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.
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.
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.