Ok, so there’s a new term that may be in the works. We’ll see how much of the ‘Sphere picks it up. It’s called:
The Loyalty Test
Athol coined the term here on his newest post. He describes a loyalty test as a test of a woman that has already acknowledged how Alpha her man is as a female prone to test the loyalty of a man to spending his resources on her. This is different than the shit test that women usually give because most women are testing how Alpha a man is over how committed to her he is. The line can be confusing because often commitment is used as a lever to test his masculinity and ‘Alpha’.
Honestly, this doesn’t seem new to me. It completely fits within women’s pluralistic sexual strategies. Anyone knowing both the desire of a woman to find both good genes and good provision for her kids (whether or not they’re the genes of the man providing resources), can understand the two tests. Rollo writes about it constantly. Any regular reader of him will recognize the two strategies (that don’t conflict but walk in step to pass men that don’t measure to the stronger of the two depending on where she’s at in life), will see that right away. For a good example, his latest post on the issue is on Balancing the Pluralistic Sexual Strategies. As usual, he’s good about linking to previous relevant writings.
Nothing New To See Here
This has been around for ages. I don’t want to harp too much on it, because it seems to have clicked in the heads of a few female writers like Stingray, whose thoughts and Ideas I admire. I suspect other women who read her blog will experience the same feeling.
But any men that have been studying game should know this already, if not in the same terms. Mystery had it in his comfort stage. Roissy writes about it off and on – but never forgets that strength has to be a part of it. One of his recent posts mentions comfort and how to be sparing in it lest one walk from building comfort to being comfortable to be around. The first should make a woman feel safe enough to adventure with while the second makes you safe to be around by handing her your balls. If you want the best examples of the right line to walk, a good reading of When Beta Male Strategies Can Work and Vulnerability Game are the places to start.
How useful is it as a Concept and Term?
Well, seeing as Athol is in the relationship game, it could be really useful to his writing. For any Alpha’s looking to go long term relationship, it might be helpful. It will give those people a way to break it down and get what they want.
The Dangers
Honestly, I have a knee jerk reaction against the term. The reason for it is because it smacks of the ‘build a better beta’ mentality. I bet Susan from HUS will have an article up on Loyalty Testing within a week. She’ll spin it off and make it look that shit tests are more just loyalty tests. Then she’ll pull some stats out of context that say that all women don’t want alpha, they just want loyalty. Those that do want just alpha are just sluts and whores anyways.
I personally feel that most men have a grasp of what comfort building actions are. They know what beta traits are. For the most part, they likely have too many of them to begin with. This term does nothing for them besides open up possibility for confusion or comfort. Comfort in that they don’t need to re-invent themselves because, hey, all those shit tests are really just loyalty tests. They’ll do everything they can to avoid the very hard and painful process of seeing the truth in that their behaviors are dripping in beta, or they’ll stop short of the whole world of possible changes to their lives they could make.
A Question to Female Readers
This it to Stingray, Spacetraveller, Sassy, and any other female readers or bloggers. Does this term and the definitions Athol found suddenly make things in the Alpha/Beta balance click for you? If so, why does it do so now rather than the Roissy articles (if you read them) or does it do so more clearly for you?
Alternatively, and this is the big question…..
Explore whether it makes the balance click for you, or if it simply makes you more comfortable with Game, the balances of Alpha/Beta traits, and lets you get comfortable with Game rather than comforted enough to adventure with game.
I’d be really, REALLY interested in hearing your answers.
For now
Remember men that we have to test this theory. Don’t believe it because it ‘feels nice or clicks.’ Believe it after it gets you results. If you’re interested, give it a chance, and report back to us. Treat it as you would any game theory that hasn’t been field tested for positive results.
Personally, I feel good without it. Comfort is easy to build. Independent masculinity is harder. And then finding ways that are more of inviting a woman into that masculine energy without chasing, seeming try hard, ‘creepy’ are harder. I’m getting decent at it, but this term certainly doesn’t add anything to my own game.
To each their own. I’ll keep on keeping on.
It makes sense to me. I also see how this tied into my reaction to the stronger versions of dread. With drawing emotionally. l. I think this requires a husband whose sex rank is high. My ex was alpha. Interestingly, if his rank dropped (it happened from time to time) I didn’t loyalty test as much if at all.
I think that a stronger amount of beta would have to be shown on a loyalty test if the woman has an inferiority complex or insecurity issues with fidelity. (Hard core alpha father who didn’t know the meaning of fidelity. I got issues,lol)
Still, not the kind of thing that should be going on with any frequency.
Interesting Just Visiting.
When your ex’s sex rank increased or decreased, did his treatment of you change or simply your own treatment of him?
“Playing hard to get when someone is desperate to see loyalty is the completely wrong thing to do.” I think that summed up the wisdom in Athol’s post to me.
The question is, if you’re a guy who has previously not achieved the results you want in interactions with the opposite sex because you thought being ‘the good guy’ aka a doormat was the way to go, there must be difficulty in finding where’s the line between trying not to be so beta, versus being way too aloof thus driving insecurity in the other person for no reason. I think as relationships go, it’s something that’s a process, that you have to moderate along the way – if you have to ‘test’ someone you’ve been involved with for a while, you have to ask yourself why you feel that need and address that. In the context of a relationship, anything that creates needless insecurity is destructive to the relationship. Women who tell their boyfriends every time a guy hits on them (which I find pathetic!), or men who deliberately turn their phone off when out with the boys, enjoying the knowledge that it will give her concern… that’s stupid game playing, not being Alpha.
Leap,
You’re right in that this has been talked about extensively from Roissy and Rollo. The difference for me is that it is simply getting more specific. The more specific one gets the easier in can be to understand. So, to answer your question, it basically just makes it more clear. Having an alpha beta balance is very well known to be good. What is not always known is what beta skills are needed and when, and also why. This just cleared it up a bit more. Your post got me thinking a lot more about it and I think I will do another post today to address this more. I think it is important to understand that this is not about building a better beta in that it would be detrimental for a beta to respond to some sort of perceived loyalty test. If he’s beta, she’s not truly worried about his loyalty though she may use it as some sort of excuse to keep him in his place.
I forgot to answer the second part of your question. Does this make me more comfortable with Game? I thought about this for a long time as I did recognize that this could be the reason why the loyalty test resonated with me. I do not think this is the reason, though. In the past, I have given advice to men striving to become more alpha and told them to try dread, but to be careful with it as their wives may withdrawal if it is too much. I couldn’t be more specific with it than that because I wasn’t sure how else to describe it. But a woman who is introduced to too much dread might begin to question her man’s loyalty and will strive for ways to see where his mind is at, hence the loyalty test.
I agree with you that there is a line and it must be carefully tread. Passing a loyalty test must be something that is done rather sparingly or it will quickly turn into a shit test.
@Cakes
Its true that men can overcompensate when learning game. Especially if they’re coming out of an extremely bad relationship or divorce.
Im just unsure how much this term will help them. Most of the people overcompensating are doing so from a place of bitterness. Again, thats something known and written about how you simply cant do that and expect attraction.
@ stingray
Interesting
If it adds knowledge im all for it. But I personally would like it to be vetted more than I suspect it will becausr it does click and has the makings of a trendy term. I want it to be accepted because it does work, not bexause we want it to, for all the reasons in my post.
At work now but look forward to your post
Leap, I completely agree. It has to be vetted just like every other term does. If it’s not, it will be used incorrectly and support your fears. I am going to attempt to vet it a bit in my post, but it will be incomplete. It always is.
@ Stingray
Dont worry about the ‘incomplete’ feeling of it. Its a new term, so it will take time, multiple posts, from multiple people, with different perspectives for it to really flesh out. Once the community as a whole does that, if the term is viable, it will stand on its own
@ Leap
You asked:
When your ex’s sex rank increased or decreased, did his treatment of you change or simply your own treatment of him?
This is a tough one. During the normal ebbs and flows of sex rank over the years..not really. The spikes or severe drops, yes. A rather severe sex rank increase on his part in his mid twenties nearly ended the marriage. A lot of head games and dread as well as a seperation. The two drops in sex rank were intertwined with drug abuse, so it’s hard to divide that one out.
Gotcha.
I can see that happening if someone starts playing head games. Not sure if I’d go directly to calling it a loyalty test if its the man that starts the head games.
To me, a loyalty test or fitness test would be something that the woman initiates based on confirming one or both sides of her sexual strategy. It would be a proactive, rather than a reactive, addition of drama to the relationship. Thats what passing a fitness test is, is completely avoiding any drama at all. To me a loyalty test would be similar in what passing it accomplishes – to avoid drama based on the woman’s insecurities. All that would change in the term switch would be the cause of the insecurities.
As for drug use…. let’s just say that drops in SMV dur to drug use are their own special case, because I believe they are. For women with head issues, they can be an attracting quality. For a balanced woman looking to raise a family with a man, far more of a turn off
[...] Leap of a Beta has some legitimate concerns regarding my post yesterday and Athol’s new Loyalty test. He asks: Does this term and the definitions Athol found suddenly make things in the Alpha/Beta balance click for you? If so, why does it do so now rather than the Roissy articles (if you read them) or does it do so more clearly for you? [...]
[...] 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* [...]