The BPD Girl Question
Contra Greene and Suszko
A few days back the illustrious Derek Suszko engaged monsignor Dave Greene in a spirited battle of words over the conjugal merits of BPD Art Hoes.
Or at least I presume the debate was spirited; initially I had planned to watch and live commentate it real time over video, but upon attempting to do so found myself rather undone by cognitive load on account of my subclinically NPD interiority being pretty terribly calibrated for paying attention to discourse between peepo I don’t agree with without constantly losing focus to instead ascertain What Walt Thinks—particularly when in the first part of the call David kept dropping my own name as an example of someone else he’s sparred with in BAP / Suszko’s “Nietzschean Vitalist” camp.
Because while I for sure don’t repudiate the label wholesale—it was this publication’s original moniker, after all—anyone who’s read Mein Kampf 2 knows my worldview has grown hugely more sophisticated over the past two years, and that in terms of method especially has almost nothing in common these days with that of Alamariu and his ilk, who proceed from if we’re honest kind of larpy pretensions of “aristocracy” rooted in spookish prescriptive aesthetic sensibilities instead of my nominalist intersubjective honor framework derived primarily from game theory, Dmitry’s biofoundationalism, and my own homebrew spin on status / power realism (anyone interested in how this Waltine Vitalism breaks down against Suszko’s should def watch our recent debate on the matter and read at a min The Thirty-Eight Theses of Walter and Twenty Hard Truths).
At this point the Waltine project is entirely distinct from BAPism, and any good faith read is obliged to address the framework wholly on its own terms—observing, meanwhile, that the equilibrium-state curation venture I lay out here and here is straightforwardly more aligned with canonically Trad objectives than Vitalist ones, hence my podcast with Dr. Greene himself a few months back featuring quite a lot more substantive agreement than my subsequent exchange with that dashing young Ruthenian.
Alas, one unhelpful tendency I often observe in Dave Greene is a certain weary obstinance around neologism / novel descriptive frames, which he tends to approach with all the hermeneutic pluralism of an auto da fé. And to be fair that could just be a function of neurotype; dispositionally David’s instinct is pretty clearly to prune and simplify and congeal, optimizing his own heuristics for portability / parsimony while I myself optimize for explanatory breadth and the metadiscursive preemption of bad faith engagement. But the deeper issue here is tactical—namely that Dr. Greene is relentlessly concerned with scalability among normal peepo, whereas I’m a lot more focused on giving a specific genre of man—young, high openness, low agreeableness, and high verbal IQ—sound and reliable heuristics for expanding his own optionality by building durable parallel status hierarchies and toothy local enforcement regimes, as for the most part I don’t really care about peepo who are different from me.
Just note that’s only partially my own narcissism talking here; the main reason is that changing the ecology for highly agentic and culturally influential wordcel types is both far higher impact and a lot more tenable as a volitional action to be pursued and coordinated in some deliberate and targeted way—because it turns out you ackshully CAN get cells of men to organize and Do Things in concert, whereas the asses of the masses as a rule kind of need to be treated like incentive structure roombas or maybe Zoombinis, and even then don’t especially matter in the grand story of history.
No; my ackshual concern is for the Agentic Wordcel and his own particularist interests, hence Derek and I overlapping quite a lot in the sort of advice we offer impressionable young ZoomZooms about the fairer sex—that, of course, also being the reason I penned such hits back in the day as Stop Being Mean To Slutty Women, The Barstool Right You Should Date a Libtard Feminist, Trad Is Femdom, and The Fuckboy Right.
It’s likewise why I find myself compelled now to part ways with Mr. Suszko in hopes of saving the BPD Art Hoe from herself, sallying forth in milady’s defense under a new and better banner the Greenequisition won’t find it so trivial to incinerate.
The BPD art heaux discourse that’s recently consumed Substack is at its core hugely daffy because it collapses two subtle but crucial distinctions.
The first, of course, being between A) “BPD art hoe” in the colloquial sense, referring as it does to any attractive young woman in a high optionality and frictionless urban mate-market with some involvement in creative or subcultural scenes where affective volatility / theatricality in sex and romance are normative for young women especially; and B) women who literally have BPD in the scary Gloria Trillo bunny boiler sense.
Now it goes without saying that line is virtually always blurred IRL—but Dave Greene also seems to be ignoring the fact that basically all men who enjoy dating (A) and want to defend their honor from dour Trad incels do not especially want to shack up with (B) , and very definitely aren’t advising young men to deliberately seek them out.
…the solitary exception to that, it seems, being Derek himself—though I’d hazard even he is mostly conflating the two in a mythopoetic or hyperbolic register intended mostly to shock / discombobulate sheltered chuddy Zoomer boys into breaking out of stale mental grooves while antagonizing cultural adversaries and projecting strength in an agree and amplify way, which is a stratagem I myself employed pretty famously back in the day with Slutty Women and so can definitely grok just as a rhetorical tactic.
That said I also think it’s pretty LARPy and gay to talk about affectively volatile chix as being more “aristocratic” or w/e, and rather wish Derek would stop that as it’s just making all of us guys who enjoy (A)-type women look like silly billies by association.
The salient point here, rather, is that you definitely don’t want a low neuroticism woman—especially when conjoined to high conscientiousness and low openness, as such a bih will think you’re lowkey gay for not knowing how to fix the dishwasher, will resent you for sucking on her smexy toes instead of just playing with her tidders all the time, get Offended if you call her a bitch or cunt amidst sloppy toppy, care waaaay too much about what her mom and fat friend Jessa think of you, and just in general be Unsexy and Unfun and not even the least bit “submissive,” irrespective of her fake and gay “Beliefs.” Hell, even super high agreeableness won’t really save you if her openness and neuroticism are too low, as she’ll probs be equally agreeable to like Dave Ramsey or Pastor Josh or whoever as she is to you and it’ll just be a mammoth pain in the ass trying to make sure she doesn’t start acting gay again the instant you leave the room.
Thus if you want a chick who’ll earnestly experience you as masculine and authoritative despite you being a hyperverbal weirdo sperg, you’ll likely need a girl with:
Very high openness—ideally 90+. This is far and away the most important since it’s what makes babygirl experience things you’re good at as smexy… if his boo isn’t high openness the Agentic Wordcel is kind of cucking himself existentially tbh.
Neuroticism probs in the 60-80 range. This gives her a deeper and more substantive craving for an ontologically phallic mentor figure vs. a super duper stable chickie, while the expanded dramaturgical bandwith will proffer loads of opportunities for you to be smexy in cool creative ways that build a higher order individuated dyad with her, though it’s also not quite high enough that she might randomly kill your cat or something. Obviously wife should be a bit lower than a FWB / hookup. Though frankly most of my girlfriends with an ~80 or so neuroticism were really lovely ladies all considered and just e.g. enjoyed LDR and fightsex, so if you have halfway decent game it’s probably not a dealbreaker.
Conscientiousness I’d suggest around 40-60 for a wifey you intend to procreate with assuming you can afford to get her help, and a bit higher than that if you’re po—though also try not to be po as in that case she’ll obv be waaaay more annoying and e.g. get the ick if you don’t tie your shoes or have a small hole in your tank top. If ur rich tho most of the low conscientiousness wife problems disappear and it becomes sort of nice having a chick who’s a bit of a gorgeous mess. Meanwhile for casual ladies this one can be a lot lower—honestly this one is the trait where you’ll modulate it most in practice based on your intentions for chickie.
Agreeableness you don’t want super high, ackshully—at least not in a wife, since unless you’re in a Fritzl situation there WILL be occasions where she’s chilling with her cunty sister or fat friend or something else who hates your guts in which case a super agreeable girlypop is way more likely to sell your ass down the river. Also low agreeableness in a girl romantically is a lot of times less about being a virago or not submissive / Trad per se than just being e.g. really picky, so don’t overindex on this one necessarily. Go high agreeableness in a sneaky link or FWB for sure, but I’d say medium agreeableness is optimal in a wife. That said the weirder you are the less agreeable she has to be I’d say—and more impressive you yourself will need to be concomitantly to merit procreation. Rudolph the reindeer dynamic
Extraversion doesn’t matter
The range of women I described in these points is generally what you’re getting when you date (A) in the disjunct above. (B) is a subset of that and what happens when her Neuroticism is >97 or so—particularly when paired to very low agreeableness, tho in women rock bottom agreeableness is altogether pretty rare and ur way more likely to just get operatively fluctuating agreeableness in super duper pooper neurotic chicks.
Now keep in mind most womyn who are (B) will seem like a safer saner variant of (A) at first assuming she’s pretty and has a reasonably high verbal IQ, and clearly that’s a pretty significant danger. That said her true colors will almost always surface prior to a serious relationship congealing, and once you’re experienced with girls you can spot the signs on the first or second hookup and eventually well before even meeting.
It’s never perfect, though.
People don’t fit precisely into categories, and directionally an (A) girl is obviously still a lot more likely to do B-ish things than some rectangle who sings in her church choir and works at Applebee’s. The pixie dust that makes a girl Special can make her an enormous pain in the ass at times, and terrifying at others, and you can’t ever fully separate the rose from the thorns—nor will you even want to, usually.
Because observe also that to some normalfag Dave Ramsey enjoyer from Nebraska it will always feel like a distinction without a difference—hell, it might even seem that way to you, the reader, or at least in your mind’s eye. That said if you’ve gotten this far into the piece you’re almost certainly high openness enough that you’ll always be more attracted to (A) girls even if on the margins they’re always going to be a bit more likely to slash your tires / suck Bill Clinton’s cock in a hotel room / tell purdies about you after the breakup, just as those same girls will be a lot more attracted to you and tolerant of your own vices, and meanwhile if you’re a late bloomer such women will pretty probably be your most promising ticket out of inceldom.
But again, it’s all a gradient.
And even within (A) it can’t be denied that girls closer to (B) will as a rule have the wildest sex with you, and make you feel the most intense emotions, and give you the most memorable stories, and accept you at your very worst moments, and teach you the harshest lessons about femininity in its most chaotic and capricious and volatile modalities, all of which in your early twenties or when confined to a casual container can be pretty damn splendid. And then as you grow increasingly ready for a wife and keeds you can keep dating (A) women while gradually ratcheting down the (B)-ness, which tbh will happen anyway as you enter your 30s and ur own urge to settle down kicks in (or at least your urge not to have to text like twelve femoids at once no more).
Which speaking of—that’s ackshully a second distinction that’s been getting collapsed.
Because note there’s a pretty significant difference between C) appreciating (A) women closer to the (B) side of things than you’d necessarily ever marry as a way to e,g, cut your teeth on chickies who won’t think you’re a huge enormous faggotron for not knowing how to fix the toilet + learn how women work, while likewise wanting to defend the honor of such womyn against shitheel chuds who flatten and dehumanize them; and D) actively encouraging young guys to wife up Livia Soprano.
In practice (C) pretty frequently gets agreed and amplified in (D)-ish grammar as a sort of tribal anti-chuddishness, but I don’t think that’s what anyone is doing substantively —except, again, Derek himself, who adds all this higgledy piggledy aristocratic dross to the equation which isn’t remotely necessary and tbh seems like self-flattering copium for fellers who haven’t the agency to thrive in bourgeois society and so moralistically denounce it all as Bad… which in fairness ackshully does make sense in an organizing Zoomers context given their vehement disdain for the idea of institutional climb, and indubitably has a huge and durable constituency. But it also just makes you look like a LARPing faggotron to basically any serious person, and even putting that aside is an unhelpful distraction from the ackshual issue at hand i.e. psychometric neurotype and its relation to sexual power dynamics and dyadic pair bonding in late modern mate market ecologies, and more specifically our observation that moderate-high neuroticism women with sky-high openness are the only viable tradwives for Hugely Agentic Wordcels.
And no—that obviously doesn’t mean you need to marry the town bicycle. But don’t dehumanize her or be mean to her for no reason either, as a lot of times she doesn’t even want marriage or kids herself yet will gladly initiate you sexually, and in so doing make it materially easier for you to wife up a girl with a vastly lower body count later on. Such women have always existed in society going back to far antiquity, and play a crucial role both in absorbing the excess libidinal energy of male elites and seasoning younger men such that their eventual wifeys experience them as swaggering roguish hubs material as opposed to overly credulous and deferential wholesome chungus spaghetti-spilling cherubic wife guys.
Anywho the point I’m trying to make here is (A)-chickies are hugely diverse internally, which means in turn that the Waltine doctrine of BPD Centrism accommodates tremendous variation in individual preference and life circumstance.
Because ultimately it’s just brute fact that (C) doesn’t remotely lock you into (D)—and also that many if not most Hugely Agentic Wordcels will find (C) a far more reliable causeway into traditional marriage than unartfully trying to Court various and sundry girlypops at one’s nearest church barbecue.
This nuance isn’t hard to grasp when articulated properly, but is robbed of much of its persuasive force in the context of Derek’s particular formulation thanks to his LARPy aestheticized language and unhelpful pseudo-aristocratic ontology, both of which make it all too easy for the Greenequisition to line up its crosshairs. But there are times in life—a lot of them—where shit genuinely isn’t as simple as the monsignor insists, and scalability isn’t what matters most, and when a novel approach ackshully might be helpful and has not, in fact, been attempted before in California.
Dave likes to frame “traditionalism” as nothing more than what everyone was doing prior to 1972 and the only lindy / long-term workable system and what have you. Sure. But it’s also deeply and profoundly ridonkulous to try and detach behavioral norms from socio-technological incentive structures / enforcement regimes, because men are not volitionally autonomous at scale and moral language itself does not carry coercive writ.
Normies and hobbits just aren’t interesting to me and never will be. What I want is for A) smart agentic guys in urban centers to coordinate towards the creation of toothy local power centers; and for B) the federal government to ban swipe apps, porn, and short-form video content. Beyond that any discussions of “norms” that presumes a capacity for volitional autonomy outside of elite actors is a colossal waste of time.
What matters for our purposes is that in the ecology we inhabit the BPD Art Hoe in the narrower (A) sense is one of the precious few treasures of late modern femininity.
She should be protected. She should be stewarded. She should be cultivated.
And if the circumstances permit, one should make an honest woman out of her.
How to improve your game? Why not apply a DnD stats framework?