Preventative Medicine – Part IV
The more an Alpha man actualizes his SMV [Sexual market value] potential – through maintained (or improved) looks, career, maturity, affluence, status, etc. – the more a woman’s need for enduring security becomes threatened as her SMV consistently decays in comparison. A woman’s logical response to this new form of competition anxiety usually manifests in two ways.
The first being an intense motivation to domineer and control her relationship by placing herself in a dominant role. She assumes (or attempts to assume) headship of the marriage / relationship by way of convenient conviction or from a self-created sense of her husband’s (really all men’s) untrustworthiness bolstered by social conventions that insist women need to be the head of the house (i.e. “she’s the real boss, heheh”). Her insecurity about her own comparative SMV manifests in her demanding he ‘do the right thing’ and limit his SMV potential for the sake of a more important role as her (and their family’s) dutiful provider.
Of course the problem with this is that a man acquiescing to such dominance not only loses out on his capacity to maximize his SMV peak potential, but also confirms for his wife that his status isn’t as Alpha as he’s confident it is. This Alpha disenfranchisement will play a significant part in a woman’s Redevelopment phase.
The second logical response is apathy and resentment. A disconnect from her SMV peaking mate may seem like a woman’s resigning herself to her non-competitive SMV fate, but it serves the same purpose as a woman’s insistence for relational dominance – an assurance of continued security and provisioning as the result of his limiting his SMV potential. This apathy is, by design, paired with the guilt that her mate is more focused on his own self-development than the importance he should be applying to her and any family. The result becomes one of a man chasing his own tail in order to satisfy this passive insecurity and failing passive shit tests.
In either instance the seeds of a man’s decline are rooted in his ability to identify this schism in relation to how it aligns with his SMV potential at the same time it affects his long term partner. The problem with the schism is that for all the limitations a woman would emplace against a man actualizing his SMV potential, the same limitations will also constitute a significant part of her justification for being dissatisfied with him during her Redevelopment phase.
The remainder of the article explains the various ways her Redevelopment phase will cause her to either divorce or “settle”, etc. in familiar unflattering terms which are painfully accurate in describing most Western women, in my opinion. However, since most Western women are miserable, I wouldn’t call this article an actual prescription for the cure.
Rather, it would seem that the author’s cure is best described (and he links to it) here, in an approach that Tomassi calls “Game” but which turns out to be “Sexual Dominance”: http://therationalmale.com/2012/08/22/just-get-it/
In any case, whether one is using Game/Dominance alone in conjunction with its more mature partner, “Authority”, any measure of this attitude may well inspire a woman to act in her own interest which includes his—or actually puts his first. In fact, my advice for women lucky enough to be in a relationship with a Dominant man is to put his needs first. That is also how I define love. Any pairing or partnership which eliminates love will be by definition unsatisfying to that woman. Meanwhile, caring for the needs of another is how love generates—it is not solely a spontaneous or irrational thing signified by chemical attraction. Western women need to relearn this in the wake of the modern decline of romance brought about by feminist ideology.
If he is happy, she’s happy. If she’s happy, he’s happy. That’s my observation and advice in brief. Happiness normally includes acceptance, romance, desire, excitement, and living life to its fullest as well as self-love which comes from character and sacrifice not self-gratification. Whereas, for the typical Westerner, social conventions, security, wealth, and fame take precedence, with the need for sexual variety—or even just sexual acceptance from multiple sources being a social taboo to discuss.
As I suppose is to be expected from a blog called, “The Rational Male,” there is very little mention in the article about love. Rollo Tomassi has in previous articles attested that women are simply unable to love (http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/27/women-in-love/). I have to agree that this fits the majority, who would rather have “security” than “love” or who believe that they would rather have longevity and wealth than love, or to even prefer “celebrity”.
However, I suggest that not all actions in a human being need come from the logic of self-preservation—and besides, being alone and without love (but rich and famous) is paradoxically not self-preservation. I believe that love is more important than self-preservation and there’s no prize awaiting for he or she who breaks all longevity records, but that love is necessary for all transcendence regardless of metaphysical or irrational beliefs.
Sometimes the paradoxical opposite of self-preservation is necessary to transcend pathology or codependence. I assert that a woman who puts love and sex before materialism, security, or conformity to community is a better bet as a partner/mate/spouse/submissive and a man who puts love and protectiveness before sexual variety is a better bet as a partner/mate/spouse/dominant—but putting those priorities “first” doesn’t mean exclusivity, it’s about relative weight. In Western thought it would seem that “rationality” often has primacy over balance. In a modern couple it would seem that achieving balance and mastery over one’s own nemesis are more rewarding objectives than succumbing to one’s weaknesses. Putting that balancing act into play is a matter of analyzing feedback, trends, and indications—required by both parties in a relationship but with the greater burden of responsibility for the analysis on the Dominant partner’s shoulders with the greater burden of communication on the submissive partner’s shoulders.
Taking state-sanctioned gynocentric marriage out of the equation however may result in more clarity in terms of that balance because it forces the woman to be a player in the balancing act rather than resting on the safety net of the state.
Therefore, in the achievement of balance and mastery, I would advise a woman to balance her perceived decreased SMV with contributing to an atmosphere of comfort, enrichment, and acceptance in her home as a first priority which, paradoxically, allows that man to go ahead and sow his wild oats. Only if you set someone free can a man (or wild woman) see that only you allow him (her) that freedom and that returning home is a place of comfort, acceptance, and security in that knowledge. This basically forces all sexual competition to the back burner where it belongs with no risk to the security of the relationship—and if it doesn’t, no big loss—you’re better off without him (or her).