Social Escape Clauses
Examples:
Women always have the prerogative to change their minds. Men must be resolute.
Proactive and Reactive Pseudo-Friendship Rejections:
LJBF rejections – “I already have a boyfriend” or “I’m not interested in a relationship right now” rejections.
Escape clause conventions always offer an OUT to a woman and obsolve her of, or dramatically reduce her responsibility for personal accountability by means of social reinforcement. A stripper can complain of her self-degredation by men, but be completely blameless for her decisions to do so by virtue of her social conditions, that are, again, the perceived result of a male controlled society. Feminine Prerogative has been an accepted social norm since human society was in the hunter/gatherer epoch. Like the Position Insurance convention, this serves to ensure that the 'mysterious woman' is validated in her arbitrariness by social reinforcement. The opposite of this convention is enforced for men, they must be resolute while accepting that a woman "has the right to change her mind." This, and the carrot of a womans intimacy as a reward, is exactly why it is socially acceptable for a man to wait hours for a woman to prepare/show for a date and the kiss of death for a man to be more than 5-10 minutes late. He must be punctual, she is afforded leniency.
I don't think I need to go into too much detail regarding the LJBF esacpe clause as it's been done to death on this forum by myself and many others, but I will add that the LJBF esacpe is perhaps the single most useful convention ever conceived by women. The LJBF rejection has classically ensured that a woman can reject a man yet still maintain his previous attention. It also puts the responsibility for the rejection back on his shoulders since, should he decline the 'offer of friendship', he is then responsible for entertaining this friendship. This of course has the potential to backfire on women these days since the standard AFC will accept an LJBF rejection in the mistaken hopes of 'proving' himself worthy of her intimacy by being the perfect 'surrogate boyfriend' - fulfilling all her attention and loyalty prerequisites with no expectation of reciprocating her own intimacy. The LJBF rejection also serves as an ego preservation for her in that having offered the false olive branch of 'friendship' to him in her rejection she also can sleep that night knowing that she (and any of her peers) wont think any less of herself. After all, she offered to be friends, right? She is excused from any feelings of personal guilt or any responsibilities for his feelings if she still wants to remain amiable with him.
Sexual Competition Sabotage
Examples:
“She’s a ‘slvt’ – he’s a ‘fag’” and the sub-communications in the terminology.
Catty remarks, gossip, feminine communication methodologies
This convention is the reputation destroyer and it's easy to observe this in the field. Since it also serves a woman attention needs, it is among the most socially acceptable and widely flaunted, however the foundations and latent purpose of this convention takes some consideration to understand. When women employ gossip it comes natural since it is an emotional form of communication (men have a far lower propensity to use gossip), but the purpose of it is meant to disqualifiy a potential sexual competitior. In terms of female to female gossip this serves the attention need, but when men are brought into the salaciousness it becomes a qualifying method. By saying a woman is a slvt the sub-communication is, "she sleeps with a lot of guys and is therefore inelligible as a candidate deserving of a man's long term provisioning capacity, due to her obvious inability to remain loyal to any one, individual male." This then becomes the ultimate weapon in influencing a man's (long term) sexual selection.
This breeding sabotage isn't limited to just women though. What's the first thing most men are apt to say about another, anonymous, extremely attractive
male? "He's probably a fag." Men have learned this convention from women, they sexually disqualify a man in the most complete way possible; "this guy might be as attractive as a GQ model, but he would never breed with a woman and is therefore disqualified as a suitor for your intimacy."
Gender Role Redefinition
Examples:
Masculinity is ridiculous and/or negative with the potential for violent extremes.
“Men should get in touch with their feminine sides.” – Identification as false attraction.
Although I have a few more conventions in mind, I'll finish this post with this, the most obvious and most discussed convention. There's no shortage of threads dedicated to this convention, so I wont rehash what's been stated. Instead, I should point out the latent purpose behind the popularity and mass cultural acceptance of this, the most damaging convention. The function behind this convention could be androgeny as an idealized state, or a power struggle to redefine masculine and feminine attributes, or even to ensure women as the primary selectors in mating. All of those can be argued and ae valid, especially considering how prone to accepting and perpetuating this convention is among men today, but I think the deeper purpose, the real latent function is a sexual selection process.
It's the man who remains in touch with his masculine side, the guy who, despite all of pop-culture denigrating and ridiculing his gender and the very aspects that make it a necessary, positive strength of human society, will endure and steadfastly resist the influences that want to turn it into something it was never intended; it's this guy and his confidence that women all over the world find irresistable. He's embodies the masculine that their feminine has been seeking and they can't explain it. This is the penultimate sh!t test in sexual selection - to discover or learn what it is to be postively masculine and remain so in a world that constantly berates his gender, that tells him he's poisoned by his testosterone while confirming the same masculine attributes as a positive for women. It's the guy who understands that it's gender differences, not androgynous similarities, that make us strong. It's the Man who can see that the sexes were meant to be complimentary, not adversarial, who passes this sh!t test.
