Essay:
https://therationalmale.com/2019/03/20/the-existential-fear-men/
​
Excerpt:
Patriarchy & Monogamy
Socially enforced monogamy was the least barbaric of those compromises, but in this century destroying that monogamy has been a priority for the Feminine Imperative. In theory, socially enforced monogamy was the most beneficial mating strategy for largest number of (low SMV) men to solve their reproductive problem. But the fact remained that it was still an exercise of control over women’s Hypergamous natures. In essence, monogamy worked for men, and it was beneficial as a compromise in parental investment for women, but it also assumed direct a control over women’s sexual selection process.
Patriarchy and monogamy answered a woman’s Hypergamous doubt for her, and that is the crux of women’s Existential Fear – to have the control of her Hypergamy, her selection process, and ultimately the cost associated with that choice determined for her. This fear is exactly why the primary goal of feminism has always been the maximal unlimiting of women’s sexuality and the maximal restricting of men’s sexuality. It seeks to replace the social-scale compromise of the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies with the total capitulation of the male strategy. Today, the Gynocracy has achieved this almost entirely.
But for one sex’s strategy to succeed, the other’s must be compromised or abandoned. For a gynocentric social order, only men’s abandonment of their own strategy is acceptable – and this abandonment insists men deny the evolved imperative of their own Existential Fear – insisting on paternity.
In the evolved scheme of things men’s reproductive best interest involves sacrifices. When a man commits to parental investment with a woman he takes on sunk cost risks. The time he spends investing himself committed to one woman and the children they produce comes at the cost of reproductive opportunities with other women. Women’s sexual strategy necessitates he compromise or abandon his biological imperative. Naturally, both men and women have adapted ways to circumvent monogamy to optimize their sexual strategies (infidelity, short-term breeding schema), but the basic equation is the same; if a man is invested in one woman it limits him from seeking other (potentially better) reproductive opportunities. If you want to know why Plate Theory irks women so much look no further.
The only way this compromise of sexual strategy can be advantageous to men is if he can be relatively assured that the child he’s raising is his own. This is where men’s Existential Fear of paternity fraud begins. He cedes his own strategy and the sunk opportunity cost for reproduction in exchange for the certainty that he’s invested in a child that bears his name and his blood.
I call this men’s Existential Fear because denying men the certainty of paternity presents the same existential anxieties as a woman’s control of Hypergamous doubt taken from her. Women fear the idea of being forced to birth and raise the child of a suboptimal man not of her choosing, while men fear the idea of being deceived into raising a child not of their own genetic lineage. And until the advent of DNA testing only a woman could be certain that the child was her own.
This is root level stuff here. So important was the determination of paternity for men that an obsessive concern for it was written into our mental firmware. The risks of falling for paternity deception was that important, and the men who evolved this compulsion were selected-for. The reason we Mate Guard, the reason our hindbrains default to jealous suspicions, the reason we cannot bear the thought of another man mating with our womanis rooted in the fear of investing ourselves in a child not our own.
In the previous essay I mentioned the natural revulsion response humans have towards things that are inherently harmful to us. A reservation or revulsion of snakes, spiders, feces, rot and necrosis are part of the evolved firmware we’re born with. I would also argue that the revulsion women feel towards “creepy” (low SMV, Beta) men and the revulsion men feel towards “slutty” women is part of this. Both these revulsions are adaptational protections against our respective Existential Fears. Each represents our Instinctual Interpretive Process letting us know what our ancestors had to avoid.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 5y ago
As much as I respect and derive insight from /u/Rollo-Tomassi 's writings, I disagree on his reasoning about our evolutionary directives. This post is characteristically contradictionary.
First, the "Alpha" strategy, is precisely not investing in your children. It is simply, fucking a lot, and fucking a lot of women. During our evolutionary past each woman was expected produce on average two surviving children. So, for a man, even impregnating a "stray" woman once was a huge evolutionary bonus. It dwarfed the "benefits" of any attempt at a "strategy" of providership.
The "Beta" plan, providing for a woman and her (and your) children, is so weak comparatively, that I would hardly call it a "strategy". It is more some kind of damage control, than a strategy. Geoffrey Miller in The Mating Mind writes that "Males may have given some food to females and their offspring [but] anthropologists now view much of this behavior more as courtship effort than paternal investment." For all the moral high grounds that paternity is held onto, especially in conservative cycles, it is getting more and more difficult to deny this simple truth: it has been mostly a "beta" flirting attempt.
It makes sense then for men to have evolved a "firmware" pushing them towards the most effective strategy, i.e. the "Alpha", not the "Beta". That is, towards acquiring sex, rather than securing paternity. No 20-year-old young man, at his prime of his strength and while his male hormones are raging, is preoccupied with "securing his paternity". They are reoccupied in fucking as many and as much pretty girls as they can get their dicks in.
There was no nuclear family back when our evolutionary firmware was inscribed, as there is no institution of "marriage" in any other apes, and any attempts to reason about that evolutionary era from the viewpoint of today's social conventions is ultimately misguided.
Agreed, there is a "war on paternity", as Rollo asserts, and we should do something about it, but that is not to bend and twist our theory around it, in an effort to uphold it theoretically. Paternity should be protected today because it is one of the few fall-backs for men, who are derived of any meaningful notion of belonging. To put it provocatively, paternity is a prison for men, which we sometimes have to support only because the alternatives (i.e. extreme social isolation) is worse. But, as you can see, this is all reasoning about the lower strata, the unfortunates of the sex war. It is damage control, not a winning male strategy.
We are all directed and constricted in our views by the social class we belong in, and I believe this is at the heart of all of Rollo's misplaced emphases.
This whole reasoning about paternity certainty being more central to the male reproductive strategy than "seed spreading", can be understood as an upper-middle class attempt to secure order in a crumbling world ("the decline"): We (the upper middle class) offer scraps (monogamy+paternity certainty) to the masses (lower classes), so that we keep them somewhat content, this way avoiding social unrest, while we (the upper middle class) continue to enjoy the female interest that our elevated social standing affords us.
Truly, it is extremely difficult to have a complete supervision, much less an assessment, of a battlefield, when you stand in the middle. Your own investments and your own interest draws your emphases.
Again, Rollo's is one of only a handful sites that I link to in my site. His conviction that paternity certainty is so central to the male sexual strategyallows him to draw insights that I find valuable. It just deprives him of the potential to form a male-centered vision of dominance in the sexual scene.
Mangasbzo7 5y ago
I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Yes, the optimal male strategy is to fuck and impregnate as many women as possible, but you still want to be sure every one of babies is yours, so that you know your genes will live on. Otherwise from a biological standpoint, there would be literally no point in fucking all those women.
If you didn't care about paternity it would just be sex purely for pleasure, which by definition doesn't count as an evolutionary strategy.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 5y ago
What are you taking about? There was no contraception back then. Fucking and making babies was synonymous.
Mangasbzo7 5y ago
Lol ever heard of pull out bro ?
Don't even know how your point even relates to what I said anyhow
How you a "Senior Contributor" lol
IAMB4TMAN 5y ago
Funny how the higher my SMV rises, my existential fear is becoming more like a Woman's.
Auvergnat 5y ago
Except that a woman’s existential fear is about pairing up with someone and doubting that it’s the best you can pair with.
As a high SMV man adopting a r-strategy, you should not care much about pairing up, but instead care about increasing the diversity/quality of your partners, as in “I wish I could add a HB8 to my roster of spinning plates”.
redpill77 5y ago
We should make a scavenger hunt.
-Skinny Black Girl
-Tall Athletic Girl
-Japanese Girl
-Curvy Redhead
-Virgin
-Rich Girl
-A Girl Who Doesn't Speak English
-Model
-Alpha Female
-Dancer
-Married Girl
-An enemy's hot mom
-Scar Jo
Who am I missing?
[deleted]
INNASKILLZ2K18 5y ago
Feminist girl, who really wants a dominant male?
Spiritual girl? The kind who casts spells and shit. They're always fun.
IAMB4TMAN 5y ago
Think you're reading too deep into my statement. What I'm trying to convey is that as a high smv male, my biggest fear isn't being cucked, it's impregnating (and letting the government enforce at least financial commitment) a female with low smv.
Rollo's post can easily be re-engineered to say a low smv Man's existential fear is being cucked; a lot of low smv Male behavior such as mate guarding etc., can be connected with this fear.
High smv Man's fear is more along the lines of his description of the Female's, with a twist but generally the same - opportunity costs. A lot of high smv male behavior can be explained by this - low propensity for oneitis, execution of an r-strategy, plate spinning, etc.
Redditisfullofcucks 5y ago
Is the fear of being cucked just a low smv male fear? I don't think it is. I think any semi-healthy to very healthy or high smv male would have this fear buried somewhere in the recesses of their mind. If you ever have kids would you abandon the idea of getting a paternity test? And if you do then that must equate that you're low smv and I disagree. If I ever have kids I would get a paternity test no matter how much I trusted my girl. Wayyyyy too much at stake to take such a risk.
MattyAnon Admin 5y ago
It also maximises male to female wealth transfer and maximises male to child support. Beta males get a wife who doesn't fuck the alpha males, he gets to raise his own children, and gets to invest in their future. The female gets access to the maximum resources.
Gender aside, the "old system" of marriage and monogamy was necessary in a world where:
In this world monogamy is necessary to get direct male financial support.
With a welfare state, enforced child support, low infant mortality, early compulsory schooling, homes with all mod cons and an expectation that a woman will get a proper job there are none of the above constraints to stop women literally fucking around and doing as they please.
Many people around here forget the economic and demographic situations in which monogamy was favoured.
Of course the male marriage commitment is still socially expected because all social change is only ever allowed to benefit the female.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
You have your causality reversed. Female empowerment and abandonment of traditional monogamy caused the welfare state, enforced child support, and expectation that women will work, not the other way around.
MattyAnon Admin 5y ago
Oh no. Women didn't let go of the branch of marriage until the branch of welfare was firmly grabbed onto
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Ok. Female empowerment --> welfare state --> end of monogamy --> enforced child support
MattyAnon Admin 5y ago
Right.
When I was young there was great shame in being a single or even unmarried mother.
Within a few decades it became a point of pride and they increased their demands for unconditional support - and got them.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
I'm not even that old, and I remember there was "that one kid" whose mom got knocked up when she was 16. Same for fat people. When my dad was a kid, there was one fat kid in the class. When I was a kid, there was one fat kid in each group of friends (Cartman), and now every other kid is fucking fat.
MattyAnon Admin 5y ago
And you can't say anything because that's fattist.
[deleted] 5y ago
I shot blanks into my first wife for 5 years before we knew they were blanks, and 5 more years after that until I knowingly cucked myself by accepting the responsibility for her lover's child. Bitch didn't even breed with a Mexican so the kid looked like me (Italian, not too many around here though), but instead got knocked up by some damned WASP. That's why the girl's called "Lily" and I'm not joking at all.
Only her mother's refusal to cooperate with her home state prevented it from collecting child support from me. It took a decade for them to drop the case.
Yeah, I know about this existential fear, and I'm a little damned tired of hearing about annoying political things being "cucked." Nah, that's not cucked. That's not even in the same universe.
By the way, if I was not allowed to divorce, I would have been cucked or I would have killed her. Don't get in the way of baby rabies. Convents? Please.
AutoModerator 5y ago
Why are we quarantined? The admin don't want you to know.
Register on our backup site: https://www.trp.red and reserve your reddit name today.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Auvergnat 5y ago
Brilliant piece Rollo. By exploring a bit more than usual the male sexual strategy, and seeing how this strategy compares with, and interacts with the female one you’ve written about at length, you summarise in one post the very fundamentals of sexual realism. Red pill 101 post right there.
showerdudes9 5y ago
Definitely not the same revulsion men feel towards ”slutty” women. Slutty women exists to men and they are mostly hot as hell still even if easy and fun. Low smv beta creeps are non existant and disgusting to women.
Better comparison would be the natural revulsion men feel to fat girls/masculine women.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
No, Rollo is 100% correct. We feel revulsion towards sluts because sluts lead to cuckolding. Cuckolding is the worst possible genetic fate for a man. Banging a fat girl is just a single less than ideal night. If you aren't revolted by sluts, then you are succumbing to fem-centric western brainwashing,
Mangasbzo7 5y ago
Nah bro, sluts are awesome. Their willingness to do freaky shit on the dick, no questions asked, is simply beautiful.
You not gonna make her your gf or wife, so whats the harm if she's a slut
showerdudes9 5y ago
Sluts are fun as fuck in bed, wild too. If you're revolted by them then you're extremely insecure. I'm very revolted by them as in getting emotionally attached or LTRing , even plating them. But having ONS with a slut, definitely not. Absolutely not. I'm the sluts ride that night and it's a fun as fuck carousel for both of us.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
I guess we are saying the same thing. Yes they are fun to fuck. The revulsion comes from thinking about commitment with them.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 5y ago
You are indeed a great bullshitter! Hahahaha...
"The revulsion comes from thinking about commitment with them."
You save face like a woman, kudos!
showerdudes9 5y ago
Yes, which is why the comparison is garbage. Beta , low smv men are repulsing and disgusting in every way to women, those real nerdy betas, they don't exist at all to them. The only comparison that is proper in reversed genders would be an obese woman/very masculine woman. That is disgusting in every way for men, ONS and LTR.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
No... the comparison is perfect, not garbage.
showerdudes9 5y ago
No, it really is garbage and nowhere near a decent comparison since they're completely different things. And I say that, loving his books and his other texts. But it's fine that you disagree with it.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Rollo's best article. All you freaks that are into "poly" relationships need to read this.
Howdoiusesync 5y ago
Question: Regarding the whole "thinking about ex, ex-plate, or main ting plate.
What is the cause of the pain there? Shit happens to me, but I don't miss them. I had a mental thought on why some girls I liked or even enjoyed more than others. A majority of them were the freedom I had with said girls. It would be they would come visit me at Uni but when home and stuff I would start to just hate it.
I know it's just my turn and have been turning my life around, as in killing off the person I used to be and where I fucked up but those thoughts turn into an abyss of just weird pain. Is it because you or said person think they're going after someone better now? I was lost on that part.