This theory is built upon three fundamental assumptions about dating, namely:
1. Women have an advantage over men.
2. Physically attractive men have an advantage over less attractive men.
3. Men try to compensate for their lack of attractiveness with submission.
The first two are obvious to anyone who has been around “manosphere” content. They can be easily demonstrated using dating app data. Only the third one needs an explanation. Submission here means any act that a man commits in the absence of genuine attraction. This could take many forms, but we’ll focus on four, starting with the least offensive.
1. Heartblabber. This is a specific way a man talks in order to please a woman. He would never talk this way with other men or with older people. It’s “heart” as in “heartfelt,” meaning it’s very affirmative: he gives plenty of compliments that are slightly sexual, but not too sexual, such as:
“Oh, this dress looks so good on you!”
“Blabber” because he talks excessively, and the speech is essentially meaningless in terms of actual content.
Absent genuine attraction coming from the woman, women are hard to talk to. The run-of-the-mill dating advice is “just talk normal.” Okay, what’s “normal”? Is talking about movies “normal”? Let’s say that at one point in the conversation the man asks the woman:
“So, what kind of movies do you like?”
He expects her to name a few, reflect on them, and then ask what he likes. Instead, the answer is:
“Ugh… I don’t know.”
If the man doesn’t pick up the slack from there, the conversation dies. One might assume that she simply isn’t into movies. But she’s seen plenty. Everyone has. Were a more attractive man to ask the same question, she’d be more likely to say:
“Oh, I can’t recall one at the moment, but I watched The Queen’s Gambit recently. It was fun! Why do you ask?”
Heartblabber, then, is built to counter this lack of enthusiasm on the woman’s part in a tortured, unnatural way. It’s essentially what pickup artists teach, though they frame it as “game.” In a way, it’s performing a monologue. Keeping in mind the compliments and sticking to the movie example, full heartblabber might sound like this:
“Oh, this dress looks so good on you! Really nice. By the way, I watched the new Avatar movie, have you seen it? No? That’s okay, it’s overhyped anyway. Before I forget, did you hear about Becky? She…”
And on and on it goes. Notice how this is a feminine way of communicating. Notice how there is no single continuous line of thought.
2. Prolonged courtship. This is when a man and a woman date for longer than six months without having sex, and we’re being generous with the timeframe. It’s always the woman, not the man, who isn’t “ready.” But this "unreadiness" is not principled, as evidenced by the woman’s sexual history: she was ready to sleep with other, more attractive men much, much sooner. Saying that she “made mistakes” and that now “she’s grown” is false, because she is likely to have fantasies about her past sexual partners. If the experience were truly a “mistake,” it wouldn’t be revisited as something pleasant. Prolonged courtship is only not a problem if the woman is literally a virgin.
3. Betabuxxing. Here, the man is expected to provide everything financially. Were he to stop providing, the relationship would immediately end. On a date with a more attractive man, the woman may offer to pay for herself or even pay for him. Betabuxxing only makes sense if the woman is literally a stay-at-home mother.
4. Cucking. This is the worst form. It can mean literal cuckoldry, where the man is asked to accept it, resulting in an “open relationship.” It can also mean a heavy compromise on the woman’s chastity in general, that is, the man is asked to accept an extremely high body count. Being a stepfather is also a form of cuckoldry.
All submission is “justified” by appealing to a woman’s “vulnerability”:
“Oh, she’s such a shy girl, but she likes you, just talk to her nicely!” (Commit heartblabber.)
“Oh, she’s been hurt before, now she just wants to feel safe!” (Commit to prolonged courtship.)
“Oh, she wants to start a family, but she needs a responsible man who can provide!” (Betabuxx.)
“Oh, she’s just a poor single mother…” (Cuck out.)
Notes on looks. Giving an exact numerical rating to a person is, at best, provisional and illustrative. We don’t actually know whether someone is a 5 or a 6, and it doesn’t really matter. Adding .5 or .25 makes even less sense. When someone starts talking about things like gonial angles, chances are he’s just LARPing, meaning he hasn’t actually studied facial aesthetics properly. What does make sense, and what almost everyone can intuit, are three broad categories: ugly, average, and beautiful.
Face ratings are often plagued by futile attempts at revenge. For example, saying Sydney Sweeney without makeup is ugly, not average. Rating her as ugly is usually an attempt to get back at soyciety for treating her like a goddess while treating men as trash. Her AI-modeled male version featured in Rehab Room’s video means nothing. No, you don’t actually understand negative canthal tilts. If, when posed with the question “Would you have sex with her?”, your answer is “Yes,” then she’s average. The fact that people can’t agree on her beauty is itself an indicator of averageness. Ugly people are obviously ugly, beautiful people are obviously beautiful. If Sydney Sweeney is ugly, then how beautiful is a morbidly obese 47-year-old single mother riding home on a bus? Ugly as well? Okay, let’s reintroduce decimals: Sydney Sweeney is a 3, the single mother is a 1? This implies that Sydney Sweeney is only slightly better looking, but she’s categorically above the single mother. If a rating system cannot reflect this reality, then the system is false.
Body Mass Index is one way to reduce subjectivity in discussions of beauty. Being overweight is a brute fact, diagnosed by a doctor. We can say that all sufficiently overweight people are automatically ugly, while not all slim people are automatically beautiful. This helps identify mismatches, such as a fat woman dating a slim man.
The distribution is approximately this:
Ugly: 30%
Average: 65%
Beautiful: 5%
This matches statistics showing that about 28% of men in the U.S. under 30 have no sexual experience, and that women swipe right on roughly 5% of profiles on dating apps. Also, in school, if you had a class of 20-30 students, there were usually one or two “hot guys” that multiple girls swooned over. This is to say that chad is not “one in a million,” he’s one in twenty.
The calculus, then, is this:
Be ugly: 0 points
Be average: 1 point
Be beautiful: 2 points
Be a man: 0 points
Be a woman: 1 point
Commit acts of submission: 1 point
This creates four beauty power classes:
Class 1 (3 points): stacy (beautiful woman)
Class 2 (2 points): becky (average woman), chad (beautiful man)
Class 3 (1 point): sub5 female (ugly woman), normie (average man)
Class 4 (0 points): sub5 male (ugly man)
People can date comfortably, and relationships can be healthy and stable, if both parties belong to the same class. Men try to climb classes through submission. A normie can date a landwhale just fine, but he has to betabuxx for a becky. Even a chad has to do some heartblabber for a stacy, if she’s a bona fide stacy. And for us, it's nothing, or submission to really, really ugly women.
1. Women have an advantage over men.
2. Physically attractive men have an advantage over less attractive men.
3. Men try to compensate for their lack of attractiveness with submission.
The first two are obvious to anyone who has been around “manosphere” content. They can be easily demonstrated using dating app data. Only the third one needs an explanation. Submission here means any act that a man commits in the absence of genuine attraction. This could take many forms, but we’ll focus on four, starting with the least offensive.
1. Heartblabber. This is a specific way a man talks in order to please a woman. He would never talk this way with other men or with older people. It’s “heart” as in “heartfelt,” meaning it’s very affirmative: he gives plenty of compliments that are slightly sexual, but not too sexual, such as:
“Oh, this dress looks so good on you!”
“Blabber” because he talks excessively, and the speech is essentially meaningless in terms of actual content.
Absent genuine attraction coming from the woman, women are hard to talk to. The run-of-the-mill dating advice is “just talk normal.” Okay, what’s “normal”? Is talking about movies “normal”? Let’s say that at one point in the conversation the man asks the woman:
“So, what kind of movies do you like?”
He expects her to name a few, reflect on them, and then ask what he likes. Instead, the answer is:
“Ugh… I don’t know.”
If the man doesn’t pick up the slack from there, the conversation dies. One might assume that she simply isn’t into movies. But she’s seen plenty. Everyone has. Were a more attractive man to ask the same question, she’d be more likely to say:
“Oh, I can’t recall one at the moment, but I watched The Queen’s Gambit recently. It was fun! Why do you ask?”
Heartblabber, then, is built to counter this lack of enthusiasm on the woman’s part in a tortured, unnatural way. It’s essentially what pickup artists teach, though they frame it as “game.” In a way, it’s performing a monologue. Keeping in mind the compliments and sticking to the movie example, full heartblabber might sound like this:
“Oh, this dress looks so good on you! Really nice. By the way, I watched the new Avatar movie, have you seen it? No? That’s okay, it’s overhyped anyway. Before I forget, did you hear about Becky? She…”
And on and on it goes. Notice how this is a feminine way of communicating. Notice how there is no single continuous line of thought.
2. Prolonged courtship. This is when a man and a woman date for longer than six months without having sex, and we’re being generous with the timeframe. It’s always the woman, not the man, who isn’t “ready.” But this "unreadiness" is not principled, as evidenced by the woman’s sexual history: she was ready to sleep with other, more attractive men much, much sooner. Saying that she “made mistakes” and that now “she’s grown” is false, because she is likely to have fantasies about her past sexual partners. If the experience were truly a “mistake,” it wouldn’t be revisited as something pleasant. Prolonged courtship is only not a problem if the woman is literally a virgin.
3. Betabuxxing. Here, the man is expected to provide everything financially. Were he to stop providing, the relationship would immediately end. On a date with a more attractive man, the woman may offer to pay for herself or even pay for him. Betabuxxing only makes sense if the woman is literally a stay-at-home mother.
4. Cucking. This is the worst form. It can mean literal cuckoldry, where the man is asked to accept it, resulting in an “open relationship.” It can also mean a heavy compromise on the woman’s chastity in general, that is, the man is asked to accept an extremely high body count. Being a stepfather is also a form of cuckoldry.
All submission is “justified” by appealing to a woman’s “vulnerability”:
“Oh, she’s such a shy girl, but she likes you, just talk to her nicely!” (Commit heartblabber.)
“Oh, she’s been hurt before, now she just wants to feel safe!” (Commit to prolonged courtship.)
“Oh, she wants to start a family, but she needs a responsible man who can provide!” (Betabuxx.)
“Oh, she’s just a poor single mother…” (Cuck out.)
Notes on looks. Giving an exact numerical rating to a person is, at best, provisional and illustrative. We don’t actually know whether someone is a 5 or a 6, and it doesn’t really matter. Adding .5 or .25 makes even less sense. When someone starts talking about things like gonial angles, chances are he’s just LARPing, meaning he hasn’t actually studied facial aesthetics properly. What does make sense, and what almost everyone can intuit, are three broad categories: ugly, average, and beautiful.
Face ratings are often plagued by futile attempts at revenge. For example, saying Sydney Sweeney without makeup is ugly, not average. Rating her as ugly is usually an attempt to get back at soyciety for treating her like a goddess while treating men as trash. Her AI-modeled male version featured in Rehab Room’s video means nothing. No, you don’t actually understand negative canthal tilts. If, when posed with the question “Would you have sex with her?”, your answer is “Yes,” then she’s average. The fact that people can’t agree on her beauty is itself an indicator of averageness. Ugly people are obviously ugly, beautiful people are obviously beautiful. If Sydney Sweeney is ugly, then how beautiful is a morbidly obese 47-year-old single mother riding home on a bus? Ugly as well? Okay, let’s reintroduce decimals: Sydney Sweeney is a 3, the single mother is a 1? This implies that Sydney Sweeney is only slightly better looking, but she’s categorically above the single mother. If a rating system cannot reflect this reality, then the system is false.
Body Mass Index is one way to reduce subjectivity in discussions of beauty. Being overweight is a brute fact, diagnosed by a doctor. We can say that all sufficiently overweight people are automatically ugly, while not all slim people are automatically beautiful. This helps identify mismatches, such as a fat woman dating a slim man.
The distribution is approximately this:
Ugly: 30%
Average: 65%
Beautiful: 5%
This matches statistics showing that about 28% of men in the U.S. under 30 have no sexual experience, and that women swipe right on roughly 5% of profiles on dating apps. Also, in school, if you had a class of 20-30 students, there were usually one or two “hot guys” that multiple girls swooned over. This is to say that chad is not “one in a million,” he’s one in twenty.
The calculus, then, is this:
Be ugly: 0 points
Be average: 1 point
Be beautiful: 2 points
Be a man: 0 points
Be a woman: 1 point
Commit acts of submission: 1 point
This creates four beauty power classes:
Class 1 (3 points): stacy (beautiful woman)
Class 2 (2 points): becky (average woman), chad (beautiful man)
Class 3 (1 point): sub5 female (ugly woman), normie (average man)
Class 4 (0 points): sub5 male (ugly man)
People can date comfortably, and relationships can be healthy and stable, if both parties belong to the same class. Men try to climb classes through submission. A normie can date a landwhale just fine, but he has to betabuxx for a becky. Even a chad has to do some heartblabber for a stacy, if she’s a bona fide stacy. And for us, it's nothing, or submission to really, really ugly women.
