Equalism and Masculinity

masculinity

What a lot of feminists hate about red pill theory is that it simply does a better job of predicting social behavior than feminism ever has. I’d like to think that red pill awareness has fundamentally altered (or enlightened if you’d like) intergender interpretations and understanding in a relatively short time, but that would be a mistake.

There’s a distinct group of self-evincing red pill guys who like to remind us in various comment threads that it hasn’t always been thus. Their story is our forbearers “knew better” with regard to how men and women ought to interact with one another, and essentially spelled this out for future generations in the religious and philosophical texts of antiquity.

While I can’t deny the merit of this, I also know that the men of those bygone eras didn’t have anything approaching the mass of information and the connectivity men possess today. It’s easy to get caught up in the romanticism of the idea that back in some Golden Age of manhood, men knew about the dangers of allowing women’s hypergamous natures to run amok. I’m sure those men knew of the consequences of allowing women to control their fates. I’m sure there were Beta men and cuckolded men as well, but even the most wise Alpha among them could never, for instance, understand the impact that a unilaterally feminine-controlled form of birth control would effect upon a globalized society.

The sages of manhood-past may still have many relevant lessons for the men of today, but they simply lack the compounded experiences and understanding men possess now. Though they undoubtedly were keen observers of human behavior, the greatest thinkers of antiquity simply didn’t have an inkling as to the evolved, biological motivators of the sexual strategies our psyches developed in our hunter-gatherer human past.

What frustrates the advocates of this bygone manhood wisdom is that for all of our collective experience and knowledge, for the past sixty or so years, men struggle to come to terms with what that masculinity should mean to them. For all of the accumulated male experience and relation of it that’s led to red pill awareness, men still grapple with ‘what being a man means to them’.

Undoing of a Man

When I do consults with men of all ages I have to begin from a presumption that what these men’s concept of masculinity is usually is the result of a deliberate attempt by the Feminine Imperative to confuse men about what being a man should be for him.

Even the men who tell me they were raised by the most dominant, positively masculine fathers still suffer the internalized effects from this feminized effort to cast doubt on men’s masculinity.

Recently NPR began a series of articles attempting to suss out what it means to be a man in the 21st century. I do listen to NPR, and while I know bias will always be an inevitable part of news stories, I couldn’t help but assess what a morass attempting to define masculinity has become for contemporary men. Each story, each attempt to redefine masculinity, relied on the same tired tropes the Feminine Imperative has been using for men since the start of the sexual revolution.

Weakness, vulnerability, is sold as strength. Submissiveness and compromise to the feminine is sold as “support” and deserving of praise and a reciprocal appreciation (which never manifests in women). Beta is Alpha and Alpha is insecurity, bluster and compensation.

Those are the main premises, and, to a large degree, most red pill aware men realize that behavior is the only true determinant of motivation, and reject the feminized, egalitarian equalist messaging. However, what still surprises me is that this same, deliberate effort to cast doubt on what masculinity should be for a man hasn’t changed its message or methods of conditioning men to accept this masculine confusion for almost 40 years now.

Through the late 80’s and up to now, the idea of anything positively masculine is either ridiculed, cast as misogynistic, or implies a man might be gay if he’s too celebratory of his maleness. Since the start of the sexual revolution, any definition of what masculinity truly should mean has been subject to the approval of the Feminine Imperative.

In the absence of a clear definition of what masculinity is for men, the Feminine Imperative is free to create as grotesque a straw man of ugly masculinity, or as beatific a feminized model of masculinity as it needs to serve its purpose. With the aid of the Male Catch 22, blurring and distorting masculinity, raising and conditioning men to accept ambiguity and doubt about the security of a ‘manhood’ they’re encouraged not to define for themselves, are all the methodologies employed to ensure a feminine-primary social order.

Equalism vs. Complementarity

Agreeableness and humility in men has been associated with a negative predictor of sex partners.

The problem inherent in applying reciprocal solutions to gender relations is the belief that those relations are in any way improved by an equilibrium between both sexes interests.

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

The mistake is applying a humanistic, egalitarian equalist ideal to human sexual strategies that evolved over millennia to be complementary to each other, not an equitable exchange of resources to be negotiated over. This is one reason genuine desire cannot be negotiated – this fundamental is rooted in our most primal, complemetary understanding of sex.

The point at which egalitarian equalism (the religion of feminism) fundamentally fails is presuming that intergender relations should ideally exist in a goal-state of egalitarian equalism and / or a reciprocally equal state of mutually supportive interests.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about equalism and reciprocity.

The sexes evolved to be complementary to each other for the betterment of the species. Why do you think women form the most secure emotional attachments to men 1-2 SMV steps above themselves? Why is masculine dominance such an attractive male aspect for even the most feminist of women who’d otherwise plead for equality among the sexes?

I have a bit of a weird relationship with “traditional masculinity”. I’ve looked critically at it enough to know how much damage it does as a paradigm. I’ve seen the harm it can do to both men and women on an individual level. I’ve been subject to the violence it encourages. But despite all that, holy shit does it ever turn me on.

[…]

There’s just something about assertiveness (let’s be real, sometimes flat out arrogance) that does it for me. No matter how much I can be attracted to someone emotionally and intellectually, my swoons only happen when confronted by a powerful, competent man.

This has lead to some issues in my personal life. Who knew being attracted almost exclusively to men that inherently make bad partners wouldn’t work out well for me?

What we’re observing here is a rudimentary conflict between an internalized humanist idealism (the way equalism teaches thing’s should be) versus evolved, impulsive realism (the way things are).

The doctrine of equalism presumes a socialized expectation of being turned-on or attracted to men exemplifying a ‘gender equitable’, equalist-correct, mindset and the evolved, visceral arousal / attraction to a man exhibiting the dominant characteristic traits of masculine complementarity.

Another example of this conflict can be found in my essay on Choreplay.

In 2008 the transactional nature of sex-for-equitable-services was an over blown meme. The message then was that men needed to do more feminine-typical chores around the house, and the equitable exchange would be his wife reciprocating with more frequent and more intense sex as a result of his “equitable” participation in that negotiation.

Fast forward to 2013 and now (by the same author mind you):

Hey, fellas, put down those vacuum cleaners and pull out the lawn mowers.

Married men may think helping around the house may up their hotness quotient in the bedroom, but what really matters is the type of chore. Heterosexual married men who spend their time doing yard work, paying bills and changing the oil have more sex than husbands who spend their time cooking, cleaning and shopping, according to a new study on the subject of housework and sex.

“Households with a more traditional gender division of labor report higher sexual frequency than households with less traditional gender divisions of labor,”…

So what you see illustrated here, in just the space of 5 years, is the frustration and conflict between an equalist idealized model vs. the evolved complementary model of gender relations. It’s not about the equitability of like for like exchanges or like for like reward/benefit, but rather the way that equitability is expressed and how it grates against instinctually human expectations of behavior.

Sex differences, biologically and psychologically, didn’t evolve for hundreds of thousands of years to be co-equal partnerships based on humanistic (or moralistic) idealism. They evolved into a complementary form of support where the aspects of one sex’s strengths compensated for the other’s weaknesses and vice versa.

For every behavioral manifestation of one sex’s sexual strategy (hypergamy in females), the other sex evolves psychological, sociological and behavioral contingencies to counter it (mate guarding in males). The ideal state of gender parity isn’t a negotiation of acceptable terms for some Pollyanna ideal of gender equilibrium, it’s a state of complementarity between the sexes that accepts our evolved differences – and by each individual gender’s conditions, sometimes that’s going to mean accepting unequal circumstances.

Feminists (and anti-feminist women), humanists, moral absolutists, and even red pill men still obliviously clinging to the vestiges of their egalitarian blue pill conditioning, will all end up having their ideologies challenged, frustrated and confounded by the root presumption that egalitarian equalism can ever, or should ever, trump an innate and evolved operative state of gender complementarity.

And thus we come full circle, back to a new model of masculinity that is found upon the evolved complementary order and aided by red pill awareness. I have no doubt that it will be an arduous process of acceptance for blue pill, masculine-confused men vainly attempting to define their own masculinity under the deliberately ambiguous contexts laid out for them by the Feminine Imperative, but I do (hopefully) believe that red pill awareness is already making a positive impact on countering a presumption of equalism that only truly serves feminine primacy.

It’ll take time, but with every aware man utilizing red pill awareness to realign his masculine identity and benefit from it, other men will begin to come to the same awareness or else fall off into their own ambiguity.


136 responses to “Equalism and Masculinity

  • Kaptain

    Evenin’ Rollo

    I’ve been following your blog for over two years now (my brother sent me your link whilst I was over in the sandpit). The writings here, both from you and the other commentators, have had a massive impact on not just the way I perceive the “fairer” sex, but also how I perceive myself – and I thank you all for that. I do have a bone to pick with this article though.

    You state that you see the the behaviors between the sexes coming full circle and returning to a complementary as opposed to an egalitarian model. However, you mentioned earlier that one of the main reasons that we find ourselves in this current state of affairs was due to the technological innovation of the female pill and the subsequent unleashing of female hypergamy. If female birth control had such a huge effect upon the SMP, what effect would you see the introduction of male contraceptives (namely Gandarusa and Vasalgel) and even more fundamentally the artificial womb.

    Namely – if these options are introduced to wider society, will your earlier statement still hold and we all shift back to the complementary model – or will the relationship between the sexes evolve to something new?

  • donalgraeme

    Another thought provoking article Rollo. Might respond to it later with a follow-up post.

    @ Kaptain

    I don’t think a male pill will radically change things. I know some men argue otherwise, but given how many women are already on the pill, and the availability of condoms, it won’t have the huge impact that the first wave of contraceptives had. It will shift some power over to men, but only some. The major effects of contraception weren’t to shift power to women, but to greatly open up the availability of “sexual liberation” to the masses.

    Of course, some “benefited” more than others, but the major effect was the same; to make the “sexual revolution” possible. Any changes now will only shift power in the present paradigm, not shift the whole paradigm.

  • Mr.C

    Agreeableness and humility is only viable and useful in a man when his SMV and/or overall value (money, power, status) is extremely high and even then, should be used sparingly.
    This, I believe is the essence of old time chivalry.

  • DarkPill

    “Why do you think women form the most secure emotional attachments to men 1-2 SMV steps above themselves?”

    C’mon Rollo. I notice you drop these little crumbs of red pill in your posts but why don’t you just come out and say the real truth?

    Game is negotiated desire.

    You and I both know this. A man’s inherent SMV is based off his genetic stock and everything else is superfluous. There’s a reason why Alpha Fucks (i.e. good genes) illicits a visceral response in women for quick sex and Beta Bucks drags (negotiated) sex on. Game is no different than the Beta Bucks side of this. Men need to realize that they really can’t have it all. You know women are most emotionally, and physically secure with handsome, masculine men. I remember a post where some guy was acknowledging the whole “Looks Matter” comments a while back and you simply said (mind you I may be paraphrasing), “You know, there’s another side to the equation also.” In other words, you were hinting that the guy should focus on his Beta Bucks and forget about Alpha Fucks since that’s completely genetic.

    To acknowledge the truth that a lot of your sexual success in life is predetermined by birth is the real “unplugging.” Roissy himself acknowledged this BUT only to the extent of personality by saying that some day in the distant future, scientist will be able to map out your personality via DNA and it would prove that success/failure in life has a huge genetic component.

    But, I believe the manosphere will never acknowledge this ultimate truth because just like feminism, it relies on lies to stay alive. It took me a while to realize this but the irony that both movements share is simply hilarious.

    P.S. I’m not trying to insult you in any way since I truly respect what you have written here. But, like I stated before, the “unplugging” isn’t complete.

  • sam

    I think the best idea I’ve seen regarding masculinity had the three aspects, warrior, mage, and lover. Being a warrior is the ability to endure in order to reach a specific goal. Being a mage has to do with having the knowledge to understand and deal with the world, and being a lover has to do with creativity, connectedness of the world. Using these three criteria, you can easily measure what a man is missing to be complete. and further you can imagine the dysfunction caused by missing one or the other artribute. A viscious dictator maybe extremely disciplines and extremely smart..but he has no love. A poet may write the most inspiring lines, full of understanding and insight, but if he has no ultimate purpose and no discipline, he is unlikely to change the world.

  • theshadowedknight

    Rollo, the pope predicted all that has happened when he first wrote against birth control. Some men knew what would happen, and they were ignored.

    Kaptain, if you want to see a change, wait until an incurable sexual infection mutates–or is designed. That will shake it up. Until then, not much will change the behaviors other than men withdrawing from commitment.

    The Shadowed Knight

  • Freudenträne

    Hello, I have trouble understanding how these two claims could possibly not contradict each other:

    “For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.”

    “[...] human sexual strategies that evolved over millennia to be complementary to each other [...]”

    The first sentence claims sexual strategy to be antagonistic (win-lose), whereas the second one claims it to be complementary (win-win). The attribute “complementary” carries positive connotations*, similar to “synergistic”, so in a truly complementary relationship, no side would have to compromise.

    * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complementary

    [

    The ideal state of gender parity isn’t a negotiation of acceptable terms for some Pollyanna ideal of gender equilibrium, it’s a state of complementarity between the sexes that accepts our evolved differences – and by each individual gender’s conditions, sometimes that’s going to mean accepting unequal circumstances.

    ]

  • heyjay

    I’ve read an article yesterday about how the the cost of sex has declined during the last decades because it is so readily available, at least for some men. The article then concluded that men were delaying commitment due to the missing incentives. So refusing to commitment seems seems to be an effect of the unleashed hypergamy and women’s sexual options but to me it doesn’t indicate that it’s going to be the solution.
    I rather believe as soon as the promiscuity of women will end again due to economic circumstances perhaps, the rate of commitment willing men will rise again. Women will need the provider again sometime and therefore rediscover sex as a currency.
    It’s just a kind of economic cycle…

  • gregg

    “Feminists (and anti-feminist women), humanists, moral absolutists, and even red pill men still obliviously clinging to the vestiges of their egalitarian blue pill conditioning, will all end up having their ideologies challenged, frustrated and confounded by the root presumption that egalitarian equalism can ever, or should ever, trump an innate and evolved operative state of gender complementarity.”

    Concepts of justice, freedom, morals, GOODNESS…are not formed due to “blue pill conditioning”. These are the expressions of our innermost soul. Great men always knew it. The sacrified their very lives for it.

    MAN determines what he wants and how he has to behave. Nobody has the right to decide it for him. Neither woman, nor some other guru – be it christianity, PUA, etc. Man is not some animal ruled by his dick like woman by her vagina. MAN should be, and real man is, something more.

    Women have no concept of higher ideas, they are unable to have them. They are just biological machines for childre, nothing more, nothing less. Higly effective! Men have. Something in man screams when he sees stupidity and animal instincts in women/other man take precendence over morals, justice, goodness. This is not his “blue pill conditioning” this is his very soul screaming. When he observes the injustice with cold, detached heart, something in him died…and he becomes lower creature. He becomes woman – amoral animal, biologiucal engine, nothing more than flesh and bones. So he spins “plates”, marries, produces children, works for his woman trying to be as primitive as he have to be to..ehm..satisfy her animalistic instincts – hypergamy. Slowly his soul…dies.

    Unfortunatelly, majority of men are slaves, so the concept of freedom is completely foreign to them. They desperately seek someone to tell them what to do. And they succeed, they find some woman, who will play the role of the master for them for the rest of their stupid lives. When you have a conversation with married man..it is as something in him died. He is not able to have any meaningfull opinion on any subject, he is just blabbing like..women.

    Truth about women is evident, informations on this site are legit. It is up to every man how he wants to behave and what mission he wants to pursue. “Concepts of manhood” are for weak, mindless slaves – majority of population. MAN forms his own concept, his own mission. In that way, he is fundamentally different from woman.

  • Opus

    @Darkpill

    I agree that Game (if it exists) is seriously overrated in its powers of persuasion. Being tall dark and handsome one does not need to try too hard whereas those born short, prone to putting on weight and not symmetrical of feature have an uphill battle, which to some extent can be overcome by wit and of course money. Equally, a winning hand can be wrecked by the wrong approach – I knew one guy with movie-star looks who women drooled over but who never scored because, psychologically, he was Mister Angry. That is not to say however that one cannot improve ones position or rather wreck ones chances by failing female fitness testing.

  • gregg

    freudentrane

    “For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.”

    There are winners and there are loosers in the sexual marketplace. In every time. Please note that we are talking about sex, so the biggest “win” is the number of hot, young vaginas on your cock. This is all that matters.

    Winners in this are clearly atrractive men, particulary attractive sociopaths and psychopaths. Man with soul is not able to spin plates for years, he has compassion. He does not want to harm others/women more than is sometimes necessary. It is veyr painfull for woman to disengage when she is overwhelmed by oxytocin and bonding hormnones.

    He has it harder in this meat market. Sociopaths are not influenced by nothing but their dicks. They are “hypergamic” themselves. They are able to “spin” plates with light heart and they does not care about the consequences. They are as amoral as women. They have literally harems, fuck married women, etc. Many, many fresh vaginas on their cocks. So – yes, they are winners in sexual marketplace and women are compromising their sexual strategy to have a chance to suck their cocks.

    Loosers are clearly unattractive, average men. They are compromising their sexual strategy to have a chance of banging some under/average woman. They change lifelong servitude for access to ugly pussy.

    It is not “gender” thing..it is the thing about power. Some men – due to better flersh, have more power in this cock market like the others. The need not compromise, they enjoy. Some have some power, which enables them to enjoy limited success with limited women, Others have no power.

    If the only value of MAN is how many vaginas he is able to conquer, things are clear and there is no reason to produce numerous blogs about..ehm…how to stick your penis into vagina.

    If the man is something more than sexual robot, things are a bit complicated. He has to answer the honest question. Ok – this is how things are. HOW should I behave so that I am congruent with my mission?

  • tarzanwannabe

    I also see this dichotomy, generally, in “egalitarian equalism” manifesting as Marxism, while “evolved complementary order” shows up as Austrian School economics — each are the same mindset applied respectively to reproduction and survival. We really are on the cusp of some civilization-changing understandings here, by which I mean understood not by a few elite, but rather most everyone.

  • BlackPoisonSoul

    @Kaptain, @donalgraeme – we might find that the only change is a lessening of unplanned pregnancies and whoopsies entrapping a man.

    It would be beneficial for paternity testing to become the norm also, so that a man is not forced to support children that are not his. A further erosion of the female sexual strategy.

  • FM

    This is a nice piece, but you do not come close to proving that the modern man has some sort of evolved consciousness–only that his circumstances are different. Not only that, you rely on what men today understand *subjectively* about their situation. An old Enlightenment trope if there ever was one.

    Nope, you could have said what you said without the overlay of evolutionary biology and the rest. As a matter of fact, you assert that we are both improved *and* primitive. Or, we are improved b/c we know how primitive we are.

    I like the Red Pill stuff as well as any other Manosphere man, but we would also have to admit that the theory has real limits. It is a coping strategy. And Red Pill would have no idea what to do with a civilization if it were given one–unlike our forefathers who did have an inkling, but were ignored or subverted by the dark heart of man.

  • jf12

    “men struggle to come to terms with what that masculinity should mean to them.”

    Yes, society is not set up to help make “ought” into “is” for men.

  • jf12

    @Darkpill, you may have noticed that nobody actually cares about a “leader” who only ever advises to give up.

  • jf12

    @Freudenträne, I think you misunderstand “succeed”. A complemtarity resulting from a pseudoequilibrium of competition has *neither* side succeeding. Imagine two sumo wrestlers grappling and grunting and sweating, but currently immobile: *neither* is succeeding.

  • Sisyphean

    The thing is, in my mind equalism leads people to assume other people are intelligent rational actors, which is not always a bad thing. It allows for the building of markets and societies where free people can trust each other to work together spontaneously toward a larger goals like indoor plumbing, automation, the internet. Unfortunately it turns out that not everyone is a rational actor, perhaps increasingly so given our more multicultural reality In this way equalism sows the seeds of it’s own destruction, I have the feeling that the same forces that allow people to have social trust enough to have markets also cause them to extend their feelings of kinship out to other groups who don’t return them.

    If masculinity can only mean that everyone has to be a mega alpha then we’re screwed. Look no further than Subsaharan Africa to see what that’s like. Personally I like to think of masculinity as an ideal, something to aspire to, something to use to make yourself better. I’ll never be a player or a baseball star and not just because I don’t have the necessary physical attributes, because I don’t want to be. I’m happy being married and pumping out a crew of kids, which I have. I have personally witnessed the tingle producing effects of yard-work (which I despise) but so are the effects of the things I’m good at (and enjoy): Visual art and performing for an audience (actually these are far more powerful tingle producers in my experience because you’re both demonstrating skill and showing off to many women at the same time, super social proof) What matters to me is the basic core Redpill idea: Be great at what you do, focus on that first. Everything follows from there.

  • Zenramid

    Rollo, the context in which you place the gender models is the relationship between lovers. Of all the people of the opposite sex you’ll have some relationship with, most won’t be your lovers, but co-workers, neighbours, politicians, even dwellers of the same city. The lack of equalism in the scale of society will just mean some people will be treated better than the other. And guess which gender will that be. I don’t care a single bit if some female stranger that I pass by on the street considers me a man, what I care is if she will receive the qual punishment for attacking me as would I if I’d attack her; if the state doesn’t support her more that it supports me; that the state doesn’t require me to go to war if it isn’t required of her.
    The technology we are having now made the complimentary gender model obsolete in the social scale. Anything not egalitarian will just be harmful to men.
    As for the relationship-lovers level, you can agree on whatever model you like, it can be the complimentary one. It’s just the social convention that has to be based on equality of responsibility and rights.

  • Nathan

    “C’mon Rollo. I notice you drop these little crumbs of red pill in your posts but why don’t you just come out and say the real truth?Game is negotiated desire.You and I both know this. A man’s inherent SMV is based off his genetic stock and everything else is superfluous. There’s a reason why Alpha Fucks (i.e. good genes) illicits a visceral response in women for quick sex and Beta Bucks drags (negotiated) sex on. Game is no different than the Beta Bucks side of this. ”

    I agree. I’m coming around to the idea – Looks are everything.

  • jf12

    Looks are a tiny subset of behavior, both genetically and external effort.

  • The Ronin

    Having been a “Born Again” red pill guy I think I have a different view on this than most. I had a damn good marriage for 24 years that imploded over the space of six months, making me revisit at age 56 what I’d already figured out at 32, but figured I must have been wrong after I met “The One” and buried what I knew.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that women are creatures of the moment and have the ability to convince themselves that just about anyone is attractive if it suits her immediate needs. You could be the first guy she runs into after a big fight with her boyfriend/husband and in that moment that’s all it takes to nail her in a the bar’s bathroom, had you met her a couple of hours later she wouldn’t give you a second look. For long term commitments things can run smooth for years if you push all the right buttons, but you can be changed out like a watch battery if she thinks she’s snagged a bigger better deal.

    As far as game and self improvement goes, it does maximise your chances with women, but doing it for that reason alone is a waste of life, especially after 35. I find myself now at 59 still sexually active, but the number of women I find that don’t bore or scare the hell out of me after a couple of hours are rare indeed. The fact is over 25% of them are now on some sort of tranquilizer and lord knows how many are on antipsychotics, once menopause kicks in all bets are off and you are dealing with a whole new level of crazy.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    If I hit the gym religiously for a solid year, eat clean, put on 10 lbs. of muscle and drop my body fat down to 7% with the result being women finding me sexually irresistible, have I negotiated for their desire or have I simply aligned myself with a context under which their genuine desire is more likely to occur?

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Rollo, the context in which you place the gender models is the relationship between lovers.

    Maybe a few of the guys here who answer to hyenas female bosses on a daily basis would care to opine about this?

  • eksmith6

    I’d say looks get you in the door but you see good looking betas all the time. You need to have a solid attitude and awareness about women that is game. If you don’t then you are subject to a women wishing you would just get it. Without having her to tell you.

    It’s easy to say looks is everything just as it is to say game is everything. To have both down is more likely to have women fighting to be your top girl and to be exclusive with you.

    While hypergamy is always available as long as women magazines and feminine media is always telling women what or who is valuable, they will always be tempted to move up if the opportunity presents itself. Just as if an alpha male is always on the look out for what best suits him in his life right now. This is nature at it’s finest.

    We are evolving creatures and also dumb ones at that. We think we can make the rules change to how we would like them to be and will always wish it were different than what they really are.

    The biggest challenge a man or women has to deal with in the sexual market place is his own acceptance to what is real. It’s the only way one can be motivated and content at the same time.

    Ignorance or wishful thinking only keeps your SMV stagnant or gradually shrinking. Especially when your in a relationship or for god sakes married. Which is what I think we have seen with the many divorces out there.

    Many marriages form just on the thought that it’s just about looks and what your born with (genetics) but a lot of them fail because they lack game or a better understanding of male and female dynamics. A a male with game can be a better option over long term than a male who just looks good. Because he has awareness of the evolution that is always at play.

  • jf12

    Re: the boss of me.

    I know this isn’t exactly what you are talking about, but I do have a female boss, younger than my daughter, and she adores me, or acts like it. She’s married with kids and an excellent manager in a motherly way. The good female bosses I’ve had were all that way, and I’ve never had a power struggle from a female boss, i.e. as if they thought I was after their job, the way that many male bosses do to me.

    And I get along well with many women colleagues outside of any chain of command or whatever.

    But a female employee under my direct supervision, i.e. the analogy being a father, tends to chafe and rebel almost instantly. What works best is being more like a grandfather, with a go-between.

  • gregg

    Looks, again :)

    I have yet to meet a good looking dude who is not pursued by women. Of course, there are good looking men that have not much success with women. But it is only due to theese fellas not knowing how to take woman and fuck her when she is willing to do this with you.

    I think that this is the case when game can really do a miracle and transform a guy from beta to mesmerizing cassanova. Employ good looking dude with game..and he can score 200-300 women like Janka, if he put a lot of energy and time into it.

    As far as bad looking dudes are concerned…vast majority of them had always problems with women and eventually married landwhales, any man with options would not have sleeped with, even after 2 bottles of whisky. This is the rule I observed myself.

    Of course, I do know some exceptions – average men with hotties, but they are not the rule, they are the exception and most of them have some other factors playing in their favor like – rich daddy, dark triad – honest dark triad, not faked one, etc.

    Employ ugly/average dude with game..while it helps him a lot (knowledge about women is pricelss) it might make no difference in quality/number of women, he is able to pull. This is the reason for pua hate forums, 100/2 approach/getting laid ratio, guy frustrated with game cases.

    So I would make a difference between the two aspects of the so called game:

    1. Informations about the true nature of women – priceless stuff – can save lives. ALWAYS helps, to every man!! This stuff should be learned in grammar school.
    2. Field tactics – how to score women/not to fuck things up. Does not harm/might help if used wisely. Results heavily depending on looks and status. May improve the quality of women the man is able to score or..may not.

    This field guide should focus on what to do, when she is attracted to you, how to spot this attraction and how not to fuck the things up – most important thing. Honestly – It is all you can actually do. You can´t generate/negotiate attraction. It is evolution in play – bigger, much bigger think that your tactics.

  • Robert What?

    RM, I think I have come to agree with you: there was no “golden age” where men knew the score and were experts at picking marriageable women, etc. Why do you think jokes about marriage have been a staple since Shakespeare?

    No, I have come to the conclusion that marriage was always a raw deal for most men, basically forever.

    But I will tell you was *has* changed. In the past there used to be many benefits conferred by society onto men in recognition of their extraordinary sacrifice: respect, laws friendly to husbands and fathers, male-only venues, etc.

    What has changed is that these perks are now gone with the wind. So there is nothing in the balance to make up for the raw deal, which now shines out in all its gory.

  • s.r.

    Rollo,

    What do you think of the study referenced here:

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2014/08/15/relationshipstrategies/why-egalitarian-marriages-are-more-sexual/

    While I agree with the overall point about the Left’s view of masculinity being wrong, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that marriages where men do some beta chores are healthier marriages with more sex. Athol Kay talks about this all the time. He doesn’t preach gender equalism, but he also doesn’t preach alpha only behaviors and chore divisions. IOW, its more complicated than that.

  • Pascal

    While totally agreeing with you about the problems that equalism poses, I’m not sure about the reasons for the current situation. I think there is another explanation next to the contraception that might account for the rise of equalism and feminized men: the way a society organizes its productive forces. We can observe in western societies since decades a rise of service jobs and a decline of industrial/manufacturing jobs. Whereas manufacturing jobs were associated with classical male virtues like toughness and resilience, the service jobs ask for other virtues like communication skills and flexibility. So these kind of new jobs demand another type of man and enterprises actively promote this image of “the new man”. And it’s in the interest of the whole economy to integrate women into the working force since it increases the GDP. So to conclude, in my opinion it’s a combination of outsourcing of classical labor intensive jobs to asia and the rise of the new economy that promoted equalism and manboobs.

  • D-Man

    No one’s saying the red pill is the single shining master key to poosy paradise.

    It’s more like a big ol ring of jailer’s keys, thrown through the bars to the inmate.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @s.r., What Giggles conveniently ignores (I know because she scrubbed the pre-rebranded HUS 1.0 posts) are the studies I set forth in Choreplay:

    http://therationalmale.com/2013/01/30/choreplay/

    Diane Mapes, 2008:

    http://www.today.com/id/23015839/?GT1=10856#.U_TdW7xdXhF

    Versus

    Diane Mapes, 2013:

    http://www.today.com/health/husbands-who-do-her-chores-have-less-sex-study-finds-1B8172520?franchiseSlug=todayhealthmain

    If you compare these two articles, separated by only 5 years, you begin to understand the ‘realization’ women come to with regard to what really arouses them – conventionally male complementary gender roles.

    Five years younger, Mapes’ message is the same tired tropes Aunt Sue is presently using to entertain her HuffPo owned readership; “do more dishes guys and you’ll get laid more often and with more sexual abandon.”

    Five years later, women flip the meme around, “Man Up you pansies! Stop doing ‘women’s work’, go mow the lawn and change the oil in the car (like you did 5 years ago) and you’ll get laid more often and with more sexual abandon from your wife.”

    This duplicity illustrates the realization women are coming to later in life when they pine for the conventional masculinity they missed while promoting an opposite message of gender equalism earlier in life.

    In both respects it’s still ‘men’s fault’ for not Manning Down well enough to do the dishes and then not Manning Up enough to put her in her place over the 5 years it took her to realize she honestly got aroused by seeing you shirtless and sweaty mowing the lawn.

    I should also add that in so promoting the idea of sex-for-gender-equal-services-rendered women (and Susan) are fostering the idea that men can ‘expect’ sex for their complying with these domestic service dictates. This is exactly the transactional sex reciprocated for performance that women will become indignant over when men believe they will get laid for following the plan this message convinces them of.

    RE: Athol Kay, Athol has watered his message down to accommodate the female readership who help pay his mortgage now. Have a read through the hundreds of posts on the DeadBedrooms subReddit:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/

    Men’s marital sexlessness isn’t caused by a lack of compassionate Betaness and an over blown Alpha gusto, it’s the opposite, and anyone reading Athol’s married man’s primer knows this was his original message – the one that generated his readership and now revenue stream.

  • DarkPill

    I didn’t mention this earlier but English is not my first language so bear with me.

    @jf12
    Do you disagree that looks are the primary factor that women consider when finding a mate? If so, why?

    @Rollo
    “If I hit the gym religiously for a solid year, eat clean, put on 10 lbs. of muscle and drop my body fat down to 7% with the result being women finding me sexually irresistible, have I negotiated for their desire or have I simply aligned myself with a context under which their genuine desire is more likely to occur?”

    You’re making the mistake of associating Game with Bodybuilding in your post but I like that you acknowledged the power of working on something that is visible. We’re on the right track here. Bodybuilding of any kind relies on a foundation, though. It doesn’t even come close to the inherent SMV that was given at birth like: height, proportional body size, handsome facial features and penis size. There’s a limit to the body size one can attain via bodybuilding in respect to one’s genetic stock, so that alone should tell you something.

    It all relies on what you were born with, Rollo. Would a short man who works out and makes substantial muscle gains, gain as much success as a much taller man who did the same? Absolutely not.

    I don’t discredit game because it does work to achieve the end goal for most men (sex) but make no mistake about it, game is negotiated desire. There’s no way around it. All these tactics, tips, and routines are used to negotiate the sexual desire of a female. For example, just think of the advice men give when a girl has withdrawn sex from you. “Oh, just run Dread Game. That will wake her up once again and make her open up to you.” That right there is a negotiation of desire. Any man who runs too much dread game on a girl (because she subconsciously knows her value is much higher than yours) will find a substantial amount of fissures in their relationship and needless to say, that doesn’t make for a healthy bond.

    @gregg
    “Honestly – It is all you can actually do. You can´t generate/negotiate attraction. It is evolution in play – bigger, much bigger think that your tactics.”

    Good summary; I agree with this.

  • jf12

    @DarkPill, yes I disagree. The primary, and essentially ONLY thing that matters is how she feels. To the extent that looks is all one man has going for him, he had better hope his looks make a strange woman feel like having sex. To the extent that others of us can easily, *easily* I say, make a strange woman feel like having sex by sexualized behaviors, we can make a strange woman feel like having sex. Q.E.D. ipso facto. It matters not to me that you want to be lazy.

  • kfg

    ” . . .even the most wise Alpha among them could never, for instance, understand the impact that a unilaterally feminine-controlled form of birth control would effect upon a globalized society.”

    Are you sure you are up on the history of birth control, or, for that matter, post birth control?

    I’d also note in the context of the ancients “global” meant as widely as it was possbile for them to travel in their lifetimes, not literally the globe. The Mediterranean Basin, for instance.

    Mind you that I am not denigrating what has been learned in more recent times, nor holding up the ancients as all wise denizens of a truely Golden Age, but they knew a lot of what the present wider culture may have forgotten.

    I bear in mind Gothe’s Maxim:

    Everything has been thought of. The trick is to think of it again.

  • Nathan

    Sorokin (1964) “there is a permanent recruitment of beautiful women into the upper social stratum”

  • kfg

    @jf12:

    A man can best assess a woman’s looks when she is asleep, but . . .

    a woman can best assess a man’s looks when he is chopping wood.

  • jf12

    @kfg, a useful maxim.

    For the life of me, I don’t see why a man would want to segue from the empirical observation that better looking men have an easier time with women, to the nonempirical and totally feewing-based whining “My looks are all that matter to you sexist men,I mean women, and I’m running out of moisturizer. Waah!”

    I mean, besides his being nuts, Elliot Rodger’s entire problem with women was his emphasis on his looks: HE wanted to look good so women would approach HIM. It is such a girly way of looking at the world I’m surprised more of the looks-pushers here aren’t now blushing and checking out how cute their blushing looks in the mirror …

  • Carlos

    Beautiful. Aristophanes. Assemblywomen.

  • Nathan

    Achievement is correlated with mesomorphic (i.e. Muscularity) in boys (Cortes and Gatti, 1966)

    Looks (to be clear looks = muscularity) predict success.

  • M Simon

    Mr.C
    August 20th, 2014 at 3:10 am

    Old time chivalry only works if you are her protector. Too much time spent washing dishes will ruin a relationship.

  • Dr. Jeremy

    Rollo,

    I’m glad you wrote this article. I know we’ve been going around on this topic. I don’t know whether I’m not communicating my position clearly, or you disagree based on something I’m not understanding yet. You state…

    Sex differences, biologically and psychologically, didn’t evolve for hundreds of thousands of years to be co-equal partnerships based on humanistic (or moralistic) idealism. They evolved into a complementary form of support where the aspects of one sex’s strengths compensated for the other’s weaknesses and vice versa.

    While I agree that men and women are not identical and indistinguishable (as the feminist sense of “equal” and “egalitarian” implies), I do not see how a complementary and compensatory exchange cannot reach equilibrium. How is a complementary model not a “win-win” scenario for both men and women?

  • jf12

    @DrJ, it is not snarky of me to point out that such a scenario can ONLY be win-win if women want the same thing as men. The current social climate is changing towards *requiring* men to want the same thing as women “Does this purse match my shoes?”, away from letting men want what they want. Which is clearly a recognition of the adversarial nature of the *differences* between the sexes’ wants.

  • orion

    ” They evolved into a complementary form of support where the aspects of one sex’s strengths compensated for the other’s weaknesses and vice versa.”

    I do not believe that they evolved into any such thing.

    There is a reason we frolicked around on the savannah whithout much going on for tens if not hundreds of millenia until we stumbled unto a system that worked, male and female instincts are antagonistic by nature.

    Problem is, with that state of nature one can run a troop of baboons and not anything more advanced.

    Patriarchy worked, it demanded that both set of instincts were channeled into building a thing called “civilization” and I admit to being very partial to indoor plumbing.

    Patriarchy was a Chesterton fence, or more like a set of such fences and we tore them down without knowing why they were built in the first place.

    I wonder why feminists never drew the obvious conclusions when it came to how all the matriarchies with strong, independent women they so admired were shitholes that had never made it out of the stone age.

  • George

    Rollo is correct:

    “If I hit the gym religiously for a solid year, eat clean, put on 10 lbs. of muscle and drop my body fat down to 7% with the result being women finding me sexually irresistible, have I negotiated for their desire or have I simply aligned myself with a context under which their genuine desire is more likely to occur?”

    I highly recommend intense weight lifting, some aerobics and proper nutrition for any of you who have not experienced these (I do not recommend the use of steroids). The results over time will dispel difficulties you may be experiencing in many areas of your life including and especially women. Some of you may not be wiling to put out the effort. Some of you may think or say this is shallow or superficial. It is not. It produces REAL results and will change you fundamentally in a positive way.

  • Chris

    Why would mowing the lawn, doing taxes, etc. be more attractive than cooking and the like? Is there some masculine, evolutionary analogue to mowing the lawn or is it just because society deems it a masculine task? Or rather that a man who mows the lawn instead of cleaning probably has a masculine vibe in general, and which chores he chooses to do are another outcome of that vibe?

  • jf12

    @Chris, re: “which chores he chooses to do”

    I think it’s all a lot lot simpler. If she chooses to exert herself on his behalf, then she will like him better. Not vice versa.

    Since the only reason some work is divided into women’s work and men’s work is because the women’s work is easier, if he takes away from his busy lawnmowing schedule to “help” out with the dishes, it simply means she serves him less.

  • jf12

    re: women and libido and looks.

    When a woman really gets in the mood, then a guy could look cross-eyed at her and she would think it sexy.

  • Chris

    @jf12
    That makes sense, thanks.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I think we’re missing the point of my “hit the gym” comment. The idea is this, Game (applying red pill awareness) is also aligning oneself within a context under which genuine desire is more likely to occur.

    @Chris, I did provide a link:

    http://www.today.com/health/husbands-who-do-her-chores-have-less-sex-study-finds-1B8172520?franchiseSlug=todayhealthmain

  • Kate

    @Chris: “Why would mowing the lawn, doing taxes, etc. be more attractive than cooking and the like?”

    Its probably dependent on sweat, the smell of which creates attraction in women.

  • bombast

    Rollo, I don’t quite understand what you are saying that the DeadBedrooms forum represents. Good thinking? Bad thinking? Please explain.

  • George

    A couple days ago my 15 year old daughter was riding in my truck with me and local pop music was playing on the radio. A very “beta-in-heat” song came on (later I looked it up so I could explain it here) called “All of Me” by “John Legend” (pathetically stupid and not very original stage name). My daughter asked me to change the channel and said the hated the song.

    Teasing her, I turned up the volume and asked her, “You hate this?”

    Her response was a frustrated, “Daddy!!” as she reached for the radio controls and changed the channel.

    We have never discussed issues concerning gender social dynamics beyond just the basics of be careful who you go out with, don’t let someone use you. So I asked her why she hated the song.

    She said (and this is no bullshit), “Because its pathetic”.

    I asked, “Why is it pathetic?”

    “Because, it’s so whinny and wimpy.”

    So I asked, “You don’t like songs like that, or guys like that?”

    “NO!”

    I asked, “Why not?”

    She responded with, “Because they have no substance.”

  • eon

    “And thus we come full circle, back to a new model of masculinity that is found upon the evolved complementary order and aided by red pill awareness.” [Rollo]

    When the complementary new model of femininity comes full circle, it may well turn out to have been a circle in a spiral.

    For the past fifty years, women have been incredibly diligent and energetic in demonstrating that everything limiting or negative that had been said about them for the past 5,000 years was absolutely true.

    Over the past millennia, understanding of the true nature of women was sporadic and weak, because men wanted to believe otherwise, and because communication among them was limited.

    But since they have been completely unleashed, women have provided inexhaustible amounts of incontrovertible evidence. No longer is it the case of occasional hearsay from men. Now we have the direct words and videos of women themselves.

    Once boys start receiving courses in “women’s studies” from a very young age, taught from books like those written by Rollo and even much harsher critics, and augmented by direct supporting evidence, their path will be shifted enough to make the ultimate divergence enormous.

    And then it will no longer matter how much women claim that their positive descriptions of themselves are actually true, or even if they manage to swap the contexts of AWALT and NAWALT.

    Boys always start out wanting to believe that all girls, most girls, some girls, or at least their girls are how they would want them to be, because of their biological wiring.

    But because they are ultimately rational beings, and because of the now irrefutable evidence, with the proper guidance they will have no choice but to admit, and to incorporate into their developing foundations, that some girls are not good people, or at least not fit to be passengers in a civilization created by men.

    Unlike men who are now having to take the Red Pill to try to break apart and then rebuild their foundations, the granite of such future young men will already have veins of Red Pill throughout.

    For this reason, under the consensus that this is good and right, they will be comfortable with fully expecting (in both senses of the word) their women to be complementary and positive forces in their lives.

    An additional consensus will be that if women do not wish to be optimistic, positive, eager and enthusiastic wives and mothers, or directly supportive of patriarchal society in other ways, then they are free to go and be “strong and independent”.

    But this time they will have to be strong without riding on the backs of men, and independent by themselves.

  • jf12

    @George, re: All of Me.

    I literally have difficulty getting up to Legend’s lowest notes in my falsetto. His high notes are two or more octaves higher (he skips into his falsetto).

    All o the sappiest love songs, especially the ones sung by women, were written by men, who meant every word.

  • eon

    @ sam, Sisyphean

    Excellent comments!
    .
    .

    @ DarkPill

    “Game is negotiated desire. You and I both know this. A man’s inherent SMV is based off his genetic stock and everything else is superfluous.”
    .

    This is not entirely true. Physical attractiveness is the most immediate factor, but it is not the only factor.

    Fundamental strength and power is also a significant factor, but it must be real in order to be effective, which is why “Game is negotiated desire” can be true.

    As I said (on an earlier thread): “If, however, you are trying to use Game, after the fact (of your level of attractiveness or performance, at that time), to induce primal feelings (to make her want you to the depths of her being), then you are actually trying to negotiate desire, and Rollo has already explained how well that works.”

    The markers called “physical attractiveness” have been dependable predictors of offspring viability. Nevertheless, success demonstrated over time also reliably predicts viability.

    The time to use Game (which is much more than how you seem to be using it) is before the fact, to increase the many aspects of masculinity, to (as Rollo said), “align yourself with a context under which their genuine desire is more likely to occur”.

    Alternative paths exist in the mediators of female behavior. While attractiveness implies power, the presence of actual power (and all of its subconscious and innate implications) can redefine male physical attractiveness for a particular woman, or at least expand her set of acceptable markers for it.

    By “actual power” I mean having direct control over his own destiny, in his own right (being willing and able to get his hands dirty), and not the pretending of a short-term poseur.

    What was initially perceived as “not pretty” then suddenly becomes transformed into “hawt rugged masculinity”.

    But the bar for any level of actual power has always been quite high, which is why it now often manifests only in illicit and lesser ways, like when a young / pretty woman rides off on the back of an ugly drug dealer’s motorcycle.
    .
    .

    @ gregg

    A man does not / does not have to “become [like] woman” in order to deal with women in the only ways that their nature makes possible.

    As you said:”Concepts of justice, freedom, morals, GOODNESS…are not formed due to ‘blue pill conditioning’. These are the expressions of our innermost soul. Great men always knew it. The sacrificed their very lives for it.”
    .

    “It is up to every man how he wants to behave and what mission he wants to pursue. ‘Concepts of manhood’ are for weak, mindless slaves – majority of population. MAN forms his own concept, his own mission. In that way, he is fundamentally different from woman.”

    “Concepts of manhood” can also be, among other things, the intersection (what they have in common) of personal concepts that have been effective for successful men.
    .

    “Man with soul is not able to spin plates for years, he has compassion. He does not want to harm others/women more than is sometimes necessary.”

    Women are attracted to men who “spin plates”. Although this is contrary to the instincts of compassionate men, it does not harm women (especially uncommitted women), in and of itself.
    .

    “It is very painful for woman to disengage when she is overwhelmed by oxytocin and bonding hormones.”

    This is true, but it is still not the fault of men that women are drawn to men who tend to abandon them, instead of being drawn to men who would be loyal and protective.

    Even though, to some extent, men and women are both operating under biological programs, women still do not have a moral right to have it both ways (to avoid the consequences of their actions, or to transfer them to someone else).
    .

    “If the man is something more than sexual robot, things are a bit complicated. He has to answer the honest question. Ok – this is how things are. HOW should I behave so that I am congruent with my mission?”

    This is true, but a man still has to deal with women in the only ways that their nature makes possible: 1) do not interact with them at all, 2) deal with them “indirectly” using the whole of the information that is now being called Game, in whichever way is right for him, or 3) deal with them in more direct ways.
    .
    .

    @ s.r.

    What Rollo said.

    And furthermore, as usual, the later feminist version in that HUS article “identified a source of marital data” that does not even make a pretense of being a study, of having an unbiased sample or rigorous methodology, so it is just more cherry-picked “data” for propaganda.
    .
    .

    @ orion

    Rollo: ” They evolved into a complementary form of support where the aspects of one sex’s strengths compensated for the other’s weaknesses and vice versa.”

    orion: “I do not believe that they evolved into any such thing. There is a reason we frolicked around on the savannah without much going on for tens if not hundreds of millennia …”

    Primitive life in cold areas was brutally hard, and evolution into a complementary form of support occurred in this way: when men and women did not cooperate through complementary division of labor (women doing what they could, and men doing the rest), they and their children died.

    The people who evolved (remained) ended up also having other traits that facilitate civilization.
    .
    .

    @ Chris

    “Why would mowing the lawn, doing taxes, etc. be more attractive than cooking and the like? Is there some masculine, evolutionary analogue to mowing the lawn or is it just because society deems it a masculine task?”

    The evolutionary division of labor was along the lines of how much strength / courage / ability was required. Women were (and still are) significantly weaker in several ways, so they did the less dangerous and physically demanding tasks.

    Eventually, these also became (conscious / subconscious) personal and societal markers for masculine / feminine, strong / weak.

    And we all know which type of men women actually prefer.

  • walawala

    As my inner and external game improves, I’m starting to be able to predict female reactions and behavior with uncanny accuracy. The hardest part is ridding myself of “projection”—deluding myself by thinking a girl will react a certain way because that’s what I would do.

    But what posts like this help to do is offer a framework for better understanding the male/female dynamic.

    The whole abundance mentality and Plate Spinning Theory has helped.

    One area that interferes with this is that we are surrounded by movies, books and even commercials that echo the female imperative.

    I found this commercial on a great blog http://www.thelastpsychiatrist.com and have shared. It’s worth watching simply for how it echoes the theme’s in this original post.

  • heyjay

    “f I hit the gym religiously for a solid year, eat clean, put on 10 lbs. of muscle and drop my body fat down to 7% with the result being women finding me sexually irresistible, have I negotiated for their desire or have I simply aligned myself with a context under which their genuine desire is more likely to occur?”

    Rollo, I think even though one cannot see it from the outside what matters most is your motive. No you haven’t negotiated to answer your rhetorical question, but if you’re doing it solely to please women than you are nothing more than a slave. But if you do it to please yourself, you’re the man.

  • jf12

    re: boogeymen of negotiating of desire, authenticity of motive, genuwine feewings, etc.

    Bluntly, none of it matters in terms of results.To try to think otherwise is to try to think like a girl.

  • jf12

    In other words, you do not get to stamp your pretty little foot and whine “But you’re violating like a rule or something any time you do any thing for the purpose of evoking desire in a woman. You’re not supposed to do that, even if it works! You shouldn’t toy with a woman’s desires in that way!!”

  • jf12

    You tell me where all this is coming from. I’ll tell you, but you tell me too.

    “My looks mean everything. That’s why I spend a half hour every morning looking in the mirror getting my face ready to show the world.”

    “Women have great pickers for the best genes. The handsomest boys have the bestest, most wonderful genes. They are soooo good looking, giggle!”

    “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature. Just be yourself!”

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Ah, now we’re getting somewhere.

    Crisis of Motive:

    http://therationalmale.com/2013/07/18/crisis-of-motive/

    Been there, blogged that.

  • heyjay

    Just sayin your attitude and your values do matter as they are more important to me than getting girls. Sure you can pretend but for me working on myself is the ultimate reason I’m here :-)

  • ReticentPill

    All this purity-of-motive stuff is giving me a headache. Especially when the purest of motives that come up in these discussions are the F.I. itself. Impulsive realism vs. internalized idealism indeed.

    The guys who say Game is desire-haggling are probably not into aspects of self-improvement or social promotion. Rather, they see it as a means to an obvious, singular end. Let’s just say I’ve seen Game work in boardrooms more often than in bars. Men are as susceptible to Game as women are and if they recognize it, sometimes even moreso.

  • jf12

    @Rollo re: motive tar pits.

    It is easy to get stuck in that morass. However, after circling one of the (many) tar pits there, it seemed obvious to me that they all resulted from the visceral repulsion of manipulating a woman. Obviously a dark triad person would not get stuck there.

  • blogauthor

    Getting tired of all those “Looks Matter” posts. I was a fairly good looking nice guy and I didn’t get shit. Only when I started approaching, playing the numbers game, spinning plates and adopting other game principles did I start to see results. Saying looks are all that matter, or what it all comes down to, just isn’t true.

    Secondly, even IF looks are the most important deciding factor, you owe it to yourself as a man to still go out and approach. Even if you’re Asian or small or have an acné face. So what if takes you 100 approaches to get 2 bangs? So what if it doesn’t seem “fair”? That’s just defeatism.

    There are guys better looking then me who approach less and bang more. There are also guys less good looking then me who approach more and bang less. In the end, it’s irrelevant. I am myself and my own experiences, and the bangs of others have no direct bearing on me.

  • Joseph Dooley

    Have you read George Gilder, ‘Men and Marriage’? It opened my eyes and started my journey towards gender realism.

  • jf12

    WWADTD?

    What would a dark triad do? C’mon B/el, I know you want to spat my knuckles with a ruler for that, but it’s simply not true that my being able to imagine what a bad person would do is evidence that I am bad.

  • kfg

    @Chris: ” . . . Is there some masculine, evolutionary analogue to mowing the lawn . . .”

    Yes, it is possessing a lawn, which must be mowed. You don’t seem to understand what a lawn is. Don’t worry about it, few seem to these days, but it still underlies the whole lawn thang.

    A lawn is:

    a) Conspicuous consumption of a high order. It denotes that you can afford to turn that chunk of land into what is, economically, a desert, as well as support its upkeep, which is considerable, with no profit from it.

    b) It forms a margin around your fortified position which forces an approaching enemy into the open when attempting an assault.

    And of course, until very recently, a lawn would be mowed by hand, with a sythe. A man, perhaps stripped to the waist, rippling muscles, glistening with sweat, pumping ryhtmically . . .

    Perhaps I should take up writing romances.

    A real lawn embodies everything masculine that a woman finds attractive in masculinity and absolutly nothing feminine until you go dotting it with flowering bushes and such, at which point it ceases to be a lawn and becomes a lady’s garden.

  • Sirtyrion

    re: “Hypergamy doesn’t care about equalism and reciprocity.” I’ll also tie Looks into this for my fans, heh. I’ll also use online dating as the platform for this discussion.

    Upfront, the authors of “Freakonomics” discovered that 56% of men that create an online dating profile do not even get one single message (compared with 21% of females) while Jupiter Research found that 97 %( of men) quit within 3 months (draw your own conclusions). The mating ‘leagues’ are symmetrical(as evidenced in studies, like the OK Cupid one that showed women are rating 80% of males below average – rendering a skew which hinders assumptions of pair-matching). If only 20% are above average how many of us are actually considered good looking? Clearly, these are standards the vast majority (90+%) of men can’t ever hope to meet

    I see conventionally attractive men going for short overweight women, frequently, irrespective of independent status indicators. Of course, cases of the reverse dynamic are pretty rare (wherein lies the basis for many a male grievance). Yes, and the problem with these ‘leagues’ is that they are asymmetrical (meaning that there is a higher probability of a female attracting any given statistical subset of ranked males, than the reverse), rendering a disproportionate scarcity of receptive females for lower ranked males.

    Which means that females have shown to be MORE critical in JUDGING male attractiveness than the reverse (meaning that they are *MORE* likely to find a receptive partner, REGARDLESS of their own relative attractiveness). The undercurrent in male complaints, are that – for an increasing proportion of males – they no longer have an expectation of finding a reasonable equivalent in terms of a female partner(i.e. in terms of assortative mating), because sexual liberation has freed western females to indulge increasingly in disassortative mating(which is the expectation for all but the most attractive females, given their rate limiting function in sexual reproduction).That the attention women receive is frequently dismissed as originating from unattractive men, gives us a further indication of where the onus actually lies. Female choice is the dominant limiting factor. We have many reasons to suppose this, beyond online dating data (which supports that females are more selective, given that message frequency is a corollary of selectivity), which poses too many confounders in the data to rely upon too strongly.

    In more colloquial terms, what this means is that male/female ‘leagues’ are asymmetrical – with male ‘rank’ being bottom heavy in distribution, while female ‘rank’ being top heavy.

    If we take the (justified) assumption that guys are more inclusive in their mating choices, and consider a higher male optimal mating rate, we also come to an inescapable conclusion: that not only should the most attractive males mate with the most attractive females(duh), but also a significant proportion of average females as well(given the higher male mating rate).

    Which, of course, renders less available ‘average’ females to be mated with average guys – necessitating an imbalance that progresses down the attractiveness scale (rendering a sexually asymmetric mating dynamic). This is why it is so easy to observe that even relatively unattractive females are still much more successful than unattractive males at disassortative mating (i.e. such as with average women being able to commonly mate with hot me, etc).

    Most of men, who have difficulty meeting women online, use to resort to online dating because they somehow think women will fall in love with their personality. Of course sitting behind a computer and writing messages is easier. They send messages to countless female users, but even by changing the variables, the response rate (girls messaging back) are extremely low. It’s not worth the effort at these rates. In the end, guys are contacting women they’d never speak with in real life. The inflated self-perceived sexual value these women develop spills out into the real world, making it more difficult to pick them up. Guys are induced to contacting sub par women trying to improve their poor response rates.

    The wrong belief is essentially that women when come to online dating cast aside their innate picky feelings of physical attraction and their skewed cognitive analysis of a man’s value. (women on average express greater hypergamic selectivity, both offline and online). Where the average woman fantasizes about being swept off her feet by a handsome Prince Charming.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @sirtyrion, hard to believe this post is almost 3 years old now:

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/15/womens-physical-standards/

    You see, men will very readily cater their physical sexual “preferences” in accordance with what has proven sexually successful for them in past experiences. In other words, men tend to return to the same watering hole they found to be plentiful in the past. These preferences of convenience manifest themselves as ‘fetishes’ for men. And you don’t even need all that extensive research to prove this. All one need do is search the vast variety of porn available catering to the physical attributes that men will fetishize. Big boobs, small boobs, big ass, small ass, every hair color of the rainbow, shaved snatch, hairy snatch, teen girls to MILFs and older, tan, pale, ultra-thin to the ubiquitous BBWs (Big Beautiful women). Ladies, name the physical attribute(s), and there’s a fan-group just waiting to bang you. Rule 34 was never more provable than in men’s willingness to fuck damn near any physical demographic of women – just ask the female midgets catering to that fetish of porn.

    On the other hand, from a purely physical perspective, it’s women’s idealized masculine form that hasn’t changed in millennia. While there may have been a rubenesque period when men loved the fatties of the 1600′s, no such era ever existed for women’s physical preferences. The classic broad chest, wide shoulders, six-pack abs and squared jaws of greco-roman athleticism are still the idealized male form that has graced EVERY romance novel cover in existence. I’m still waiting for someone to post me a link for a dating site that caters exclusively to women’s fetish of BBMs – average to good looking, fit women specifically looking overweight men. Executive Introductions caters to women seeking affluent, influential men, but women just looking for overweight men, that site doesn’t exist.

  • Just Saying

    what it means to be a man in the 21st century.

    The same thing it meant to be a man in the 1st century – the only thing that has changed is the tools you have to do it. They used clubs and sticks – today you can use a computer, an AK-47, or any of a thousand specific tools for the task. But being a MAN is the same as it ever was – at least if you are a successful one. You have a lot more ways to excuse NOT being a man, but if you are true to yourself, you will be as you are.

    Women are attracted to the same things they have always been attracted to – don’t listen to the tripe they spout. It’s as simple as that.

  • Glenn

    Another great, deep post, Rollo, wow. A couple of things jump out, one from the article and another from the comments.

    1. I have learned that the more I simplify my Red Pill awareness, the more useful it is to me. Your article lays out clearly how complementarity is the nature of our intersexual relations, and that is dominant, and how current cultural/social practices interact and affect things in that setting. But some basics do not change. One of the most transforming moments of my Red Pill awakening was when I just got that “women choose”.I somehow or another had gotten to a point where I thought that was unfair, and also saw it as some kind of actual value judgment placed on me. Nope, it’s just some lizard brain shit that fires off and causes a reflex in women. It’s just like what happens to men – it’s just that we don’t get to choose whether we have sex or not for the most part. I also get that I’m biologically programmed to want to fuck a lot and to be attracted to many partners. When I really let these basic realities sink in, I sort of just relaxed about it. This is just how it is and my choice is no choice at all – I can be miserable or I can just chill and accept it and play it to the best of my ability. I love the erudition, but for this hairless ape, simple is good.

    2. Looks – I listen to some other folks, scientists, on attraction and how women work. It seems quite out of step with what’s known to say that women operate solely on attraction. I do agree, it’s a threshold issue for all humans – nobody, male or female want to fuck people they are unattracted to. But it does seem that women are working off of many other considerations as well – and not just the AF/BB dyad. Increasing average human Intelligence, for example, may be an example of runaway selection, sexual selection. While Rollo is right, you don’t see women fetishizing fat men etc, that doesn’t mean there isn’t more going on than looks. And plenty of men without chiseled features are getting laid, so it’s all a bit more complex I’d say. And no, I’m not going to cite a bunch of studies. You all have google, have at it. I don’t play web academic, so if you want me to produce an essay with citations you’ll be waiting for an awfully long time….

    There is also something going on with the current young generation of women (20s) in terms of a more playful and honest sexuality. I think many young women today like owning their sexual power – sure hypergamy is part of it, but that’s not the whole story. I think it’s great that women feel like they can be very sexual. The U.S.’s puritanical cultural legacy is anomalous and pretty ridiculous in the 21st century. The culture cuts both ways.

    How this plays out? I’m with Rollo – the basics aren’t going to change because of feminism, but I do think the x-factor is bio and genetic engineering. When and if we actually take sexual selection out of the evolutionary system, well that will surely result in massive changes in sexual behavior and mating strategies. But even then, we are stuck with lots biology and elements of this stuff go back 5 million years or more.

    See ya next post.

  • water cannon boy

    Somehow Justin Beiber, One Direction, and all the other copy cats do very well without any substance. Other factors are at play for the 15 year old not liking a particular love song.

  • George

    “do very well” with what? The same thing George Michael, Michael Jackson, Elton John, and Freddie Mercury did “very well” with?

    Most girls will only say, “That’s sweet”….while they are banging their brains out with non sissy males.

  • George

    My wife would never want to fuck Justin Beiber but there are a lot of gay men who would love to.

  • water cannon boy

    I’ll accept you listing 3 gay singers, who at the time before girls knew they were gay, they would have loved getting with them.
    Steve McQueen probably had male admirers also.
    Since you went back to Elton John, I won’t bother going into who might have lust for Beiber.

  • Magent

    For some reason I am having trouble copy and pasting from this page, so I can put down the exact comments I am referring to…

    Sirrtyrion,

    Are women being more judgmental of male attractiveness, or, faced with MUCH MORE attention and choices, can be, MUST BE, more selective?

    As you point out, and others have as well, women get many more inquiries on dating sites than men.

    Even if she wanted to fuck/date them all, any women with decent attractiveness would have a hard time keeping up. Not enough hours in the day. She must sort those responses somehow, and the more responses, the more criteria she can and will use.

    That’s why may people say online dating sites are a sucker’s game for men in general. You are feeding the attention whore of the women.

    So, I think you may be confusing the need to pare down an overabundance of offers with highly judgmental selection.

    In an inverted environment, where there are far more females than males, where males have more of a selection, do you not think their judging criteria is going to bump up?

    MALE ATTRACTIVNESS

    Again with the looks/genetics thing. Question is, is good genetics all about looks?

    A guy may be born with good looks, high metabolism so he does not have to work too hard to look good, but if that’s all he is, or if he’s otherwise a doofus, a schlep, or loser, how does that factor in? If he’s a friggin’ lousy lay, like someone pointed out above, how long with his good looks keep the tingles going?

    If a guy born with less outward good looks is driven to hit that gym, improving his looks, and if he had a drive that gets shit done, to accomplish shit, to excel at something (sports, music, business, etc.) than those genetics count for naught? If he can talk someone into buying a house, or car, or dropping their drawers with a gift of gab, those genetics don’t count?

    How many male musicians who are not exactly handsome, who are in fact average or even ugly, score some high quality women? What about male looks then?

    “Wait! So, we all have to be rockstars to get some serious attractive female attention? That’s bullshit!”

    That’s life. You might not need to be a rockstar, but you need to stand out in some way. If you have good looks already, great. You got a step up, but I am sorry, I have seen too many attractive women with guys who PHYSICALLY are below their own SMV to think it is all based on looks. One common theme among those guys seemed to be that they thought a lot of themselves, regardless of what their physical SMV.

    The whole household chore thing might be explained by the fact that men impress with what they DO, what they CAN DO. Women tend to rely on what they are and how they look.

    Why do ugly or average men with power get women if its all about looks?

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Dr. J

    I do not see how a complementary and compensatory exchange cannot reach equilibrium. How is a complementary model not a “win-win” scenario for both men and women?

    The secret is that pussy is an easily had commodity and it’s up to a woman to convince a man that her intimacy is in someway unique among all others.

    The hard truth, that women are subconsciously aware of, is that no amount of sex will ever be an equitable trade for a man’s complacency and/or compromising of his identity.

    A complementary model is a ‘win-win’ from a cooperative survival prospect, but for men and women conditioned to believe in egalitarian equalism it appears circumstantially unfair individually.

    As I stated in the post, by each individual gender’s conditions, sometimes complementarity is going to mean accepting unequal circumstances as necessity dictates.

    Complementarity:
    “Eeeek!! Honey, come quick there’s a spider, kill it!”

    SPLAT!

    Egalitarian Equalism:
    “Eeeek!! Honey, come quick there’s a spider, kill it!”

    “What? No, you kill it, I wouldn’t dream of imposing my maleness and sublimating your sense of co-equal purpose. If I kill it for you it will only set a sexist example of traditional gender oppression”.

    *ugh, a real man would just kill this thing,…a real man like that guy I met at the auto shop yesterday….*

    “Yes, I suppose you’re right.”

  • heyjay

    George:
    “The results over time will dispel difficulties you may be experiencing in many areas of your life including and especially women.”

    I do lift weights for quite some time now, however I didn’t get to experience any improvements with women through it. On the other hand I love doing it and just feeling good eating clean as well. For me it’s not a miracle thing though, is it for you?

  • George

    heyjay

    It absolutely was not and is not a miracle thing. It required A LOT of consistent effort and dedication (and still does). When I graduated from high school I weighed 130 lbs at a height of 5′-11″ and barely managed to bench 85 lbs. When I graduated from college, I weighed 185 lbs squatted 405, benched 315, body fat 7%. I’ve NEVER used drugs and many around me who did developed serious health problems as a result. My changes were not immediate. They were gradual but the effect was very dramatic over time. Girls who I went to high school with who hadn’t seen me in a few years admired me with comments and questions like, “Are you working out?…OMG! you got hot!” All my mothers friends noticed, my brothers wife, my little sister (who was and is a great encourager, we have a great relationship) made positive comments and became noticeably attracted.

    If you are doing it for yourself to improve your entire life experience and have incorporated it into your life style, this is great and you will receive the most benefit.

    If you are in good shape, surely you are perceived differently than (in the past perhaps) or others who are not as fit. Hopefully, you are training your entire body (women don’t like male bodies with huge biceps and chests on top of chicken legs). I empathize with your experience. It took me some time years ago to “reap” the benefits with women concerning the changes weight training brought on. The “delay” was entirely my “fault”. Once I recognized the way women were reacting to my trained body, I had to dispel insecurity and the illusions of scarcity, putting them up on a pedestal, white knightism, etc. This was not easy and took me some time. Rollo’s posts and book are absolutely true and accurate to me as I reflect on my past. They are a joy to read. Just being in great shape is no guarantee. However, it most certainly attracts positive attention. You have to take the initiative socially. What you think of yourself and others and how you behave closes the deal.

  • George

    Rollo,

    “The hard truth, that women are subconsciously aware of, is that no amount of sex will ever be an equitable trade for a man’s complacency and/or compromising of his identity.”

    I think you were born to write! (among other things)

  • George

    water cannon boy

    ” I’ll accept you listing 3 gay singers, who at the time before girls knew they were gay, they would have loved getting with them.”

    Who are these girls that “would have loved getting with them”? Your girl friends, your mother, your sister? Specifically who?

    Justin Beiber is recently maturing into more of a “man”. So what I’m referring to here is his younger past that predominately exemplifies the genera of music we are discussing.

    My “point of view” is based on my experience with women including past frustrations, misunderstandings and fruitless expectations. They simply are NOT sexually turned on by that kind of music, or when boys indulge that kind of mentality. That kind of music has far more to do with hopelessly frustrated males longing for sex than actual sex. The tone, words and entire feelings conveyed prove this.

    ALL the women I know and have known say things like, “That’s soooo gay” or “Oooh, that’s sweeeeet” or “He’s too whiney” or “Wellll…he’s cute and really sweet, but I wouldn’t go out with him”…..

    Please collect some real data before you decide the truth. Ask every female you know who she would rather fuck David Beckham or Justin Beiber and then get back with us.

  • Siirtyrion

    Note: I tried using the quote code for this comment, so we’ll see if it works.

    @ Glenn

    “2. Looks – I listen to some other folks, scientists, on attraction and how women work. It seems quite out of step with what’s known to say that women operate solely on attraction.”

    Women operate solely on physical attraction as a pre-requisite for short-term mating. For long-term mating (i.e a relationship) she’ll require much more and personality does play a role here.

    “I do agree, it’s a threshold issue for all humans – nobody, male or female want to fuck people they are un-attracted to. But it does seem that women are working off of many other considerations as well – and not just the AF/BB dyad.”

    Wrong. As I’ve stated before, “…there are only two quantities of value females consider in mate choice: genetic benefits (indicated in physical attractiveness), and direct benefits (indicated in investment strategies with respect to material resources, and paternal investment).”

    “Increasing average human Intelligence, for example, may be an example of runaway selection, sexual selection.”

    Intelligence was beneficial in the past when it meant life or death but today, the pressures on humans as a whole are much more relaxed and as a consequence to this, as I’ve stated before, people will start to prioritize looks instead of utility.You should also note that average human intelligence has been on the decline.

    “While Rollo is right, you don’t see women fetishizing fat men etc, that doesn’t mean there isn’t more going on than looks. And plenty of men without chiseled features are getting laid, so it’s all a bit more complex I’d say.”

    True, in part. When women don’t have any better options they will put out for the best man in their vicinity at any given time. But don’t forget that women are pragmatic AND opportunistic when it comes to their sexual strategy. If she were to meet a new man who fulfills her ideal or close to it (by “her ideal”, I really mean all women) physical ideal, she will gravitate towards that man and disregard her current mate (at least mentally) for a much better one (see: Hypergamy).

    And no, I’m not going to cite a bunch of studies. You all have google, have at it. I don’t play web academic, so if you want me to produce an essay with citations you’ll be waiting for an awfully long time….

    Says a lot about how seriously you’re willing to debate this topic.

    @Magent
    Some parts of your comment towards me were a bit redundant, so I’ll only argue the key points you make.

    Are women being more judgmental of male attractiveness, or, faced with MUCH MORE attention and choices, can be, MUST BE, more selective? As you point out, and others have as well, women get many more inquiries on dating sites than men…So, I think you may be confusing the need to pare down an overabundance of offers with highly judgmental selection…In an inverted environment, where there are far more females than males, where males have more of a selection, do you not think their judging criteria is going to bump up?”

    You fail to notice that women have always been MORE selective than males. That is the very nature of Hypergamy. Not only is it a “must” for them, but it is also hardwired into their brain. For instance, if the majority of men where to die off in an upcoming war, women will still fight over and/or share the top men in that group. That’s how strong the hypergamic pull is for women.

    “Again with the looks/genetics thing. Question is, is good genetics all about looks?”

    In short, yes. But to be a bit more detailed:

    It doesn’t look like we avoid the ugly BUT that we pursue the attractive, and that jibes better with the alternatives to Hamilton’s “parasite avoidance” hypothesis, namely the genetic hypotheses. First is Alfred Russell Wallace’s “good genes” hypothesis: we pursue good-looking people because their good looks signal having genes that have protected them against the ravages of pathogens, or whatever else may damage their health. And second is R.A. Fisher’s “sexy sons” hypothesis: we pursue good-looking people because, whether we find them good-looking or not, the potential mates of our offspring will, so we’d improve their reproductive success by giving them genes for attractiveness. The idea that attractiveness is logarithmically perceived doesn’t decide between these two genetic theories, but I think it does go against the “parasite avoidance” hypothesis.

    “How many male musicians who are not exactly handsome, who are in fact average or even ugly, score some high quality women? What about male looks then?…
    You got a step up, but I am sorry, I have seen too many attractive women with guys who PHYSICALLY are below their own SMV to think it is all based on looks…
    The whole household chore thing might be explained by the fact that men impress with what they DO, what they CAN DO. Women tend to rely on what they are and how they look.
    Why do ugly or average men with power get women if its all about looks?”

    True, all things being equal, women will favor wealthy/high status males – but only in very exceptional cases (often involving very high profile individuals in the public eye, tending to skew perceptions of normal) will a female make significant concessions in terms of the physical attractiveness of her mate (unless she is not, herself, attractive enough to warrant the attentions of physically attractive males). Not so surprising, when one considers that a selection bias for resourceful males should exist in some proportion to the advantages they pose to the survival of her offspring. Thus, if the advantages are small (given a prosperous welfare state, which marginalizes these advantages), then there will be minimal selection bias(which explains a large population of women who are increasingly disinterested by the lone prospect of a resourceful mate).

    Also, you make the mistake of assuming women don’t rely on what a male looks like to asses “what they Do, [and] what they CAN DO.”

    As an extension of Zahavi’s hypothesis, Folstad and Karter introduced the immunocompetence signaling hypothesis for humans. This hypothesis suggests that Secondary sexual characteristics are reliable indicators of mate quality because the reproductive hormones required for their development, including testosterone, suppress the immune system (e.g., Peters, 2000; Rantala, Vainikka, & Kortet, 2003). The expression of testosterone-linked traits reveals that men are in good enough condition to withstand the deleterious effects of immunosuppression, and women who selected these men as mates would have transmitted features associated with good condition to their offspring.

    You can draw your own conclusions from that study.

  • George

    Rollo,

    Do you agree (at least to significant extent) women subconsciously think that unlimited sex may be an equitable trade for intimacy with a man who is not complacent and will not compromise his identity?

    [No, but only because biologically no woman is ever motivated to "unlimited" sex. That's the difference between men's sexual strategy (unlimited access to unlimited sexuality) and women's strategy (hypergamy, AF/BB). Equitable trade with regard to sex isn't a concept for women because hypergamy is their directive]

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @sirtyrion, in wordpress it’s “blockquote” between greater-than and less-than characters

  • George

    Siirtyrion,

    “True, all things being equal, women will favor wealthy/high status males – but only in very exceptional cases (often involving very high profile individuals in the public eye, tending to skew perceptions of normal) will a female make significant concessions in terms of the physical attractiveness of her mate (unless she is not, herself, attractive enough to warrant the attentions of physically attractive males).”

    Your comment above coincides with my experience. Many of my clients are quite wealthy.

    For example:

    One neighborhood I’ve worked in continuously during the past few years consists of residential properties valued at $2 million and above. The average income is about $800K to $1M. There is a high proportion of hottie females there and one could easily assume it is because of the money…..until the men come home. Most of the hot women are paired up with guess what….”hot” men. Generally the SM values are relatively equal between mates. All could be considered to be at least somewhat affluent. The theory that attractive individuals of both sexes have an easier time getting promoted may be true. The less attractive affluent men are paired up with less attractive women. There are even some men driving 200K European spots cars thinking it will get them hot pussy, it is not working. I’ve worked with one “HB9″ who said she thought her bald plump neighbor had no business driving a Ferrari because “he looks foolish in it” and, “It won’t work”.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    How many male musicians who are not exactly handsome, who are in fact average or even ugly, score some high quality women? What about male looks then?…

    This will interest you:

    http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/11/case-study-creative-intelligence/

  • Blueplillprofessor

    @George: Does Rollo think unlimited sex is an equitable trade for male intimacy?

    Let me answer for the master both because I know what it is and because I partially disagree. Rollo doesn’t think “good” sex can ever be negotiated. If she is thinking quid-pro-quo and transactionally she is not tingling or thinking about the raw act itself (i.e. getting pounded by a hard cock with a naked, raw, sweaty man above her).

    While this arrangement is precisely what most Red Pill guys would be more than happy to accommodate, it can (WILL) destroy the passion. The trick is to delete the covert contracts and go for it.

    That said, I think there is room for negotiation. I get that Rollo is dead set against negotiated sex BUT does he oppose negotiated submission? What if the negotiation ‘Threatpoint” is not about “sex” but about “compliance” and/or a “default yes” not to a particular act but rather submission in general?

    With the feminine imperative victorious, I think it is reasonable to negotiate for what I call control of “the launch codes to her sexual denial nuclear weapon.”

    THAT should be a standard requirement for ANY sexual relationship today. You are not negotiating her sex but her availability and willingness to submit to sex (or more properly her agreement to never DENY sex. She can appeal to reason, emotion, or logic but ultimately, for any relationship in this age to work the MAN MUST HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WOMAN’s SEXUALITY. Anything else becomes transactional as the woman attempts to parlay her daily/weekly/monthly/yearly favors into more and more power in the relationship. That transfer of power IS transactional. However, that very transfer of power and submission creates sexual desire in women almost by magic. Who knew?

  • George

    Rollo,

    Just read: http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/11/case-study-creative-intelligence/

    I did find it interesting but not surprising.

    Does “M” stand for “Mother Fucker” ?

    LOL

  • George

    Blueplillprofessor

    The feminine imperative is victorious over those who concede to it.

    She either wants to fuck you or she doesn’t.

    I just cannot see it, have not experienced it any other way.

  • George

    “transfer of power” ??

    What’s up with that?

  • Siirtyrion

    @Rollo
    Thanks for the clean up, much appreciated. I’ll be sure to keep “blockquote” in mind for the next time I use it.

    @George
    True. Unattractive men who compensate with money never get their girlfriend’s or wive’s true sexual desire in the first place. The man simply negotiates it via money but it isn’t genuine. The primal desire is absent, which will lead her to stray eventually. Women are very much aware about desire and it’s been shown in studies, covering conception, that their bodies know (at least subconsciously) what they’re doing.

    For example, when a woman has a symmetrical partner, her body will experience repeated orgasms to help facilitate conception by retaining a high amount of sperm from her partner. When her partner is asymmetrical, her body will deliberately reject the sperm by not only failing to orgasm but by also emitting it out through “wet dreams” afterward.

  • Magent

    @Sirtyrion,

    “Some parts of your comment towards me were a bit redundant, so I’ll only argue the key points you make.”

    Hmm, well, you could have just responded to my “key points” without this comment, so I find it a bit superfluous.

    See? Anyone can be snarky!

    If you are looking for a reason why some commentators here find it hard to take you seriously, it’s because of behavior like the above. Someone who was as secure in their intellectual prowess as you believe yourself to be would hold back the snark for occasions where it warranted it. I asked you a reasonable question on a statement you made which had no hint of derision to it.

    Before even try to engage with you on this, can you please explain these two sentences, because as I read it, they do are not self-explanatory which rather undermines whatever point you are trying to make.

    “The mating ‘leagues’ are symmetrical(as evidenced in studies, like the OK Cupid one that showed women are rating 80% of males below average – rendering a skew which hinders assumptions of pair-matching).”

    Specifically…

    1) When you say the leagues are symmetrical, what do you mean by that? If you take more than a paragraph to explain a sentence, you have failed. If you have to refer to a study to explain you have failed.

    2) How does the parenthetical statement following “(as evidenced…” support the idea that the leagues are symmetrical as you claim in #1?

  • D-Man

    Equalism?

    http://thelibertydoll.com/2014/08/22/meet-woman-reduce-male-population-90-for-peace/

    hahahahhahahahaaaaaa

    This girl is about as dumb and deluded as the IS guy who promised to fly their flag over the white house.

  • George

    Very interesting….I wonder why she is studying criminology and what her father is like….

  • George

    If the male population were reduced as such, can you imagine the cat fights that would erupt….it would be a nasty scene.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,337 other followers

%d bloggers like this: