Dominance and Femininity

In my last post I discussed dominance and its expression during sex. (It was quite a week, with myself, Roissy, Rollo Tomassi and the Private Man all posting on some factor of the dominance issue).

The earnest and lively discussion got me thinking about Athol Kay’s observation that when he gets down with the dominance, when he really rag-dolls his wife, she spends the next day or two being incredibly nuzzly and cuddly towards him (couldn’t find the exact post but he’s said it more than once). Like a lot of guys in the process of unplugging from the beta matrix, this was quizzical to me. I’m not one to have the good-feeling vibe of great sex carry over past the next morning’s breakfast. Wouldn’t the woman be sore and disinclined towards physical activity? Wouldn’t it be like post-coital lobsters, where after molting and fertilizing with the female of his choice, the male retreats to his in a posture of repose and the female retreats in a fecund humiliation?

Ah, but I had forgotten the key insight of analyzing male-female relationship – you can’t expect both sides to react the same way to the same stimulus; you have to account for complementarity.

To square this up, I had to go to Private Man’s principle that “the masculine attracts the feminine; the feminine attracts the masculine.” Mrs. Kay, and thousands of women like her, are responding to a man’s most primal expression of core masculinity with a primal expression of femininity.


Much complaint in the Manosphere has centered on lowbrow, boorish and unfeminine behavior among American women. One of the lessons of game is, quite frankly, that a lot of these women haven’t had a real assertive man put his foot down and tell her to knock that shit off, and for a portion of same, a good dose of masculinity from a halfway-attractive guy brings them right into line as cooperative, sweet girls.*

(This is excepting the pocket of women who respond to male assertiveness with a combative, competitive pose of their own.)

It’s like their cop-an-attitude shtick is just a big macro-scale shit test, pre-weeding out guys who aren’t crafty or unmoved enough to see through it. There’s an anxiety element to the evolutionary foundations of the fitness test concept – the man must be tested if and when she detects a possible crack in the foundation, when she’s viscerally nervous that he may not have what it takes to protect her female imperatives. When she is confident and secure in his masculine capabilities, the testing abates (even then, sometimes she’ll throw some tests out just to feel him express it, to “rub up against his manhood”).

The same lesson is visible in the home life of married and long-term couples – as the complexities of domestic life grow with co-ownership of property and the rearing of children, the opportunities for existential anxiety grow, and along with them the urge for control and the the risk of mate rejection.

*A Public Service Notice:

I generally recommend that you don’t plan on gaming or asserting your way around a woman’s unpleasantness in the aim of sexual or romantic reward. Sure it’s great if you can tame a shrew with your Venusian Arts powers, but you’ve set a trap for yourself – the moment you slip back below whatever her bitch-shield attraction theshold is, she feels justified in being distasteful again.

You want to do your best to screen for a woman whose behavior is measured, nurturing and positive before you run any serious game. Such a woman already has her female beta traits deployed naturally without stimulus, which greatly simplifies your task at hand. You can use your game to get her alpha (attraction/attracted) side aligned with yours, instead of trying to trade your sex rank for her good behavior. You can’t expect to not have to pass any fitness tests at all, but any worthwhile Ladder 1 woman is not going to make you pay continuous tribute to her in the form of acting like a child and expecting you to act as her surrogate daddy. If she does she’s just voted herself off the ladder.

We now return to your regularly scheduled blogging.

This idea of putting out your masculine to bring on the feminine rings irksome to many; putting the onus on us dudes makes it sound like it’s our fault if women are acting up. (Fellow blogger Dalrock has made a killing exposing this inversion of accountability in Churchian marriage philosophy, so much so I can’t target just one post as an example.) As I just noted above, women who make a habit of acting out of line don’t deserve the calming, mediating power of a man who is in control of things.

In addition to documenting his dominance files, Athol Kay has also made the assertion that female sexuality is more or less reactive to male sexuality (in terms of seduction, sex rank changes, boundaries and other factors). You can view that as a burden or as an opportunity. We men have to take the first step in cooperating our way out of the SMP standoff. We have to work at-risk, as the business term goes; putting effort forth without any definite promise of reciprocation.

(I’ve found, by the way, that the less invested I become in reaping any kind of “reciprocation,” and the better I am at telegraphing that disinvestment, the better the reciprocation winds up being. It’s as if not feeling accountable for any under-the-table expectations makes the women feel more free to invest themselves. There’s some kind of comforting and empowering effect for women when they perceive a man is not angling for a proximal reward, even though it’s patently obvious he’s talking to her because he’s attracted to her – hamsters, start your engines.)

Now don’t get me wrong. Guys have to put the first step forward for our own self-interest, one woman at a time. As long as the risk of leading has the potential for reward attached, it’s a worthwhile trade to take some of that risk (I’ve noticed some women’s heads explode when I assert that it’s not my job to give free stuff to women simply because my genitals point outward).

By the same token, we can’t be white-knighting our way through a society-wide game of Captain Save-A-Ho. A man only needs one wife; it’s not our job to make them all give up their fem-dom act, and if women can’t provide enough seed material to draw out the masculinity of a man whom they can respond to, then that’s their problem.

That all being said…in today’s equalist world where women have hair triggers for male “neediness” and “creep factor,” it doesn’t behoove men to take all that much risk (e.g. expensive dates, lots of time investment and opportunity cost) before expecting some cooperation. That’s not a statement of entitlement, just one of appropriate boundaries and the expectation of mutual value in a romantic exchange. In this way, you avoid chumpitude and filter out time-wasters who are never going to yield value.


One of the things you have to accept in your quest to become a virile and desired man is that you’ll be doing a lot of work on yourself without marginal recognition at each step. Honing your game from an amorphous block of beta to a chiseled cockboxer is the 21st-century American vision quest, a trial of unbearable solitude punctuated by all the human comforts you could ever want.

I’m not going to lie: the road can get lonely. Even your friends will out themselves as haters and plugged-in manginas unwilling to make the mental leaps you are making. Women will mock you and spit in your face for daring to invite them into your life. Like a long-tenured quarterback throwing lots of interceptions, you’ll experience mounds of failure and rejection that will stick in your mind more than your growing successes. You’ll wonder if it’s all worth it. Even if you get to the point where women are hitting on you, you’re not going to get there without doing a lot of the gruntwork yourself.

Bringing it back to the top, you need to polish your own bona fides if you expect any woman of worth to follow you. It’s all about you being in control of your life, mastering its direction and ruling your world instead of letting your world rule you. That is, after all, what dominance entails; you’re in charge, and you’re inviting her along for the ride.

When you’ve mastered all that, THEN you can ragdoll your lady and then get a backrub from her while eating the eggs she scrambled the morning after you scrambled hers.


Filed under Uncategorized

12 responses to “Dominance and Femininity

  1. “We men have to take the first step in cooperating our way out of the SMP standoff. We have to work at-risk, as the business term goes; putting effort forth without any definite promise of reciprocation.”

    i believe we refer to this as outcome independence.

    i don’t care how beautiful, how cool, how feminine, how ANYTHING she is…
    what does she have to offer me? we’re all aware how skewed the SMP is and how minimized men are. but….

    as men, if you have balls you fight; you have enough moxie to fight it, or walk away recognizing a losing battle. as much as i love women, i’m very able to survive without them.

    MSM can eat a dick.

  2. There’s some kind of comforting and empowering effect for women when they perceive a man is not angling for a proximal reward, even though it’s patently obvious he’s talking to her because he’s attracted to her – hamsters, start your engines.

    A man being attracted to a woman is vastly different than angling for a reward. Angling for a reward implies he is not outcome independent and rings of pedestalization. Whereas base attraction is simply that. Attraction. Being attracted to a women doesn’t mean he is dependent on her for anything. The attraction might be there, but if she doesn’t reciprocate in some way, then there are lots of other girls out there to be attracted to.

    Regarding a masculine man being able to draw out femininity in a woman. I have posited that the inverse can also be true. I believe it is complimentary in both directions.

  3. Brilliant post, you’ve drawn the concepts together beautifully. Will be linking to this.

  4. wudang

    You`ve been turning out some high quality posts lately Badger. Keep it up! The depth of understanding you are developing will over time also make your game very good.

  5. Darn it, I posted the wrong link. Sorry about that. <a href=""Here is where I posited that the inverse can also be true.

  6. Aaannnd, now I can’t link properly. Sheesh. Let’s do this the easy way. Here it is.

  7. In addition to documenting his dominance files, Athol Kay has also made the assertion that female sexuality is more or less reactive to male sexuality (in terms of seduction, sex rank changes, boundaries and other factors).

    It’s a well-founded assertion; not only do EvoBio folks support it, but even the hyper-feminist sex nerd Dr. Emily Nagoski agrees (although she qualifies it heavily by saying “some people”…but she means “most women”). She calls most male desire Spontaneous Desire (we pop a boner just because….OK, just because) and most female desire as Reactive Desire.

    Reactive desire simply means that she isn’t going to get hot on her own 9 times out of 10. It’s not about her not being able to initiate, it’s about her not realizing that she’s aroused until you give her the proper cues and instigate her desire through good Alpha Displays. That’s why dominance is so key to Married Game (and Basic Game, too): those dominance cues lead directly to her clitoris. And you likely won’t get into her panties without them.

    It’s really not that big a deal, once you jettison the idea that she’s responsible for her own libido. You are. Athol’s work really steers you down the right road with this, too. And male dominance cues are key.

    Oh, and I made my own contribution to the dominance theme, in case anyone missed it: Male Domination, a Beginner’s Guide. Kind of a remedial “where do I start?” guide of how to present Alpha better. Check it out.

  8. Thanks for all the link love Badger. Much appreciated.

  9. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – Labor Day Weekend | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  10. this is excellent. coherent and intelligent.

  11. Pingback: Manosphere: Attraction, Desire and Love (Part 2) | 3rd Millenium Men

  12. Coming into this WAAY late Badger, but this article was simply amazing!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s