Category Archives: Communication

Reality vs. The Internet

As much as I’d love to read more Field Reports and follow ups (which I do agree are important) the simple fact of the matter is that you’re relying on whatever it is any one blogger or forum poster is telling you. I speak ‘manosphere’ very fluently. I could very easily go on the RSD boards, create a new identity, and fabricate a very believable story about how I managed a 4-Way with three HB 9 swimsuit models using using a direct approach or any number of PUA techniques. Once I posted, there’d be guys who’d virtually pat me on the back and ask how they could repeat it themselves because they want to believe it.

Then there’d also be another set who’d believe it, but take the faux-pity position and say I was wasting my life away in meaningless orgies with the ‘low quality’ centerfolds they wish their LTR girlfriends looked like.

And finally, there’d be the nonbelievers who’d accuse me of making it all up. Not because it was too fanciful a story, but rather they’d think all women are just smarter than to be suckered into an instant porn movie with a random guy – only to lose all faith in women in general after watching another home-made amateur porn video.

Legitimacy of experience vs. Online personae.

Even when PUA gurus go to the trouble of making as anonymous, and as inconspicuous as possible, videos of themselves showing their approach techniques, the first thing anyone says is it was staged. And unless he could someway get a camera secretly into his bedroom after the successful pull, there will still be an element that will think it was arranged, or there’ll be another element that say the girl is just a common slut so of course it worked.

Now as bad as all that sounds, I think Field Reports definitely have their place as field testing experiments, doubters or not. Just bear in mind, you will never filter out that situational bias. Observing a process will change that process.

What’s interesting is this constant, perceived conflict between “theorists” and “practitioners”. Honestly, I don’t believe you can separate them. All the tools a guy will have at his disposal to practice don’t amount to much if he doesn’t understand why those tool work in the first place. Similarly all the theory in the world is useless until you develop an application of it by trial and error. Now, add to all that the situational bias I just described – what do you tell an AFC who’s stuck on Matrix conditioning “try using negs” or “here’s why Negs work”? I’d say both of course, but which do you start with?

Wax On, Wax Off

If you’ve seen the original Karate Kid, where Mr. Miyagi teaches Daniel-San karate by having him wax his car you kind of see the disconnect here. Wax on, wax off; silly in premise, but useful in teaching. Here you have Daniel wanting to be able to fight, but for the moment his teacher seems like an exploitative fool, and he wonders if he’s been duped by an old man who doesn’t know shit about karate. That is until he puts it into practice.

Mr. Miyagi knows his shit, but Daniel has to take all that on faith; faith that Mr. Miyagi is who he claims to be, and possesses the experience he claims to have.

I am not a Guru, nor am I a Master Pick Up Artist, nor am I some motivational speaker, pastor or self-help psychologist. I’m a man with experience. What I write here is in the hopes that others can benefit from that experience and the insight that comes from sorting it out. When I can devise practices from those insights I’ll offer them, but understand that the validity of what anyone you have respect for professes or suggests you do, it’s still up to you to decide what works best for yourself and critically determine its veracity.

I can tell you, you can trust that I am who I say I am, but my experiences and how I relate them is how you can verify my own or anyone else’s perspectives. It’s exactly for this reason I take a hands-off approach to moderating my comments on this blog. I may sharply disagree with certain perspectives, but it’s more important to read them to know just what that commenter’s experience and/or legitimacy is.


The New Sensitivity

With profuse apologies for shamelessly lifting this thread from CH’s most recent post comments, but it dovetailed perfectly into my topic today.

From The Whammer:

I can acccurately predict who is the Alpha or Beta with a simple test which I will prove here. I’ll tell you who will get laid within the next week. Do this, take out your wallet and then describe the wallet and list the contents (don’t bother to list that condom that expired in 1999) I can determine from this test how well you will do with females and whether you’re a true Alpha.

OK I’ll explain then. Have you ever seen someone carrying around a wallet bulging with stuff? Sometimes you’ll even see a rubber band around it it’s so full of junk lol This is typical prole (beta) behavior. They carry all of this stuff in case they have to “prove” something. You will never see an Alpha carrying around all of this crap. Alphas carry a slim wallet with perhaps some cash, a credit card and a license at most. Alphas have certain habits or traits and they’re reflected subconsciously in a lot of outward ways. An Alpha would never even think that he’d ever have to prove anything to anyone.The first guy who answered said he just carries some cash in a money clip and that would indicate Alpha behaviour to me. I wasn’t really concerned with the amount of cash.People, especially females, subconsciously equate a bulging wallet with a beta flunky and that’s not even taking into considerstion the bulge you’ll have in your chest suit pocket. Betas don’t get laid.

I’d encourage readers to read the thread in its entirety. It’s some real funny shit, however there is a germ of truth in The Whammers humor. A lot has been written about Beta (and Alpha) ‘tells’ in the manoverse. In fact, I’d argue that in its infancy formalized pick up artistry was fundamentally about ridding oneself of the Beta ‘tells’ and emphasizing Alpha ‘tells’ to maximize guy’s chances of getting laid.

However, with the unplugging from the Matrix comes a progressively developing sensitivity to the feminized world around us. We see it all around us, usually in advertising first – maybe the undertone of masculine ridicule in TV commercials, then the subtle association we make when considering that women arre the primary consumers in society. The next easy observation is how men are portrayed on television; feckless, ridiculous slobs in need of feminine intuition to solve their problems.

This new sensitivity then becomes more refined. We pick up idioms and subtle attitudes in people’s conversations. We pick up on terms and assumptions of premise that previously, in our Blue Pill fog, we would’ve taken for common sense or matter of fact. We hear the same tropes offered as the solution to the same issues that we thought were so confusing in our plugged-in existence.

I use The Whammer’s wallet test as an illustration here to detail this new sensitivity. It’s fairly easy to assess the difference between a Beta’s Look (or lack thereof) and that of an Alpha. Like most other higher order animals, human beings have an evolved sense, on the subconscious level, that helps us determine the looks, posture and vocal cues of sexual competitors. But looks can be deceiving, and in an age of feminization, the guy who outwardly may be the very specimen of an Alpha in a physical sense, can also be the most debilitated Beta due to his life’s conditioning.

Maybe it’s from having been unplugged from the Matrix for so long, or maybe it’s my constant observation and writing about it, but I am very sensitive to the choice of casual words men use when talking about gender issues. It’s been acculturated into feminized men’s vernacular to use words, idioms and presumptions that are assumed, on the subconscious level, to be more neutral or inoffensive to women-as-authority or feminine primacy. I can pick out the subliminal self-deprecations men filter into their conversations, often with a nervous laugh, or else they’ll drop some blunt truth only to casually (but practiced intentionally) to backpedal by ridicule themselves or men in general for being ‘how they are’ as if it were some kind of apology.

Everything you need to know about a guy, or really the state of feminine primacy in society, is in the choices of words he uses. It’s a fairly easy task to pick through the writings on someone’s forum posts to determine where they stand on the Beta-Alpha spectrum. Is he using Disney-esque dialogue about the girl he thinks is special? Is he using Shakespearean prose, words he would never actually speak in casual conversation, to describe his yearning and longing for a soulmate? These are easy ‘tells’ when you read them on your monitor; all but the most Aspergery of men probably wouldn’t use Arthurian vernacular when casually speaking about women.

Better to beg forgiveness than beg for permission.

On my commute to work I often listen to local talk radio. No, not the conservative AM band, rather the variety show FM band type shows. I actually work somewhat closely with a few of the stations and hosts  whenever I’m doing a brand promo or a launch party at some local club or event. Of the talk show personalities I know, it’s really only in a business sense. Most of them are pretty likable enough guys, but every time I listen to any topic on their show that veers into intergender issues (which is quite often) the Beta just oozes from every pore. Matrix trope after trope, constant repetition of fem-speak colloquialisms, I swear, some of the worst offenders in perpetuating feminine social primacy are talk radio hosts – even the conservative ones. Naturally I bite my tongue in the interests of my business, but these guys are worse than any White Knight, mangina or Beta I’ve ever encountered in the manosphere; and all are blissfully oblivious to their conditionings.

In all of their ramblings, there is always a default premise of female authority. I’m convinced it takes the better part of a lifetime to inculcate into a man, but on the limbic level the Beta mindset uses the feminine imperative as his starting point for everything. In every issue, and on a subliminal level, the origination of a thought is tempered with how it will be interpreted in a feminine-primary context. This is almost a default state of mind for the Beta mindset: ask permission from the feminine.

I’ve got another friend who’ll always abdicate to his wife’s authority by saying “Gotta clear that with the boss” in reference to his wife when we’re making some plans to hang out. This tells me everything I need to know about his perception of gender and his history of success with women in general. Woman = authority; before all else, in any decision the thought is colored by the feminine.

Just as in the wallet test, the unplugged develop a sense in placing an Alpha mindset. Although we may hear it occasionally in their choice of words, it’s the lack of words that indicate an Alpha. Just as an Alpha doesn’t need a wallet full of safety measures, the Alpha doesn’t need superflous words. By virtue of his confidence-through-options the Alpha mind doesn’t care about feminine priority. He may occasionally say “uhm,…sorry?“, but his first thought isn’t to ask permission from the feminine.

When your silence inspires more intimidation, more respect, more gravity than your words, then, you’re thinking like an Alpha.


The Pet

One requirement I have of most of the men (and women) I do consults with is that they read The 48 Laws of Power (The Art of Seduction is in the class syllabus as well). In the introduction author Robert Greene runs down the ethical implications of understanding and employing the various laws. If you look at the synopsis of the laws I linked you can get an idea of how uncomfortable some of these laws will naturally make people feel. Many of these laws understandably rub the uneducated the wrong way because for the better part of our lives we’ve been taught to emulate socially acceptable mannerisms and adopt a mindset of cooperation above self interest.

Most people are conditioned to think that deliberate use of power is inherently manipulative, self-serving and sometimes evil. In context this may or may not be true, but in so demonizing even the desire to understand power, not only do we inhibit a better critical understanding of power, but we also make the uneducated more vulnerable to the use of power against them. The 49th Law being: Never educate others of the principles of power, which is itself a form of using power. Never talk about Fight Club.

I bring this up because, just as with the Laws of Power, there will be articles of Game, or foundations of intergender communication – complete with all of the underlying motivators – that Men (and women) will be uncomfortable accepting or employing to the point that it challenges some deep rooted emotional or ego investments. Let me be the first to establish that discomfort is part of understanding; truth is supposed to make you uncomfortable in order to inspire you to action.

I should also add here that even though you may not be comfortable in exercising a particular tactic or don’t feel confident in approaching an interpersonal situation in some way, it is still vital that you do understand the concepts and methodologies behind why those laws, principles, techniques, attitudes, etc. do work. You may have personal reasons for not wanting to involve yourself in some particular aspect of Game, but it’s imperative that you fully acknowledge the mechanics behind that aspect before you decide it’s not something you can employ. Declining to use a particular Law or aspect of Game doesn’t make you immune to the consequences of it, nor does it invalidate that aspect when others use it for their own benefit, and potentially to your own detriment.

Half the Battle

The primary (though not exclusive)  focus of this blog has been devoted to the critical analysis of the mechanics behind intergender dynamics, Game-practice, Game-theory, social and evolutionary psychology just to name a few. I can understand the want for practical applications of this field of study, and while in my line of work I have done my own ‘field testing’ with the majority of what I explore here, I have neither the time, opportunity or resources to develop practices beyond what I offer here. At least not to the degree of which the majority of my readers are able – and that’s the good news.

“This is brilliant stuff Rollo, but how do I use this to make my life better with the next girl I sarge, etc.?” This is a common desire from my readership, and the best I can offer is Knowing is Half the Battle. One size doesn’t fit all for everyone in Game or intergender relations. Anyone hawking a book giving you an instruction manual on how to have a great marriage or how to pick up chicks is still limited by their own individual experience. In other words, they’re not you.

It’s for exactly this reason I spend more time and critical thought on the foundations and functions of gender dynamism than pick up artistry. When I get associated with the “manipulative machiavellian Game gurus” it only serves to highlight an ignorance and lack of any depth of understanding what I focus on here. Game is psychology, sociology, economics, biomechanics, evolution and politics. Game is far broader than simple tricks and techniques. And it’s exactly the latent purpose of these applications (PUArtistry) and the mechanics behind their workings that threatens the ego-investments of those who’s feminized interests would rather see them marginalized and passed off as folly, or usefully ridiculed to shame the curious for fear that the underpinnings might be exposed.

Head in the Sand

Sweetening the poison doesn’t make it any less deadly.

I can remember a time in my mid-20s working as a stage tech for a casino cabaret show. The magic act I set up and struck every night involved a Bengal tiger and a black panther. Both of them were professionally handled by trainers, but even though they seemed the most docile of animals I knew they had the potential to seriously fuck me up under the wrong set of circumstances. The trainers would keep them at  distance from the rest of the cast and crew, only myself and one other tech were able to get close since we were the ones wheeling them out in special cages at their particular point in the show. One trainer told me, “the moment you think of them as pets is the moment they’ll go feral on you.”  They would play with these wild animals, and they seemed to have a special connection (almost like a pet), but when you watched them eat, you knew what they were capable of.

I learned a valuable lesson from this when one night I was wheeling the panther out to the curtain. She was in what was basically a reinforced acrylic aquarium on casters with a velvet cloth draped over it. A few minutes before my cue I’d thought the drape was falling to one side and lifted it to even it out. It was then that I was face to face with this “pet” in nothing but faint stage lights and about 4 inches of transparent acrylic between us. She looked at me with those yellow-green eyes and gave me a very low, almost muted growl and flashed just enough of her teeth to let me know this was not a “pet”.

It’s a mistake (and sometimes a fatal one) to ignore what you know is just under the surface. It’s comforting to believe that you’ve got a special connection, and while the conditions are right, you’ll preserve a relationship based on mutual trust and shared affinity. The flaw is in believing that trust, and kinship is unconditional; that the underlying feral motivators are subdued to the point of being inconsequential. It may be that you do have a special bond that goes beyond just the physical, but that relationship is still founded on physical rules that constantly test and influence that individual.

You know better, but the desire for that connection is so strong that you marginalize the natural impulses into feel-good rationalizations. Every divorced man I know has uttered some variation of “I never thought she was capable of this.” In their comfort they wondered how they dropped the ball, especially after having played by the rules for so long. Some knew about Hypergamy, others made it their “pet”, only their beautiful panther went feral.

Play My Game

It is a far healthier approach to accept the laws of power, the laws of Game, Hypergamy, etc. and fashion a life around an understanding of them than to convince oneself that they are an exception to them.

There are those who seek power by changing the game – by lowering the basketball hoops in order to better shoot a basket – but in ‘leveling the playing field’ they only succeed in changing the nature of the competition to better suit their individual abilities, neither improving the game nor themselves. The temporary change of rules only serves their inadequacies in that game.

Then there are those who accept the game for what it is, they understand it and they master it (or at least attempt to do so). They understand the need for adversity and the benefits it gives them when they reach the next level of mastering the game – not only in technique, but from the confidence this genuinely and verifiably confers.

Don’t wish things were easier, wish you were better.

It’s the aberration who seeks to legitimize her cheating at the game as the new way the game should be played. Shoot the arrow, paint the target around it, and you’ll always get a bullseye.


Moral to the Manosphere

Putting angel’s or devil’s wings on observations hinders real understanding.

I say that not because I don’t think morality is important in the human experience, but because our interpretations of morality and justice are substantially influenced by the animalistic sides of our natures, and often more than we’re willing to admit to ourselves. Disassociating one’s self from an emotional reaction is difficult enough, but adding layers of moralism to an issue only convolutes a better grasp of breaking it down into its constituent parts. That said, I also understand that emotion and, by degree, a sense of moralism is also characteristic of the human experience, so there needs to be an accounting of this into interpretations of issues that are as complex as the ones debated in the manosphere.

Although I’m aware that observing a process will change it, it’s my practice  not to draw moralistic conclusions in any analysis I make because it adds bias where none is necessary. The problem is that what I (and others in the manosphere) propose is so raw it offends ego-invested sensibilities in people. Offense is really not my intent, but often enough it’s the expected result of dissecting cherished beliefs that seem to contribute to the well being of an individual.

Let that sink in for a moment; the reason that what I propose seems nihilistic, cynical and conspiratorial is because it’s analytical without the varnish of morality. For example, when I wrote War Brides, it was in response to men’s common complaint of how deftly and relatively unemotionally women could transition into a new relationship after they’d been dumped by a GF or wife. I wanted to explore the reasons how and why this functioned, but from a moralistic perspective it is pretty fucked up that, due to hypergamy, women have an innate capacity to feel little compunction about divesting themselves emotionally from one man and move on to another much more fluidly than men. If I approach the topic in a fashion that starts with, “isn’t it very unjust and / or fucked up that women can move on more easily than men?” not only is my premise biased, but I’d be analyzing the moral implications of the dynamic and not the dynamic itself.

I always run the risk of coming off as an asshole because in analyzing things it’s my practice to strip away that moral veneer. It challenges ego-investments, and when that happens people interpret it as a personal attack because those ego-investments are uniquely attached to our personalities, and often our own well being. Although there’s many a critic on ‘team woman’ shooting venom from the hip as to my emphasis on the feminine here, don’t think that iconoclasm is limited to the fem-centric side of the field – I catch as much or more vitriol from the manosphere when I post something like Looks Count or Women’s Physical Standards and the importance women actually do place on a man’s physique.

If you choose to derive your personal value from some esoteric sense of what sex ‘should’ mean, more power to you, but I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s OK to want to fuck just for the sake of fucking – it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning. If you think it means something more, then that’s your own subjective perspective – even in marriage there’s ‘maintenance sex’ and there’s memorable, significant sex – but it’s a mistake to think that the totality of the physical act must be of some cosmic significance.

It is as equally unhealthy to convince oneself that self-repressions are virtues as it is to think that unfettered indulgences are freedoms. There is a balance.


Solipsistic Logic

OK, you know the drill,..stop, wait, don’t hit play just yet.

Before you think I’m being unusually cruel by posting this, try to pause a moment and observe the particulars of how Chelsea’s process works. Don’t assume I’m poking fun at all women; I’m using this as an illustration of process. She’s obviously not the sharpest tool in the drawer, and I can already hear the NAWALT echoes from the Matrix, but try to tune out the hilarity of this and understand how she constructs her reasoning here. It’s a fascinating insight into the approach average women use when calculating rational matters. I have no doubt that offended women will seek to dissociate themselves from this sort of ignorance, but I’m not focusing on ridicule here, I’m interested in the process.

From the beginning Chelsea can’t appear to have not given the topic its logical due diligence. So she’s has to prove an effort has been made on her part by offering a lengthy breakdown of how she figured it out. Watch any Sarah Palin interview and you’ll get the idea; it’s similar to having to show your work when doing a mathematical computation in school. After a lengthy analysis, “yeah, I dunno how you’d work that out.”

Next we move into the solipsistic logic that is women’s default when required to formulate a logical-sounding theory. Chelsea is kind enough to verbalize this for us; “if I run a mile in like,..9 minutes,..but when I’m really in shape, it’s like,..7 minutes,..when I’m really in shape, and that like takes me a mile. An I’m running at like 10 miles per hour, and that’s pretty fast for a human being,..”, however this is often an unspoken, subconscious process for women. As I’ve describe in past post, women’s solipsism and emotional wiring is generally the primary conduit through which problem solving and opinion formulation occurs. That’s not to say that women lack the capacity to be just as rational as men, but it is to say that this solipsistic logic is the innate filter that must be cognitively repressed when arriving at a rational solution to a problem.

To see this in action all a guy needs to do is read any manosphere comment thread to see the frequency with which women will apply their personal, anecdotal experiences to a situation and presume her experience is the global, universally applicable, reality.

Continuing,..once Chel realizes that her personal experience isn’t sufficient to adequately solve the problem she then resorts back to over-explanation of her process, only this time, with more variables added to hedge her bets for when she inevitably is proven uneducated in her assessments. This is called preemptive ego preservation. You see, at a certain point, once personalization and wordy analyzation proves fruitless in solving or misdirecting a solution, there needs to be footnotes and caveats pre-established  and readily available when the actual solution is provided. In fact a NAWALT (“not all women are like that”) retort is a prepackaged form of exactly this preemptive ego preservation.

And as you can see, when the actual verifiable solution is presented, she falls back on all of her previous methodologies at once, and includes her previous caveats in her defense in spite of the empirical evidence that disproves her “logic”.

Finally comes the accusations of error on the premises of the poser of the question,..

“you are not making sense, I make sense, you do not make sense…you don’t know the answer, you guestimate like I guestimate…”


“You’re such a nice guy,..”

I was once included in an interesting conversation about a certain group of women’s inability to find a “nice guy”. The 6 women were all very concerned with the state of contemporary men and the dearth of guys available to them now that felt they’d matured and needed to be appreciated for their readiness to settle down and start a family (see, post-wall, 35+ demographic).

“What is it with men these days? It’s like they’re all self-absorbed jerks now.”

“I know, but I think it’s just another indicator of how messed up society is now.”

“Yeah, why can’t I find a Nice guy? Is that too much to ask for?”

“Rollo, what happened to men? Where are all the Nice guys?”

 

“Back in your 20′s where you left them.”

 

The Nice Guy Space-Time Continuum

Girl age 16: “You’re such a nice guy.”

Translation: ” I don’t want to hurt your feelings, or come off as a bitch to my friends, but I’m really much more attracted to Bad Boys – outlaw bikers, the football team’s quarterback, basically any guy who appears dangerous and exciting. You’re Nice, nice and mundane”

Girl age 22: “You’re such a nice guy.”

Translation: “Thanks for listening on the phone to me cry, fall into verbal hysterics and drone on for hours about my Jerk BF (oh, and my little dog too). You’re really sweet, and deserve a girl  (which isn’t me) who can appreciate how nice (i.e. mundane) you are.”

Girl age 28: “You’re such a nice guy.”

Translation: “I know you’ve always been (an) my emotional tampon, and thanks for sticking with it – any sane guy would’ve found a far better prospect by now. And while I’m beginning to see that guys like you are stable, dependable and tend to make a lot more money than the Jerks I’ve dated, I think I’m gonna hold out for a hotter guy than you while my looks still hold up”

Woman age 32: “Why can’t I just find a nice guy?”

Woman age 35+: “You’re such a nice guy.”

Translation: “Oh, you’re a Nice Guy,..here, let me suck that for you. See? Being a Nice Guy does get you laid!,..thanks for being there for me when I needed you; my fatherless kids appreciate your generosity too. How chivalrous of you to forgive my past indiscretion and take us in, I wish there were more guys like you. I really pity the women who can’t appreciate your kind of dedication – you are so different from “other guys””.


Fidelity

I was recently asked by Die Hard to add my personal input regarding fidelity on SoSuave. Rather than post an overwritten essay on the forum I thought the broader readership might be interested in the discussion:

So you guys are married… Rollo recently told me he has never cheated on his wife and I’m pretty sure Slick and Back haven’t either.

My question is: Why?

Before you guys were married, you had (or would have had) absolutely no problem with spinning plates and banging several chicks at the same time. So why do you have a problem with it now? What ADVANTAGE does it bring you to be monogamous with your wife?

I constantly get asked this, “how can you propose the ideas you do and still be married?” It’s actually because of my marriage that I feel qualified to do so. On this blog and in my SoSuave posts I generally make a point not to include too much personal details about my individual experience; first because it contributes to bias in analysis, and second because it always comes off as self-aggrandizing in some respects. However, to answer your question I have to give you some background about myself, so I apologize in advance if it sounds like I’m glossing myself here.

A Brief History

I was a stereotypical, but extroverted beta in my adolescence. I got played and/or rejected constantly until my senior year. I got laid for the first time at 17 with really the first girl who’d be my “girlfriend”. I literally rearranged my life to accommodate us having regular sex, to the point that I would travel from one end of L.A. to another by bus over a weekend. I wont bore you with the beta details, but suffice to say it didn’t end well.

It was after this that my 20 y.o. mind decided I liked getting laid more than I liked playing up to the Nice guy bullshit that got me raked over the coals with my “girlfriend”. I was already playing in bands at that stage and the Hollywood metal scene of the late 80′s and early 90′s was just begging me to come play and at 21 I was finally old enough to realize it.

I was a kid in a candy store. Rail thin, long blonde hair down to my ass, playing in two very popular bands and opening for national acts, doing session playing for Paramount TV shows occasionally; by 22 it was so easy to bang women I didn’t even consider trying to get with them. I had Game at the time, but it was the unpracticed default Game that comes from the confidence in knowing you have instant social proof and women will approach you. Which was funny because for most of it I was flat broke, but somehow managed to have women buy me drinks and all kinds of ‘gifts’ to offset that.

Of the 40+ women I’ve banged, about 38 of them were during the times I was between the age of 21 and 25. And there were all kinds of women; mostly the club sluts that guys in the community like to complain about, but also some nice Latinas, two MILFs (one was a manager for the band I was in), one brief single mother, two strippers, a nice church girl, even a Vietnamese girl who could fuck like a Tasmanian Devil. I had them as young as 17 and as old as 45 . Blondes, brunettes, redheads, big tits, small tits, one fatty, one coke addict, a girl with an MBA, and several from community college. I didn’t give the girls who’d rejected me in high school an afterthought. I was doing naturally what I later came to understand was spinning plates.

It got so easy I could walk into a club in another state, where no one even knew me and could still pull top shelf ass that most guys only whacked off to porn over. But all that came crashing down when I met the BPD psychotic girl I mention here. This was the real test of my true beta-ness, I wanted her to be my ‘dream girl’ but she was the daughter of Satan. Every high I was experiencing at that time turned into the lowest misery I could’ve imagined. It was a living hell, but one I wanted to be in. I had opportunities to get away, I had other women still throwing themselves at me for a time, but I wanted that BPD to be ‘the ONE’.

It was at that lowest point that I knew what it was like to be lower than a beta, I was an abject omega with her.

It wasn’t until mercifully after 4 years that I extracted myself from her web of neurosis, that I gradually transformed myself back into an adult Alpha mindset. I changed my mind about myself and got back on my feet by putting myself first.

Afterlife

In the time before I met Mrs. Tomassi, I’d been the cheater, and the cheated. I banged other guy’s women on GNOs, I’ve had sex with girls within 2 hours of meeting them. And I got cheated on and LDR cuckolded by the BPD girl. I’ve done all of that. A lot of guys drop the line that they’re monogamous because they’re sick of the game, but they never really experienced that game. They settle because they’d rather trade mundane ‘sure thing’ sex for risking more real rejection. From my personal perspective I laugh at this rationalization – especially when I hear a guy married for 3 or 4 years tell me how he’s tempted to cheat on his wife or wonder what banging this new girl would be like if only he hadn’t married so early. They can’t escape the nagging doubt that their lives could’ve been something different if only they’d held out longer.

I think it’s vitally important for guys to ‘get it out of their system’ and experience women in as visceral, emotional and practical a way as possible before even considering monogamy. A lot of my critics like to say, “well we can’t all be like Rollo and get everything right” but I profess what I do because I got more things wrong. I attribute the success of my marriage to having gone through what I did in my 20′s.

When I was considering proposing to Mrs. Tomassi the one overarching concern I had wasn’t about pre-qualifying her for some laundry list of wifely qualities I had in my head. My first thought was “is she someone I can remain faithful to?” That was my primary concern, is she someone I’ll just cheat on? I know me, I’ve seen me do it. I got lucky in that for 15+ years she’s been a great wife, mother and companion, but honestly I wanted a woman who would keep my sexual interest in perpetuity. She’s much more than this, but in all honesty I wanted a woman to stay as hot and sexually available as possible for the longest time possible. Call that shallow if you like, but I’ve never cheated on her in over 16 years because she has, and in my line of work the opportunities are always there.

Infidelity

What most people don’t understand about infidelity is that, for cheating to occur two primary elements must be present – cause and opportunity. Women tend to get caught up in the minutiae of cheating because it stokes their need for indignation; even vicariously through their girlfriends they’d rather wallow in the chemical rush that jealousy, suspicion and betrayal induce for them. Guys do too to an extent, but I think they focus more on the loss of the investment, especially the emotional investment. What both fail to see is the reasoning behind that act of infidelity.

Most men never cheat simply because they don’t have an opportunity to do so. Either they’re not in the correct environment or they just lack Game or aren’t attractive enough to really be a consideration for cheating with. These are the guys who’ll self-righteously declare how proud they are of their convictions in remaining faithful to their wives, when in fact they make their necessity a virtue due to circumstance. When you look at how most infidelity progresses it’s often prompted by the proximity of a willing partner. Opportunity is circumstantial.

Cause to cheat is much more complex. For men it’s often a feeling of not being appreciated, but more so than this is their wife’s lack of sexual interest or their own lack of interest in her because she devolved into something they never thought she would. As I stated before, if you don’t know what you’re missing, you’ll think you’re missing out. I know a disproportionate number of men who’ve cheated as the result of having cashed in on their potential in exchange for the ‘safety’ they thought marriage offered.

There are plenty of men with ample cause to cheat, but never do because they simply lack any real option to do so. That may not be enough for some men and they’ll extend that cause into creating their own options to do so; they hit up a prostitute, or put themselves into situations where they could cheat. Then there are guys like me who have plenty of opportunity to cheat as part of their work, but don’t because they don’t have any real cause to motivate them.

I’d love to speak from some Pollyanna, Promise Keeper’s moral high ground, but I really don’t have a reason to cheat.  That isn’t to say I haven’t been tempted, but in the back of my head I know I’ve nailed some comparative girl in my past. I don’t dwell on wondering what it would be like to bang one of my ‘pour girls’ or the hot receptionist at one of our distributors, because I fondly recall fucking a girl who looked like her 20 years ago. For me, one of the benefits of having lived plate theory (albeit inadvertently) is knowing I climbed that mountain a while ago.

Yes, I love my wife, we have a mutual respect, and were are a good fit, but I don’t feel crushing guilt for finding some other woman attractive. In fact Mrs. Tomassi tells me that when I stop looking at hot women, that’s the day she’ll start to worry. For the last 16 years she’s been someone I could be faithful to. My wife trusts me implicitly; in fact she’s been the inspiration of, or planted the germ of an idea in me about a lot of post topics most of my readers would find surprising. In 2010 I left for a product launch in Aruba. I was surrounded by stunning women, not one of which could be rated lower than an HB8.5. They had put me up in one of the best suites in the hotel. When I told Mrs. Tomassi I’d be gone for 4 days in Aruba she said, “if you’re gonna do any fishing there you’ll need to bring extra cash”. How many married men do you know whose wives would’ve gone ballistic over even the consideration of doing that? How many men’s wives would “forbid” him to go?

Advantages

You also asked if  there’s a particular advantage to monogamy that can’t be achieved in spinning plates, and besides having raised a whip-smart, beautiful, honor-roll-student, 13 y.o. daughter, not really. Does that sound odd or callous? It probably does because I don’t think a comparison of advantage to disadvantage in either lifestyle is really an issue. I think they’re two different ways of living and one is not necessarily better than the other – just different for different people at different phases in life. For the record I’m not anti-marriage, I’m anti-never-saw-it-coming-pollyana-how-could-she-do-this-to-me?-hypergamy’s-a-bitch marriage.

Do I know that marriage is a racket and puts a man legally and socially at an extreme disadvantage? Yes. Am I aware of the divorce fraud industry? Yes. Do I understand that for a woman to achieve her sexual imperatives I necessarily must sacrifice my own? I’ve written volumes about it. Do I know that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to ensure her sexual imperatives? You need to ask? So why get married?

Before he died, I can remember a conversation I had with my father where I was asking him about why he married my mom. I could never get a straight answer out of him, but he wasn’t being elusive. I was younger and unmarried then, now that I’m older I think I understand that he was telling me the truth when he said “It seemed like a good idea at the time.” He honestly thought he and my mother could make a life together when they got married in their mid 20s.

The reason I asked him was because I knew virtually nothing about their courtship and how such disparate personalities could come together and thus have me. He passed away back in September of 2010 and I rooted through his old photo albums with my mom. Here was this life my father lived in these photos that I had no inkling of. Shots of my parents years before my brother and I even came into existence. Lots of shots from their sailing days in the early 60s, friends whom I had never heard mention of, and an early life where no children were present. Just from perusing these shots I got a whole new perspective of my old man. He was in love with my mom, my mother who’d left the family in the mid 70s. They divorced when I was about 8 I think, and since then I’ve only ever known them as separate entities.

I think if most guys are honest with themselves, on some level they buy the idea that they and some idyllic woman can live out a plan or be happy together for a lifetime. I honestly couldn’t tell you why I proposed to Mrs. Tomassi. I wasn’t forced by pregnancy or emotionally coerced by some BPD’s neurosis. I can only echo my Dad’s words now, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.” I still do, and I’m not naive to knowing what could happen, and that women are fully capable of betraying a man after 20 years of marriage. There is no security in marriage.

Men are the true romantics, not women. They talk a good game, but it’s men who are the real slaves to romanticism. It’s men who conceive every romantic gesture. Mrs. Tomassi wears the wedding ring my father picked out for my mom all those years ago. The back story is kind of lost on her, she just loves the ring and life goes on. We want to believe in the fairy tale. We want to believe we’ll be the exception against all odds and every horror story. My father was probably the most uninspired man you’d ever meet when it came to women. He was very analytical, he was very ordered in his life, but he was also a hopeless savior for the women in his life. I wouldn’t call him a White Knight; he was much too rational for chivalry, but he did what he did because even he, the staunch atheist, believed marriage could make you happy. At some point my old man looked at that ring in the jewelry store and thought “yeah, that’s a good one, I could see that on my wife.”


Man’s Last Stand

TV is for women.

It’s that time again gentlemen, all the splendor, the fanfare, the pomp and circumstance that makes the NFL one of the last bastions of American manhood – Super Bowl Sunday! You’ve earned it boys, today is YOUR day, ordained by the divine creator himself (why else would it be on a Sabbath?) to be reserved for beer, brats and belly-bucks. A day dedicated to unapologetic testosterone fueled manhood. We are MEN hear us belch,..pshhhhhhhht,..click,….

Hey, woah! Wait a minute,.. I WEAR PANTS! What the fuck? Who are these neckbeard herbs singing to in the middle of nowhere? These aren’t men they’re,..schlubs,.. Howie, Terry, Shannon, somebody, tell Dockers that the Super Bowl is for MEN,..no more of this crap OK? We need something masculine like a car commercial, yeah hit us with a muscle car,…pshhhhhhht, click,..

Yeaaaah,..nice sound of horsepow,.. Heyyyy,..wait a minute,…what the hell was all that crap about putting the toilet seat down? Clean up the sink after I shave? Carry your lip balm? Hey, I’m starting to get a funny feeling that maybe I’m being pandered to here,…lets see,…how about another car?…pshhhhhhht, click,..

Yep, definitely being pandered to here. It’s almost as if these advertisers know my wife is watching the Super Bowl with me,……pshhhhhhht, click,..

Wow,..I can’t take it anymore,..can someone just get me a beer? Please? A beer? They can’t possibly ruin a good T&A beer commercial,………pshhhhhhht, click,..

The above dramatization, while humorously inspired, was meant to illustrate a point that many in the manosphere will already be sensitive to, but far too few men are even aware of. One, perhaps unavoidable, problem advertisers have faced since the rise of overt feminization is the difficulty in reaching a male-centric audience in a female-centric society. Women are universally known as the primary consumers across virtually all demographics that matter to modern marketing efforts.

Women buy shit, and they buy shit in such volume and with such predictable patterns and frequency that it eclipsed men’s purchasing habits – and specific marketing efforts – over 2 decades ago. There are literally generations of advertisers and marketers who’ve never known a culture that wasn’t solitarily focused on and directed by the feminine imperative.

This has created a unique challenge for advertisers in this century in tapping into that male-centric marketing. Advertisers see untapped dollars in a male market, but how do they reach the male demographic in a media culture that’s ridiculed them for the last 40 years and praised the feminine above all else in that time? The natural answer is not to market to men at all, but rather the women they’re dependent upon to make the purchasing decisions for them.

You will rarely have a more blatant opportunity to experience this female-as-male purchasing dynamic than by watching the multi-million dollar commercial buys during Super Bowl Sunday. I would caution against Men in the manosphere simply attributing these spots to an ignorant misandry rampant in the advertising world. That’s the easy answer. Even your average plugged-in guy can see the male ridicule, but what’s more important is to recognize the method in the misandry. For instance in the Dove For Men commercial, we have a uniquely male, parodied experience coupled with a call to action to purchase Dove body wash – a product few men would buy for themselves. However the target audience for this commercial is the wives and women – the primary purchasers – in men’s lives to buy the product for them. Can’t reach the male demo? Get his Mommy wife to buy him what he needs.

Advertisers are also cleverly making plays to a shame based  Male Catch 22 – Man Up or Shut Up dynamic. As in the Dodge Charger ad, men are uniquely EXPECTED to suffer through a lifetime of servile misery to benefit women, but his reward is her allowing him to drive the car of his choice. Most women aren’t going to directly purchase a car for their husbands, but the inflection in this commercial is that her influence is what makes this car a reward for him.

If you ever had doubts about the veracity of the female-centric social Matrix we live in today, pay attention to the commercials you watch during the game on Sunday. Don’t take the content of the commercials at face value; that’s what women will do. Instead, ask yourself why did the producers choose that particular type of male to play in the spot? What’s the social message behind the commercial? What gender dynamics do the producers assume will resonate with their target audience? You may think this is over-analytical, but trust me, when a company drops $2M on a Super Bowl spot, they’ve put far more analysis into it than I can cover in a blog post.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,614 other followers