A Man in Demand Conference – The Review


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trip

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

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

The Talk

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

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


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

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

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

Tanner Guzy

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Rollo Tomassi

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Things We Could Do Better

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks gentlemen.

Solipsism II


A comment from Truman gets us started today:

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

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

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

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

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

Me: “What do you mean?”

Her: “Just turn here towards me.”

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

Her: “I don’t know. Just turn my way”

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

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

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

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

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

Societal Reinforcement

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

From Duplicity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Middle of the Story Syndrome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ladies First

Luxocrat had a great illustration as well:

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

I still left though.

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

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

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

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


Solipsism I


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

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

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

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

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

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

Separating Differences

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

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

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

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

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

Solipsism, not Narcissism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mental Point of Origin

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

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

Women are bad at reasoning, but good at rationalization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Best of The Rational Male – Year 4


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine




Red Pill / Game



Personal Development


Thanks for another great year!



Jails & Churches


Slut Walkers & Soccer Moms

This picture has been making the rounds on Face Book recently. Last I looked it’d been shared about 89,000 times from the source I pulled it from. For the most part, what passes for some organized debate in most comment threads about this centered on a conflict between two factions of women – the responsible mothers and the ‘Slut Walk’ feministas faction of the femosphere.

Yes, ‘responsible mothers’ and Soccer Moms are in fact a very vocal part of the Feminine Imperative’s sphere of social control. It’s a mistake to believe women of a feminist bent are the only driving factor in influencing a feminine-primary social order. It’s not just grrrl-power demi-lesbians with fuschia hair, it’s that sensibly dressed lady in Target too. As I mentioned in last weeks post, Peak Hypergamy is yet to be settled, but until then the women who’s sexual strategy would best be served by keeping the ugliness of it secret will be at odds with women who proudly embrace open Hypergamy with gusto.

It’s easy to apply our Red Pill lens for such things as TV shows, popular music and media, and see the social undercurrent messaging of the Feminine Imperative, but there are some more subtle instances that need a proper lens focus on them. One trapping of the Red Pill lens is that aware men often overlook the more personal, more localized influence of the Feminine Imperative when they see the most public displays of it.

I’ve stated in prior posts that if you took a roomful of God-fearing traditionalist women and asked them if they identified as feminists the answers would range from “No” to a resounding “Hell no!” However, if you asked them specifics of how a woman’s role in society should be defined, what a woman’s obligations to a man ought to be, or in what way women’s influence in should be expressed in our culture (westernizing), then you would get your real answer.

Most traditionalist women would be appalled to be associated with anything bearing the Feminist® brand name, but still find themselves carrying the same flag when it comes to their rationalized beliefs. The ‘Sisterhood’ comes before all other considerations – be they politics, religion or personal interests – the Feminine Imperative is the common thread that underscores all intrasexual relations with women.

Tribe of the Sisterhood

In a social context, a principle strength of the Feminine Imperative is a presupposed, tribalistic sense of intrasexual belonging amongst women that transcends politics, race identity, religious conviction and ideology. We euphemistically refer to this dynamic as the sisterhood, but this female ‘belonging’ shares it’s roots in our foraging evolutionary past. Thus, women from starkly different cultures or socio-economic tiers still share that common theme of pre-known ‘oppression’ by the nebulous patriarchy.

One problem I have with recent rise of self-styled anti-feminist “Red Pill Women” is that while on the surface it appears that they are “pro-men”, the real impetus is that they are “anti-feminists”. In other words, their primary concern becomes one of opposing the methods and ideologies of how best to assert the influences of the Feminine Imperative they both ultimately serve. The common tribalism of the sisterhood is still present, but the applications of how best to instrument it is the source of that conflict.

This is what I believe we’re witnessing in debates of this nature; it is a conflict between women who’d be better served by keeping men confused and in doubt of the mechanics of Hypergamy versus women who believe they’d be better served in openly and proudly embracing Hypergamy. This is the primary reason women despise other women who are openly ‘Gold Diggers’ or ‘Attention Whores’, or even prostitutes – their method of optimizing their own hypergamous interests reveals their sex’s larger sexual strategy which they’d rather men not fully comprehend (until such time as they are ready to consolidate on men’s commitment).

It’s important that Red Pill men not be fooled into thinking that ‘traditionalist’ women are in anyway less predisposed to the influences of their sex’s imperatives. They’re not unique or better suited to a feminine role because of their ideology, they simply can’t afford to have sexual rivals with different methodologies competing for the same optimization of Hypergamy.

Social Saturation

This may seem an unlikely way to address the core issue of this notice to school administrators, but read me out here. There are two presumptions implied in this message. The first is the presumption that these school-age girls are being shamed by expecting them to adhere to some modicum of dressing to a certain standard – a standard they can expect once they exit school as well I should add.

The second is that these girls wearing shorts that are too short, and bra straps so noticeable as to draw attention from school administrators (God forbid a male teacher make such a judgement call) would be more concerned with the their educational prospects than influencing the boys in their environment is questionable.

And lastly the presumption is that boys of a certain age should be taught to control themselves to counter their synaptic wiring and biochemical responses and not ‘objectify’ the girls who take it upon themselves to dress provocatively.

These are relatively easy assessments to make about the intent of this note, however, what both factions of women debating this presume is a condition of feminine primacy. The feminine presumption is one that this school is nominally founded in male primacy – the girls distract the boys with their advertised sexuality – but the expectation is one based in the male Burden of Performance.

While it’s important for men to have an objective understanding of their burden of performance, it’s equally important for men to realize that women understand the utility of that burden and put it to their own opportunistic ends. In a feminine-primary perspective that burden translates into these boys needing to be taught to act against their biological impetus.

The shaming isn’t about girls having their education interrupted for wearing booty shorts or their tits pushed up by exposed bras; the implied shame is that these boys are not being instructed to understand that their burden is one of controlling the very biology that compels them to distraction. In a feminine-primary context the real “shame” should be on the boys who see girls (who are signaling sexual cues) as the sexual objects these girls are intentionally making of themselves.

The implied prioritization of undistracted education is presumed to be focused towards the males in the class, but the reality is that this education is taking place in a feminine-primary environment that is being inconvenienced by social standards.

The Feminine Expectation of Performance

Instead of adapting to the realities of their environment, women expect men to accommodate their sexual strategies and incorporate them into their accepted burden of performance.

CH maxim: The feminist goal is removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality

This goal is eminently more achievable when men are taught that it is an aspect of their Burden of Performance to self-restrict their sexuality for a feminine-primary purpose. It was recently brought up in last week’s comments that the rise in unfettered, openly acknowledged Hypergamy is (or is becoming) a comparable condition to men’s unrestricted sexuality. The contrast of course was flipping the script and considering what the results would be if it were men who’s sexual strategy was unrestricted to the degree Hypergamy has currently.

In an exaggerated feminine-primary context, women like to believe this was once the case. Granted the apex fallacy is rife in that presumption, but the Feminine Imperative needs to establish a preexisting notion that women must necessarily suffer in a masculine-primary social order. That’s the presumptive social context this note was crafted in. The truth of the matter is that the Feminine Imperative cannot afford for both women and men to believe anything different if it is to remain the primary social influence.

This presumption is what brings women of conflicting ideological bents together in solidarity despite their disagreements; there is always a common enemy, a common opposition, in the belief that it’s men who are calling the shots for them. And as I said, this apex fallacy presumption is universal in that it transcends ideology and religious convictions. Thus we see similar social conventions used to maximally restrict male sexuality in those same institutions.

Holistic Game had an interesting take on this restriction this week:

I was raised Southern Baptist, then moved on to some form of megachurch-style evangelical Christianity in high school. I felt that sex before marriage was sinful, that lust was evil, and that the female body was a source of lurid temptation. It was a constant struggle not to look at porn. I remember being in a men’s young adult service when I was 24 and the pastor asked, with heads bowed, if any man in the room hadn’t looked at porn. I peeked and realized no one had raised their hand – every man in the room had indulged at some point. Though I couldn’t grasp it at the time, I’ve since come to understand that there is no point in repressing natural human desire.

I certainly couldn’t contain my urges forever, and ended up losing my virginity later that year. I was teaching guitar to a hot blonde beach babe a couple years older than me, and we got drinks one night. We fooled around, tipsily, and after a few weeks of on-and-off gropings I finally decided to fuck her. After the act was completed, I sat on her deck and looked at the ocean and searched myself. I never imagined the staining of my chastity happening in such a fashion, but I had to face the reality that it had happened. I tried to be honest with myself, and to my surprise, I found that I didn’t feel guilty. At all. The one thing I’d tried to save, that seemed to matter so much to God and his plans, I’d wasted on a stupid blonde I’d end up dumping. I should have felt overwhelmed by holy conviction, but didn’t feel anything but normality. I felt like I was finally part of the human race. This lack of guilt was the crack in the foundation that eventually led to the shattering of the whole rotten edifice.

Holistic expounds on this experience into doubting the existence of God (which I honestly think is a shame), but it’s important to understand how this presumptive state of male social primacy, and the necessity to mandate chastity as a man’s Burden of Performance has effects that go well beyond a man self-limiting his participation in his sexual strategy.

I think a necessary stage in becoming Red Pill aware is truly understanding not just our preconditioning, but the social environment that condition takes place within. This acknowledgement needs to take place in order to really unplug; it cannot simply be an acceptance that a guy was raised into his Blue Pill circumstance, he must also recognize the social conditions he’s still operating within, and he must recognize how to avoid the pitfalls and make the changes he wants to see in that world.

In a Blue Pill, feminine-primary social order plugged in men are left to participate in two institutions: jails and churches. I can imagine the frustration Red Pill men must feel when they see their friends trapped in those institutions. They see their friends in an endless tail-chasing of a performance of their own doing, but a result of their ‘teachers’ investing it in them. They contort in an endless self-expectation to be better men by self-defeating the essence that make them men. Then they are punished for the slightest infraction of acceding to that male essence, not so much by the women they hope to perform for, but rather a disappointment in themselves for not living up to what they believe are their own self-developed expectations of a standard that only serves the feminine.

Yes I know my enemies, they’re the teachers who taught me to fight me.

Peak Hypergamy


Commenter Divided Line came on with such a strong take on Our Sisters’ Keeper I had to riff on it:

Hypergamy is a given and it’s not going anywhere. But even if women’s sexuality is biologically rooted, their rationalizations for it aren’t possible without a compliant culture. So long as women are the damsels, the victims who are put upon by the cruel and all powerful patriarchy, so long as men are perceived to be powerful and free in a way that they clearly are not nor have ever been, open hypergamy is possible. After all, any guy who points it out or complains about it is branded an embittered loser, a misogynist, a creep, and so on, but I wonder to what degree this will change as red pill awareness spreads and penetrates the mainstream. I mean, how long do we think that men will go on smiling and nodding when it’s increasingly the case that more and more of us can see what bullshit all of this is?

What it makes me think of is Alana Massey’s Dickonomics article.

If you haven’t already read it, she goes on and on about how male attention is abundant and cheap, proving that women are well aware of what men who bother with online dating realized from the start. She recognizes the extreme degree of power this gives her before hamstering it away with this:

“Some will read my gleeful rejections on the many faces I encounter on Tinder as evidence of a disturbing uptick in malevolent, anti-male sentiments among single straight women. It is not. It is evidence of us arriving nearer to gender equilibrium where men can no longer happily judge the clear and abundant photos and carefully crafted profiles of women but become incensed when they take the opportunity to do the same.”

How many times have you seen this? All venality, cruelty, selfishness, indifference, etc is justified, of course, because men have it so good, women have it so bad, blah blah etc. So she can write something like this and the sisterhood will nod their heads and no doubt be able to ignore doubt or second thoughts in regards to their atrocious, destructive, and cruel treatment of the opposite sex. Women, like people who rationalize generally, tend to think in bogus bumper sticker one liners because they provide excuses not to think for themselves. And men, after all, just saunter about in the patriarchal torture dungeon of a society free and powerful, and pluck women from the trees before discarding them like jizz towels, so naturally, why should she consider their complexity as human beings or ever recognize what a rotten, horrible human being she is? They’re free to retaliate against men for women’s imaginary oppression.

But how long will they be able to keep employing these rationalizations and getting away with it if the public dialog changes? And it has already begun to change. I’ve watched it happen over the last year. You see more and more disclaimers in articles which appeal to the you-go-girl crowd. It really does seem as if there is a growing awareness that they are full of shit, or at the very least, that maybe there are moral complexities and obligations that come with female social power, to the degree that they are even willing to recognize that power.

Hypergamy isn’t going anywhere, but since men increasingly are comparing notes now and voicing their criticism of women’s bullshit (at least online), maybe it really isn’t the case that women are going to be able to continue this bullshit with public sanction. Is this wishful thinking?

I’ve made the case in several other blog comment and forum threads, but it’s getting almost too easy to point out women’s overt embrace of Open Hypergamy. There was a time – only 4 short years ago – that I would be run up the flagpole for publishing my observations on the ins and outs of women’s sexual strategy. Women in the blogosphere hated the fact that I was exposing their Game. They didn’t like the idea that I was informing men about the plan women had for them or the part they played, and by informing them it represented a fundamental threat to the long term success (and essentially their long term security) of that plan.

If you’re feeling nostalgic you can skim through the comments of posts like Wait For It? or The Threat:

Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.


Race to Awareness

Because of women’s relatively short window of peak sexual viability it is imperative that men be as unaware of their slower, but progressively increasing SMV for as long as possible in order for them to achieve the prime directive of female hypergamy; realize the best genetic options and the best provisioning options she has the capacity to attract in that peak window. If Men become aware of their SMV before a woman can consolidate on her options with monogamous commitment her sexual strategy is defeated.

The mistake (and the binary retort) is to think this need for contrivances was concocted in whole as some grand sisterhood conspiracy. This just proves an ignorance of social constructs. For a social contrivance to be such, it necessitates being repeated by society WITHOUT a formal conception – meaning we learn the contrivance from seeing it, internalizing it and repeating it ourselves without forethought. The best social contrivances are inconspicuous and rarely questioned because they’ve been learned without having been formally taught. This is why I think encouraging men NOT to bother trying to understand women is in itself a social convention. Don’t look at that man behind the curtain, just accept it for what it is, enjoy the show, you’re better off that way, the Mighty Oz has spoken.

This is the threat that Game represents to the feminine imperative. Widely shared, objective assessments of Men’s SMV and how it develops is the antithesis of the female sexual strategy. Women’s greatest fear is that they could become the ‘selected’ instead of the ‘selectors’.

Bear in mind I wrote this years before I published Preventive Medicine. This was also only a few years before I formally identified women’s embrace of openly, proudly, flaunting their sexual strategy. I can remember being soundly rebuked by women denying they adhered to anything so callous as an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks schedule with regard to men.

There was a certain nervous undertone that accompanied their shaming that revealed how protective they were of keeping the plan as ambiguous and secretive as possible from men in general. For every acknowledgement of the biological influences of Ovulatory Shift behaviors by these women there was always an obligatory, “yes, but, people are people, we’re above all that, it’s what’s on the inside that counts, NAWALT” intended to offset the ugliness of it.

Now, the same women who adamantly denied what their functionally opportunistic concept of love represents; the same women who rejected the idea of an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks sexual strategy openly and triumphantly boast about it. It’s become a source not only of agency, but a proud admission of perceived power on the part of women.

At some point the social impetus behind Open Hypergamy became so blatantly obvious they could no longer deny the truth of it. The Genie was out and it was more advantageous to not only to welcome it, but to brandish and profit from forcing men to accept it. Thus we have Open Hypergamy both subtly and triumphantly waved in our mainstream advertising, our pop-culture, our social media, our music and even the movies we take our kids to enjoy.

To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.
– George Orwell

I expect most of the worst aspects of Open Hypergamy (Overt Hypergamy if you prefer) are fairly obvious to my readers. Even the now the subtle influence in the media and advertising becomes not-so-subtle for men accustomed to seeing things with a Red Pill Lens. We can only shake our heads and hope that so blatant a confession of relishing power in Hypergamy on the part of unaware men will come to light for them.

Divided Line raises a very poignant observation – what’s next? What’s the natural progression?

Hypergamy isn’t going anywhere, but since men increasingly are comparing notes now and voicing their criticism of women’s bullshit (at least online), maybe it really isn’t the case that women are going to be able to continue this bullshit with public sanction. Is this wishful thinking?

I think there is a caveat we have to address here first. With Red Pill awareness it gets very easy to slide down the slippery slope and believe that ‘all women’ will have some equal capacity to enforce the worst of Open Hypergamy on men in general. Yes, in a westernizing context, women have an almost unilaterally state-backed influence on enforcing men’s de facto participation in Hypergamy by order of degree. However, it’s important to remember that men’s willing participation or coercion in it is still (as yet) limited by women’s capacity to attract and involve them.

Men want (and yes, need) sex and will find behavioral and psychological adaptations and workarounds to get it. That may be MGTOW, prostitution, porn or an as yet developed alternative of virtual sex. It may be Red Pill awareness and applied Game, it may be a self-aligning push to pander to the most extreme elements of the Alpha Fucks or Beta Bucks ends of Hypergamy, or it may be upping fame or a false social proof (via personality politicking on social media) that makes for men’s future adaptations.

Peak Hypergamy

I’m not a prognosticator about such things, but I can make logical estimates based on observations. One thing is for certain, and I discussed this with Niko in our talk, intersexual politicking and the condition of women will reach a ‘Peak Hypergamy’ state in the not too distant future. There will indeed come a point when even Blue Pill men will be unable to ignore so gross a power imbalance between the sexes.

There’s been some debate as to whether there’s some socially conscious ‘marriage strike’ in the manosphere for some time, and I think marriage statistics being at an all time low bear much of this out. I don’t think this is the result of some nascent MGTOW awakening, but rather a deductive, peripheral, general awareness men have of Open Hypergamy in our current social order at the moment.

Just as a last aside here, let me state that I am aware of the more militant, absolutists of MGTOW belaboring the idea that ‘the juice aint worth the squeeze’ and the dangers of even approaching a woman risk his being accused of sexual harassment, much less having recreational sex with her leaving a man open to post-sex regret-rape allegation. I get that. It’s part of the ascension toward a ‘Peak Hypergamy’ social state. My question is whether these men would find it worth their while to engage with women if their fears were removed in a post Peak State social order? Some may even live long enough to have to figure that out for themselves.

I think Divided Line is correct – there will come a state when Open Hypergamy’s power consolidation becomes too obvious and the social mechanics the Feminine Imperative has used to ensure that consolidation will be too much for women to maintain as a collective. Then what? What will women rationalize for themselves when they realize their monster has become too much?

I’ll reiterate it again; socially, it didn’t take long for women to transition from a secretive Hypergamy to an open display of it. The same women who called AF/BB the imaginings of misogynous men only 4 years ago are now proudly claiming it as truth (they knew all along) and a means to a power they’ve always had and should openly use.

The social, political and personal stress point of Peak Hypergamy is coming. It may take a bit longer, but there will come a point where even women will be forced to recognize the consequences of legislating their hubris.

Interview with Niko Choski

I did about an hour and a half interview with Niko Choski this weekend. Niko is a great guy and he treated me very well. His podcast is rooted in the MGTOW side of things and as I’ve said before I’m not really an adherent of that lifestyle obviously, but I do understand and appreciate the motivation behind it.

Just to reiterate it again I don’t subscribe to PUA, MRA, MGTOW or any other tenets in full. I have issues with all the various branches of the manophere and I think all of them have something to positively contribute to a better understanding of intersexual dynamics. It’s my take on the MGTOW side of things that the one common thread these guys share is putting themselves as their own mental point of origin,and I go into that a bit in this interview.

Not all MGTOWs are cut from the same cloth. As I understand it Niko puts himself out there to engage women, but his perspective is one of ROI and making himself the primary frame setter when he does. As I stated before, my main concern is men isolating themselves socially and I think that taken to its extreme MGOTW can lead men to a self imposed isolation. Niko and I discussed this a bit too, as well as covering the true forced loneliness groups.

That said I think there’s more Red Pill common ground in the mindset. Yeah, I get that any man’s wife is empowered by the state to essentially be the deciding factor in how that guy will live his life. I’m not advocating for marriage, and certainly not in the hostile social state it’s in today – but you don’t have to marry or even entertain monogamy to engage with women. Regardless of how you go about it, becoming Red Pill aware will necessitate that a man ‘goes his own way’ in some respect. Applying Red Pill knowledge may mean you learn Game or it may mean you simply decided to recuse yourself from it, but that awareness will require you to put yourself first.

So, have a listen and let me know what you think.


In other news the Man in Demand conference is down to the last 4 or 5 tickets by my last count. It will sell out soon, so if you’re still on the fence now’s the time to get your reservations set.

Post Selection


Anonymous Reader on Dalrock’s thread had an interesting observation about women’s (wives’) dumbfounded response to discovering that the Beta chump they believed would be entirely optionless and adrift after they divorced, in fact, had far more SMV capital than her solipsism would allow her to acknowledge:

So, dear Lisa, you (a) had a husband but (b) decided you did not want him anymore and now (c) other women do want him? Whose fault is this, again? Great display of a version of preselection that ought to be called “post selection” (if Rollo or Heartiste or someone else hasn’t already thought of that).

Reminds me of a divorce I saw from a moderate distance a few years ago. Wife got a couple of promotions at her work, while her salesman husband just plodded along with the usual feast or famine of that business. She apparently got “married” to her job, putting in long hours serving the situational alpha men she worked for. Then at home made up for the long hours by showering attention on the kids while stiffarming “whats-his-name”. When he had an affair she was, by all accounts, surprised. When he had a second affair she divorced him. Both were churchgoing, and I agree that she had Bible-based grounds for divorce, there was no question he was cheating. But he wasn’t the roving-eye type for the first 5 to 10 years of marriage, so perhaps a certain lack of something tempted him to cheat? What could it have been?

Familiarity breeds contempt, but it also breeds complacency.

I’ve stated in many prior thread that familiarity, comfort, rapport, vulnerability and security are all anti-seductive attributes when it come to women’s sexual response. I’m not saying those elements aren’t intrinsically good or bad, just that men shouldn’t buy the boilerplate sexual filibustering of women who would have them believe they are in anyway arousal cues for women.

As Roissy’s maxim states – “‘Gina tingles are born in the defensive crouch.”

Iron Rule of Tomassi #3

Any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait.

When a woman makes you wait for sex you are not her highest priority. Sexuality is spontaneous chemical reaction between two parties, not a process of negotiation. It’s sex first, then relationship, not the other way around. A woman who wants to fuck you will find a way to fuck you. She will fly across the country, crawl under barbwire, climb in through your second story bedroom window, fuck the shit out of you and wait patiently inside your closet if your wife comes home early from work – women who want to fuck will find a way to fuck. The girl who tells you she needs to be comfortable and wants a relationship first is the same girl who fucked the hot guy in the foam cannon party in Cancun on spring break just half an hour after meeting him.

If a girl is that into you she’ll have sex with you regardless of ASD or having her friends in the room videotaping it at a frat party. All women can be sluts, you just have to be the right guy to bring it out in them, and this happens before you go back to her place. If you have to plead your case cuddling and spooning on the bed or getting the occasional peck on the cheek at the end of the night, you need to go back to square one and start fresh.

The problem most husbands and LTR live-in boyfriends experience in this respect is that there is no opportunity for a fresh start once that pattern of familiarity and comfort has been established and is what’s expected from him.

This principle is easy for us to understand from the man’s side, but what about the woman’s?

Anonymous’ observations here tell a broader story. Dal’s quick-hit post and the article he linked there is well worth the read, but it essentially illustrates a common regret women are forced to acknowledge when they’ve opted out of a relationship, or were opted out of by their men as a result of their protracted dissatisfaction with those women – they simply cannot fathom that the Beta man they cut loose has a sexual market value that other women would not just appreciate, but jump at, far quicker than they imagined.

Considering that 70%+ of all divorces are initiated by women, women opting out is usually the case. If you track along with the time line I presented in Preventive Medicine you can also see that this opt out (first divorce) window usually coincides with the time a man is (should be) experiencing his SMV peak.

After 7 or so years of marriage the familiarity, the routine and the comfort a woman expects from her statistically Beta husband are cemented for her. Reliable, sensible, comforting and responsible make for a great security prospect, but a boring ‘fuck prospect’. Unless that woman is casually, but frequently put into the defensive crouch (via passive dread) that man’s Archetype is set in her mind for her. His behavior is predictable and familiar, and boring to the point that she suspects no woman but her would ‘tolerate’ him.

In fact this perception is reinforced for her, not just by a fem-centric culture, but her husband’s constant self-deprecating praise of how “lucky he is to have a woman like her who’d put up with a guy like him. Haha, LOL.” In spite of all this supplication, women still affirm that man as the unexciting Beta chump who she subconsciously pegs would be entirely optionless in the SMP were (when) he to be re-released back into the wild.

Women want to get with a man that other men want to be, and other women want to fuck.

This is an easy maxim for a woman who’s single, but it takes on new imperatives when that man is fighting against the familiarity and comfort elements that come with long term monogamy and living together. That familiar complacency combined with Hypergamic social expectations makes women doubt that the man they thought other women might compete for has morphed into an optionless schlub only she would have the patience to constantly tolerate.

One of the reasons I advise against men and women shacking up is because the comfort and regularity of that living situation eventually becomes a disincentive for women to maintain a consistent sexual desire and urgency for the man she’s paired with. Women are at their ‘sexual best’ when men keep them at arms reach, and this is primarily due to the anxiety she experiences in the doubt over whether she’ll be able to consolidate on an optimized Hypergamy with that guy.

Post Selection

As Anonymous hints at, there is a form of social proof a ‘released’ man enjoys once he’s been cut from women’s Hypergamous equation. To understand how this works we need to remember that Hypergamy is fundamentally rooted in doubt:

The Abdication Imperative

Hypergamy is rooted in doubt. Hypergamy is an inherently insecure system that constantly tests, assesses, retests and reassesses for optimal reproductive options, long-term provisioning, parental investment, and offspring and personal protection viability in a potential mate. Even under the most secure of prospects hypergamy still doubts. The evolutionary function of this incessant doubt would be a selected-for survival instinct, but the process of hypergamy’s assessment requires too much mental effort to be entirely relegated to women’s subconscious. Social imperatives had to be instituted not only to better facilitate the hypergamous process, but also to reassure the feminine that men were already socially pre-programmed to align with that process.

Dumping a woman is the highest form of social proof for a man.

In no uncertain terms he demonstrates to her that he has the supreme confidence he can find another woman with better prospect than her. Even if this isn’t the pretext of the breakup, this is the message in the medium that she understands; she doesn’t measure up to his expectations.

This then is further compounded by the unconscious knowledge that it should be women who are socially in charge of the sexual selection and approval process. When a man dumps a woman he demonstrably takes that agency away from her.

However, the effectiveness of that social proof for the dumped woman is only proportional to the doubt that he may have been a better, more optimal Hypergamic choice for her. We understand the effectiveness even a fabricated perception of preselection has on women, but depending on the psychological impact a man has, post-selection and the uncertainty of his long term fitness can be so powerful it can create an Alpha Widow of her.

Hypergamous doubt makes women creatures of constant comparison. Thus, when (if) she makes another intimate connection after that breakup, the new guy is held next to the comparison of the previous one. Once that comparison is made, that post-selection value of the previous guy (or lack thereof) becomes reinforced for her.

Starting Over

Women have a biological imperative to restart the Hypergamic process far more rapidly than men when they’re younger and closer to their SMV peak. They have more time to capitalize on it.

However, once they are on the opposite side of the Wall and men are ascending to their own SMV peak, “getting over” the relationship is equated with remarriage because men have the SMV advantage. That previous husband or LTR lover has the power of selection and confirmation she no longer holds as she did in her youth.

Women have far less marketability and prospect to restart that Hypergamic process once this agency exchanges hands with men. They’ve lost on a perceived long-term investment. Thus her brooding fixates on his ease of finding a new mate, with his remarriage being the context of finalizing that break with her.

I should also add that rarely is consideration is given to the incentives and reasons for the breakup whatsoever on her part. Convenient social conventions aid her in thinking she is blameless in the circumstances that led to the split and he is heartless for “getting over’ her at all, much less quickly. We are left to presume that it’s he who should suffer the same or more. He should be pining for her, he should be regretting the split.

It’s far easier for a man to move on with new women when his benchmark for intimacy was set by a sexless marriage to an authoritarian, shaming, shrew. Maybe it’s that thought that really hurts – it was easy to get over her because the opt out for him is sooooo much better a prospect than a lifetime of having to untangle her hangups about him.

Final Thought

Bear in mind this post-selection dynamic is only effective insofar as a man’s SMV can be actualized outside of his previous relationship.

Women only contemplate whether a man has moved on from her quickly when they care to concern themselves with it. If it was she who initiated the breakup with her Beta husband/LTR women are simply indifferent to what the guy is doing a year or so down the road.

Nothing is more satisfying to a woman than to believe she’s figured a man out using her mythical feminine intuition. This works in a positive sense when a man leads her to believe she’s genuinely got inside his head, but it also works in the self-convincing negative sense when she dismisses a guy who no longer qualifies for her long term (or short term sexual) hypergamic interests.

The satisfying feminine indignation comes from convincing herself he was never really as invested as he led her to believe he was. Thus the loss of investment is converted to betrayal and becomes a source of self-righteousness despite any circumstance she contributed to the break herself.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,547 other followers