I’ve never had meaningless sex,…I meant to bang every girl I ever did.

Whenever I author a particularly inflammatory post or forum thread that grates people’s ego-invested beliefs, one of the first responses I expect to have leveled at me are those that echo a shaming appeal to moralism. I can generally identify a pretty important issue if a response to my exposing some particularly uncomfortable truth requires questioning my common sense of ethics. Taken to a larger scale, many a White Knight, and many an invested woman will simply default to ‘higher self’ arguments when confronted with even the most simple observations that challenge what they believe, and what they assume everyone else believes along with them. People with questions don’t frighten me, it’s the people without them that scare the hell out of me.

My problem isn’t necessarily with principles of morals or ethics in and of themselves, but rather men chumpishly clinging to them when in actuality they really had no other options to give themselves a wider perspective on what they believe. They make necessity a virtue. For instance, telling yourself you’re remaining (conditionally) celibate in order to hold to some higher ideal is just trying to prove a negative if you don’t really have any valid options to influence your decision in the first place. It’s unassailable; I can’t doubt the merit of a guy’s convictions when nothing is what’s required prove them. I read a lot of guys who question the merits of Game, reject it entirely or profess some desire to “get out of all the game playing” in order to rationalize their inability to adopt a new mindset for themselves. Usually this is accompanied by some qualification as to how they’ve seen it all, fucked their fill of “low quality women”, and now have developed some higher sense of self – implying those still “in the game” have not – and are now giving themselves ‘permission’ to exit the game by settling down with some girl in blissful monogamy. They’ve finally grown up and are doing “the right thing.” It’s like all endings to romantic comedies – he’s really a bastard with a heart of gold who met the ‘right’ woman to bring it out in him.

Anyone would sound like an idiot for trying to convince you not to be moral, drop your integrity or demean yourself – but that’s the reason appeals to moralism sound good. Being resolute is admirable, but until your virtue is significantly tested they’re just excuses that look nice on your sleeve. Guy’s who have legitimate harems don’t make announcements about how they’re renouncing them in favor of ONE quality woman. There’s no self-convincing, they just do it, without any fanfare or seeking affirmation from others for having done so.

It’s been my experience that the guys who are the most vocal about the merits of self-esteem and personal integrity trumping sexual experience are generally the same guys who aren’t hooking up with any real frequency anyway. Remember, a sacrifice is only significant when you actually have something relevant to lose. The point these guys like to make are generally based on common truisms that very few people will argue with – and they know this. We’d all like to think that possessing some basic form of self-control is admirable, particularly in respect to our base impulses, but for as much as we’d like to self-righteously pat ourselves on the back for “resisting temptation”, the fact remains that yes, we are still motivated by those impulses. I can’t think of anyone who’d want to identify with the “lust crazed man” label, and certainly not as his recognized source of esteem, however, the physical/biological forces that motivates his lust is still very real. Flowery prose doesn’t make a personal anecdote a universal truth. It’s interesting that they’ll make the point of personal esteem being a paramount virtue in one paragraph yet still equate bedding a “woman of value” with a sense of “victory”.

It’s interesting to me when I hear appeals to righteousness in the form of deriding the experiences of men (sexual or otherwise) by characterizing them as worth less because they supposedly compensate for some inner failing. One canard is the presumption that a guy with many lovers in his past must somehow be fucking his harem to impress himself or others. Honestly, I’ve never known a guy who didn’t enjoy fucking for the sake of fucking. Considering the difficulty most men encounter in just banging the precious few women they do in the average lifespan, I doubt the few men who actually can enjoy a variety of women do so simply to acquire more accolades from other men for having done so. What’s ironic to me is that the same self-righteous appeal to adherence to a convenient conviction is actually done for much the same reason they accuse other men of – to garner respect and affirmation for doing so.

If you choose to derive your personal value from some esoteric sense of what sex ‘should’ mean, more power to you, but I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s OK to want to fuck just for the sake of fucking – it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning. It is as equally unhealthy to convince oneself that self-repressions are virtues as it is to think that unfettered indulgences are freedoms. There is a balance.


  1. THis is entirely unrelated but I have a request for a future post. More and more I encounter the argument from feminists that the world used to be matriarchal and that used to be much better. I think countering this myth will be very important in the fight for mens rights but don`t have the time to dig deeply into this myself so I am hoping someone else might. MAybe you!

    To give you an overview the myth goes something like this: Everyone, even the men were better of blah, blah blah. There were no sexual shame and people would have tons of sex partners, have group sex and share partners without jelousy etc. Certain tribal cultures today are pointed to as examples of this structure or of something similar or related. Tahiti was suposedly such a free love paradise. THe trobiander islands is mentioned. Less sex craszy but still suposedly matriarchal are the naxi people in china were the women work and the men care for the children and women can choose which men can come see them at night. THere is also an erea in mexico that has a fairly female dominant structure that is suposedly great acording to these feminists.

    From reading just a little bit it seems like few if any of these examples are actualy matriarchal but just matrilinear with more female power than normal but still actually more male dominated than the other way arround such as I read in an analysis of the Trobiander Islands. From a newspaper article I read about the village in mexico it seemed like most of the women there thought their men were just pathetic so there seems to be good reason to question how happy the women are with these structures. A key point I think in examining these things is to look at how well children actually do is these societies. Since the father is usually unknown it is normally either to brothers of the mother, some sort of stepdad figure or all the men in the tribe or all the men that slept with the women in the begining who takes the fathers role. I am sceptical of how well that actually works out. Roissy qouted a study that found that children in monogmous families did better than children in ploygamous families in areas were both were normal as the competition in polygamous families damaged the children and their access to resources. Everything I have read in evoloutinary theory and all studies I ahve seen on how stepfamilies and extended families work etc. indicate that the key to how well children are cared for will always be how closely related they are to the caretakers. So a brother will probably care less for his sisters children than a father would even if the brother has no known children of his own. “Stepdads” even less and when all the men in the tribe are fathers probably much, much less although there would be more of them. HTere is also the question of incest whcih would be rempant in small societies with no knowledge of paternity and because sex often starts arround age 11-13 there should be very high number of deaths of mothers and children during birth as the number of deaths of mothers and children during births are way, way higher when the girl is under 15. My guess is there are a ton of other issues with these sorts of structures that are glossed over in these accounts of suposed matriarchal paradises. I am also wondering why on earth to women would sleep with ALL of the men. Hypergamy makes this seem unlikely. If they do not then how is jealousy solved? An in depth analysis that uncovers such flaws will be key in preventing the spread of a damaging myth of a suposed matriarchal paradise. Studies that dispute wether such societies are realy matriarchies or are more balanced or male controlled but sexually very polyamorous societies would also be important. Studies and facts that dispute wether there were really a golden age of matriarchies in which everyone worhsipped goddeses and everyone was peacefull is also key. Some counters are that it seems unlikely men would have evolved to desire what we desire in women had they for most of our history been in charge and the other way arround. Another is that since scientists have calculated through DNA studies that in each generation on average 80% of females and only 40% of males had children who in turn had children it seems implausible that there have been many matriarchies as that would mean the man that did have wifes often had two or more which would give the men the power in the relationships, it also seems implausible that 60% of men would accept this without a fight so there were matriarchies they were probably highly violent. Studies I have read show that skeletons from prehistoric times show signs of death from violence in 20-40% of the cases which would indicate extreme amounts of violence so this indicates either that there were no matriarchies or that they were violent. Studies of tribes in teh amazon today indicate similar levels of violence. If any of them are actually matriarchal or close to it that would be key info. So if anyone is willing to look into this and write about it on their blog I think you will do an important job. The book sex at dawn will be a key read I think as it outlines a lot of these arguments.

    Related to this myth is the talk about the Bonobo monkey. Suposedly the females have more power amongst the bonobos and they are very peaceful and have sex all the time. Resolve conflict with having sex instead of fighting etc. THis is frequently used as an argument that a female controlled human society and female controlled relationship would be better. After googling it just a little bit I found out that the scientist who had spread these ideas of the bonobos have only studied them in captivity in the US and never been to were they live in Africa. Captivity is known to change behavior radically. Those who now study them in their natural habitat have found that they do not have more heterosexual sex than certain other types of monkeys they just have homosexual sex in addition to that so if you add up all the sex they do have more but really their just more bisexual. THeir low level of violence is also in question as they have now been observed hunting an killing monkeys from other species. Still there are some possible interesting things about what is said about these monkeys that might have a grain of truth to them. Anyhow it seems a lot is myth and figuring that out I think is an important task for the manosphere as this argument is all over the web now. As part of this work I think it is a good idea to look into other matriarchal animals. From what I have read before most matriarchal animals are charactherized bu low paternal investment. The females raise the children toghether with zero or only little help from males and then the males rund of when they grow up and just roam arround on tehir own or in bands of males. This mirrors what happens with singlemomhood in the western world today and how black america largely functions. So it seems what happens when you have female dominated societies and relationships what you have is exactly what you have amongst most of the matriarchal animals which is low paternal investment. Amongst humans that means disaster as we all know. Having animal studies to back this and to counter the bonobo argument will be very important in the future. Whenever feminists bring this argument up in debates online I see a lot of people falling for it. We nned quality info and thorough debate about this to counter it as strongly as possible. THis is also a way to counter some of the general “women are always best, men and fathers are unimportant” feelings people have.

  2. “I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s OK to want to fuck just for the sake of fucking – it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning.”


  3. If you haven’t already, you should read Epicurus or Lucretius on sexual love. I think you’d enjoy it. A lot of the better insights of (old) Roissy et. al were hit upon by Greek philosophers thousands of years ago.

  4. I think that might be the longest blog post in the history of blog posts.

    Here is a link to an article that talks about what happens when societies begin to move away from the patriarcal model that allowed them to grow and prosper-

    If women have their way we will all be fucking like chimpanzees and living in a grass hut “utopia”. Men build civilizations. Women left to their own devices destroy them.

  5. there is a reason why ‘matriarchal’ societies have been so few and far between throughout human history. think about it.

    i never engage feminists (actually, women, for that matter) in serious debates or discussions, it’s a waste of time. i’ll only seemingly engage if they’re hot enough to bang, and the objective is not to make my point, or to educate them, or to come to an understanding, it’s to turn the ‘debate’ into an opportunity to ultimately inject millions of litte itsmes into them.

    but hey, everyone’s time and energy is their own to spend in whatever way they see fit.

    great blog, rollo.

  6. As a side note, this is one of the purposes of mainstream media, the main source of information most guys get from intergender dynamics, ‘morality’/virtue, and relationships.

    All MSM ideological products prescribe to you a mental structure whose goal is an unobtainable fantasy, but always leave an escape route to hamster so you don’t ditch the mental prison.


    Virtue: Find the woman of your dreams, fall in love, settle down and have a family. That’s the purpose of life!

    Oh things didn’t work out with her, she just wanted to be friends? That’s okay. Eventually she’ll your value after all those assholes.

    Oh, she stopped putting out and broke up with you? That’s okay. Not all women are like that to nice guys like you. Keep looking! There’s someone out there for everyone.

    Oh, she cheated on you? Don’t worry about it. He’s an asshole and will eventually get what’s coming to him. What goes around comes around. Karma.

    Get the picture?

Speak your mind

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s