Category Archives: Iron Rules

May 11, 2012

Coquetry

By Rollo Tomassi

I generally avoid troubling myself with the blatantly girl-world propaganda advice articles over at AskMen.com, but I had a friend refer this article to me. It’s the same predictable boilerplate reasoning I’ve come to expect from the Hooking Up Beta crowd when discussing the merits of Waiting for It. Side note: please do read the short bio of Giulia Simolo for an enlightening brief on what makes for a good ‘relationship correspondent’.

All this article does is reinforce the feminine as the primary sexual interest. As is the default pre-position of every solipsistic woman giving advice, every point she makes presumes the woman is the PRIZE. So lets break this down from a less orthodox presumption:

Waiting Creates Anticipation
Anticipation is already present from the moment you and she feel arousal for each other. Attraction isn’t a choice, and anticipation isn’t something “created” by intent. Trust me, no girl making you wait is thinking, “Oh I just want him to savor this delightful anticipation.”

Waiting Creates Challenge
Yeah, for you. I love how the feminine rationale is that it’s the Man who’s given the opportunity of creating the challenge, when in fact it’s classically been a woman’s realm for millennia to play the coquette. Who are we bullshitting here?

Waiting Shows You Don’t Think She’s A Slut
The only gender concerned with being perceived as a slut is women. Once again, feminine primacy. Every man loves a slut, he just wants her to be HIS slut. The importance is less about his perception of her being a slut and more about her self-concern about her moving past the thinking she’s one. When it comes to sex, single women filibuster with concerns about slut status, when in an LTR they filibuster with concerns about “feeling sexy” – in both instances sex is always about her, not you.

Waiting Keeps YOU Interested.
And again, feminine primacy. For centuries, nothing has served women better than an implied promise of future sexual release with her. The longer you stay in a state of suspended sexual interest, the less time and opportunity you’ll have to weigh other, better, options than what she may represent. However, you can only shake the shiny keys for so long before someone else shakes their own and draws attention away.

Waiting Shows You’re A Gentleman
Qualification for her pussy. Women don’t want to fuck gentlemen, they want to fuck Men who are sexual and have a mutual, covertly recognized desire to bang her.

Waiting Gives You Time To Evaluate Her
The only thing most men are evaluating about a woman they haven’t slept with is HOW to sleep with her. This may sound like logic, but it’s really an unassailable idealism meant to compliment a man’s ego. It’s complimentary; of course you’re a well rounded man of the world who’d be interested in qualifying her for your intimacy, you’re mature and experienced enough to know what’s best for you, right? Women ALWAYS play by the rules when they’re relaxed and show you their true colors while you’re waiting to fuck them. They’re incapable of hiding their character flaws in the time it takes for you to wait her out sexually, right?

Good Things Come To Those Who Wait
And of course what girl-world article would be complete without a trite aphorism at the end? At least we get down to brass tacks. She is the PRIZE. The carrot really is worth the effort of towing the feminine primacy cart. Play her filibuster games and there’s a nice piece of chocolate cake at the end of it for you. It’s the same piece of cake the outlaw biker got about 8 months ago due to her hormonally fueled urgency to fuck him immediately, but she’s turning over a new leaf with you. She’s trying to do things different now with you, because you’re really the ‘special’ one.

Coquetry

I was skimming through the Art of Seduction last night and I came across a passage there that reminded me of this article. The section was about coquetry. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, playing the coquette is by and large the natural (some would argue ‘unlearned’) default method of seduction for women; going from hot to cold, interest to feigned disinterest, the promise of fantastic sex and then a complete disconnected indifference. That is coquetry, and it hardly needs to be taught to women since for thousands of years it’s proven to be so effective in covertly drawing out what they want in men. As I’ve said in many prior posts, a woman’s best agency is always her sexuality. It’s their first best key to power over men (which explains why it’s so distressing for women as it decays with age).

What this article is attempting to do is convince men that they can play an effective coquette too – essentially adopt a female seduction method. While there is some merit in adopting female seduction methodologies (i.e. “flip-the-script” Game), when promoted by women giving men advice, the premise is disingenuous on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin with it. However, after re-reading it I can see the mechanics behind it. The idea is to draw men into thinking that they are the ones doing the resisting, when in fact they are only better playing into a woman’s coquetry and ultimately better facilitating the methods of her innate hypergamy.

The principle is this: the one who is doing the resisting is the one who is controlling the dynamic. It comes back to The Cardinal Rule of Relationships

In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.

The trick to feminine coquetry is incrementally rewarding her target(s) with marginal intimacy while simultaneously resisting him enough to keep him in the limbo necessary for her to assess the best options for breeding and provisioning from a pool of potential suitors.

Now, why would a woman want to do this? The polite answers, the pretty lies, are found in the bullet points in this article. Each of which is intended to convince men to play along with her coquetry (feminine seduction) and better facilitate the real function of her coquetry – sexual selection from amongst her best options (i.e. hypergamy). If a man can be convinced that it’s in fact he who is doing the resisting, for all the noble and acceptable reasonings, it only makes her coquetry easier.

Coquetry is a woman’s socially approved methodological equal of Plate Theory for men. And just like Plate Spinning, it requires a woman to keep a covert stable of potential suitors in rotation. They can’t implicitly know about each other. If they did, she runs the risk of them losing interest in frustration. So, how much the better if a Man is an active participant in her own coquetry? How much the better when he believes it’s his own idea to be his own coquette?

In Iron Rule #3 the reason I said waited-for sex is never worth the wait is because it reduces sexual tension and urgency. It’s essentially negotiated desire – “OK well play by your rules and fuck when you’re finally convinced that I’m worthy of your vagina.” By playing your own coquette, you may think you’re drawing her into YOUR web and she’ll be a foaming hot mess for you by the time YOU “allow” her to ride your cock, but you’re only fooling yourself. Assuming you even get to actual sex with her, it’s still her who’s doing the resisting, and now your sex is based on the implied negotiation you agreed to by waiting her out. And what were you waiting for? Her to come to the conclusion that she couldn’t do better than fuck you in the immediate future.

Every chump in human history has, in different versions, thought he was doing the right thing by playing the friend, waiting patiently, building comfort and trust, being a gentleman, being emotionally supportive and sensitive to a woman’s desires in the interim times when she’s not riding the Alpha Bad Boy’s cock. Women who are interested in you wont confuse you. If you are her “A” guy she wont make you wait (very long) to get after it with you. If she’s delaying and filibustering, rest assured you are her “B” or “C” guy, and she needs negotiated convincing to bump you up to being her starter.

32 Comments | posted in Hypergamy, Idealizations, Inter-gender Communication, Iron Rules, The Feminine Imperative

May 7, 2012

Ultimatum

By Rollo Tomassi

A comment on the Iron Rule of Tomassi #4

Rollo mentioned that once a woman gets into a cohabitating situation, that her sexual availability markedly decreases. It seems to me that so long as the man is able to give and act out the ultimatum that “either I get a sexually satisfying relationship or I’m out (or you’re out, if it’s my place)”, then there should be no problem.

Sure, there are financial and legal entanglements, but this would be akin to dead money on any investment – sure it hurts, but that’s the risk one takes. And in the case of a lease, the man could always take the attitude that he wants out, and is only living in the apartment because he is on the lease (he could always go back to his available bachelor days.)

Interesting you used the word “ultimatum” here. It’s important that you understand what an ultimatum implies. Whenever a person delivers an ultimatum, always understand that this is a declaration of powerlessness. In other words, “I am so out of control in this circumstance you must do this or I will remove either myself or you from the circumstance.”

First off, in this particular instance it’s far more likely that you’ll be the one leaving considering the preference modern legalities give women today with regard to evicting them from such a situation. Secondly, it only confirms for her what she wants to know, that she is your one and ONLY source of sexual intimacy and by you cohabiting with her, emotionally, financially and logistically it makes it almost impossible for you to really make good on your ultimatum. You only consolidate her sexual monopoly by living with her.

I’ve already gone into all the practical reasons as to why a guy should never move in with a woman in Iron Rule #4, but I think it may be better to ask yourself why you do want to move in with her. What are you benefitting from in this situation that you aren’t by remaining independent of each other? For most guys the fantasy is more accessible sex, but if you’re living as you suggest here already, how is living together any different? And even if this were the case, that you had more sex with her by living together, you are still assuming a greater degree of responsibility, accountability and liability in your relationship and in your day to day life in exchange for that sexual accessibility. How is that an advantage? How is that not like marriage anyway?

As I’ve stated in the prior posts, when you commit to ANYTHING – women, career, education, family, etc. – you necessarily lose options and your ability to maneuver in taking advantage of them.

Ultimatums

Ultimatums are declarations of powerlessness because you are resorting to a direct threat to get someone to do what you want them to, and in doing so you OVERTLY confess your weak position. If you were in a genuine position of control it wouldn’t be necessary to resort to an ultimatum; you’d simply use that control. There are many ways to effect a change in another person, but ultimatums will never prompt a genuine change. If they change behavior it’s prompted by the threat, not unprompted, organic desire.

One of the primary tenets of my Game philosophy is that true desire cannot be negotiated. A natural, unsolicited desire state, unmitigated by obligation or concerns for resources exchange, is the ideal basis for any intergender relationship. Any factors that introduce elements that hinder this genuine desire – exchange, negotiations, obligations, reciprocity, etc. – weaken this desire and weaken the relationship. Delivering an ultimatum is the most direct, overt way to introduce exactly these elements into a relationship.

Now you might say that an ultimatum is implied in how you stated this it to her, or the context it was in. If this was your intent, you are still in a position of powerlessness since you are still trying to get this person to do what you want. It’s not what you can do to her (i.e. withdrawing your attentions) that’s the power issue, but the actual desired result, getting her to genuinely have a desire to do what she has no desire to do.

I should also add that ultimatums are, ultimately, self-defeating. You can keep your dog from running off by chaining him in the yard, but that dog still wants to run off. You cannot effect a genuine change of desire with an ultimatum as your relationship will be founded on that threat. And this is the real power issue; that you’d want a person to conform to your desire so badly that you’d use a threat to effect it in spite of the foreknowledge that it can never be a genuine conformation because they didn’t orginate it and did so only under duress.

So from your standpoint, yes you do have the power to affect your own actions (like walking away), but you are powerless to force her to do what you want (prompt a genuine desire in her), thus you resort to an ultimatum and only illustrate this OVERTLY.

Boundaries

It’s very important to make the distinction between setting boundaries and delivering ultimatums. Men with a head for absolutisms seem to think that avoiding ultimatums is the same as spinelessly avoiding laying down the law and setting the frame for a relationship (or even a particular plate they’re spinning). Establishing boundaries and assuming frame requires exemplification and demonstration. As with the 9th Law of Power: Win Through Your Actions, Never through Argument – demonstrate, do not explicate. There is no more overt an explication than your delivering an ultimatum. Ultimatums only lead to behavioral shifts based on the fear of repercussions, never a genuine desire for that behavior.

However, a continuous demonstration of what you necessitate in a relationship is vital to its health and your continued primacy of frame. Telling a woman what’s what or else often smacks of insecurity and childishness, but a firm discussion-less enacting of what is important to you and necessary for any future relationship viscerally teaches her what is expected by experiencing the very repercussions you ultimatum would only advertise to her.

34 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Idealizations, Inter-gender Communication, Iron Rules

January 13, 2012

Just Be Yourself

By Rollo Tomassi

We are who we say we are.

Is the woman who applies make up everyday ‘being herself”? How about the woman with implants, is she ‘being herself’? What about the woman wearing high heels becasue it boosts her height 4 inches? Is the girl you see in nothing but party pics on FaceBook being herself? Lets turn it the other way, what of the woman wearing a business suit that emphasizes her shoulders with pads in the jacket is she ‘being herself’? If she colors her hair does this make her less genuine?

If being ourselves is an idealized state then I should reasonably be able to expect a like-minded fitness model to be attracted to me even if my greatest passion is to sit on my couch, eat a large pizza and wash it down with a 6 pack of Michelob while watching Monday Night Football, right? After all, I am just being myself – it’s who I am.

Believe and so you shall become

The hardest distinction the uninitiated have with the JBY (just be yourself) dynamic is that personality is malleable. Personality is always in flux. The person you are today isn’t who you were 2 years ago, nor the person you’ll be 2 years from now. There are traits and characteristics we may carry with us for a lifetime, but even these are subject to change depending upon circumstance. You define what being yourself is at any given moment and it’s relative to your personal conditions and environment. So where do you draw the line? When does a genuine change of character become legitimate rather than being ‘shallow’ or ‘superficial’? Those are just catch terms that women (and too many chumps) have used with success over the centuries and men have internalized as being states of perception that women think are undesirable, yet they never accurately define. Rather, they stay intentionally ambiguous and relative to an individual woman’s interpretation, while their behaviors indicate their own motivations.

You are who you believe you are, and you are who she perceives you to be.

One of the hardest things for anyone, male or female, to hear is that they need to change their lifestyle because it implies that their just ‘being themselves’ is in some way at fault for their present conditions. It’s analogous to telling someone they’re not living their lives ‘correctly’ or that they’re raising their kids wrong. If I have a friend that is shooting heroin and I actively encourage him to stop and make an effort to help him ‘clean up’, society calls me a hero or a savior. When I encourage my friend to quit smoking before she gets cancer, I’m a concerned good-friend helping my friend with a health risk behavior. But when I tell a friend he needs to change his approach to women and this is a reason for his unhappiness and he needs to change his outlook on, and approach with women, look better and feel better, then I’m a ‘shallow’ prick and insensitive to his ‘problem’. Worse still is even attempting to offer constructive criticism, in as positive a light possible, that a person can improve themselves by changing their outlook and modifying their behavior.

Personality is not only malleable, but it can change dramatically under specific conditions. An easy example of this is veterans with post traumatic stress disorder. These men were exposed to traumatic environments that fundamentally altered their personalities. While this is an extreme illustration it proves that becoming a ‘different person’ is a matter of conditions. If my conditions are such that I enjoy sitting at home eating a whole pizza, washing it down with a six pack of Budweiser and watching Anime on a Friday evening, can I realistically expect that hot fitness instructor at the gym to come on over and genuinely want to fuck my brains out? And why not? After all I’m only being myself and she should “love me for who I am”, right? If this were my case, the conditions that define my personality are incongruous with attracting and/or maintaining a relationship with someone whose conditions are not my own.

JBY is an operative social convention that aids hypergamy.

Women are only too happy to endorse and reinforce JBY for the conscious reasoning that it ‘sounds like the right thing to say’. It’s an unassailable position; who wouldn’t want you to be you? If what counts is all on the inside then anyone telling you to change MUST be manipulating you for their own selfish reasons. This dovetails nicely into the popularized fat-acceptance self-acceptance mantra most women will fall back on when the impact of the Wall begins to manifest itself in their physiques and they want to be loved for “who they are” rather than what they used to look like. However, on a subconscious level, the latent purpose of fostering the JBY social convention in men is yet another sexual selection filtering mechanism. Actually it’s more of a filtering failsafe in that by socially mandating a genuineness in the general populace of men, women are more secure in the accuracy of their sexual assessment of men. If all men are Just Being Themselves and are encouraged to be the person they ‘truly are’, this then aids a woman in determining which man will best satisfy her hypergamy.

As I’ve stated in many a prior post, women claim to want honesty from men, but no woman wants full disclosure. In a general sense I advise this because it serves to sustain a Man’s aura of mystery, only to be progressively discovered by women with the appropriate levels of interest and responsiveness to men. However, another reason to remain deliberately ambiguous is to defuse the JBY dynamic that women assume would be a man’s default psychology.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #8

Always let a woman figure out why she wont ƒuck you, never do it for her.

An integral part of maintaining the feminine imperative as the societal imperative involves keeping women as the primary sexual selectors. As I’ve detailed in many prior comments and posts, this means that a woman’s sexual strategy necessitates that she be in as optimized a condition as her capacity (attractiveness) allows for her to choose from the best males available to satisfy that strategy.

JBY is a tool in maintaining the feminine imperative as the social imperative. Furthermore JBY serves in optimizing hypergamy in aiding a woman’s sense of security about assessing which man will best suit her hypergamy. Ironically, the JBY dynamic gets upended once a monogamous relationship is established by a woman’s anxiety for ‘fixing’ her partner once in that relationship. What was once the pseudo-genuineness of just him being himself is replace by “I’m working on him” in order for him to become the ideal man to meet with her hypergamic approval – thus exposing the calculated nonsense JBY really is to begin with.

We are who we say we are

We can alter our own personalities and have them altered by our conditions or any combination of the two, but to suggest that personality is static is a falsehood. The trap is to think that altering personality is in anyway disingenuous – there are certainly teriffic ‘actors’ or ‘poseurs’, and the like, that when we are confronted with them we sense (or even know) that they are pushing an envelope that they may not be entirely comfortable with, but there is merit to a ‘fake it till you make it’ doctrine. We only percieve it as being ‘false’, ‘superficial’ or as “trying to be something your not” when we have a concept or knowledge of a previous set of personality behaviors. If you met a likable cocky-funny guy at a club this weekend, how are you to know whether he’s the real deal or stretching the limits of his personality if you’ve never met him before?

Law 25: Re-Create Yourself 
Do not accept the roles that society foists on you. Re-create yourself by forging a new identity, one that commands attention and never bores the audience. Be the master of your own image rather than letting others define it for you. Incorporate dramatic devices into your public gestures and actions— your power will be enhanced and your character will seem larger than life.

47 Comments   |  tags: , , | posted in Iron Rules, Operative Social Conventions, Social Conventions

January 5, 2012

A League of Your Own

By Rollo Tomassi

“Rollo, I’m newly Game-aware, red pill guy and I’ve been meeting girls with more and more success since my conversion, but I can’t help the feeling that the really hot girls I want to get with a so out of my league. 

Any suggestions?”

Iron Rule of Tomassi #8

Always let a woman figure out why she wont ƒuck you, never do it for her.

An integral part of maintaining the feminine imperative as the societal imperative involves keeping women as the primary sexual selectors. As I’ve detailed in many prior comments and posts, this means that a woman’s sexual strategy necessitates that she be in as optimized a condition as her capacity (attractiveness) allows for her to choose from the best males available to satisfy that strategy.

This is really the definition of hypergamy, and on an individual level, I believe only the most plugged in of men don’t realize this to some degree of consciousness. However, what I think escapes a lot of men is the complex nature of hypergamy on a social scale. For hypergamy to sustain it’s dominant position as the default sexual strategy for our society, it’s necessary for the feminine imperative to maintain existing, foster new, and normalize complex social conventions that serve it. The scope of these conventions range from the individualized psychological conditioning early in life to the grand scale of social engineering (e.g. Feminism, Religion, Government, etc.)

One of these social conventions that operates in the spectrum of the personal to the societal is the idea of ‘leagues’. The fundamental idea that Social Matching Theory details is that “All things being equal, an individual will tend to be attracted to, and are more likely to pair off with, another individual who is of the same or like degree of physical attractiveness as themselves.” In a vacuum, this is the germ of the idea behind the ‘leagues’. The social convention of ‘leagues’ mentality is where ‘all things are not equal’ and used to support the feminine imperative, while conveniently still supporting the principle of social matching theory.

The latent function of ‘leagues’ is to encourage men to filter themselves out for women’s intimate approval.

As social conditions progress and become more complex, so too do men’s ability to mimic the personal attributes of providership and security. In other words, lesser men become intelligent enough to circumvent women’s existing sexual filters and thus thwart their sexual strategy. These ever increasing complexities made it hard to identify optimally suitable men from the pretenders, and women, being the primary sexual selector, needed various social constructs to sort the wheat from the chaff. With each subsequent generation they couldn’t be expected to do all of this detective work on their own so the feminine imperative enlisted the aid of the men themselves and created self-perpetuated, self-internalized social doctrines for men to comply with in order to exist in a feminine defined society.

The concept of leagues is just one of these doctrines. Your self-doubt about your worthiness of a woman’s intimacy stems from a preconditioned idea that ‘you’re out of her league’. The booster club optimist idea that “if you think you can’t, you’re right” is true, and boundless enthusiasm may overcome some obstacles, but to address the source of the disease it’s more important to ask yourself why you’ve been taught to think you can’t. A lot of approach anxiety comes from your own self-impression – Am I smooth, hot, affluent, funny, confident, interesting, decisive, well-dressed enough to earn an HB 9’s attention? How about an HB 6? Our great danger is not that we aim too high and fail, but that we aim too low and succeed.

I’m not debating the legitimacy of the evaluative standards of the sexual market place – it’s a harsh, often cruel reality – what I’m really trying to do is open your eyes as to why you believe you’re only meritorious of an HB 7. Looks count for a lot, as does Game, affluence, personality, talent, etc. but is your self-estimation accurate, or are you a voluntary participant in your own self-devaluation in the SMP courtesy of the leagues mentality the feminine imperative would have you believe?

The Economy of the League

As I stated above the purpose of fomenting a stratified League mentality in men serves to autonomously filter the lesser from the greater men for women to chose from, however, it also functions to increase the valuation of the feminine as a commodity. Like any great economic entity, the feminine imperative lives and dies by its ability to inflate its value in the marketplace. Essentially the feminine imperative is a marketeer. One of the sad ironies of this, and the last, century is that the feminine imperative has attempted to base women’s SMP valuation on a collective importance to the detriment of the individual woman’s SMV. For men this is inverted; a man’s sexual valuation is primarily individualized, while men as a collective gender are devaluated in the SMP.

What I mean by this is that, as a collective entity women’s sexuality cannot afford to be perceived as anything less than the more valued prize. If all vaginas are considered the gold standard then men’s sexual default value will always be lower. By this definition men, on whole, are out of women’s league.

For further consideration lets assume that average men, most being varying degrees of beta, are blessed with the ‘miraculous gift’ of an average woman’s sexual attentions. The power dynamic is already pre-established to defer to a feminine frame, so it’s small wonder that men would be prone to ONEitis even with an objectively average woman. This is the intent of the League schema – to unobjectively predispose men to commitment with women who under objective condition couldn’t enjoy the same selectivity. Roissy once postulated that for a healthy relationship to exist the Man must be recognized by the woman to be 1-2 points above her own SMV. This is a pretty tall order considering the feminine imperative’s emphasis on women’s sexuality being the more valued as default. And this is  to say nothing of contemporary women’s overinflated self-evaluations due to the rise of social media.

Gaming the League

All of the above isn’t to say that there isn’t a kernel of truth to the notion of leagues; it’s just not the “truth” men have been led to believe. For as much as the feminine imperative would have men subscribe to Leagues, it equally seeks to exempt women from the same League hierarchy by evaluating women as a whole. Needless to say men have their own rating systems – most popularly the ubiquitously physical HB 10 scale. I should add that it’s a foregone conclusion that any rating system men would establish for women in the feminine reality would necessarily need to be ridiculed, shamed and demonized, but you knew that already.

Irrational self-confidence is a good start to circumventing and unlearning the concept of Leagues; unlearning this conditioning being the operative goal. The Game-aware Man can actually use the concept of Leagues to his advantage with enough guile. When you approach a woman without regard to a League mentality or even a Zen-like obliviousness to it, you send the message that there’s more to you than a feminine reality can control. It’s exactly this disregard for the influence of the feminine imperative that makes the Alpha attractive; he’s unaware of, or indifferent to the rules his conditioning should’ve taught him earlier. Just in the attempt of Gaming a woman obviously “out of your league” you flip the feminine script by planting a seed of doubt (and prompting imagination) about your perceived value. Doubt is a very powerful tool, in fact the very concept of Leagues is founded upon men’s self-doubt. Turn that tool to your advantage by disregarding women’s social convention of Leagues.

24 Comments   |  tags: , , , | posted in Iron Rules, Operative Social Conventions, The Feminine Imperative

January 3, 2012

The Rush

By Rollo Tomassi

For today’s post we’re going to do a little experiment. Before you press the play button, take a deep breath, and while it is work-safe, you may want to plug your headphones in or be in someplace where you can be uninterrupted for 10 minutes. Be forewarned that any women within casual listening distance will likely be provoked to indefensible, yet hysterical defense of the sisterhood after eavesdropping. Pay attention to your heart rate and do quick self assessment of your mood. As you listen to this, be aware of the chemical reaction percolating in your bloodstream as the inevitable end comes. Then be aware of how you physically feel afterwards. Ok, press play.

 

All done? How was that for you? Heart rate up?

 

I must admit, I got an adrenaline rush out of that. Kind of like watching a car wreck in slow motion. However, I find that kind of ironic since any number of daytime shows (i.e. Tyra Banks, et. al.) have been basically doing the same shit for decades now. A lot of guys acknowledge the power of the chemical rush, but it’s only episodes like this that make it real for them. I’m sure most of the guys hearing this felt it; the high of adrenaline, endorphins, dopamine, etc., this is the chemical cocktail that women come to crave. I’ve read the chemical profile is very similar to that of heroin. Indignation triggers it for women in the same way sex and death trigger it for Men.

The main reason I wanted to pick this apart is because there’s a lot of elements to the whole incident. There’s so much at play in this, it’s hard to know where to begin. It’s interesting to read the responses to gauge what impacts people first. Women naturally lean toward the guy being classless for opting to hash this out in a very public forum, yet it feel fully justified for doing it themselves for decades. White Knights will come out of the woodwork to defend the indefensible in spite of the circumstance responding viscerally to a woman weeping. How did you feel when you heard the girl cry? We can pour through the reasons why the guy was a chump to have been living with her for as long as he did, but think of this more from the perspective of the physical effect it has upon the listeners.

Funny how even when a woman confesses to her infidelity we’ll look for ANY angle available to still cast her in the victim’s role. We’ll readily analyze the guy’s history, we’ll euphemize her misconduct as a “mistake” (or she’ll do it for us), and we’ll speculate “where her heart is really at.”

 

“but, Rollo, dumping the hor in private would have achieved the same end.”


I’m not so sure about that. I’ll be the first to advocate against revenge, but for pragmatic reasons (wasted effort), not so guys can cling to some self-righteous high ground. If the guy is resolved to break it off with her, and he has the opportunity to rub it in (on valentines day, caught red handed, thinking a proposal is due, etc.), but instead holds back and discreetly pulls up stakes, does it have the same impact? Would she genuinely appreciate the gesture? How would she ever know that he could’ve resorted to publicly humiliating her yet chose not to?

The guy opting for the “high-road” would be the only one capable of appreciating what he could’ve done if he hadn’t, and even his expressing his option to do so makes him sound vain and conceited. By all rights this woman was under the impression that he was going to propose to her on-air and was utterly crushed instead. How does a woman spared from this ever make that kind of acknowledgement?

The answer is she doesn’t. I’m not saying he should’ve done it, but in light of the life-altering gravity of entering into as binding a commitment as marriage (a topic of much discussion in the manosphere), I can understand why he’d consider it. We can call him a chump for living with the woman for 5 years, but he’s a chump who’d made the decision to commit and had the ring to prove his intent. She on the other hand, knew he’d decided to enter into this commitment, and not only betrayed that, but KNOWINGLY, and happily, was ready to let him propose in spite of herself.

 

“Is justice somehow rendered as “less than justice” when it is administered by your OWN HAND?”

 

Therein lies the rub. There will always exist an element of bias (revenge) whenever one enacts what they perceive as justice. Women are almost universally absolved of this. Carrie Underwood can write a chart topping song about vandalizing the truck of a cheating lover that women (and men) will gleefully memorize the lyrics and sing along with, but let a man publicly humiliate a caught-in-the-act, cheating lover and “he’s less of a man” and runs the risk of having his personal life ruined as a result.

As far as this guy breaking Iron Rule #4; yes, the guy’s a fool for having done so for 3 years, and I’d go so far as to say an even bigger fool for being monogamous with a solitary woman for 5 years during his prime (I assume Chris was in his 20’s). My point was to illustrate his degree of commitment (he bought a ring) not to justify his having lived with her as long as he did. Contrast this incident with Tiger Woods situation: a lot has been made about commitment being tantamount to male virtue, so my emphasis was his readiness to commit and the gravity it bears on a man’s life.

There was another aspect that I hadn’t considered in this. I don’t entirely believe that reversing the roles to understand a contrast would be applicable in this case. Generally women don’t ask men to marry them. I understand it happens, but never to the degree that a man must prepare to make a proposal of marriage. Chris had resolved in his mind to marry the girl, and acted on this resolve by buying a ring and planning to propose on V-Day. Men are the True Romantics; Women simply do not have a parallel experience for this.

I understand this is a bit of a stretch, but for a moment lets assume Chris knew exactly the future liabilities of his commitment – all of those high-road, morally binding liabilities Tiger reneged on in his marriage – should his response to her deception be any less measured than what he did when you think of what he’d almost committed to?

Think of the impact his commitment to her would’ve entailed; think of how it would effect their families, his career and / or educational opportunities, their future children and their personal decisions, his finances, his psychological well being, their quality of life, and the list goes on, but essentially he was betting his future life on this girl. The guy was a hair’s breadth from making that commitment when he discovered the deception. I think she got off rather lightly.

 

*I’ve got to give props to the guys over at the BodyBuilding.com forums for rediscovering this link for me. I had originally used this audio in a SoSuave forum post back in February of 2010 and lost the audio link. Thanks guys.

42 Comments   |  tags: , , , | posted in Biomechanics, Iron Rules, Romance, The Feminine Imperative

December 27, 2011

Women in Love

By Rollo Tomassi

Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.

Today’s pull quote comes from Xpat Ranting’s blog. The discourse there is brief, but insightful:

I really, really, really hope the myth that girls are the hopeless romantics gets kicked to the curb ASAP. Everyone needs to realize that men are the “romantics pretending to be realists” and women; vice versa

I found this particularly thought provoking – Men are the romantics forced to be the realists, while women are the realists using romanticisms to effect their imperatives (hypergamy). This is a heaping mouthful of cruel reality to swallow, and dovetails nicely into the sixth Iron Rule of Tomassi:

Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.

In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.

Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

In the same respect that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices men are expected to make in order to facilitate their imperatives, women can’t actualize how a man would have himself loved by her. It is not the natural state of women, and the moment he attempts to explain his ideal love, that’s the point at which his idealization becomes her obligation. Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of this idealized love. As nice as it would be to relax, trust and be vulnerable, upfront, rational and open, the great abyss is still the lack of an ability for women to love Men as Men would like them to.

For the plugged-in beta, this aspect of ‘awakening’ is very difficult to confront. Even in the face of constant, often traumatic, controversions to what a man hopes will be his reward for living up to qualifying for a woman’s love and intimacy, he’ll still hold onto that Disneyesque ideal.

It’s very important to understand that this love archetype is an artifact from our earliest feminized conditioning. It’s much healthier to accept that it isn’t possible and live within that framework. If she’s there, she’s there, if not, oh well. She’s not incapable of love in the way she defines it, she’s incapable of love as you would have it. She doesn’t lack the capacity for connection and emotional investment, she lacks the capacity for the connection you think would ideally suit you.

The resulting love that defines a long-term couple’s relationship is the result of coming to an understanding of this impossibility and re-imagining what it should be for Men. Men have been, and should be, the more dominant gender, not because of some imagined divine right or physical prowess, but because on some rudimentary psychological level we ought to realized that a woman’s love is contingent upon our capacity to maintain that love in spite of a woman’s hypergamy. By order of degrees, hypergamy will define who a woman loves and who she will not, depending upon her own opportunities and capacity to attract it.

151 Comments   |  tags: , | posted in Idealizations, Iron Rules, Love, Unplugging

December 6, 2011

Professional Mothers

By Rollo Tomassi

It’s called birth control because someone is ‘controlling’ the birth.

There are presently 41 different types of contraception available for women, for men there are only 2 – vasectomy or a condom – your only line of defense against her ‘choice’. The only thing separating a man from a lifetime (not just 18 years) of interacting with the decider of altering the course of his life is a thin layer of latex.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #5
NEVER allow a woman to be in control of the birth.

Always have protection. I’ve had far too many guys hit me with the argument that they implicitly trust their girlfriends to be on the pill or whatever, and that she “doesn’t want kids” only to be an unprepared Daddy 9 month later after ‘the accident’. The only accident they had was not being in control of the birth themselves. In fact I’d argue that men need to use extra caution when in an LTR since the ease of getting too relaxed with her is present.

Accidental pregnancy is practically a cottage industry now. For a woman without education (or even with) and without means, an ‘unplanned’ pregnancy may be a pretty good prospect, especially when every law and social expectation weighs in her favor. These are Professional Mommies. When I counseld in Reno I knew a guy who married this woman who had 3 children from 2 Fathers who he himself had impregnated with her 4th. She was a Professional Mother.

Flush it

In 2002 the NBA issued a highly controversial and publicized warning to professional basketball players stating that players be advised to wear condoms when having sexual intercourse with women when on road games and to “flush the condom down the toilet” in order to dispose of the semen. This warning was the result of several paternity suits that year involving women these players had slept with by retrieving the condoms from the trash and ‘self-impregnanting’ themselves with the players semen. The NBA had enough occurrences of this kind to warrant a league-wide warning that year. All of these players are now 100% liable for the welfare of these children and their former partners by default because there are no laws protecting men from fraudulent pregnancies.

To what degree is protection implicitly implied? If a man does everything in his power to avoid a pregnancy (barring abstinence or a vasectomy) and can prove his intent and the woman still becomes pregnant, even by fraud, the man is still liable for that pregnancy. Women are 100% protected and men are 0% protected. I can even go so far as to quote you cases where a man marrying a single mother later divorces her and is still expected to pay future child support for a child he did not father – even without official adoption of the child by the man.

A lot of guys would like to make a moral issue of this but it’s not a question of right or wrong, it’s dealing with the facts of what IS in the environment we find ourselves in today. The fact of the matter is that unless men use prior discretion and take responsibility for the birth ‘control’, not allowing a woman to be solely responsible for it, he is 100% powerless. This means bring your own condoms and flush them yourself, and yes even (especially) in an LTR or marriage. That means standing firm even when she says “take that thing off I’m on the pill and I want to ‘feeeeel’ you.” Mothers want to be Mothers, otherwise they’d decide not to be. Single Mommies are far too common an occurrence to bet the odds with the rest of your life.

The sexual revolution had far more to do with the development of hormonal means of birth control than the legalization of abortion. Condoms have been around since before WWII, but even in the Baby Boom there were far less unwanted pregnancies or single motherhood than after the advent of the pill. The pill put the control of birth into the hands of women where before it was a man’s responsibility to put the rubber on and do so correctly if both wanted to avoid smaller versions of themselves running around the house.

The Choice of Professionals

Abortion rates skyrocketed in the decades after estrogen based birth control was developed, thus prompting a need for legal and clinical regulations of abortions as well as reforming paternity laws in the 70s. There had certainly been abortions (both the medical and back-alley variety) prior to this, but if you look at the increase in abortion statistics both before and after the advent of a convenient form of birth control moderated by the women taking it, it’ll blow your mind.

And now even with the vast variety of birth control methods available to women today and 30+ years of safe medical abortions, we still see an increase in single mother families and abortion rates. One would think that these statistics would be lower in light of all this modernization and the ‘leaps’ women have made culturally since the sexual revolution, but sadly no. In fact the single mother birth rate has climbed (adjusted for population) since a leveling off in the late 80s and abortion is just as popular as ever even when new methods such as the ‘morning after pill’ and RU286 are readily available. And conveniently, the social ills as a result are placed squarely on ‘dead-beat Dads’ rather than the women choosing to have the children.

This isn’t a scientific problem, it’s a cultural one. Mothers want to be Mothers. Men are only Fathers when a woman decides this for him even in the happiest of marriages. I think (hope) we’ll see second sexual revolution once a male form of hormonal contraception is tested and available, but you can bet dicks to donuts that every interested party from the religious to the feminist will fight this method’s release to the public at large and come up with every sort of veiled explanation for it’s demonization in order to put the agency of birth control exclusively into men’s control. I sincerely doubt men will “forget to take it” or have their ‘accidents’ in the numbers women do.

Controlling the Birth

It’s a much different task to put on a condom in the heat of the moment (reactive) than to simply swallow a pill in the morning (proactive). It’s arguable what the more difficult task is, to remember to take a pill in the morning or to apply a condom at the appropriate time. In the latter situation there are at least 2 people aware that a condom should be on prior to intercourse; is a woman equally an accomplice in her own pregnancy if she consensually has sex with a guy without a condom? They both know the assumed risks, however a woman forgetting to take her pill isn’t reviled as an ‘idiot’ or negligent as a man not putting on a condom.

Taking her birth control is up to her and rarely would a guy be certain on a daily basis that his partner was faithfully taking her pill. In fact to even ask about it would be presumptuous and bordering on rude if it’s a casual encounter. When a man and a woman fail to take the precaution of putting on a condom they’re both aware of it. When she fails to take her pill either accidentally or intentionally, she is the sole party responsible for that pregnancy, but in either case she decides the course of the man’s life should this occur.

The obvious answer is to put men in control of the birth – wear a condom. However the nature of mens birth control is reactive and even in the case where a man has the condom in his pocket, he can still be thwarted by her only saying, “don’t worry about it, I’m on the pill”; the control shifts the accountability never does.

Forgive me for belaboring the point, but there are no accidental mothers. Consider fertility statistics and that it takes a considerable amount of negligence for a woman to miss several pills on a regular basis to ‘accidentally’ become pregnant. One could also argue that even a couple engaging in condom-less sex could still be relatively confident that a woman wont get pregnant even if she’s missed several pills regularly. Again my point being that it takes effort to become pregnant. Even without any birth control at all and timing my wife’s ovulation cycles for our sex it took us 4 months to conceive our daughter. This is why I laugh at the accidental pregnancy excuse so common these days. If a woman wants to become pregnant she can do so with impunity and contrive any excuse she’d like about accidents, but the guy is an ‘idiot’ for not wearing a condom and taking responsibility for his actions, even if he’s led to believe she’s taking control of her contraception. Yet he is the one penalized both financially and socially because of her choice.

24 Comments | posted in Iron Rules

November 22, 2011

“You’ve been with how many girls?!”

By Rollo Tomassi

Rational reader Poker ran this one by me recently:

I’ve been seeing this girl and we’ve slept together a few times… Today, in bed, I got asked, “How may girls have I been with?” and “Why won’t I be her friend on Facebook?”

How many girls question…

Here’s how I handled it – would love to know if you think this was handled properly… (using cocky-funny attitude)

Me: “I don’t tell that.”
Her: “More or less than 20?”
Me: “I have some freedom of information forms in the car – you could fill one out and get your answer in 20 years.”
Her: “Don’t you want to know how many guys I’ve been with?”
Me: “No.”

Iron Rule of Tomassi # 2

NEVER, under pain of death, honestly or dishonestly reveal the number of women you’ve slept with or explain any detail of your sexual experiences with them to a current lover.

The single most disastrous AFC move a man can make is to OVERTLY describe past sexual experiences and/or give a number (accurate or not) to how many women he’s been with prior to the one he’s with. This simple act, whether you offered the information or she dragged it out of you, ALWAYS comes off as pretentiousness and is often the catalyst for an avalanche of emotional resentment, if not outright emotional blackmail from an insecure woman. This is a rookie mistake that will only take you once to learn.

If a woman puts you on the spot by directly asking you for this information always sidestep this COVERTLY. C&F works wonders in this situation and still keeps the air of mystery and challenge about you.

Her: “So how many girls have you been with?”
You: “You’re my first actually”
Her: “Really, how many girls have you been with?”
You:” You mean tonight?”
Her: “C’mon, how many girls have you been with?”
You: “You know, I really lost count after 50″ (or something outrageous).

When a woman asks you this question she is seeking confirmation of what she already suspects – NEVER give her this satisfaction. When a woman resorts to OVERT communication (COVERT being her native language) she’s generally exhausted her patience to be COVERT and this is a desperation tactic for an insecure woman.

While this scenario may be fraught with potential disaster, it is also an opportunity to encourage her imagination and prompt some competition anxiety.

Her: “How many girls have you been with?”
You: “I have an idea, lets fuck and then you can tell me how many girls you think I’ve been with, OK?”

A lot of Game rookies think that since they’ve only been with 1 or 2 women in their lives what’s the harm in open, honest, full disclosure? Like most Betas they bought the “open communication is the secret to a good relationship” meme long ago, so the impulse to be upfront is their default response. They tend not to see the utility in  keeping that information, or being ambiguous about it, plants a seed of competition anxiety. When she KNOWS she’s your first, you’ve just abdicated the frame to her in any kind of relationship. Second, if she’s your 9th then every girl up to 8 becomes a stamp in her collection to use against you in the first fight you have. Every date you take her on she wonders “Did he take #6 here too?” It’s as if you cheated on her with every previous girl up to her. I should also add that this is the first question a BPD (borderline personality disorder) woman will ask you so she can feel horrible about herself for not measuring up to “your standards” and drag you into the emotional hell-pit with her.

27 Comments | posted in Inter-gender Communication, Iron Rules

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,281 other followers