Fitness test? Loyalty Test? Something New?

If you haven’t seen it yet, myself and Stingray have some good thoughts and ideas going back and forth on this new term, Loyalty test. This was originally just going to be a comment, but it was getting clunky. I simply write better when I have the tools of a post at hand instead of those in a comment box.

 

If you need to catch up, here are the essentials in order:

Athol’s original post which introduces the term Loyalty Test that we’re discussing.

Stingray’s first post to flesh out some thought on the term; as Athol’s original was a simple description and presentation of the term rather than any in depth exploration.

My last post was on some concerns I had about the term. Mostly on it already being covered by other parts of game to a point where I honestly feel satisfied without it. I simply don’t see it helping me all that much (And I’ve some further thoughts on why below). I also think that, as a term, it’s going to be hijacked and used by the build a better beta crowd *cough*HUSSIES*cough*

We got a good discussion going really quickly on the issue. Stingray felt some synapses in that brain of hers fire off a bunch of signals that resulted in some new thoughts and a new post of hers on the subject. She addresses some of my concerns and brings up some good points.

 

The New Thoughts of Hers and Others

She details some situations where she thinks a test would be labeled a Loyalty Test rather than a Fitness Test. The cases she details are when any of Roissy’s Dread Game has been used beyond appropriate amounts or when a significant other is running MAP (anything to increase his sexual value would be a stand in). Her post and other comments both here and at Athol’s seem to confirm that a woman does implement some sort of test with increases in Sexual Market Value.

Just Visiting also brought up the possibility of higher amounts of tests with drastic decreases in value as well. Obviously this is going to happen with fitness tests, as has been much discussed all over the ‘Sphere. The question currently stands open on if any of those are loyalty tests.

 

A New Man

The big thing that I’ve noticed between these is that the tests are always reactionary to a shock of the system. My theory and thoughts are that, when any of these situations occur, the shock to her psychology and the relationship is so drastic that a woman immediately has the impulse to re-start the vetting process of the man she’s attached to. That, in large parts, it can be dramatically similar in structure to when a woman first vets a man as a potential relationship.

The differences are in a few things. First is that, obviously, she has already committed a whole pile of resources to the relationship. The stakes are higher, so the fear, stress, and concerns will be higher. Also, she has a relationship record on you. Consider it like observing a political record. If you, as a man, have changed your stances, opinions, and actions on things…. She’s going to want to know why. And, if you want to re-affirm enough comfort for seduction, relationships, opening of emotions, anything – she has to know that it is reasonably safe for her to continue doing so.

 

Game your girl

In essence, it seems that the term is literally just reconfirming game strategies of Gaming your significant other. You need, need, NEED, to go through the comfort phase of the whole thing. It seems that men are disconnecting from the idea that they are literally making themselves into new men. The phrase we use literally says this, and we as men feel it, but then you expect a relationship to just go with it? Seems like any men thinking as such are still falling into the traps of a system instead of an adjustment that requires constantly modifying yourself until you find one that works for you as a man. Then you should check if it still works for your woman.

 

My thoughts on how this term could work in a way that makes sense

To me at least, so chime in. Cause I’m going to take a very big leap on this and could be completely wrong. But this has felt closer to the truth and hasn’t inspired my knee jerk reaction against the term as I’ve been considering it all day while at work.

So. Women’s pluralistic sexual strategies led to this idea that two kinds of tests may be necessary. Fitness test for genes. Loyalty test for resources. I think that, unlike what anyone has said so far, that Alpha’s always get tested for Fitness. Beta’s always get tested for resources. I think that this is true 90% of the time, if not more. The reason for this stems from that same pluralistic sexual strategy. A woman wants to know where a man stands. She wants to put you in your damn little box and keep you there. This applies for Alphas – from what I’ve seen and experienced when you come off as Alpha, you will always get fitness tests. You won’t get a single loyalty test from a woman until you’ve shown enough beta to make her doubt your Alpha.

In the same way, women give loyalty tests to beta’s all the time. These loyalty tests come in the form of the demands women make on their beta orbiters. They constantly, constantly, need to know that you’ll be there for them. That you’re that orbiter she can count on to be an emotional tampon. Harken ye back to days of yore, and my post on Friends, With Her Benefits. That is the heart of what a loyalty test is – being her puppet. Failing a loyalty test, while moving you towards the Alpha, will inspire temporary slanders of Creep, Womanizer, Misogynist, etc. It will ruin friendships because those friendships were based on your constant loyalty to her despite never getting paid. After all, you failed to guard your gate, so why should she pay you for it?

I do think, however, that there is a point where the same woman will use both tests on the same man.

 

The One Man

When a woman is looking for a single man to fulfill both sides of her sexual strategies, she’ll constantly try and put him into the box that fulfills both of those qualities. She’ll likely toss in both fitness and loyalty tests. Though it seems that both the length of time that it’s taken for this term to even be considered as well as the evidence of the differences between the two – that it is likely that most of the tests will be fitness tests.

This makes sense from a biological and hypergamic perspective as well. Biologically, a woman would first need to secure those good genes. Only after doing so would she then worry about providing for them. One need only glance at today’s hookup culture of ‘sex first, relationship later’ to see examples of such. So it would be surprising if the fitness tests completely turned off once a woman secured your genes, as she has to make sure she wasn’t tricked, and unsurprising that now a woman would start throwing the occasional loyalty test

 

The One Term

With how the two terms seem like they would be used, would it be helpful to consider an umbrella term of it being a ‘Leadership Test’? With fitness tests and loyalty tests being separate ways of testing the leader she’s chosen?

My reasoning on this is due to a few things. The first is that it is leaders of men that are able to demonstrate both good genetics AND ability to provide resources. Thus why a man that is able to lead his household is the one that appeals to most women sexually and in relationships. Heck, Athol’s Captain and First Mate makes use of that exact idea.

Second is that I’ve seen the reflections of this outside of the SMV in my own career. People care about your abilities far sooner than they care about whether you’d provide for them or not. First they want to make sure have a well founded ability, drive, and dream; then they want to make sure they’d gain something out of following you. In the same way; women want to make sure you’d satisfy them sexually and have a drive to achieve something, then you need to demonstrate that you’d be rewarding to follow. But you need to demonstrate you’d be worth following in the first place.

Third. This term seems to reflect the growing desire of the sphere to raise leaders. The term seems to fit the intentions well.

 

To Leaders:

Whether you want to call it ‘leadership testing’ or not, the testing stems from a place where some part of her has, at least, a brief doubt about your ability to lead and that she has a reason to follow. The part she doubts and her priorities on the Genetics vs resources strategies will determine which kind of test she’ll serve you with.

If you do ascribe to this idea of Loyalty testing… It seems like it would be due to one of two things at the heart of it.

It’s possible you’re not communicating your loyalty to her. In which case I would say it’s better to explain your methods through actions or words than to change them. As a leader, and in a relationship, you should look to people that appreciate the gifts you’re willing to give. Not reward those that seek other gifts. If a woman is constantly asking for gifts that you have trouble providing, get away.

Ask yourself if there’s a reason you haven’t given her the loyalty she’s asking for. Rather than her not appreciating the loyalty you do give her, you could very realistically not be giving her any. She could either not be worth said loyalty, or you may have made a mistake in not giving it to her. Make a choice. But don’t give loyalty because she asked for it.

 

Whether the term lives or dies, give Loyalty only because you want to