing”?  Feminist sexuality has no practical route to that for cishetero couples.  Not one based in reality and demonstrating any kind of success.  While bashing the shaming nature of our culture when it comes to sex – and quite rightly – the feminist-led sex education and research establishment in our culture has done little to rectify that.  Indeed, instead of decreasing the amount of shame, feminism has encouraged the wholesale shaming of male sexuality and male social dominance to the point where it has had a profound and widely-observed deleterious effect on men in our culture.  Men being socially dominant at work are told to “check their privilege’ by well-meaning feminists.  Men being socially dominant at home are told to beware of patriarchy creeping into their lives (without any explanation about why patriarchy might, in fact, be a good thing).

The feminist sex education industry has done some remarkable things when it comes to improving the understanding and sex lives of women.  But when it comes to improving and understanding the sex lives of men, or the practical functioning of an actual cishetero relationship, the political ideology of equality runs smack into the hard, cold science of sexuality.  Women dig dominant men, and are aroused by them.

Feminism discourages men from becoming dominant, and actively struggles against a culture that encourages men to be dominant.  Once Emily convinced me that feminism was just the wrong way to run my marriage, things got a LOT better.

By establishing a regime of socially-dominant and traditionally-masculine behaviors, the kind of stuff that leads directly to female arousal, not female attraction, I’ve managed to work with Mrs. Ironwood’s responsive desire and escalate the number of sexual encounters while reducing the number of rejections.  We went from once every 2 weeks or so under Mode A to five or six times a week, sometimes more, under Mode B.  Male social dominance, confidence (which is more than just knowledge and understanding of your body) and applied charisma did more to increase reactive desire and improve sexual joy than any amount of dishes, backrubs, and flattery.

Nor am I alone.  Thanks in part to Emily’s work, thousands of couples are now taking a second look at male dominance in their marriage, and end up saving and improving their marriages as a result.  Without, I might add, recourse to marriage counseling and other crutches.  While this is by no means a silver bullet, it is a far, far more productive strategy when dealing with a woman with strong reactive desire than anything I’ve seen come out of Emily’s work, yet. 

That may be in part due to her feminist identification, which precludes advocating masculine dominance in any setting, no matter how effective.  Or, she might surprise me and propose a workable and practical way to make the Mode A “equal partners” approach work in a way that invites the happy fulfillment of both parties, not just the woman, and a way that doesn’t encourage infidelity or presuppose the temporary nature of “commitment”, when it comes to marriage. 

But the science is there.  The practical application is there.  The peer-reviewed exchange of information is happening.  Techniques are being refined.  And the current surge of suspicion of feminism that’s surfacing in the popular culture is indicating that there is fertile ground for this approach to fall on.

I’m not tempted to believe Emily will respond to this comment, or even read it – she doesn’t, usually, considering our opposition on several points, and her unwillingness to read comments longer than her original posts.  But I leave this here to help inform any other poor husband desperately searching for a way to make his marriage work again.  You won’t find the answers here.  You will find some good information, but Emily won’t tell you how to make your wife aroused for you again, she’ll only be able to convince your wife that there isn’t anything wrong with her lack of desire for you.

If you want the real answers, you’ll have to seek them elsewhere.  But that’s how one spontaneous desire husband dealt with his reactive desire wife.  He rediscovered his masculinity, honed it into a helpful tool, and applied it wholeheartedly to his marriage.  Now he’s getting laid like a teenager and his union has never been stronger.  Hold that up to a 50% divorce rate and declining marriage rates, and see if you can find anything in feminism that promises better.

Breaking Beta: Ending Female Social Entitlement

Feminism has made a lot of "male sexual entitlement", the demon responsible for everything from catcalling and beer commercials to sex trafficking, according to the Cathedral.  Indeed, the feminist attack on male sexuality stems from its constant battle with "male sexual entitlement"; the feminist theory goes that if a man feels that he has a decent shot at having sex with a woman under nearly any normal circumstances, he's actually oppressing her with his patriarchal entitlement to her body, or something like that.

Because feminism can't wrap it's frizzy little head around the concept that the male desire for sex - which crosses all sexual preferences in our sex - is such a powerful force in our lives that we would willingly give up, say, a fulfilling platonic relationship with a woman if there wasn't a sexual component.  Despite the propaganda about gender equality, when it comes to dating and mating, feminism still jealously guards the female imperative to control sex in the SMP.  Feminism feels assured that if it shames and browbeats enough men, they will cease pitting women against each other in competition for the highly-valued mates ("Alphas", though they never use the term) and allow feminine society to determine which women should end up with which men and for how long.

Of course that's ludicrous, for many different reasons, but that's the feminist M.O. on mating: male sexual entitlement (male sexuality) is BAD, while female social entitlement ("Let's just be friends", or LJBF) is seen as some gracious gift nearly as valuable as the one she keeps between her legs.

Female Social Entitlement is the ugly dark side of the feminist equation.  You won't find it spelled out specifically in the literature, exactly, but it implicitly enshrines the AF/BB concept as an institution, when accepted.  And this, not coincidentally, is where many poor Beta boys start the inevitable downward spiral.

When a woman rejects a man, but doesn't want to lose access or support she can casually pick up from him at no personal cost to herself, using LJBF is a way her Rationalization Hamster can assuage her guilt for rejecting a dude who, on paper, is a Perfectly Decent Guy.  It's not that she dislikes the Beta Boy - she just has no tingles for him, and her hypergamous instinct tells her to shelve such a pristine dude for later, when her sexual capital starts to wane.

By attempting to make a social connection with an undesired male permanent with a LJBF, the woman is staking a kind of claim on his time and energy that she does not necessarily deserve . . . but she rationalizes it through her sense of social entitlement.  Why wouldn't a decent man want to be her friend, after all?  Why would he allow base sexuality to come between him and what she just knows in her heart is a fulfilling future of platonic social interaction?  Why wouldn't he want to introduce her to his circle of handsome and successful friends?  Is he that threatened by her?

Heh.

That's what Female Social Entitlement is: the expectation of an alliance based on an unreciprocated sexual interest.  It's a shit-test of the highest order, and women know it.  Indeed, to her mind, rejecting a LJBF shit-test is both a criticism of her worthiness and - as a result - her hamster must reconcile such a rejection with her own sense of self-worth (usually hyperinflated) by denigrating the male who dared reject her gracious offer of friendship.

But for the Blue Pill Beta Chump, LJBF is an insidious trap.  Not seeing it as the shit-test it is, they blindly stumble into the heart of female social expectation with their dick in their hands and end up frustrated, angry, and resentful.  If they do stick around long enough to witness the woman's unceremonious and inevitable impact with the Wall, they might just pick her up in a moment of weakness . . . still seeing her for the highly-valued potential she once had, not the last dregs of her sexuality she's reserving for him . . . or whatever Alpha she can scare up one last time.

Women who use the LJBF rejection don't understand the implied humiliation they are heaping on the recipient - they see their friendship as a valued consolation prize, perhaps ultimately more valuable than their own sexuality.  Friendship, to women, implies an alliance . . . with other women.  With men, it's decidedly a one-way street.  Of what value does a platonic female friend have for a dude?  Unless she's actively trying to get him laid, she's represents a waste of resources unlikely to pay any significant dividends.  She will expect her orbiting chumps to help her move, help her with work or school, bail her out of jail or trouble, come to her defense, and even loan her money without any sexual expectation because the concept of "friendship" varies so differently between men and women.
Yet if you attempt to challenge a woman on this, in most cases she will become rightously offended.  If of a feminist bent, she will attempt to shame you for your inability or unwillingness to control your sexual desires, degrade you for being shallow, and otherwise respond more or less as she would for rejecting any other shit test.

I've seen a number of adept players spin LJBF into something more productive, but it takes iron-clad holding of Frame and a cultivated insensitivity to female feelz.  The acknowleged master in my day was a pre-law Duke student named Trevor, who was the kind of short, aggressively-Alpha dude who made up for a lack of looks and build by utterly dominating Game.

When Trevor would hear LJBF, he'd get a concerned look on his face.  He could play it a couple of different ways, but usually the conversation went something like this:

SHE: "Look, I really like you, you're a great guy, but I don't want to be in a relationship right now.  Can't we just be friends?"

TREV: "My friends help me get laid.  Are you going to do that?"

SHE: "I beg your pardon?"

TREV: "I'm highly selective about the women I sleep with, and I'm even more selective about the people in my circle I call my friends.  They have one thing in common: they all are actively trying to get me laid."

SHE: "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!"

TREV: "True nonetheless.  They find it a rewarding pursuit - I can be a very, very good friend, (This was true - Trevor was highly appreciative if you found him a promising lead).  But if you aren't working in my best interest, you're not really my friend, are you?"

SHE: (Confused) "Uh, I guess so . . ."

TREV: "I mean, if you're my friend, are you going to introduce me to your slutty good-looking girlfriends?"

SHE: "No!  I mean, yes!  Maybe!  I . . ."

TREV: "See how conflicted you are about that?  Suddenly you're my friend, and you've promised to try to get me laid.  But you don't really want to let me screw your slutty friends.  Where does that leave us?  You keeping me from hitting on your friends?  The only reason to do that is if you want me yourself."

SHE: "You wouldn't really hit on my friends . . ." (preparing for another shit-test, now that she realizes that Trev is not your AFC)

TREV: "Honey, I'd fuck your two best friends on your bed while you watch, just ask any of my friends.  I'm in this to get laid, and either you're with me or against me." (it was the 1990s . . . I actually heard him use the line "if you don't blow me in the parking lot, the terrorists win" successfully once).

SHE: "That's so . . . crude!  Why can't we just be friends?"

TREV: "I've told you why, darlin'.  My friends look out for my pecker.  That's their defining characteristic.  Now if you want to be my friend, that's what you're signing up for.  Conversely, if you want to look out for my pecker by yourself, well, I'm open to that possibility as well."


And on and on it went.  By steadfastly holding Frame and denying the legitimacy of her Female Social Entitlement, he could turn a LJBF into a fast close in the space of three minutes.

Not everyone is so masterful.  Trev is now a very successful patent attorney, and he had natural charisma the way Sinatra had pipes.  But there are some strong lessons to be pulled from his Game.

First, of course, is that LJBF is a bona fide shit-test under any circumstances.  If you accept it, you lose.

Second, women have a natural feeling of entitlement to your friendship, alliance, and good will based entirely upon your sexual attraction to them (and their lackluster assessment of you as a mate).  This is not a bad-faith move, as it appears, it's just the residue of feminine hypergamy at work.  Stacking up a few orbitors is good insurance for BB later on down the road, post-Wall.  But if you don't want to be BB, then you have to disabuse them of the notion that your friendship - which serves as a diminished form of your commitment to her - is free for the asking.

What that does, in effect, is to de-value your own friendship while inflating the value of her sexuality.  She does not really mean to be a supportive friend, and you both know it.  But that does not mean that she will not impose on that friendship, if she has the need and opportunity, and you both know it.  It also means that her sexuality is more-or-less permanently off the table, regardless of your feelings on the matter.  And you both know it.

Beta chumps will get suckered on this play.  Alphas won't.  They don't cooperate with Female Social Entitlement any more than a feminist cooperates with Male Sexual Entitlement (unless he's really cute or has a motorcycle or something).  An Alpha will shut that shit down the moment it comes up.

A Beta aspiring to break the vicious, ugly cycle of LJBF often discovers that rejecting a woman's Female Social Entitlement - and dealing with the resulting ugly consequences of her hamstering - is often the first step on the road to breaking his Beta.  By valuing your interpersonal relationships and actual friendships as much as a woman values the sexual power of her vagina, you establish hand in any relationship you indulge in.  Keeping the idea of "female friends" as a capitulation to Female Social Entitlement, and a genuine disservices to the interests of the man in question, is vital to cultivating the masculine mindset that keeps your Game fresh and effective.

There are ways to use the "LJBF" cynically, of course.  Agreeing, ala BB, to "just be friends" and then using that friendship to get close to her own circle of female friends is one way to go about it.  I've seen a hardened player go through three or four girls in the same social circle by trading on the "Oh, I'm good friends with Julie, but she's not into the same sorts of kinks I am" line and make it pay off handsomely.  Of course, he left a trail of broken hearts and bruised hamsters behind, but that's the nature of the beast.

Lastly, for those of you genuinely offended by the idea that a man and a woman can't "just be friends", your idealism does you credit . . . but it's going to damage your social life.  The painful LJBF meme is openly acknowledged on both sides of the ideological spectrum, although the perspectives on it are different.  Feminism and its allies want you to believe that men are secretly noble and good and can "control their sexuality" enough to be decent to women without their sexuality becoming an issue, but that nobility is hidden under a thick layer of culturally-derived and artificial baggage about "gender norms" and stereotypes.

The Red Pill, on the other hand, acknowledges that men are sexual creatures whose primary goal in life is expressing that sexuality with as many women as he comfortably can - and that sexually non-productive relationships are an unnecessary drain on his resources.

Now the more Beta Boys we can get to recognize the reality of the latter, and start answering LJBF with the acid it deserves, the better.

Response To A Comment On Anti-Feminism

I got this comment on my "Feminism: This Is What's Wrong With You" post, and my response was too long for the comments, so I decided to post it here.

Here's the comment:

I know I'm late to the party here, but having just been shown this post I want to make one thing absolutely clear: the fact that many of us are now *against* what mainstream feminism has become absolutely does not mean we're *with* the likes of you. 

We're not against feminism because we disagree with its purported goal of true equality of opportunity among the sexes, or our absolute right to self-determination and bodily autonomy, or with dismantling gender roles and the expectations and assumptions they impose on individuals. 

We're never going to stand with anyone who believes anything, ever, gives a person the "native right" to use another's body sexually without their ongoing enthusiastic consent. Or dehumanises men by insinuating that they are such slaves to impulse that if they can't rape their wives they'll inevitably cheat on them. Or generalises the nature of individuals' sexuality based on their sex alone. Or does not support an individual's right to end a relationship on their own terms. Or espouses the sexist view that marriage is somehow a pillar of femininity more than one of masculinity. Or implies women (but not men) must choose *either* a career or a family. Or believes that when partners each choose to keep their own names in an equal relationship this is somehow emasculating.
We're "against feminism" because yes, the mainstream feminist movement ignores and derides male issues, because it adopts stances that are fundamentally sexist, because it fails to address intersectionality with issues of race and gender identity, and because it manufactures victimhood and fear, among other things.

But we're still for true equality. Not for tired old sexist bullshit like using women who don't wear what you think they should wear as a simile for being clueless and out of touch. 

Sincerely,  

A woman with three advanced science degrees. 

And my response:

I think you characterize our position.  Please allow me to rebut.

Let's look at what "the likes of us" have actually been saying here, not what feminism has portrayed us as saying.  At no point have I (or most in the Manosphere - I understand that there are some exceptions) endorsed or espoused any denial of equal opportunity or equal treatment under the law.  Nor has their been any serious suggestion of impairing any of the rights women currently enjoy under our liberal democratic system of government.  I myself am politically a Progressive, meaning my political philosophy stems from Humanism.  Most folks in the Manosphere are adherents to this philosophy, which advocates the legal, moral, and ethical equality of all people.

With me so far?

Let me be blunt: the Red Pill does not advocate anyone ever doing anything non-consensual, sexually or otherwise.  It never has, and to say so is a gross mis-characterization of the praxeology.  What you portray as a "native right" is actually a biologically determined pattern of mating behavior that belies the feminist perspective on sex and sexuality.  When idealism collides with the realities of science, idealism usually suffers.  Just ask the Marxists in Eastern Europe.

Far from "dehumanizing" men, the Red Pill approach to positive masculinity acknowledges the deep importance of sexuality to the average man's life and attempts to help him realize his goals in that regard. It is the feminist perspective, that all men are aggressive sexual predators, that dehumanizes men.  The Red Pill uplifts them to a more profound understanding of their own masculinity.  And yes, sex is a valued part of that equation.

But some of your other issues demonstrate a lack of regard for masculine culture and masculine behavior - as men determine to define it, not women.  For example, the refusal of a wife to take a husband's name IS emasculating, and indicative of her eventual desire to end the marriage.  It's a legitimate warning sign men who fear divorce (and what man doesn't?) need to be aware of before marriage.  That's a pragmatic, not idealistic perspective.  Nor does the Red Pill demand that women choose between career and family or ask that men do; Mrs. Ironwood, and most other RP women, do have careers of their own. The difference is that they have demonstrably put their family life ahead of their career goals in a way that makes feminists cringe.  Most RP men would also say they share that perspective: their careers are a means to support their families, not the other way around.

The fact that marriage does advantage women more than men - and that divorce punishes men more than women - makes it a far more desirable goal for women than men, nor is the burning desire for wedding cake a common discussion in male circles. Men control commitment in our species, however, so marriage and commitment are important issues for us . . . just as they are highly important to a large number of women.

If we generalize sexuality, that's because we look at science, for which generalities - that is, aggregate data - show patterns at work from which useful data can be used.  Knowing such "generalizations" can steer men away from dangerous and unproductive relationships.  If that means a few innocent girls get dumped along the way, I think greater femininity can take the hit.

But refusing to acknowledge the scientifically-studied biological truths that underlie the patterns of human mating in our society, namely the prevalence of Hypergamy and Polygamy as the primary mating strategies of humans in nearly every human culture, is seeking to place the rosy ideal of equality above the brutally pragmatic reality that most people face every day. Men do cheat.  Women do cheat. We explain why, and what to do to avoid it.  Post-feminism, marriage is bad for men.  We explain why and how to deal with it.  Divorce is very bad for men.  We explain why and what to do to avoid it.

Marriage used to be the negotiated exchange (yes, by any scientific definition) of sex and security; without the security of consensual sex and real authentic commitment, men are simply better off avoiding commitment altogether.  It's not a matter of ideals or ideology, it's a simple, pragmatic fact.  Women are more aroused by more dominant men, therefore teaching men how to be dominant gets them more of what they want, sex.  There is no oppressive ideology here.  There is only a praxeology of how to fulfill a man's vision of his own masculinity.

You see, while you celebrate the ending of gender roles, you fail to appreciate all of what that entails.  Not only did it liberate women from the expectations of pursuing family instead of a career, it also liberated men from the social obligation of verbally pandering to an ideology in the hopes of social acceptance. Once you add the sexual element into the equation - and you cannot NOT add it in - and men start pursuing their issues and interests as THEY define them, then all ideology falls by the wayside.  One thing we know about the Red Pill is that desire cannot be negotiated.  Ignoring what men and women find arousing and/or attracting in favor of pursuing an abstract ideal and allowing that to determine your personal course is the road to folly, misery, and divorce.

We may deride the flood of bitterly-unhappy women who are discovering that their ideology, which promised that there would be a long line of decent dudes waiting around for them when they were done "exploring themselves", but that's because they are a product of their own self-inflicted ideology.  We snicker at those women who discover, to their horror, that the intended future involving a good caring man and children (sometime after 35 and, say, 3 degrees) utterly fails to materialize, because she was more inclined to believe feminism's promise  than the "patriarchal" system of assortative mating that insists you lock down a dude before you're 25 or get what's left over.

We snicker when we hear feminists and other women talk about "true equality", and then dismiss the fact that Selective Service registration is mandatory for one sex but not the other as "men's fault".  We laugh when we hear about our "male privilege" and then read how yet-another friend blew his head off, or ended up on the street, or got assaulted by his girlfriend again but no one will take him seriously because he's a dude.  Or a pal who hasn't seen his kids in 8 years because his wife thinks he's a danger to his children - and he's a Quaker.  These men will never have "equality".  They live in a system that lauds their "privilege" while demanding yet-more sacrifices of them, then subjects them to the emasculating humiliations and shame that feminism dumps on them for the crime of having a penis.

I understand your anger against feminism, and I share it.  But you're right, we aren't approaching the matter from the same place.  You are determined to fight for a world of equality.  I understand, because of the nature of my gender, that we will never truly achieve it.  I don't think that women will allow us to achieve it.  If you truly understood what social and cultural responsibilities and expectations men are subjected to that women are not, you would not be so eager to press for "equality", for that is a dreadful burden that most women would reluctant to "share".

Feminism has denigrated and derided masculinity and male-ness for so long, no number of perky pop princesses lecturing us about it at the UN are going to change the fact that when our culture and civilization are in peril, it is men, not women, who are expected to give their lives, liberty, and property up for the common good.  Men are expendable, and we know it.  We're told that from the time we are boys.  While feminists fret about "male privilidge", that priviledge includes baggage that most women just choose not to see.  Yet it is a burden that must be borne, if by an ever-decreasing number of us.

You can thank feminism for that.

Sincerely,

A man with plenty of useless degrees, twenty-five books, three kids, and a wife who understands and supports him because he's a great man, not because of the ideology of "equality".

Breaking Beta: Removing The Tree

As I deconstruct the process of De-Betacization, it occurs to me that, after dealing with and conquering your fear, one of the hardest elements of breaking Beta is understanding your own power to affect change in your own life.  This one is subtle, fellas, so you might want to read with both hands for a minute.

One of the lessons I teach my religious students (disclaimer: no demons were consulted in the composition of this lesson - it's pure Earthly Wisdom, usable without risk of damnation by all denominations) is that one of the fundamental ways in which we can exercise personal power is by recognizing our role in the context of the universe, and then recognizing that the absolutely easiest way for them to change the universe at large is by changing themselves and/or their context.

I illustrate this point with the exercise of having my students try to sink a basketball in the hoop with a tree in the way.  (Thankfully, just about every home in the South, especially around Tobacco Road, comes equipped with a portable basketball goal of adjustable height, along with a couch for display on the porch of your choice)

Of course they try mightily to do so, at first, using bank shots off the trunk or hurling the ball into the canopy and hoping a Plinko-like descent manages to get it in the basket.  I tell them to "move the tree with their minds" and they try their very hardest to literally do this for a while.  It sinks in pretty quickly that magic doesn't work like on Harry Potter.  It's a lot of fun to watch, and after a while they focus so much on the difficulty of the exercise they forget why they're doing it.  Think about that.

At that point, I come back and demonstrate that simply by taking two steps to the left or right, the seemingly insurmountable obstacle of the tree no longer obstructs at all.  They have "removed" the tree, for all practical purposes, by literally changing their perspective. Sinking a basket at that point is as easy as making a free-throw.  Then I smugly tell them "the power was within you, all along!" in my best Glenda The Good Witch voice.  It's highly annoying.  One of the perqs of being a spiritual teacher.

The lesson, of course, is that by changing your own perspective you have, by definition, changed the nature and expression of the equation.  Schrodinger's Cat and it's various kittens have demonstrated the observable truth that the observer by the act of observing affects the destiny of the observed -- how much more does an agent in the equation affect the course of events?  

Too often, we forget that we have that power: the power to change our own perspective.  Especially if we have suffered Betacization, we come to feel trapped by our circumstance or our nature, doomed to our fate with no hope of escape.  And often that captivity must become unbearable before a Beta decides to cast aside his cherished rationalizations for his lackluster behavior and even consider making a change.  Otherwise it's just too easy to play it safe, keep your mouth shut, and do what she tells you to do.

But you don't have to hit "rock bottom" to make this realization.  Often you can do so just by changing your perspective.  That could entail something as simple as an unexpected flirtation, a road trip, a meaningful artistic or literary experience, a chance meeting, an unlikely opportunity, a birth, a wedding, a death, a crisis situation, or any other sudden departure from the normal, expected, mundane course of your daily life.  At some point, in order to start Breaking your Beta, you have to gain the perspective that you have, indeed, the innate power to Break your Beta.

From the Betacized perspective, the fear of losing what you have outweighs the fear of losing what you might win.  You make a cost-benefit analysis and decide that it's just easier to maintain the status quo, and not take the risk.  Plus, your fear has often convinced you that you are, indeed, incapable of being successful . . . often because you've been criticized and condemned for your perceived failures in life so much and so often that you've accepted the opinions of others over your own honest self-assessment.

Maybe it was your mother who started it, comparing you to a weak or absent father.  Maybe it was a shrewish girlfriend who started it, and you never quite recovered.  But we rarely self-betacize.

In my religious tradition, one of the spiritual technologies we use is ritual.  I'm not talking about the wand-waving-candle-burning-dancing-around-a-bonfire kind of ritual (although, honestly, as religious services go it beats the heck out of Sunday School), I'm speaking here of ritual in the psychological sense.  From a technical perspective, when properly performed, a rite or ritual will affect a psychological change on the subject by creating an artificial psychological crisis in a safe and controlled environment.

While such a crisis is ideally guided and led by someone experienced with such things, i.e. their priest/shaman/psychologist/druid/pastor/preacher/guru/celebrity, the fundamental element is giving the subject the opportunity to voluntarily change their perspective when faced with such a crisis as a means of coping with that crisis.  Sure, it's the "throw 'em in and see if they swim" method of psychological care, but it has the twin virtues of being highly effective and cheaper than extended psychotherapy.

Now, I'm not suggesting you ladies burn down your house to see how hubby Alpha's Up - that's not
the sort of "crisis" we're talking about.  While tornadoes and tragedy can certainly provide the needed kick in the ass for the change of perspective in a man, more often than not Fate will kick a few helpful crises in his direction to provide the impetus.

For example, a friend of mine -- a howling Progressive, hyper-liberal scholarly hippy -- was biking home from his low-paying job at a book store one day when he got mugged.  It was a simple exchange: gun, wallet, and gone.  While unusual, such things are not unheard of in my gritty burg.  But the effect this brush with mortality had on my friend was profound.

Understanding for the first time that another human being had the power of life or death over him, regardless of the Law or Rights or Community Spirit, and he was utterly helpless in the face of that, was enough change in perspective to institute a massive personal lifestyle shift, with accompanying shift in attitude and direction.  He's a lawyer, now.  And while I wish that story could have ended more happily, it points out that one little existential or moral crisis can be enough, if a man is ripe, to begin the process.

And a process it is.  You cannot merely flip a switch (in most cases) and see the Alpha emerge, fully-formed.  Betas are broken, remember; the crisis experience begins the healing process, but it's a long and difficult journey.  Painful.  Unpleasant.  Permanent.  If you don't keep your eyes on the prize - becoming a Better Man - then it's all too easy to backslide into comfortable mediocrity, once-a-month IV drip sex, and never making plans for yourself because they might conflict with your wife's calendar.  Changing your perspective can remove the tree from the process . . . but you still gotta sink that free throw.

Being faced with death can do it.  Being faced with birth can do it.  Even something as simple as looking at old photos can trigger it.  A man has to see himself, and then see himself differently, and then be able to compare the two to be able to challenge his thick Beta coating.  He has to be able to envision a better life, a better man to be, a future in which happiness is possible and regret isn't a daily indulgence, or he can never get out of the dungeon he's put himself in.

Some people think the essence of Breaking Beta is challenging the role of your wife . . . and it's not.  If you're in a Blue Pill marriage, then your wife's power over you is not actually a result of her natural domineering nature . . . it's a result of your failure to assert yourself properly, because of your fear.  Challenging your wife's role becomes a by-product of the transformative experience of changing your perspective, because once you get that damn tree (your own tepid rationalizations for your crappy masculinity) out of the way, it might take you a couple of shots - but eventually that's a basket you can make.

Some things to consider, Gentlemen, that might help you find the courage to do this:

1. Yeah, it really is your fault . . . because if it isn't your fault, then you can't change it.  You CAN change it, so suck it up and own it.  That's a sign of mature masculinity, not a capitulation to guilt.

2. As bad as you think your relationship with your wife/woman might be right now (if you have one), the fear that they will somehow become worse if you challenge her dominance in the relationship is wrong.  They might get real interesting for a while, but usually you'll see a change in HER perspective in reaction to your change in perspective pretty darn quick.  Don't believe me? Check out the Field Reports at the r/theredpill and r/RedPillWomen subreddits for testimonials.  It's like they're . . . responsive or something.  Remember, you can realistically challenge her position if you are in a place of strength.

3. What she says doesn't matter one tenth as much as what she does.  Basic Red Pill truth.  Engrave it on your XY chromosome where you won't forget it.  Let her say whatever she wants.  Just do what you have to do to make yourself right, and she'll either deal with it, or she won't.  That's known as Holding Frame.  Also known as Not Being A Pussy.  This takes practice, but it's an essential part of your recovery.  She will respond by her actions.  And if she doesn't . . . you can find one that will.

4. Lose the baggage.  If you don't currently have a woman and are the "victim" of a past actually ahead of the curve.  You don't have a real woman to contend with, which means that all of your issues are the Ghosts of Relationships Past.  You aren't the same person you were then, you're the person you choose to be now.  If this describes you, then a) forget every past girlfriend and her expectations and shrewish criticisms you ever had because, like, she was a real bitch anyway and b) realize that you won't put up with that shit from your next girlfriend.
Betacization, then you are

5. Evaluate your relationship with your mother.  Often if a betacized male has been beaten into submission by a girlfriend or wife, his mom spent years making him vulnerable to that . . . and his dad wasn't able to instruct him how to avoid it.  If your mother still has more of a presence in your life than she should -- even psychologically -- then challenging that relationship is going to be essential to progress.  I've seen men who appear to be solid Alphas collapse like little girls when their Mama starts yelling.  If you can't respectfully stand up to your mother and keep her from exercise undue influence over your life, then it's going to be orders of magnitude harder to stand up to your girlfriend or wife.

(Note that you don't actually have to get into a fight with Mom, you just have to realize that you're a grown man and while you might appreciate her advice, she is not the infallible Mother Goddess she was to you when you were six.  She might have been an expert on potty training and table manners, but when it comes to being a man, expressing your masculinity, and living as a mature adult male, she knows jack shit about how to cultivate that.  Love her for her unconditional love and flawless Tollhouse cookies, but ignore her bitching, complaints, and criticisms.  Hell, if you don't have a girlfriend at the moment, you can even Game your mom, in a non-sexual way.  It's great practice.)

6. Come to terms with your own mortality.  Yes, you're going to die.  That's inevitable.  Life is funny that way -- no one gets out alive.  One of the most fundamental signs of a mature masculinity is the ability to accept your mortality, and live your life anyway.  If you haven't really thought about death because it's creepy and scary and you're not that old yet . . . then you have some catching up to do.  If you have kids, this will take you down one psychological road.  If you don't, and don't want to, then that takes you down another.  And if you don't, but do want to, then that in and of itself may give you the perspective you need to change your perspective and therefore your life.

7. Quit worrying what other people think.  Seriously.  If you only value the opinions of the people who value your opinion, that simplifies your perspective dramatically.  The fear of mis-perception (or worse, accurate perception) is almost always far, far more potent an agent in your life than the actual condemnation you might  ever get.  My brother, Andy Ironwood, came to terms with this by being scrupulously honest.  By being utterly truthful, he never fears other's perceptions of his behavior, because he feels capable of defending his actions before the throne of any convenient divinity . . . because he doesn't try to lie or rationalize his way through life. (BTW, he's decided he's going to put himself back on the SMP.  Fair warning).

We worry about what other people think because we are fearful of their judgement, and worried that they will reject us.  Often the people we fear this from the most are the people least entitled to render judgement on our lives, or be in a position to meaningfully reject us.  By understanding that the power of their judgement and rejection is limited to that which we, ourselves, choose to grant them, we can take that power back from them by ignoring even the possibility that their judgement or rejection is important to us.  That can be a hard perspective to change, but it's one of the most profound you can make.

8. Change Who You Present As.  This is a biggie, and a hard, hard thing for most Betas to contend with.  Betas have been trained to play it safe.  The thought of going all ALPHA all of a sudden is just too shocking, and they fret that other people will judge them (see: 7, above).  But one of the basic ways in which we can affect our own perspective is by making a visible or nominal change and demanding it be accepted by the rest of the universe.

I've got two examples of this.  In college, one of my bosses at my work-study assignment had signature muttonchop sideburns which he'd had since he was in college . . . back in the 70s when they were cool.  Now, this dude had always been a "Super Nice Guy", everyone loved him at work, but he was constantly having problems at home, it was rumored.

Then one day he showed up to work for the first time in 20 years with his cheeks shaved.  The signature muttonchops were gone.  I passed him in the hallway without recognizing him, at first, and when I asked we talked about personal transformation and human fulfillment and such (Religious Studies major, so I was professionally intrigued) but the upshot was, he'd realized that his sideburns had become a symbol of the preconceptions and history he had bound himself with from his youth.  By getting rid of them, he was symbolically walking away from all of those years of folly.

(After that, interestingly enough, all the ladies who worked with him and thought he was such a "Nice Guy" started talking about the disturbing change, and how he just wasn't the same "Nice Guy" anymore.  The dudes he worked with thought he got a LOT cooler, once he shut up about the Human Potential Movement.  Yeah.  It was like that.)

The second example is a kind of Uber-BETA I knew at one of my many, many temp jobs.  Also in middle-management, this guy, Bob, was the typical White Knight Gamma who spent most of his time doing other people's work . . . and he just could not say no to a woman to save his life.  But he was a "super nice guy" that none of the office women were willing to date.  "Get Bob to do it" was office shorthand.  He had the Gamma Curse bad.

Then (and I honestly don't know what inspired it) Bob came to work and started to stiffly correct anyone who called him "Bob" anymore, asking instead to be addressed as "Robert."  He started signing himself that way on his correspondence, had his nameplate on his cube changed, and sharply corrected anyone who slipped.  If they slipped more than once in a conversation, Robert would have a brief, intense conversation about how he preferred to be addressed that left most of the recipients uncomfortable.

That freaked out several of the women in the office, including his supervisor, but after a consultation with HR she was forced to concede that Bob could, indeed, choose the name by which he was addressed and they had to go along with it.  Some women actually complained that they didn't feel right calling Good Ol' Bob "Robert" because (and I quote) "it's like treating him like a grown-up or something".  

It was a very, very small change.  But it led to others.  Over the next eight weeks or so, Robert lost weight, started working out, grew a beard (which further freaked out the office ladies - one almost demanded he shave it because it "made him look sinister") and quit being asked to do other people's work . . . and when he was, he politely declined.

What I was witnessing, had I known it, was Bob de-betacizing, or at least beginning the process.  I was only at the job for about eight weeks, so I don't know how it turned out, but five weeks into his journey the visible change in Bob - Robert - was startling.  The social change was just as pronounced.  The many, many women in the office started complaining that they missed "the old Bob", and how Robert just wasn't nearly as nice.  Some even had the nerve to ask him why he had "stopped being nice".  He held frame and didn't give them any answers.  There were even murmurings about talking to HR about Robert again, since some women in the office felt that his changes were bad for morale.

Nothing came of it, to my knowledge, but there was something intermingled with that sudden distrust, suspicion, and anxiety about Beta Bob's transformation toward Alpha Robert: respect.  Once Robert quit agreeing to take on extra work and responsibilities out of a misplaced desire to be "a nice guy", they may have missed Bob's utility but they respected Robert's new boundaries, after he established them.

And it all started because he told a room full of Chatty Cathys "My name is Robert, not Bob.  Please refer to me that way in the future" one rainy Tuesday morning.  Not quite "Get your hands off of me, you damn dirty ape!" but as far as betacized Gammas go, it was about as close as you can get.

Changing your perspective is one of the first invaluable steps on the road from betacization to realizing your full masculine potential.  Figuring out which tree is in the way of your goal is the first step.  Figuring out which way to step around it is the second.  And sinking the shot is the third.  But you have to start by making a gentleman's agreement with yourself about rationalizing in favor of your Beta and taking that first, significant step . . . around the goddamn tree.

Red Pill men, what was your "Alpha Moment"? What did you do that changed your perspective and began your journey?