27 Shades of The Modern Man


We interrupt your regular Rational Male blog reading for an important news bulletin. TRM sources confirm that a comprehensive list of aspects of the “Modern Man” has at last been identified by Brianna Brian Lombardi for the New York Times. Yes, you read that correctly, click-bait reliable sources have indeed confirmed the recognizable traits of the Modern Herb Man.

After a preschool upbringing replete with Cailou, heavily steeped in feminized gender self-loathing during his tween years, and topped off with a healthy dash of transgender reassignment therapy, a list of traits has finally been compiled to aid in women’s identifying an adult ‘Modern Man’.

I know, I know ladies, it’s a very difficult task to identify an acceptable guy for your Epiphany Phase necessities. What with ‘dating’ ALL “the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys“, it can be a daunting challenge to remember the characteristics that made all of the Nice Guys you blew off in your youth such a great catch,…timing is such a bitch, but now you’re ready to do things “the right way this time”, right?

The good news is they’ve all been waiting for you, like you asked them to way back when; and while their feminine conditioning has finally made them desirable for your just-pre-Wall long-term security necessity, they have gotten older and a bit more peculiar. No worries, Brittany Brian Lombardi has compiled a list for you so you can better discern he and his fellow ‘Modern Men’ today from the guys you proposed “lets just be friends” to ten years ago.

Lets have a look shall we?

1. When the modern man buys shoes for his spouse, he doesn’t have to ask her sister for the size. And he knows which brands run big or small.

Yes ladies, you’ll no longer be troubled with that hot club guy being callously indifferent to remembering your shoe size. The Modern Man is so identifying with the feminine, so in touch with it, he’s made a hobby of picking up women’s shoes and memorizing the sizes and brands in your ever growing collection. In fact, you’ll no longer be troubled with the joy hassle of shopping for cute shoes, the Modern Man will do it for you. Now you can get back all the ‘rewarding’ work of advancing your career.

2. The modern man never lets other people know when his confidence has sunk. He acts as if everything is going swimmingly until it is.

You see gals, the Modern Man knows women are far too burdened by the Patriarchy to ever consider a man’s acknowledgement of his own degree of self-confidence. In fact, his feminine conditioning has taught him well that no one is really concerned with his ‘privileged’ cis-centric concepts of male confidence. He knows the preconceptions of confidence only leads to actualizing his potential for violence. Far better to put a smile on his face and tangle with his inner demons without his concerning you overly much, don’t you think?

3. The modern man is considerate. At the movie theater, he won’t munch down a mouthful of popcorn during a quiet moment. He waits for some ruckus.

Walking on eggshells around women is the hallmark of a Modern Man. Rest assured girls, he knows the personal repercussions women will mete out should he commit a social faux pas. Not to worry though, the Modern Man wouldn’t so much as cough during the chick flick he suggested you both see on opening night.

4. The modern man doesn’t cut the fatty or charred bits off his fillet. Every bite of steak is a privilege, and it all goes down the hatch.

Would you look at that ladies? The Modern Man can still prompt a tingle by getting back to his caveman roots! You’ll just have to forgive him one uncouth vanity. He’s his own man when it comes to animal fat. That steak and the full beard he’s growing to go with his new flannel shirts (in between shoe shopping for his lady) are his privilege of being a man. Wait, did I say “privilege”? Oh, what a scamp he is, but he’s happy to accommodate you if you want to join his male space. Burp.

5. The modern man won’t blow 10 minutes of his life looking for the best parking spot. He finds a reasonable one and puts his car between the lines.

The act of parking a car might seem mundane to you, but au contraire. A Modern Man bucks the trend of spending 10 minutes (?) seeking the most perfect parking spot,…unless his lady is riding with him and then it’s a precious gift of the parking lot gods if he can manage a spot by the front entrance to WalMart. He may even do you the courtesy of dropping you off at the entrance and then forages for just the right spot.

6. Before the modern man heads off to bed, he makes sure his spouse’s phone and his kids’ electronic devices are charging for the night.

Because, God forbid, his wife or kids might be without their mobile device or social media accounts when they awake the next day. My God! How would they find out what occurred on Instagram while they slept? The Modern Man is so evolved, so limbicly in touch with the feminine mind that her unthought of needs become an obsessive compulsion for him.

7. The modern man buys only regular colas, like Coke or Dr Pepper. If you walk into his house looking for a Mountain Dew, he’ll show you the door.

You’ll just have to accept it gals; in addition to his women’s shoes fascination the Modern Man is an aficionado of processed sugar and high fructose corn syrup. So dedicated is he that his palate has become sensitive enough to disparage other men for not appreciating ‘real’ soft drinks. But, heheh, that’s just him “being a guy”, they’re soooo odd aren’t they?

8. The modern man uses the proper names for things. For example, he’ll say “helicopter,” not “chopper” like some gauche simpleton.

The Modern Man has rarely served his country in the military, so you’ll have to pardon his not understanding the distinction between a ‘helicopter’ and a ‘chopper’. However, beside a slight lisp and some feminine ‘vocal fry‘, the Modern Man’s vernacular is carefully chosen. He uses words like “gauche” and “simpleton” in casual conversation. See this link for more spoken examples.

9. Having a daughter makes the modern man more of a complete person. He learns new stuff every day.

Being a Modern Man requires you to identify more with the feminine, thus having a daughter completes him in ways a son would ever have the capacity too. In the back of his head he feels the nagging third-person guilt for China’s selective breeding practices of the past and hopes to “be the difference he wants to see in the world” by fulfilling the false narratives of the Feminine Imperative by personally investing himself in the ’empowerment’ of little girls at the expense of boys. It comes naturally to the Modern Man after being medicated himself for ADHD in his youth.

10. The modern man makes sure the dishes on the rack have dried completely before putting them away.

Lucky for you ladies, your Modern Man believes in the fantasy that is Choreplay so thoroughly he’ll forego using a modern dishwasher to wash the dishes by hand so you’ll notice how evolved he is. Because everyone knows the “unbridled lust” women feel when they see a man washing dishes by hand. Women agree, he’s practically owed sex at that point.

11. The modern man has never “pinned” a tweet, and he never will.

Because while the modern man is self-absorbed enough to use Pinterest, only a real solipsist narcissist pins a tweet.

12. The modern man checks the status of his Irish Spring bar before jumping in for a wash. Too small, it gets swapped out.

Ha! How cavalier! Isn’t it nice to have a Modern Man who’s indiscriminate enough to eat the fat and burnt parts of his steak, but is particular enough to toss out a bar of soap when it’s too small?

13. The modern man listens to Wu-Tang at least once a week.

Because how else would he remain in touch with his roots?

14. The modern man still jots down his grocery list on a piece of scratch paper. The market is no place for his face to be buried in the phone.

Yes ladies, you’ll find the Modern Man so engrossed with stereotypically feminine tasks (in an effort to buck a trend he still thinks earns him points with women), he’ll raise grocery shopping to an art form. He’s rustic enough to still use a pad and paper to scribble out his carefully planned grocery list (which of course implies he’s also become an accomplished cook in order to add some value to his SMV). I’ll bet you can just taste the artisanal lasagne from Whole Foods now.

15. The modern man has hardwood flooring. His children can detect his mood from the stamp of his Kenneth Cole oxfords.

The Modern Man loves the sound of his shoes on locally sourced woods beneath his feet so long as he’s not the one who had to install it. Remember, the Modern Man is defined by his shoes (again).

16. The modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off, so that his wife has a chance to get away.

Ladies you can sleep better at night knowing your Modern Man has spent the mental energy to position himself between you and any home intrusion. He’s carefully thought it through and accepts his disposability in the light of the odds he’d be easily incapacitated and left to bleed out while watching you be gang raped as his dying memory.

17. Does the modern man have a melon baller? What do you think? How else would the cantaloupe, watermelon and honeydew he serves be so uniformly shaped?

So in touch with his feminine animus is the Modern Man that he often becomes indistinguishable from Martha Stewart in his zeal to entertain his dinner guests. Perfectly shaped melon balls are just one more social anxiety you’ll be freed from with your Modern Man girls.

18. The modern man has thought seriously about buying a shoehorn.

The Modern Man’s obsession with shoes (for either sex) will not be restricted by size discrepancies.

19. The modern man buys fresh flowers more to surprise his wife than to say he is sorry.

The Modern Man is a virtual florist ladies. His mother and even his female co-workers will never be left out of his boundless consideration. Flowers never come as an apology since there is never a reason for apology with him. Rest assured his niceties come from actually being a Nice Guy and never with the ulterior motive of expectations of intimacy.

20. On occasion, the modern man is the little spoon. Some nights, when he is feeling down or vulnerable, he needs an emotional and physical shield.

Never forget gals, your Modern Man is a sensitive soul, prone to fits of crying when the movie’s sad enough. Should you ever spare an afterthought, remember, that smile on his face is just a placeholder until things are going along swimmingly. Just be sure to remember, when you’re spooning him like a toddler afraid of a thunderstorm, be sure he’s still facing the door side of the bed so he can interpose himself between you and the home intruder.

21. The modern man doesn’t scold his daughter when she sneezes while eating an apple doughnut, even if the pieces fly everywhere.

This should be a no-brainer considering the completedness-of-person he derives from empowering her to the exclusion of boys.

22. The modern man still ambles half-naked down his driveway each morning to scoop up a crisp newspaper.

Yes, gals that rugged individualism is not only expressed in his lack of self-consciousness (unless it’s shoes), but also in his rustic dedication to actually subscribing to a newspaper as it dies a slow media death. That damn paper boy better make sure it arrives ‘crisp’ or no Christmas time tip!

23. The modern man has all of Michael Mann’s films on Blu-ray (or whatever the highest quality thing is at the time).

Because, God knows where the Modern Man would be without the ability to re-watch classics like Hancock and the Miami Vice remake in 4K resolution.

24. The modern man doesn’t get hung up on his phone’s battery percentage. If it needs to run flat, so be it.

Sorry ladies, the Modern Man often becomes so overly conscious about your own mobile devices being charged throughout the night that he cavalierly forgets his own cell phone might run flat. You’ll just have to deal with his forgetfulness, but it is for your benefit. 1st World problems, what can you do?

25. The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will.

Well, at least you can be confident that he’s dedicated to making sure his inevitable death will give you the time needed to escape that home intruder’s malicious intent when the time comes. Just be sure to give him the proper push towards the bedroom door if he happens to be the ‘little’ spoon and feeling vulnerable that night.

26. The modern man cries. He cries often.

Well, finally ladies, you’ve got a guy who can cry on demand,…or is it by demand? But remember this is the next state in men’s evolutionary progress; a response to women’s crying eliciting sympathy and concern. Men’s facility with crying as a go-to response (he cries often) is just evidence of his closer identification and affinity with the feminine. It’s your dream come true! Now your Modern Man can relate to you as well as your closest girlfriends.

27. People aren’t sure if the modern man is a good dancer or not. That is, until the D.J. plays his jam and he goes out there and puts on a clinic.

And finally, you’ve got a new, modern, evolved man who can turn physical spasms into an art form, and have so little self-awareness that the laughter he hears is affirmation instead of ridicule.

Well, there you have it girls, you’ve finally got the men you deserved, the men you helped create, the men who are so in touch with their femininity that you’ll have little use for your gal-pals any more. But that’s OK, right?

The Modern Man has been patiently waiting for you to get the Bad Boys out of your system and he’s evolved enough to accept his retroactive cuckolding forgive your youthful indiscretion. The Modern Man understands that you were “so crazy back in college” and you want to do things right with him. The Modern Man is so in touch with the feminine, so evolved that he’s ready to look past your previous hesitations with him, look past the ease with which you gave it up to the ‘crazy boys, the commitment-phobic boys’; the greater degree of qualifications and your reluctance to jump into bed with him as quick only proves how much you’re changed and how much better he, the Modern Man, must be in relation to all those ‘other guys’.

Just be sure you’re sleeping on the right side of the bed when you do.

Hypergamy Knows Best


One of the most basic Red Pill principles I’ve stressed since I began writing is the importance of Frame. The dynamic of Frame stretches into many aspects of a man’s life, but in a strictly intergender sense this applies to men establishing a positive dominance in their relationships with women. In a dating context of non-exclusivity (plate spinning) this means, as a man, you have a solid reality into which that woman wants to be included in. Holding Frame is not about force, or coercion, it’s about attraction and desire and a genuine want on the part of a woman to be considered for inclusion into that man’s reality.

Being allowed into a man’s dominant, confident Frame should be a compliment to that woman’s self-perception. It should be a prize she seeks.

This is a pretty basic principle when you think about it. The main reason women overwhelmingly prefer men older than themselves (statistically 5-7 years difference) is because of the psychological impression that men older than a woman’s age should be more established in his understanding of the world, his career, his direction in life and his mastery over himself and his conditions. From an Alpha Fucks perspective, the ambience of mastery makes an older man preferable, while a Beta Bucks older man represents the prospect of dependable provisioning.

In our contemporary sexual marketplace I think this perception – which used to hold true in a social climate based on the old set of books – is an increasing source of disappointment for women as they move from their post-college party years into the more stressful Epiphany Phase.

And once again we also see evidence of yet another conflict between egalitarianism vs. complementarity. Because all things should be equalized, equalism espouses that this age preference should make no difference in attraction, yet the influence of this natural complementary attraction becomes a source of internal conflict.

Women’s self-perception of personal worth becomes wrapped up in a tight egotistical package that’s tells her men – the men she’s convinced she deserves – should be attracted to and aroused by her based on whatever nebulous personal conviction she has, fat-acceptance approved ideas of what men should be hot for, and he ought to be ready to settle into a coequal parental ‘partnership’ when she’s finally ready to do the right thing.

It’s an interesting paradox. On one hand she’s expects a Hypergamously better than equitable pairing with a self-made man who will magically appreciate her for her self-perceptions of her own personal worth, but also to be, as Sheryl Sandberg puts it, “someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home.” In other words, an exceptional, high SMV man, with a self-earned world and Frame she wants to partake of; but also one who will be so smitten by her intrinsic qualities (the qualities she hopes will compensate for her physical and personal deficits) that he will compromise the very Frame that made him worthy of her intimacy, and then reduce himself to an equality that lessens him to her.

The Red Pill Father – Frame

The reason I’m going into this is because of a basic tenet of Frame: The Frame you set in the beginning of your relationship will set the tone for the future of that relationship. That isn’t to say men don’t devolve from a strong Alpha frame to a passive Beta one, but the Frame you enter into a relationship with will be the mental impression that woman retains as it develops. Your establishment and maintenance of a strong control of Frame is not just imperative to a healthy relationship and interaction with a woman, but it’s also vital to the health of any family environment and the upbringing of any children that result from it.

At the Man In Demand conference I was asked about my thoughts on the influence family plays in conditioning boys/men to accept a Beta role in life. Mainly the question was about a mother’s dominant influence on her children’s upbringing and how an unconventional shift in intersexual hierarchies predisposes her to imprinting her Hypergamous insecurities onto her children. It gave me a lot to think about.

A common thread I’ve occasionally found with newly Red Pill aware men is the debilitating influence their domineering mothers and Beta supplicating fathers played in forming their distorted perception of masculinity. I made an attempt to address this influence in the Intersexual Hierarchies posts, however, I intended those essays to provide an outline of particular hierarchical models, not really to cover the individual health or malaise of any of them.

From Frame:

The default pedestalization of women that men are prone to is a direct result of accepting that a woman’s frame is the only frame. It’s kind of hard for most ‘plugged in’ men to grasp that they can and should exert frame control in order to establish a healthy future relationship. This is hardly a surprise considering that every facet of their social understanding about gender frame has always defaulted to the feminine for the better part of their lifetimes. Whether that was conditioned into them by popular media or seeing it played out by their beta fathers, for most men in western culture, the feminine reality IS the normalized frame work. In order to establish a healthy male-frame, the first step is to rid themselves of the preconception that women control frame by default. They don’t, and honestly, they don’t want to.

Post LTR Frame
In most contemporary marriages and LTR arrangements, women tend to be the de facto authority. Men seek their wive’s “permission” to attempt even the most mundane activities they’d do without an afterthought while single. I have married friends tell me how ‘fortunate’ they are to be married to such an understanding wife that she’d “allow” him to watch hockey on their guest bedroom TV,…occasionally.

These are just a couple of gratuitous examples of men who entered into marriage with the frame firmly in control of their wives. They live in her reality, because anything can become normal. What these men failed to realize is that frame, like power, abhors a vacuum.  In the absence of the frame security a woman naturally seeks from a masculine male, this security need forces her to provide that security for herself. Thus we have the commonality of cuckold and submissive men in westernized culture, while women do the bills, earn the money, make the decisions, authorize their husband’s actions and deliver punishments. The woman is seeking the security that the man she pair-bonded with cannot or will not provide.

It is vital to the health of any LTR that a man establish his frame as the basis of their living together before any formal commitment is recognized.

The primary problem men encounter with regard to their marriages is that the dominant, positively masculine Frame they should have established while single (and benefitting from competition anxiety) decays to a Beta mindset and the man abdicates authority and deference to his wife’s feminine primary Frame. This is presuming that dominant Frame ever existed while he was dating his wife. Most men experience this decay in three ways:

  • A decline to his wife’s Frame via his relinquishing an authority he isn’t comfortable embracing.
  • An initial belief in a misguided egalitarian ideal that redefines masculinity has him surrender Frame
  • He was so pre-whipped by a lifetime of Blue Pill Beta conditioning he already expects to live within a woman’s Frame

Of these, the last is the most direct result of an upbringing within a feminine-primary Frame. I think one of the most vital realizations a Red Pill man has to consider is how Red Pill truths and his awareness of them influences the meta-dynamic of raising and instructing subsequent generations.

As I’ve intoned in many a post, Hypergamy is both pragmatic and rooted in a survival-level doubt about its optimization. When a woman’s insecurity about her life-determining Hypergamous decisions are concretely answered by the positively, conventionally, masculine Man who is both her pair-bonded husband and the father of her children, that doubt is allayed and a gender-complementary environment for raising children proceeds from that security.

In a positively masculine dominant Frame, where that woman’s desire is primarily focused on her man, (and where that man’s SMV exceeds his wife’s by at least a factor of 1) this establishes at least a tenable condition of quieting a woman’s Hypergamous doubt about the man she’s consolidated monogamy and parental investment with.

In a condition where that husband is unable or unwilling (thanks to egalitarian beliefs) to establish his dominant Frame this leaves a woman’s Hypergamous doubt as the determinant of the health of the overall family. That doubt and the insecurities that extend from Hypergamous selection set the tone for educating any children that result from it.

In the last post I made the case that deliberately single, primarily female, parents arrogantly assume they can teach a child both masculine and feminine aspects equally well. In the case where a wife/mother assumes the headship of family authority, both she and the Frame abdicating father/husband reverse this conventional gender modeling for their children.

That woman’s dominant Frame becomes the reality not just her husband must enter, but also their children, and also their family relatives. That feminine dominant Frame is one that is predicated on the insecurities inherent in women’s Hypergamous doubts.

Is he really the best she can do?”

Play Don’t Pay had an observation from the last post:

I think this “putting the kids first” phenomenon is very simple to explain. She DOESN’T WANT TO FUCK YOU!
She is using the kids as a shield, a barrier to deflect your UNWANTED BETA SEXUAL ADVANCES.
It is generally accepted that women are only interested in the top 20% of men, and if you are talking about as marriage partners I would agree with this.

However if you are talking about as SEX partners that they are genuinely hot for I would estimate this percentage to be north of 5% add in the frame required to maintain her SEXUAL interest in a marriage / LTR and your probably closer to 1-2%.
It’s really that simple! the women that are with these top tier men, the top 1-2% don’t need to be told to put them before the kids, they do it because he IS more important to her than her kids, because if he leaves she will never be able to replace him with another top tier man now she has his kids in tow.

Top tier men don’t raise other mens children and she knows this instinctively.
If you think you can mitigate this by being top 20% and reading a few articles on frame and dread game then I think you will be disappointed.

Sure you can improve your relationship but your probably not going to be able to command the visceral raw desire that women have for the top tier men that makes the do this shit naturally under their own violation.

“Is he really the best she can do?”

In a feminine-primary Frame, that question defines every aspect of that family’s life and development together. It’s important for Red Pill aware men to really meditate on that huge truth. If you do not set, and maintain, a dominant masculine Frame, if you do not accept you role in a conventional complementary relationship, that woman will feel the need to assume the responsibility for her own, and her children’s, security. Women’s psychological firmware predispose them to this on a visceral, limbic, species-survival level.

I’ve met with countless men making a Red Pill transition in life who’ve related stories about the burdening influence of their domineering mothers and Beta supplicating fathers leading to them being brought up to repeat that Blue Pill cycle. I’ve also counseled guys who were raised by their single mothers who had nothing but spite and resentment for the Alpha Asshole father who left her. They too took it upon themselves to be men who sacrifice their masculinity for equalism in order to never be like Dad the asshole. I’ve met with the guys whose mothers had divorced their dutiful fathers to bang their bad boy tingle generating boyfriends (whom they equally despised) and they too were molded by their mother’s Hypergamous decisions.

And this is what I’m trying to emphasize here; in all of these upbringing conditions it is the mother’s Hypergamous doubt that is the key motivating influence on her children. That lack of a father with a positive, strong, dominant Frame puts his children at risk of an upbringing based on that mother’s Hypergamous self-questioning doubt. Add to this the modern feminine-primary social order that encourages women’s utter blamelessness in acting upon this Hypergamous doubt and you can see how the cycle of creating weak, gender confused men and vapid entitled women perpetuates itself.

Finally, to the guys who are psychologically stuck on the shitty conditions they had to endure because of this cycle, to the men who are still dealing with how mommy fucked them up or daddy was a Beta; the best thing you can do is recognize the cycle I’ve illustrated for you here. That’s the first step. The Red Pill is great at getting you laid, but it’s much more powerful than that; it gives you the insight to see the influences that led to where you find yourself today.

Once you’ve recognized the Red Pill truths behind your Blue Pill conditioning, then it’s time to realign yourself, and recreate yourself in defiance to them. The longer you wallow in the self-pitiful condition that your mother’s Hypergamy and your father’s passive Beta-ness embedded in you, the longer you allow that Blue Pill  schema to define who you are.


The Red Pill Parent


This week I’ll be exploring a new angle in the Red Pill: how parenting and family relations influence and direct the Blue Pill conditioning of a generation, and what Red Pill aware men can do to redirect this. It was encouraging to see fathers and sons together at the Man In Demand conference. I honestly wasn’t expecting this, but it was a humbling experience to see fathers and sons coming to a Red Pill awareness together. I also met with a few men who told me their sons had either turned them on to my books or that they would be required reading for their sons before they got out of their teens.

One of the greatest benefits of the conference was the inspiration and material I got from the men attending. A particular aspect of this was addressing how men might educate and help others to unplug and in that lay a wealth of observations about how these men’s upbringings had brought them to both their Blue Pill idealisms and ultimately their Red Pill awareness.

I’m beginning this series with some of these observations, but I plan to break protocol and be a bit more proscriptive in the last essay with regard to what I think may be beneficial ways to be a Red Pill parent. In The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine I included a chapter which outlined how men are primarily conditioned for lives and ego-investments in a Blue Pill idealism that ultimately prepares them for better serving the Feminine Imperative when their usefulness is necessary to fulfill women’s sexual (and really lifetime) strategies.

That chapter is only available in the book, but if you have it, it might be helpful to review it after you read this.

Reader (and MiD conference attendee) Jeremy had an excellent observation from Solipsism II:


The only thing I take issue with is the advice, from the book that his wife read, which told her to place her husband above her children. Children come first for a mother, and they should for the father too. I’m not advocating to neglect her husband, but he needs to accept some biological facts and not be hurt because of it

What you’re repeating there is actually the first steps of a hostage crisis. That is first-wave-feminism boilerplate response. It is the first redirection in a misdirection perpetuated by women in order to sink any notion that men should have some authority on matters. Think of the children. It’s been repeated for so long, it’s a cliche…

It’s typical crab-basket behavior. Women seek power over their lives and somehow instinctively believe that the only way to achieve power is to take someone else’s power away. So they attack male authority by placing children above the man. This then becomes a stick with which to beat male authority into submission, as the woman is allowed to speak for the needs of the children. This is literally textbook subversion, and plays out on so many levels of human culture it tends to make one consider how boring humanity must look to any alien life that happens to stumble across our unremarkable corner of the universe.

When the children’s needs become the “throne” of the household, and the wife is allowed to speak for the children’s needs, then the authority of the household becomes a rather grotesque combination of immediate child needs and female manipulation. Worse still, the children are now effectively captives of the wife, because at any time she can accuse the husband of anything the law is forced to throw him in handcuffs for, and take away the kids.

What you’re repeating is the first steps in that hostage situation. Equalists will try to convince you of the logic that children come first, that children are the future, that all of that which makes them better is more important than anything else. This is bullshit.

Do you think cavemen sat around in caves all day playing and socially interacting with their babies? Do you think they had some kind of fresh-gazelle-delivery service that allowed him to interact with the children directly? Do you think the mothers were not under exactly the same survival condition, needing to forage for carrots, potatoes, berries, etc, while the men hunted and built structures? Do you think the “children” came first in any other era of humanity? If so, you are very sadly mistaken.

Children are more than capable of getting everything they need to know about how to live simply by watching their parents live a happy life together. This is how humans did things for eons, changing that order and putting the “children first” is frankly perverse and the beginning of the destruction of the family. Children are more than information sponges, they are blank minds that want desperately to be adult. Children want to understand everything that everyone around them understands, which is why a parent telling a child that you’re “disappointed” in them is more effective than a paddling. If you focus on children, you are frankly just spoiling them with attention that they will never receive in the real world. If instead you focus on yourself and your spouse, you will raise children that see you putting yourself as the MPO (as Rollo calls it), and your marriage/partnership as an important part of what you do each day.

Don’t put the children first. That’s essentially like negotiating with a terrorist, they’ll only make more demands on you until the cops storm the plane and lots of people get shot.

Your Mental Point of Origin should never waver from yourself.

American Parenting is Killing American Marriage

Of course, Ayelet Waldman’s blasphemy was not admitting that her kids were less than completely wonderful, only that she loved her husband more than them. This falls into the category of thou-shalt-have-no-other-gods-before-me. As with many religious crimes, judgment is not applied evenly across the sexes. Mothers must devote themselves to their children above anyone or anything else, but many wives would be offended if their husbands said, “You’re pretty great, but my love for you will never hold a candle to the love I have for John Junior.”

Mothers are also holy in a way that fathers are not expected to be. Mothers live in a clean, cheerful world filled with primary colors and children’s songs, and they don’t think about sex. A father could admit to desiring his wife without seeming like a distracted parent, but society is not as willing to cut Ms. Waldman that same slack. It is unseemly for a mother to enjoy pleasures that don’t involve her children.
There are doubtless benefits that come from elevating parenthood to the status of a religion, but there are obvious pitfalls as well. Parents who do not feel free to express their feelings honestly are less likely to resolve problems at home. Children who are raised to believe that they are the center of the universe have a tough time when their special status erodes as they approach adulthood. Most troubling of all, couples who live entirely child-centric lives can lose touch with one another to the point where they have nothing left to say to one another when the kids leave home.
In the 21st century, most Americans marry for love. We choose partners who we hope will be our soulmates for life. When children come along, we believe that we can press pause on the soulmate narrative, because parenthood has become our new priority and religion. We raise our children as best we can, and we know that we have succeeded if they leave us, going out into the world to find partners and have children of their own. Once our gods have left us, we try to pick up the pieces of our long neglected marriages and find new purpose. Is it surprising that divorce rates are rising fastest for new empty nesters? Perhaps it is time that we gave the parenthood religion a second thought.

I think these quotes outline the dynamic rather well; a method of control women can use to distract and defer away from Beta husbands is a simple appeal to their children’s interests as being the tantamount to their own or their husbands. If the child sits at the top of that love hierarchy and that child’s wellbeing and best interests can be defined by the mother, the father/husband is relegated to subservience to both the child and the mother.

This gets back to the preternatural Empathy myth that women, by virtue of just being a woman, has some instinctual, empathetic insight about placing that child above all else. That child becomes a failsafe and a buffer against having to entertain a real relationship with the father/husband and really consider his position in her Hypergamous estimate of him.

If that man isn’t what her Hypergamous instinct estimates him being as optimal (he’s the unfortunate Beta), then “she’s tolerating his presence for the kids’ sake.” Jeremy was responding to a comment made by Capper about an incident where a woman was being encouraged to put her husband before her kids in that love hierarchy priority. The fact that this is so unnatural for a woman that it would need to be something necessary to train a woman to speaks volumes about the facility with which women presume that their default priority ought to be for her kids.

Most men buy into this prioritization as well. It seems deductively logical that a woman would necessarily need to put her child’s attention priorities well above her husband’s. What’s counterintuitive to both parents is that it’s the health of their relationship (or lack) that defines and exemplifies the complementary gender understanding of the child. Women default to using their children as cats paws to assume primary authority of the family, and men are already preconditioned to accept this as the normative frame for the family.

As with all your relations with women, establishing a strong Frame is essential. The problem for men with even the strongest initial Frame with their wives is that they cede that Frame to their kids. Most men want the very best for their children; or there may be a Promise Keepers dynamic that guy is dealing with an makes every effort to outdo, and make up for, the sins of his father by sacrificing everything, but in so doing he loses sight of creating and maintaining a dominant Frame for not just his wife, but the state of his family.

It’s important to bear in mind that when you set the Frame of your relationship, whether it’s a first night lay or a marriage prospect, women enter your reality and your frame – the same needs to apply to any children within that relationship. Far too many fathers are afraid to embody that strong authority and expect their wives (and children) to recognize what should be his primary place in the family.

The fear is that by assuming this position they become the typical asshole father they hoped to avoid for most of their formative years. Even for men with strong masculine role models in their lives, the hesitation comes from a culture that ridicules fathers, or presumes they are potentially violent towards children. Thus the abdication of fatherly authority, in as positive a tense as possible, is abdicated before that child is even born.


At the Man in Demand conference last weekend I had a young guy ask me what my thoughts were about a man’s being interested in becoming a single parent of his own accord. I had this same question posed to me during my second interview with Christian McQueen and essentially it breaks down to a man supplying his own sperm, buying a suitable woman’s viable ovum to fertilize himself, and, I presume, hire a surrogate mother to carry that child to term. Thereupon he takes custody of that child and raises it himself as a single father.

In theory this arrangement should work out to something similar to a woman heading off the the sperm bank to (once again Hypergamously) select a suitable sperm donor and become a single parent of her own accord. It’s interesting that we have institutions and facilities like sperm banks to ensure women’s Hypergamy, but men, much less heterosexual men, must have exceptional strength of purpose and determination to do so.

Despite dealing with the very likely inability of the surrogate mother to disentangle her emotional investment in giving birth to a child she will never raise (hormones predispose women to this) a man must be very determined financially and legally to become a single father by choice. In principle I understand the sentiment of Red Pill men wanting to raise a child on their own. The idea is to do so free from the (at least direct) influence of the Feminine Imperative. However, I think this is in error.

My feelings on this are two part. First, being a complementarian, it is my belief that a child requires two healthy adult parents, male and female, with a firm, mature grasp of the importance, strengths and weaknesses of their respective gender roles (based on biological and evolutionary standards). Ideally they should exemplify and demonstrate those roles in a healthy fashion so as a boy or a girl can learn about masculinity and femininity from their respective parents’ examples.

Several generations after the sexual revolution, and after several generations of venerating feminine social primacy, we’ve arrived at a default collective belief that single mothers can perform the function of modeling and shaping masculinity in boys as well as femininity in girls equally well. The underlying social message in that is that women/mothers can be a one woman show with regard to parenting and thus men, fathers or the buffoons mainstream culture portrays them as, are superfluous to parenting – nice to have around, but not vital. This belief also finds fertile ground in the notion that men are obsolete.

Secondly, for all the equalist emphasis of Jungian gender theories about anima/animus and balancing feminine and masculine personality interests, it is evidence of an agenda to suggest that a woman is equally efficient in teaching and modeling masculine aspects to children as well as any positively masculine man. With that in mind, I think the reverse would be true for a deliberately single father – even with the best of initial intents.

Thus, I think a father might serve as a poor substitute for a woman when it comes to exemplifying a feminine ideal. The argument then of course is that, courtesy of a feminine-centric social order, women have so divorced themselves of conventional femininity that perhaps a father might teach a daughter (if not demonstrate for her) a better feminine ideal than a woman. Conventional, complementary femininity is so lost on a majority of women it certainly seems like logic for a man to teach his daughter how to recapture it.

Raising Betas

This was the trap that 3rd wave feminism fell into; the belief that they knew how best to raise a boy into their disempowered and emasculated ideal of their redefined masculinity. Teach that boy a default deference and sublimation to feminine authority, redefine it as respect, teach him to pee sitting down and share in his part of the choreplay, and well, the world is bound to be a better more cooperative place right?

So it is for these reason I think that the evolved, conventional, two-parent heterosexual model serves best for raising a child. I cannot endorse single parenthood for either sex. Parenting should be as collaborative and as complementary a partnership as is reflected in the complementary relationship between a mother and father.

It’s the height of gender-supremacism to be so arrogantly self-convinced as to deliberately choose to birth a child and attempt to raise it into the contrived ideal of what that “parent” believes the other gender’s role ought to be.

This should put the institutionalized social engineering agenda of the Feminine Imperative into stark contrast for anyone considering intentional single parenthood. Now consider that sperm banks and feminine-specific fertility institutions have been part of normalized society for over 60 years and you can see that Hypergamy has dictated the course of parenting for some time now. This is the definition of social engineering.

I’ll admit that when I got the question of single fatherhood I was a bit incredulous of the mechanics of it. Naturally it would be an expense most men couldn’t entertain. However, as promised, I did my homework on it, and found out that ectogenesis was yet another science-fiction-come-reality that feminists have already considered and have planned for:

Prominent feminists and activists, including Andrea Dworkin and Janice Raymond, have concluded that not only will women be further marginalized and oppressed by this eventuality, but they will become obsolete.

Fertility, and the ability to be the species’ reproductive engine, are virtually the only resources that women collectively control, they argue. And, although women do have other “value” in a patriarchal society–child rearing, for example–gestation remains, worldwide, the most important.  Even in the most female-denigrating cultures women are prized, if only, for their childbearing. If you take that away, then what? This technology becomes another form of violence.

Women already have the power to eliminate men and in their collective wisdom have decided to keep them. The real question now is, will men, once the artificial womb is perfected, want to keep women around?

[…]“We may find ourselves without a product of any kind with which to bargain,” she writes. “We have to ask, if that last power is taken and controlled by men, what role is envisaged for women in the new world? Will women become obsolete?”

This was a great article and it came at an auspicious time – the time we find women sweating about having their sexual market leverage with men potentially being undercut by sex-bots and/or immersive virtual sex substitutes.


Planned Obsolescence


The mainstream loves a salacious story about the sexual misconducts of men. With the recent Ashley Madison data leak the narrative was one of blaming and shaming the overwhelming majority of men who signed up for an account to cheat in their spouses. This has resulted in more than one suicide. A topic of the Man in Demand Q&A session I fielded was how the Red Pill lens isn’t limited to just scoffing at the Blue Pill in popular media, but that it also gives men a sensitivity and awareness to better understand the motivations for social narratives like this.

Red Pill aware men understand that if there is an opportunity to cast blame or doubt on a man over his sexual impulse, or the consequences for allowing it to lead to behavior that conflicts with a feminine-primary social order, shaming will always be the go-to, socially acceptable strategy. Sex will always be a clichéd thumbscrew to gauge men’s personal resolve, and this is a built-in failsafe of control for the Blue Pill’s conditioning of men.

Red Pill men understand the motivating incentives for this “cheating” and that in a westernizing culture, 50%+ of marriages are clinically and practically sexless, it’s not hard to understand the want for a man to find some temporary sexual release in infidelity, porn or delusions of emotional infidelity. It’s also easy to understand how the paradox of commitment would drive such men to suicide.

This is simply one data point of many in a larger Red Pill awareness that indicates some very uncomfortable truths women need to confront; whether single or married, men will actively seek a practical solution to their sexlessness. And it is just this sexual problem solving that will ultimately challenge women’s unilateral, social and personal power over their own Hypergamy. On a limbic level women and the imperative are aware of this challenge. Thus, it’s controlled for by investing in conditioning men to feel guilt or shaming for ever embracing their masculine sexual nature. It’s a threat.

Keep this fact in mind as I explore today’s topic. Women and feminine-primary culture have done an amazing job at commodifying women’s singular, primary agency with men – their physicality and sexual availability. It’s de rigueur in the manosphere to write articles about women reducing themselves to being next to valueless to men beyond their sexual attributes. I’ve written in the past about women’s commodifying love and sex, however recently women are being forced to face the realities of making their sexuality a commodity.

What women, both prominent and insignificant, are coming to realize is that the ultimate plan of feminism (destroying the evolved, complementary family structure of parenting) is really a planned obsolescence for womankind. As I was coming to this realization I found it rather ironic that only 5 years ago we had the likes of Hannah Rosin profiting from the idea that men were (or were becoming) obsolete. Five years later it appears the fear now is that it’s women who will become obsolete in the most literal, commodified sense. That fear is beginning to show.

In the Future Sexbots will Drink Feminist Tears

If you follow me on twitter or you’re even peripherally aware of MSM gender sensationalism in a Red Pill context you’ll know that the topic du jour this week is the coming, realistic, availability of robotic sex partners and the efforts being made to legislate against their development by ‘concerned’ women. Heartiste and many other manosphere writers naturally picked up on this. I particularly enjoyed Milo Yiannopoulos’ piece Sexbots: Why Women Should Worry.

But male sexual appetites are easily satisfied, despite what women will tell you. Blow jobs really aren’t that difficult, and in any case most blokes are fine with a pizza and a wank. For many men, sex is a nice bonus, but it’s not essential. When you introduce a low-cost alternative to women that comes without all the nagging, insecurity and expense, frankly men are going to leap in headfirst.

One of the primary and evolved differences in men and women’s neural firmware is that men are natural and intrinsic problem solvers. I’ve pointed it out in many an essay; men are wired to solve problems with a rudimentary, deductive logic process. It’s one of the reasons we get ourselves into such horribly misled predicaments with women; we expect a binary, A to B to C level of reason with women (reinforced by equalist ideology) and deductively try to solve a sex and intimacy problem with them.

Improvisation and innovation are what we do to live better; one reason men naturally view women as sex objects is literally due to wiring in our brains that predispose us to using tools. So it’s really not much of a stretch to see how men will use this inventiveness to solve a need for sex. And in an intersexual social environment that’s predicated on the commodification of sex, well, you can see how the advancement of sexual substitutes and virtual sexual experiences would be driven by supply and demand.

It’s science fiction at this stage, but the ball is rolling and this is causing the Feminine Imperative to confront uncomfortable possibilities with just the proposition of having a sexual monopoly disrupted be the innovations of men.

Do Robots Dream of Electric Sin?

As might be expected, Dalrock took a shot at this story from a Christian moralistic angle – would sex with a convincing facsimile of a woman qualify as sinning?

InnocentBystanderBoston had a good comment in that thread:

Aside from the purely moral question, there is another risk regarding sexbots. Our economy is built on the expectation that men will be motivated by marriage to produce in excess of their own needs. As we continue to degrade marriage, sexbots will be there to fill the gaps.

…with unilateral divorce law and the accompanying cash and prizes awarded to the female courtesy of judges immersed in the feminist imperative, I think s-xbots pretty much end marriage. If marriage isn’t completely destroyed forever with version 2.0, the s-xbot will most certainly destroy it. And why? The s-xbot will always give you s-x on demand. It will stay at home, faithful to you. It will not spend your money and ruin your credit rating. It will not get a judge to sign a restraining order against you. It can’t divorce you and take cash and prizes. It will never age maintaining its peak SMV forever (if you believe in Rollo’s charts.) So that will pretty much be it for feminism. Without the surplus wealth created by men to subsidize the parasitic nature of feminist centric Marriage 2.0, there can be no feminism. Women are net wealth consumers. Without husbands, there lives will ONLY be in decline. The feminist imperative can NOT allow these s-xbots to be made.

On a rudimentary level feminism has always recognized that women’s only real agency with men is sex. We can see this in the feminine-centric commodification of sex, and we can see this truth in (third wave) feminism’s embrace of sex positivity – but again, only within the confines of a feminine-centric and unilaterally feminine controlled context for that sex to happen in.

The increasingly more accepted Yes Means Yes legalistic checklist that underwrites sexual relations (for what feminists know will always be defined by ambiguous circumstances) is a glaring example of this litigious overreach in an effort to lock down unilateral control of Hypergamy for women. This is the degree of paranoia that the doubt of Hypergamous insecurity inspires in those women less capable of intrasexual competition with their sisters to secure it.

When granted the social facilities to do so, women will always base their personal choices, their personal ideologies, their social order and their legislative doctrines around relieving themselves of Hypergamous doubt and insecurities. In truth, women’s evolved socio-sexual filtering ensures that there is no practical relief from this. There is no 100% assuredness of Hypergamous choice; Hypergamy doubts optimization even after the best of choices, but if given the power, women will build a social order around an attempt to mutually allay that doubt, allay that sexual competition anxiety, and all at men’s expense and disempowerment.

Becoming Obsolete

If you ever need an example of the duplicity with which the Feminine Imperative really aligns itself with equalism, look no further than how that “equality” is expressed with preferring pro-feminine solutions to social problems.

There is a fundamental fear women experience in just the prospect of not having 100% control over their sexual selection, sexual strategy and ultimately optimization of their Hypergamy. Anything that challenges women’s unilateral control of their Hypergamous power – such as prostitution, male hormonal birth control, female viagra, DNA testing for paternity and now sexbots – must be ruthlessly and preemptively legislated against if feminine social primacy is to be maintained. Even the idea of sexbots destroying women’s monopoly on sex, however fantastical, must be eliminated before it becomes a threat.

Kathleen Richardson, a professor at De Montfort University in England, serves as an excellent example of this axiom:

“Sex robots seem to be a growing focus in the robotics industry and the models that they draw on — how they will look, what roles they would play — are very disturbing indeed,” she told the BBC.

She believes that they reinforce traditional stereotypes of women and the view that a relationship need be nothing more than physical.

“We think that the creation of such robots will contribute to detrimental relationships between men and women, adults and children, men and men and women and women,” she said.

I would agree that it is detrimental in these terms, but the fear of losing feminine primacy is evident in just the prospect of sexbots.

The squid ink here is the concern for reinforcing “traditional stereotypes” of women for the almost unanimously male demographic who’d buy a sexual substitute (notice there is no call for creating morbidly obese variants of sexbots). The real fear is that men prefer that stereotype and it would force women to confront the truth that if they don’t accommodate men’s physical and psychological preferences (conventional femininity) they will progressively devalue women’s sexual agency over them by opting for the sexbot.

And that is a very pressing threat to women’s control over Hypergamy.

What were witnessing here is the acknowledgement that shaming men for their inventiveness in resolving their sexual needs isn’t working. Thus the social and legislative power the Feminine Imperative wields has to be invoked. Naturally there will be “think of the children” appeals and the admonishments of dehumanization on the part of men, but the binary truth is that women’s prime commodity (sex) could be reduced to making women obsolete.

The following is an exchange between Vitriol and YaReally from the last post.

“However, the biggest secret they all want to hide is that using money, whether doing something like you described or paying for pussy outright, is the most efficient way to get laid. If your main goal is to get laid as much as possible, does it matter whether you followed some arbitrary rules that some guy posted on the internet along the way? ”

lol brb taking a helicopter to the top of Mount Everest because it’s more efficient than those dumbasses who actually CLIMB it. It DOES matter to men who’s goal isn’t “to get laid as much as possible” but is “to get laid by girls who are legitimately into me, as much as possible”. To each their own.

If we accept the Pareto Principle as a rough guideline, 80% of men are Betas who simply don’t care to, or accept that they don’t have the capacity to, concern themselves with learning how to “get laid with girls who are genuinely into them.” They’ll create every manner of rationale to convince themselves that the girl who solves his sexual thirst is genuinely into him, or he’ll opt for the most available, most feasible, means to resolve that sexual deprivation. The ubiquitousness of free, easily accessible, streaming hi-def pornography is a testament to this dynamic.

Whether the reality of convincing sexbots is ever achieved isn’t really relevant in this equation, the fear of losing primary control of Hypergamy is what’s at stake. We see this fear manifested in criminalizing prostitution and the shame of men seeking sexual release via pornography and Ashley Madison accounts.

Recently I was asked about my take on the legal pushback on the part of women to regulate or outright ban the FDA approval of the female form of Viagra. From the socially acceptable perspective the fear is that the drug might be used as another (more effective) date rape drug. From a Red Pill perspective the fear is, once again, rooted in women’s fear of men circumventing women’s sexual strategy by chemically influencing their arousal process.

It’s one thing to forcibly rape a woman and thereby take control of her Hypergamous choice, but it quite another to prompt her into engaging in sex she is influenced to by some extrinsic means. As such, women’s sexual selection and Hypergamous optimization is effectively mitigated if not removed from the sexual equation by an invention of men. So once again we see the nervous efforts of the Feminine Imperative to ban any prospective attempts by men to exercise even a marginal control over Hypergamy.

Women have access to safe and legal abortion (a Hypergamous control), but a drug that might influence their libido and thus lead them to sexual choices they might no otherwise control and make, even the idea of that innovation needs regulation. Remove women from the sexual selection and arousal process and you make their only value – the value westernized women have systematically established for themselves – effectively obsolete.

That’s not a judgement call. Women tend to conflate their personal, intrinsic value with their sexual market value. However, in the SMP that is predicated upon women’s only value to men being sexual (not as life mates, mothers, or personal worth), the monopoly of sexual leverage becomes toothless.

A Man in Demand Conference – The Review


On August 7th I made the announcement about the Man In Demand Seminar I’d be speaking at along with Christian McQueen, Tanner Guzy from Masculine Style and Goldmund, whom I’d done the impromptu interview with while he was passing through Reno towards the end of July.

In that blog post’s comments a bit of criticism was leveled at both Christian McQueen and myself for agreeing to speak at this conference and in that discourse I promised readers the following:

I’ll tell you what Joe, I’ll give a personal, honest and objective review of the whole conference when it’s done. I’ll make sure I’m present for all the talks (which I was going to do anyway), and I’ll watch that all the money goes where it’s suppose to go (primarily paying for the venue – it’s spendy even by my standards).

If anything is shady, if anything is off the books, if any of the men who attend want to opine about it, you’ll know and read about it here.

You see, I have always had an open forum; if you want to say you got ripped off, be the first to post it here. Unlike other forums and Disqus threads, I neither edit, censor nor ban any critical opinions. I’ll pull blatant spamming, but the integrity of TRM is based on an open exchange of ideas.

So it’s not my rep on the line, it’s everyone else living up to their own. I have confidence in each of the speakers to deliver what they will. If they don’t, I and anyone else who chooses will let you know.

I don’t do this for a living Joe. If the manosphere shut down tomorrow I’d be making the same scratch I do now.

So here now is my honest and objective assessment of the entire conference.

Before I get into the breakdown of the entire weekend I want to first address that not one speaker at this event made money from it. I wont speak for the guys, but I know how much I spent on a flight, my three days accommodations, my transportation (not cheap in Vegas) while there, my food expenses, my drinks, etc. All this far exceeded the marginal profit (about $330) we each made from our appearances once the venue, insurance and security was paid for.

Christian provided all of us with the financials every step of the way up to and after the event sold out inside of 19 days after we announced it. Christian promptly paid us after the event sold out, a full 3 weeks beforehand. Each admission was $46. Divide that by 4 and each man there payed a mere $11.50 per speaker.

This was Vegas. The venue was everything (and more) than I expected. We wanted it to be affordable since travel and accommodations don’t come cheap. Beyond the basic admission we had a limited 4-person VIP dinner at Sinatra in Wynn’s Encore Casino Resort with the 4 of us for a bargain $98.

That said, everything was above board with Christian, all the speakers and every man who attended.

I put a bit of money out to make this happen, and for me it wasn’t anything concerning, but I know it was a stretch for some of the speakers as well as some of the attendees. I’ve always viewed money as currency. Not in the formal sense that money’s a currency (duh), but rather how money is like a current – as electricity is a current – and an energy with which I can do things.

This event was something I wanted to do. That’s not me trying to be magnanimous, it’s just how I approach things I think are worthwhile. And this seminar was most definitely worth my investment.

The Trip

Here’s a Vegas tip if you’ve never been; practically no one rents a car if you’re flying in. If you get a good one, stay with the same driver. The company I work with usually has me set up, but on this trip I got two good taxi drivers, Allan and his brother Jairo. Get their cell numbers and stay with that guy while you’re out. They appreciate it, and you get info on where cool shit is happening.

I wont bore you with the flight or my first night in town, but suffice to say the room was comfortable as to be expected and conveniently located where I needed to be. My evening was spent reviewing my talk and writing out points on flash cards. I treated myself to a couple of IPAs at the hotel bar and met a very hot bartender named Candace. She was 26 and we promptly got into conversation about her LTR ex-boyfriend, her son and where she was on the Preventive Medicine timeline. I mention her here because I gave her a copy of both my books and she seemed fascinated by them.

The Talk

Jairo dropped me off at our venue at around 8:45 Saturday morning. I was pleased to see the security guard we’d paid for was right in front on the street and immediately directed me to the conference room where I was greeted by Christian and our stunning events hostess (easily an HB 8.5 brunette). I then meet up with Goldmund and Tanner and settled in for the start.

The room was pretty hot at first (air conditioning problems), but our hostess resolved it before Goldmund had got halfway through his talk. I had a few men kind of tentatively look me up and down when I got into the room as if maybe they were wondering if it was me. This was my first public appearance so it was a bit strange for me as well. I was oddly more nervous when I first got into the venue and began having men ask me if I was Rollo Tomassi than when I started my actual talk 5 hours later.


As promised I took a seat in the back of the room and did my due diligence by taking notes on each speaker. Goldmund was first and in all honesty he built his talk up much more than I’d expected. What I knew was that he’d give a recounting of his trans-American trek he did this summer. What surprised me was how in depth he went about how getting out on the road both frees and educates a man about himself.

Nothing causes a man to learn more about himself and teaches self-reliance than putting yourself out in the open with only your wit and perseverance to sustain you. Goldmund’s talk was more than just an adventure guide and some video about the women he met and banged along the way. He made an effort to grow from it, not to mention meet and interact with many manosphere personalities along the way.

I was very impressed with his insights about his trip, but also that he made it accessible for the men who were present, many of whom (myself included) were 10-20 years his senior.

Tanner Guzy

I’ll confess, I wasn’t aware of Tanner and his Masculine Style blog until Christian had mentioned his name as a possible speaker for this conference. I looked him, and at first I thought, well he’s a ‘style guy’ – I was wrong. Both on his site and during his talk Tanner brings not just style advice for men, but presents it in such a succinctly Red Pill way I was forced to rethink a few of my own TRM principles about bearing, physical presence and appearance.

I daresay I learned the most from Tanner of all these talks. Granted, Tanner is a professional style consultant and works directly in men’s fashion, but he doesn’t simply suggest men wear this or that; Tanner explains why men should dress to be impressive and why men should care about their appearances.

It’s easy to quote the 48 Laws of Power about dressing the part to have others consider your status, but it’s important to grasp the Red Pill dynamics that go along with demonstrating our strengths, our status, our accomplishments and why what we wear indicates this.

I should add that during Tanner’s Q&A session (easily as long as my own went) I felt compelled to make the point that guys who hate on other men for being concerned with what they wear was in fact a form of intrasexual combat. Tanner had an example of some of his forum haters telling him “only fags worry about their clothes” and “real men don’t think about fashion”; essentially ‘just be yourself’, be manly, wear jeans and a t-shirt and it’s all good. I made the comment that this type of SMV disqualification is comparable to fat girls telling slightly less fat girls they look OK being fat on FaceBook to hold them in place and hinder any ideas of attempting to improve their SMV.


Christian’s talk, rather speech, surprised me most. I don’t think I was alone in expecting the Playboy game talk in some manner would be forthcoming from Christian, but I couldn’t have been more wrong. He was well prepared with a speech, he primarily read, and had obviously given a great amount of consideration to.

He began with suicide and divorce statistics and wove these facts into what I can only describe as a call to arms for men in reclaiming their masculinity. If he’d left it there it would’ve made an emotional impact enough (his voice choking with emotion during some moments), but the import of his speech was also about men defining masculinity for themselves in a feminine-centric culture that aligns itself against them from ever unplugging from it.

I’ve come to expect the happy-go-lucky Game proponent with the Rat Pack swagger to be larger than life from my 2 interviews, but Christian dropped that persona for this speech and it made his point for him. Goldmund described it as inspirational and motivational, and I’m thankful for Christian for being that at this event – it’s what was needed to round out the line up.

I should add that my good friend Sam Botta took it upon himself not only to fly out from L.A., but he also brought his MacBook Pro and some pro audio equipment to record me. He warmed up by doing a test run on Christian’s speech and while I don’t know when it’ll be available I think the recording will speak volumes about Christian’s actual maturity and the seriousness he’s capable of. It will surprise many of his critics.

Rollo Tomassi

Well shit, what can I say about myself that wont sound like I’m glossing myself? As I mentioned I was very nervous when I first got to the event in the morning and had men I’d only just met ask me to sign their books and let me know how grateful they were for my work. After a while I felt like I was more among a group of old friends than guys I needed to impress and that nervousness turned into a comfort kind of like speaking to a family gathering.

I’m sure that sounds all touchy-feely, but I don’t know how else to describe it. In between speakers I had men come to me, ask me questions, show me appreciation, tell me their stories about their lives and so on, so it put much more at ease. As the talks went on I saw that there were men attending who were obviously my senior – I’d guess late 50s maybe early 60s – as well as young men in their 20s, and this also put me into a family frame of mind.

I understand that my presence was a big draw for this conference. I’m humbled by that, especially when I have men in the military, men and their sons, men on the Vegas police force and men who’ve seen decades more of a feminine-centric society than I express their gratitude for my writing and ideas.

Still, going last has it’s disadvantages, not the least of which was that I’d taken notes of all the speakers’ talks ahead of mine. My head gets filled with things I think need to be expanded on, areas I thought should be explained better, and this then leads to my mentally rewriting my own talk and trying to jot down things I now want to cover too. I had to make a conscious effort to repress this, but I’m afraid some of it found its way into my talk.

As you might guess, I talked about what I know best and this is the influences of Hypergamy on women, men, society, etc. I didn’t mention it, but I had titled my talk Hypergamy – Micro to Macro the night before and this was my basic outline. I began by defining terms because I didn’t want to presume every guy in the audience was entirely familiar with my interpretations of what Red Pill, Alpha/Beta and Hypergamy mean in my referencing. This turned out better than I thought because it sparked a lot of ideas and later discussions while I was in-speech.

For a while I entertained the idea of simply making my speech an hour long Q&A session since so many men had hit me up with such great questions between talks and I really wanted to go into more detail. Instead I opted for sticking to building up Hypergamy from its evolutionary psychology and biological roots in ovulatory shift behaviors, through the personal and sociological implication. After this I held a Q&A and this really developed into the group discussion I’d hoped it would. So in the end I got a happy compromise and I hope I got to all the questions every man had.


As I said, Sam Botta was my hero for recording the audio of this. He told me I went on for 133 minutes and I can tell you it seemed to blow by so much faster. I will make that audio available for a reasonably purchasable download once Sam has it mastered in order to be fair with those who attended.

It was an honor to meet so many diverse men who’d also made an effort to make this event worthwhile. And while none of us made money from this I think every man there profited from the experience. I met a father and son, I had lunch with my commenter Rugby, I met commenter Jeremy, a Vegas police detective, a former Marine pilot who told me he would be insisting his sons read my books before they graduated high school, and so many more who I don’t have the space to mention here. Thank you for oming to this.

There were no “leaks” of where the venue was to be held. There were no publicity stunts or pandering to contrived social agendas. There were no bomb threats or feminist protests, and, as promised, no video or photography of our guests. I’m proud to say that this conference was well designed and well executed in a luxurious location with every effort made to ensure the anonymity of the men attending and all with the intent of helping each of us collectively learn and grow in a Red Pill awareness.

The VIP after-dinner at Sinatra was fantastic and some of the best camaraderie I’ve had with men I’d only met in person a few hours prior. The women at Encore were top shelf and the martinis were too.

I should also mention that at Encore I was ‘coined’ by one of our Air Force guests who was stationed in South Korea and was in Vegas for the event. Up until this time I was unaware of the significance of receiving an Air Force coin, but it was the highlight and honor of my weekend.


Things We Could Do Better

Finally, at the end of the seminar we had a group Q&A and bluntly asked everyone what we could do to make a (possible) annual event better. Among these comments were a meet & greet or a group lunch which I thought would be good, but also I’d like to open up the VIP into a larger collective gathering in the evening.

My thoughts would be a larger venue, and of course a longer time frame for registration. Maybe a 2 day event over a long weekend with 6 or so speakers would be ideal.

So with that I want to thank all those who attended one last time here. A Man in Demand was as it should be, a collective experience and a collective discussion and that requires all of us being present and relating.

Goldumnd has a great write up of the event here, and Christian gives his thoughts here too. Also, Tanner had a funny video of his trip to the event here.

If you attended or you have and ideas or comments about this being an annual gathering you’d like to see please let me know in the comment thread. If I missed you or you were one of the guys I met or mentioned in this review please let me know.

Thanks gentlemen.

Solipsism II


A comment from Truman gets us started today:

Rollo, it would be great if you could provide some evidence for female solipsism beyond a few examples. From my own experience I could name a few solipsistic women, but I could do the same for men as well, and I’m far from convinced that the trait is universal in women, or even that it’s more prevalent in women than in men.

I will admit that the main reason I split this post into two was because I anticipated this example-seeking. And to their credit my more vocal female commenters didn’t disappoint me with (sometimes over the top) illustrations. If you haven’t had enough of the hamster spinning goodness yet feel free to sift through the comment thread from part one.

However, to begin to work out Truman’s request Voverk from the TRP forum had this example:

One of the most eye opening of the solipsistic world of females was when a plate of mine was giving me directions on where to pick her up. It went something like this:

Her: “When you come to that traffic light, turn over to me.”

Me: “What do you mean?”

Her: “Just turn here towards me.”

Me: “How the hell am I supposed to know which way is that? Left or right?”

Her: “I don’t know. Just turn my way”

She eventually gave directions, but it amazed me how hard it is for a woman to put herself in someone else’s shoes, even if she wants to.

Women’s mental point of origin (solipsism) presumes the entire world outside of her agrees with her imperative and mutually shares the importance and priorities of it.

Just like The Red Pill Lens, it takes a sensitivity to it, but you will begin to notice instances of that solipsism all around you if you pay attention. An equalists, feminine-primary upbringing and acculturation predisposes men to accept the manifestations of this solipsism as ‘normal’, so we blow it off or nod in agreement without really considering it. Most plugged-in Blue Pill men simply view this as a standard operating condition for women to such a degree that this solipsistic nature is pushed to the peripheries of their awareness.

It’s just how women are and women are more than happy to have men accept their solipsism as intrinsic to their nature. It’s excusable in the same sense that women hold a “woman’s prerogative” – she always reserves the right to change her mind. When your default is to accept this social imperative any greater inconsistencies fall into line behind it.

We are conditioned to accept that what best benefits women’s sexual strategy is necessarily what benefits men. On both a social and personal level women’s solipsistic importance presumes, by default, that what best serves themselves automatically best serves men – even when they refuse to acknowledge it. Remember, nothing outside the female existential imperative has any more significance than an individual women will allow it. So, perceptually to women, if a man suits a purpose in her self-primary requirements he must also mutually share in that awareness of his purpose. Thus, she maintains that his imperatives are the same as her own.

Societal Reinforcement

Social reinforcement of women’s solipsistic nature is a self-perpetuating cycle. A feminine-primary social order reflects in itself, and then sustains, female solipsism. For most Red Pill aware men this cycle is apparent in women’s overblown self-entitlements, but there’s far more to it than this.

When men accept and reinforce this socially, we feed and confirm women’s solipsistic natures. When men are steeped in a Blue Pill acceptance of what they believe should be men’s condition, and defend (or ’empower’) women’s solipsistic behaviors or manifestations of it, thats when the cycle of affirmation of this solipsism comes full circle.

Recently I called commenter InsanityBytes to the carpet about her first priority being to defend the Sisterhood when Dalrock published a post critical of a woman’s abortions and another who’d joined Ashley Madison then rationalized it away because she was in a loveless marriage with a man who was in his last days.

This is another instance of solipsism; that a woman’s first directive is to defend her sex’s imperatives even above considerations of religious conviction, marriage vows or espoused personal ideology. That’s the depth and breadth of feminine solipsism, and again, this reinforces a cycle of affirming it in women.


One of the easiest ways to identify women’s solipsistic nature is manifested in their communication style, and as fate would have it I received a fresh comment from a new female commenter on my interview with Niko Choski. I wont bore you with the histrionics of most of it, but her ending comments serve a purpose here:

I’m not lonely, I enjoy solitude…
I am a whole person who needs no other for my own completion.No man, no woman. The qualities identified by different cultures as male and female…are all mine.
Your obsession with division….iis absurd.

I’ve dug into women’s communication styles on more occasions than I can account on this blog, and with regard to how women defer to their solipsistic nature there is no better way to identify it than in the priorities they give to communicating with men and other women.

From Duplicity:

It’s endlessly entertaining (and predictable) to see how often women’s (and feminized men’s) default response to anything they disagree with in regards to gender dynamics is met with a personalization to the contrary. It’s always the “not-in-my-case” story about how their personal anecdotal, exceptional experience categorically proves a universal opposite. By order of degrees, women have a natural tendency for solipsism – any dynamic is interpreted in terms of how it applies to themselves first, and then the greater whole of humanity.

Men tend to draw upon the larger, rational, more empirical meta-observations whether they agree or not, but a woman will almost universally rely upon her isolated personal experience and cling to it as gospel. If it’s true for her, it’s true for everyone, and experience and data that contradict her self-estimations? Those have no bearing because ‘she’s’ not like that.

This personalization is the first order of any argument proffered by women just coming into an awareness of long standing conversations and discussion in the manosphere. It is so predictable it’s now cliché, and each woman’s first retort invariably responds with personalized anecdotes they think trumps any objective, observable evidence to the contrary.

It might be entertaining for Red Pill men to count the instances of personalization in a woman’s rebuttal comment, but it’s not about how many “I”s or “me”s a woman brings to any counterargument – it’s that her first inclination for a counterargument is to use her personal experience and expect it to be accepted as a valid, universal truth by whomever she is presenting it to.

I’s, Me’s and Myself’s are simply the vehicle and manifestation of women’s first directive – a solipsistic mental point of origin; any challenge to that self-importance is invalidated by her personal self-primacy. This mental origin is so automatic and ingrained to such a limbic degree that consideration of it is never an afterthought for her.

This is common to feminine communication preferences (and men who’ve been conditioned to opt into a feminine-primary communication mode). Women focus primarily on the context of the communication (how it makes them feel while communicating), while men focus primarily on the content (the importance of the information being communicated). This isn’t to exclude men from using personal experiences to help illustrate a point, but the intent comes from a different motive. That motive is an attempt to better understand the content and information of that issue, not an exercise in self-affirmation that feminine solipsism requires to preserve a woman’s ego-investments (usually her solipsistic mental point of origin).

The most visible manifestation of women’s rudimentary solipsism is the priority with which they expect their personal, existential, experience to be considered the most valid, legitimate and universal truth apparent in any debate.

Middle of the Story Syndrome

One thing I’ve been frustrated with by virtually every woman I’ve ever known in my life is their tendency to begin a conversation in the middle of a story; all the while expecting men to understand every nuance and be familiar with minute ‘feely’ detail that made up the backstory that’s never forthcoming.

I swear, every woman I’ve known has done this with me at some time. The presumption is that their story is of such importance that bothering with any pretext, or outlining and describing the events and information that led up to that mid-way vitally important element that made them feel a certain way is all that  should matter to a listener.

Women have an uncanny way of accepting this when they relate stories among themselves; gleaning incidental details of the backstory as the teller goes on.

There’s an ironic feminine-operative social convention that complains that “men aren’t good listeners” or “men don’t listen” to what women are telling them. This convention is really another manifestation of a solipsistic mindset with regard to communication.

It isn’t that men don’t listen, it’s that our communication styles focus on content information, not the contextual ‘feel’ of what’s being communicated by women. Women, above all else, hate to repeat themselves. Not because of the inconvenience, but because men ‘not listening’ and requiring a repetition of that information conflicts with her own self-primary solipsism.

The want for a ‘good listener’ is really the want for a man who affirms her self-priority by not needing to be told something that confirms that priority more than once. And this confirmation should never require explanation or and understanding of the backstory of events that made it feel important to her.

Women have an inherent pretext in communication that always begins with themselves. In fact, most are so sure of their solipsistic, personal truth that glaring objectivity never enters their minds; at least not initially. As I mentioned in the first installment, women are entirely capable of applying reason, rationality and pragmatism as well as men, it’s just that this isn’t their first mental order when confronted with a need for it. Just as a girl can be taught to throw an object as well as it comes naturally to a boy, a reasoned transcendence above her solipsism, one that considers the individuated existences of others’ experiences takes a learned effort.

Ladies First

Luxocrat had a great illustration as well:

I asked my ex that last month, if her kids came first or if I did. She paused and said “I really don’t know. That’s a hard one.” I replied “Then it’s your kids.” I recall my ex-wife reading one of those save your marriage books right after I made it clear I was leaving. She read me a line in it and said she sees how she was wrong. The line went something like this: “If you want to have a strong marriage, you need to understand your husband comes first, even before your children. They must be taught by you, their mother, that he is head of the household and respect must be given. The only way they’ll see that is by your demostrating by your actions that this is so.”

I still left though.

The irony in this instance is that for all of the humble deference this seemingly good advice promotes, it still presumes a woman is already the primary source of authority who ‘allows’ her husband to be “the man”. I’ve heard similar advice espoused by evangelical pastors making Pollyanna attempts at ‘granting headship’ to husbands and fathers from their reluctant wives. The inherent flaw is that these men already begin from a perspective that women are in a position of unquestioned primacy and require their permission to be ‘men’.

In a way they are unwittingly acknowledging women’s solipsism (and perpetuating the cycle) as a default source of authority. That a woman would need to be taught to defer authority to her husband belies two things; first, her solipsistic mental point of origin and second, that her man isn’t a man who inspires that deference.

It’s easy to see how a Beta man wouldn’t be someone that would naturally prompt a woman to go against her natural solipsism, but in Luxocrats position (I presume Alpha since he walked) there is a conflict women have to confront in themselves.

In a social order that reinforces the entitlements presumed by women’s solipsism there develops an internal conflict between the need for an optimized Hypergamy and the ego-investments a woman’s solipsism demands to preserve it. As a woman progresses towards the Wall and a lessened capacity to optimize both sides (AF/BB) of Hypergamy this conflict comes to a head. The necessities of long term provisioning war with the self-importance of solipsism at the risk of her losing out on preserving both (and having a guy like Luxocrat simply walk away from her).


Solipsism I


“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.” – Hillary Clinton

I had planned on using Hillary’s now infamous quote for an upcoming post outlining the distinction between women’s innate solipsism and an acculturated narcissism, but fate delivered me a much more profound use for this quote last week (we’ll get to that in part II).

Before I dig in here I feel it’s kind of incumbent upon me to point out that I in no way align with, nor endorse Hillary’s political or ideological perspectives, and I think it should go without saying that I diametrically disagree with her feminine-primary social agendas.

That said, if you ever need a better quote to explain the realities of feminine solipsism I think I’d be at a loss to give you one. A lot of men, even Red Pill aware men, have a hard time understanding how solipsism fits concretely into the feminine psyche. The social conditioning and upbringing that predisposes us towards an egalitarian equalist mindset rebels against thinking women and men would have different psychological firmware. Equalism teaches us to expect that men and women’s needs share mutual origins and our impulses are so similar that any difference is insignificant.

That egalitarian frame predisposes us to consider that ‘not all women are like that‘ or to disassociate the idea that men and women could be anything but functionally equal agents. As a result we get convenient distractions to confuse our looking for comparatives to should anyone (or thing) challenge an equalist answer.

Simply put, we get rationales like “Oh well, men do it too”, or worse, or any opposite comparison that leads us away from considering the truth that men and women are psychologically, biologically and sociologically different; with different motives and different strategies which they employ to meet their different imperatives. And often these imperatives are at odds with the best interests of the other sex.

Separating Differences

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

It is the fundamental differences in either sex’s imperatives, acculturation and biology that creates this conflict. Of course, men and women have come together for each other’s mutual benefit (and love, and enjoyment) to create families and sustain our race for millennia, however, this mutually beneficial union does not originate from mutual imperatives or sexual strategies.

When I explain how women hold an opportunistic concept of love, while men hold an idealistic one, the resistance to accept that observable, behavioral, reality is rooted in a blank-slate belief that men and women are fundamentally the same. So, when we read a statement from a woman (to say nothing of a high status one) such as Hillary’s, we either scoff at the oblivious audacity of it because it is so counter to our (male) imperative’s interests, or we nod in ascension in the feminized belief that what best serves the female imperative necessarily is the best interest of the male imperative.

This is an illustration of the fundamental difference in the interpretation of experience between the sexes.

From a solipsistically oblivious female perspective what Hillary is expounding on here is entirely true. From a perspective that prioritizes feminine Hypergamy above all else, these three sentences make perfect, pragmatic sense. The idea that men losing their lives in warfare would make them victims at all (much less the primary victims) isn’t even an afterthought; all that matters is the long term security and continued provisioning of women and their imperatives.

Solipsism, not Narcissism

A lot of newly Red Pill aware men get confused at my using the term ‘solipsism‘ when I refer to this female-specific obliviousness to any concern – or lesser prioritized concern – of anything outside their immediate existential needs. The confusion comes from men who want for a similar justice to the one I outlined in Our Sister’s Keeper. Self-importance or narcissism would seem to be a more appropriate term for this dynamic, but I disagree.

Female solipsism in and of itself is not necessarily a net negative in the larger scope of human survival and evolution. On the surface that may seem a bit outrageous, but it’s only outrageous insofar as women’s solipsistic natures come into conflict with the biological and social imperatives of men. This solipsism is the necessary result of a feminine survival instinct that’s helped preserve women and their offspring in a violent, chaotic and uncertain evolution.

Recognizing the importance of feminine solipsism is not an endorsement of the anti-social, and often cruel, byproducts of it.

No doubt, men who’ve been on the sharp end of this will grind their teeth at the inevitable narcissism that becomes an extension of women’s solipsism. I’ll agree. Socially we’re living in an era of unprecedented (western) narcissism manifested in a vast majority of women.

At no other time in history have women become more accustomed to perceived entitlements of personal security, ubiquitous social control and relative assurances of optimizing Hypergamous imperatives. At no other time have women’s sexual strategies been of such primary importance to society. However, this narcissism is the result of an acculturation and learned social priorities that predispose women to expectations that border on arrogance. Over recent generations that narcissism has become learned and fostered in women to the point that narcissism is openly embraced as a feminine strength – women believe it’s their due after a long suffrage.

Women’s solipsistic nature however is an integral part of their evolved psychological firmware. Solipsism is the evolved, selected-for result of self-preservation necessities that ensured the survival of our species. As men we get frustrated by this intrinsic nature; a nature that puts women’s imperatives as their primary mental point of origin. As any newly aware Red Pill man will attest, coming to this realization is a very hard truth to accept. It’s cruel and contrary to what the First Set of Books have taught him he should expect and build his life around.

Furthermore, it’s cruel in the respect that this solipsism neither aligns with the romantic, Blue Pill hopes he’s been raised to accept, but also the egalitarian, equal and level playing field ideology he’s been conditioned to believe he should alter his priorities to accommodate for women; and in turn he can expect from women. As I stated earlier, coming to terms with men and women’s differing concepts of love is a tough disillusionment, but this difference in concept is simply one of many a man must come to terms with.

When I wrote Empathy I got taken to task about women’s capacity to feel empathy to a greater degree than do men. It’s not that women cannot feel empathically (a shared experience), my argument was that the idea that women feel a ‘greater’ empathy than men was a social convention with the latent purpose of masking women’s innate solipsism.

That wasn’t a very popular idea. The notion that women are the mothers and nurturers was predictably spelled out, but with regards to empathizing and caring for men the primary concern of women was worry over their own and their children’s well being before that of their men should they become incapacitated. Again, this is a cruel truth, but also a pragmatic and survival based one.

Mental Point of Origin

Women’s mental point of origin begins with their own self-importance, and the overriding importance of their own and their offspring’s survival. I’ve had women readers lambast me that they couldn’t possibly be so influenced by solipsism because they put their children’s wellbeing before their own. However it is just this solipsism that predisposes women to seeing their children as extensions of themselves and their own identities. And the good news is that this dynamic is one reason the human species has been so successful.

The following was a comment from Starve the Beast on the TRP subredd:

Women are bad at reasoning, but good at rationalization.

Let that sink in for a minute. One cannot rationalize without the faculty for reason. So are women really bad at reasoning? No, actually they’re great at it.

The difference is that women don’t place as much value on Truth as they do upon self-preservation, and therefore their reasoning processes do not abort when self-contradiction is reached. They’ll just rationalize their way out of that too, if exposed.

Ultimately, the so-called hamster reflects an underlying difference in value systems more than in reasoning ability.

Women can learn to sublimate their solipsism. In fact, cultures and progressive societies have been founded on sublimating female solipsism. Women can and do learn critical thinking quite regularly. Women can learn and function within a society that forces them to compromise their sexual strategies and mitigates the worst abuses that solipsism would visit on men (and themselves). Women can learn to be empathetic towards men as well as live within a social order that looks like mutual justice and fairness.

But the fact that these civil dynamics should need to be something a woman learns only reinforces the biological and evolved influences of female solipsism as women’s mental point of origin. The parallel to this is men’s learning to sublimate intrinsic parts of themselves – primarily their sexuality – to reinforce prosocial interaction in society. 

Women dislike the idea that their experience is colored by solipsism. It sounds bad, and it runs counter to what they believe are sacrifices on their own part to help others. That may be so, and I’m certainly not going to attempt to discount those investments, but they come from a learned compassion that must overcome an innate solipsism. That ‘me and my babies first’ mental point of origin isn’t necessarily a bad thing either – it’s only when that learned compassion and humility are superseded by it that anti-social behaviors and hubris arise.

I expect the predictable criticism will be that men are also self-important, and / or all humans are intrinsically selfish fucks. In part II I’ll elaborate more on this, but for now it’s important to grasp that female solipsistic nature is less about selfish individualism and more about pragmatic survival.

Many a male reader of my Hierarchies of Love series grated against the idea that a conventional model of love would progress from Men to women, women to children, children to puppies, etc. That model is a direct reflection of a uniquely female solipsism that seemingly discards men’s reciprocal emotional investment in women. However it is also the same dynamic that predisposes women to desire men who can decisively control their environment as well as dominate them sexually and emotionally.

In part II I’ll outline more examples of feminine solipsism, how it’s reflected on the individual and societal level and how a man might best use an understanding of it to his advantage.

The Best of The Rational Male – Year 4


Four years ago on August 19th I finally took some SoSuave friends’ advice, stopped procrastinating and began organizing and building upon about 9 years worth of writing I had done on that forum and in my university work. Back then all I wanted to do was flesh out the forum posts I thought might make for some interesting reading. I had so many members and newly unplugged friends ask me to collect all of these essays in one place I had to make some sort of effort.

Four years later I think I’ve moved beyond just the core Red Pill ideas I had then. I don’t keep a personal journal. I do have a small notebook I write ideas into as they hit me, but my only way of reviewing my writing is looking back through these notes and searching back through 4 years of writing here. Even if I’m just going back through the previous year’s work it’s an interesting review of where my life was at as well as where the manosphere in general was too.

Even if you’re just peripherally aware of the events in the sphere you know that things have been more than a bit unsettled for the past 5 months. I really dislike involving myself in the manosphere’s PR, but as one of the primary writers (one of the three ‘R’s as it were) I’m sometimes compelled to do so. I would much rather be writing about what I do than writing about the ‘sphere itself. I don’t do this for a living, nor do I have any plans to ever make it my vocation. I enjoy the freedom of being able to focus on issues I believe are important to making men Red Pill aware unencumbered by any concern about how my writing  might affect revenue generated by web stats or advertising.

As of today I have 452 published posts. My posting has gone up a bit more this year to 1-2 per week. I’m getting a bit more comfortable with this schedule as it allows me to craft a post over the course of a week and give more thought (and counterthought) to what I’m mulling in my head. I like doing the weekend discussion questions too so I’ll be upping these for the weekenders here in the coming year.


In 4 years the view traffic is fast approaching the 13 million mark. My monthly views are averaging almost half a million now. I might be a bit off, but I think this is pretty impressive for a Red Pill blog that doesn’t advertise and has never been monetized. I have a stake in a couple of liquor brands that would kill for half of this traffic.

I’ve been a bit more public in the last few months. Since the last ‘Best Of’ post I’ve done 5 interviews, and in a couple of weeks I’ll be making my first in-person appearance at the Man in Demand conference in Las Vegas. I’ve got some high hopes for this event, but I should state for the record that it’s the first and only appearance I’ll be making for at least a year. I have no plans of ‘going public’ in the foreseeable future.

Obviously I think the best thing about the past years was publishing the second book Preventive Medicine. I now own the trademark for The Rational Male (just to be official and protected) and I do have plans for a 3rd installment of The Rational Male series, but this wont be until Q4 of 2016 at the earliest. I should also say that I’ve been entertaining the idea of writing what I call Red Pill fiction. Not to go into too much detail, but I’m toying with the idea of writing some down to earth, gritty fiction that’s firmly rooted in a Red Pill perspective.

Beyond all this, Sam Botta has just recently finished the audio and editing of the first book in Audible format. The plan is to have it available by mid-September, but I’ll be announcing it officially when it’s available.

The following are links to the posts I felt had the most relevance and impact for the year. The comment volume has increase exponentially this year which I’m very happy about. Open, unmoderated, discussion has always been the strength of this blog and it’s encouraging to see the interaction stepped up this year.

I have a love-hate kind of feeling with the Best Of posts. I want to highlight what I think were great, but I do so at the risk of marginalizing the posts I think had great merit, but just didn’t make the cut. These selections aren’t necessarily the most popular or the most commented on, but I thought they deserved some consideration as the most significant (several were even included in Preventive Medicine).

The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine




Red Pill / Game



Personal Development


Thanks for another great year!




Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,050 other followers