Relational Equity

When I started in on the Hypergamy doesn’t care,.. post I knew it was going to come off as some unavoidably deterministic rant about the evils of hypergamy.

That post was born out of all the efforts I’ve repeatedly read men relate to me when they say how unbelievable their breakups were. As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male. There is a prevailing belief that all of their merits, if sufficient, should be proof against her hypergamous considerations.

For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it’s particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a sufficiently better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.

That isn’t to say that women don’t take that equity into account when determining whether to trade up or in their choice of men if they’re single, but their operative point of origin is ALWAYS hypergamy. Women obviously can control their hypergamic impulses in favor of fidelity, just as men can and do keep their sexual appetites in check, but always know that it isn’t relationship equity she’s rationally considering in that moment of decision.

This dynamic is exactly the reason the surrogate boyfriend, the perfect nice guy orbiter who’s invested so much into identifying with his target, gets so enraged when his dream girl opts for the hot asshole jerk. She’s not making a logical decision based upon his invested relational equity. Quite the opposite; she’s empirically proving for him that his equity is worthless by rewarding the hot jerk – who had essentially no equity – with her sex and intimacy. He doesn’t understand that hypergamy doesn’t care about relational equity.

This is a really tough truth for guys to swallow, because knowing how hypergamy works necessarily devalues their concept of relational equity with the woman they’re committed to, or considering commitment with. Men’s concept of relational equity stems from a mindset that accepts negotiated desire (not genuine desire) as a valid means of relationship security. This is precisely why most couples counseling fails – its operative origin begins from the misconception that genuine desire (hypergamy) can be negotiated indefinitely.

The Rational Female

Aunt Giggles recently posted a fluffy little piece of interpretive Alpha fiction extolling the virtues of Beta men (who of course to her are the real Alphas only without teeth, pee sitting down and only say sweet things about girls). It’s not a bad list in and of itself despite the fact that her definition of Alpha is George Costanza who morphs into Sterling Grey upon command when the moment strikes. It’s a noble effort, but where her list falls flat is in the presumption (her hope) that women will make a conscious, rational decision to opt for a Beta male as a suitable long term provider. What a novel concept!

Irony aside, Giggles still falls prey to two fallacies in her pleas for a better Beta. The first is as discussed above; the hope or the realistic expectation that women’s hindbrain hypergamy can be sublimated in favor of a rational cognitive decision making when choosing with whom to spread her legs for, much less settle down with. I understand it’s been at least 28 years since she had to make that particular decision, but not much has really changed in that time with regards to the limbic influence hypergamy has over women’s decision making processes. The short answer is that she believes that healthy relationships can be rooted in negotiated desire (which is also called ‘obligated desire’ in the real world).

This then leads into the second fallacy in which she presumes relationship equity – even the potential for that equity – will make the life time commitment to a “he’ll-haffta-do” Beta endurable while repressing her innate hypergamy. As I stated above, hypergamy doesn’t care about relational equity. If it’s a consideration at all in a woman’s decision making process, it’s only for comparative purposes when assessing risk motivated by hypergamy. Some times that risk association is present in deciding whether to accept a marriage proposal, sometimes it’s present when she decides another man’s genetic potential rivals that of the provider she’s already committed to, but in all instances the originating prompt is still hypergamy.

*late post edit* As is his way Roissy offers up another timely refutation of Aunt Susan’s played out trope ‘WARNING: Alpha traits alone are suitable for short-term mating only!’

The Rational Male

All of that may sound like I’m excusing men from the equation, I’m not. As I detailed in The Threat, when men progressively become more aware of their sexual market value, the better their capacity develops to assess long term investment potential with women. The trouble with this model, in its present form, is that the phase at which men are just becoming aware of their true long term value to women (usually around age 30) is almost exactly the phase (just pre-Wall) in which women hope to press men unaware of their SMV into their long term provisioning schema. As this relates to men, most spend the majority of their teens and 20’s pursuing women, following the dicktates of their biological impulses, and to varying degrees of success learn from experience what really seems like women’s duplicity or fickleness. So it comes as a breath of fresh air for the average (see Beta) guy to finally encounter what he believes is a woman who’s “down to earth” and seems genuinely concerned with hearth and family at age 29. Her past character, her very nature, even her single-mommyness can be overlooked and/or forgiven in light of finding such a rare jewel.

There’s a new breed of White Knight in the manosphere who love to enthusiastically promote the idea of rigorously vetting women as potential wives. It sounds like virtue. For serial monogamists playing the ‘Good Guy’ card, it sounds so satisfying to lay claim to having experience and integrity enough to be a good judge or authority of what will or will not do for his ‘exacting standards’. This is really a new form of Beta Game; “look out ladies, I’ve been through the paces so if you’re not an approximate virgin and know how to bake a hearty loaf of bread, this guy is moving on,..” and on, and on, and on. All any of this really amounts to is a better form of identification Game, because ultimately a profession of being a Good Guy is still an attempt to be what he expects his ideal woman would want – a good judge (of her) character.

Know this right now, no man (myself included) in the history of humanity has ever fully or accurately vetted any woman he married. And certainly not any guy who married prior to the age of 30 or had fewer than 1 LTR in his past. It’s not that high school sweethearts who last a lifetime don’t exist, it’s that no man can ever accurately determine how the love of his life will change over the course of that lifetime.

Right about now, I can hear the “wow, that’s some pretty raw shit there Mr. Tomassi” from the gallery, and I agree, but ask the guy on his second divorce how certain he was that he’d done his due diligence with his second wife based on all his past experience. Bear this truth in mind, you do not buy into a good marriage or LTR, you create one, you build one. Your sweet little Good Girl who grew up in the Amish Dutch Country is just as hypergamous as the club slut you nailed last night. Different girls, different contexts, same hypergamy. You may have enough experience to know a woman who’d make a good foundation, but you ultimately build your own marriage/monogamy based on your own strengths or dissolve it based on inherent flaws – there are no pre-fab marriages.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

109 comments on “Relational Equity

  1. The logical extension of all this is that there is no need to “build equity” the way you describe it and no reason to act the way you describe betas behaving, and I think this is the thing that really scares Susie.

    If there are enough rational men out there that realize this truth, the less “freebies” women get. And make no mistake they get freebies all through life.

    The gravy train ends.

    Imagine a world where every man accepted and understood the concept of hypergamy.

    Feminism would be dead. The pedestal would be broken.

  2. You’re damned skippy, there’s no such thing as relationship equity. Love is not transactional, even though we toss about terms like the “sexual market,” etc.

    The most alpha men do loving things for their women solely motivated by love, not out of any sense of investment. Do it for the hell of it, because it makes YOU feel good to make her feel good, not because you think you’re racking up points on some scoreboard in the recesses of her heart and mind. It definitely doesn’t work that way. As you said, all women have hypergamous instincts, and hypergamy doesn’t care about previous investments.

    Gonzo fiction writer Mark Leyner had a line in a book years ago about the common pop-psychology exhortation to “own your feelings.” He said, “due to present market conditions, I prefer to lease-option my feelings..”

    That line stayed with me, feelings are not fungible financial transactional objects. They are fleeting biochemical rushes of energy bubbling through the nervous system. All we can do is manage our own feelings, and bestow good feelings upon others out of motivated self-interest, or selfish altruism. It’s unconditional that way, and if the relationship goes up in flames, you’ve maintained your own emotional autonomy and thus maintained hand.

    The irony is, maintaining emotional autonomy, which is greatly supported by spinning plates, negates much or all of the need for overly grandiose emotional investments, frees up the ego to refrain from invest emotionally out of a sense of neediness, and in many ways tips the balance of power to men who know that there’s no shortage of women. In that state, any gesture of love and affection comes from a totally free, unconditional place, expressed purely for the satisfaction and joy of expressing it. That, my friends, is emotional freedom and power.

    1. no, my friedn that is slavery. You depend on having other babaes. Once you do not have them, you are done. They are still your masters. Freedom is being able to manage your feeling by yourself. You are the master.

  3. Quick question Rollo, are you the same Rollo as used to have an epically long thread in the Love Systems forum?

  4. Your sweet little Good Girl who grew up in the Amish Dutch Country is just as hypergamous as the club slut you nailed last night. Different girls, different contexts, same hypergamy.

    Precisely. The concept of hypergamy is the most misunderstood and misused concept in the manosphere. Many express anger at it, or that it’s something optional that women can consciously suppress.

  5. Its not optional, but it is something they can control.

    The framework of our society is set up to encourage acting on hypergamy though.

  6. Great post, but I think you dance dangerously close to dismissing “standards”.

    Yes, all women are hypergamous, but I don’t believe that means every woman is a “slut”. Nobody has ever vetted perfectly, or fully accurately, but vetting is better than no vetting and should absolutely be done.

    We will never know if whatever woman we commit to (assuming we commit) is a reformed slut or not…..but like any mystery, there are clues to follow.

    There is a saying “The one you divorce is never the one you married”, and it is absolutely true. The sad things is, some men are such lifetime beta’s that they could be on their 5th divorce and never pickup on any of the clues required to properly vet a girl before marrying her.

    Point is, while we will never know for sure if our potential wife was a c0ck-gobbling cum-dumpster, carousel riding h0r who follows every hypergamous impulse, we can still retain the ability to filter out the one’s who more obviously were that type (dependend upon your experience/knowledge and ability to vet).

    1. Agreed. Hypergamy may always be present, but a woman who rides the c0ck carousel without discrimination is not necessarily succumbing helplessly to hypergamy.

      A woman will never tell you everything she’s done sexually (nor should you ask). However, if you listen to her and watch her long enough, she WILL communicate to you her general sexual history and standards in some way. Even the 35+ provider-hunters will struggle to completely keep the curtain up on their sexual exploits, in part because they tend to use these experiences to lure in their prey. E.g. “I’ve had a bisexual experience…” can be a veiled reference to “I’ve been in some orgies” as well as bait (“Maybe if you marry me we’ll have a threesome….but maybe not.”)

    2. Point is, while we will never know for sure if our potential wife was a c0ck-gobbling cum-dumpster, carousel riding h0r who follows every hypergamous impulse…

      Which is why adultery originated as a term that only applied to women, whose whorishness has the power to secretly “adulterate” a man’s blood line. A father “will never know for sure,” absent the DNA test whose requirement is an affront to a wife’s dignity, who should be above reproach. “Caesar’s wife must be above criticism.”

      The point is, this is an impossible standard to achieve individually, through individual commitments. It requires social sanction and cooperation to shame female breachers of fidelity most especially. Hence the “unfair” double-standard of female slut vs. male stud — and its attempted obsolescence by feminists. Allowing her hypergamy even a single time out of the barn is the prescription for social chaos, which is why the very thought of it must be condemned and severely by one and all:

      The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” … Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.” [emphasis added]


      “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a [man] lustfully has already committed adultery with [him] in [her] heart.”

      The potential for chaos through adultery is so severe that thinking it must be regarded as the equivalent of doing it. Christ had the power to forgive just as the Pharisees were right to punish — but only with the condition that, having been absolved, she did not do it again. This is the standard that must be drilled into girls the moment their hypergamy begins developing, for only a severe standard makes counteraction possible for a woman to achieve alone.

      This personal protection against hypergamy may be the last defense of a woman on the verge of infidelity, so it is important. But it is far from sufficient. The only way to counteract the scourge of hypergamy is, like anything else, to leave it up to men. Men who acknowledge the tremendous achievement of civilizing women can find common ground with other men, so long as they don’t give themselves over to schoolyard sexual bombast.

      When other men’s wives throw themselves at me, I calculate the virility of her husband more than I chastize her for her hypergamy. If these cuckolds were smart, they’d negotiate with me directly rather than try to nag their wife into denying her nature. I’m generally on their side.

      Here’s the kicker. A woman who submits to the only comprehensive solution to her hypergamy — the male will — not only preserves her dignity as a woman, but also experiences the thrill and relaxation of submission. She transfers her responsibility along with the transfer of her will. She achieves freedom in obedience.

      “[Wo]men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions form their fetters.” — Edmund Burke, paraphrased


      1. A woman who submits to the only comprehensive solution to her hypergamy — the male will — not only preserves her dignity as a woman, but also experiences the thrill and relaxation of submission. She transfers her responsibility along with the transfer of her will. She achieves freedom in obedience.


  7. Its not optional, but it is something they can control.

    No…what they can control is their own behavior. Hypergamy is not A behavior, nor is it an action. It is simply the females visceral attraction hard wiring.

    1. When I mean control, I mean they can control in terms of acting on it, but if we want to play semantic games we can, because your incorrect.

      In fact if you want to get technical the word hypergamy as it is defined is the action of marrying or being in a relationship with a higher status male, or mating with a higher status male. Just as monogamy is the act of being in a relationship with only one person.

      All of which are in fact actions.

      Now, if you want to say that woman’s attraction triggers are hypergamous, then you would be correct in that they cannot control that.

      The way the word in the manosphere is used is imprecise.

  8. “Know this right now, no man (myself included) in the history of humanity has ever fully or accurately vetted any woman he married.”

    This makes me feel better. I did all the usual beta crap for years, believing I was building up equity, believing I had married one of the good ones. I was shocked when I found her spate of long phone calls and coffee dates with Mr. Travels-A-Lot-Never-Married-No-Kids.

    My initial reaction was, “You owe me.” That’s how misguided I was.

    After going through hell last year cockblocking that motherfucker and learning about Game, I’ve been wondering if I’d made a huge mistake marrying her at all. Game boards are full of anti-marriage advice.

    But I don’t think my mistake was marrying her. I love her, am attracted to her, enjoy her company, and love the times when things are going well.

    My mistake was not keeping her attracted. I’d have been happier if I had.

    Women can control themselves, just as men can, in theory. But eventually, over a span of years and decades, if enough emotional hindbrain pressure is built up, and enough opportunities are presented, the odds of eventually experiencing a major betrayal approach 1-to-1.

    1. The best thing you can do for both of you is to finish it ASAP. But talk to your lawyer to minimize damage (financial) and do it discreetly. Afterwards you will have time to practice game with better models (physically speaking), hahaha.

      1. Thanks, J.M., but I wasn’t clear in my post that all that mess was finished about a year ago. We made it through, although there were dozens of times when I was convinced we wouldn’t. I persuaded the guy to back off, turned myself around, and transformed myself into a man my wife would be attracted to, the man I should have been all along if I hadn’t been plugged into the Matrix. The trick that changed everything for me was showing my wife that I had sexual alternatives. It was the threat of her having sexual alternatives that motivated me, and it did the same to her. There’s no amount of talking and persuading and communicating and therapy that will substitute for being desired in the sexual market.

        1. I don’t know, sounds like you put in a lot of effort to win her back, while her contribution was getting off another man’s cock. If she discovered you having an affair how fast would you have been kicked out of your own house? Doesn’t seem like a recoverable situation to me

  9. Men don’t want to hear that adultery is a sin — and it is. Heck, it’s a whole commandment (two, if you count “covet your neighbor’s wife”).

    What gets lost, however, is the fact that female adultery is ten times the sin as the male’s, and male adultery is understandable only within the context of civilized standards. (A bull cannot commit adultery on “his” cow.) If the civilization has ceased to acknowledge this gap between male and female versions as ours has, then it relinquishes all authority over shaming men for fornication. To ask men to bear the full burden of fidelity amounts to something even more odious than chumpdom; it amounts to a material participation in the destruction of the possibility of faithfulness. Any faithfulness to anything or anyone.

    In other words, context is key. Fidelity cannot be achieved by one sex alone. It must be a mutual effort, and (the forbidden) truth be told, it is an unfairly unbalanced burden relying on proper female behavior. So in our bizarro world where we have flip-flopped roles, we are treated to the repulsive sight of powerful men castrated and faithful while their haggardly women say “oops” after a dick accidentally falls into them. Equality here is not enough! We have to correct the scales much more than a return to 50-50.

    Female fidelity is paramount. Only then does male fidelity have a chance of making sense. In fact, it is so paramount that polygamy would be psychologically possible if it didn’t politically create artificial sexual rivalries through disproportion; i.e., some well-connected beta males with multiple wives while some natural alphas have none at all by the force of law.

    Hence the true danger of our times. Male fidelity is so precarious a construct that it takes only the slightest nudge to turn the world into a pulsating savage fuck-all. (If you doubt this, consider male sexuality untempered by female restraint in queer Fire Island chain parties or 70s era homo bathhouses.) Not only is hypergamy the last word in our social dynamic today, it is impossible for a woman to offer her fidelity to a man for protection against the cock carousel. And without the possibility of female fidelity, male fidelity is quixotic, a cruel pantomime of an old standard that enchumpens a man down to his bones. It is self-castration to prove one’s mettle, ending in the confirmation of society’s perpetual cuckolding.

    Killing is necessary in war. We don’t call it murder when a soldier neutralizes his opposite number. Just the same, fornication is necessary in the war of the sexes, so long as women refuse to resume the burdens of feminine fidelity. Let’s stop pretending this correction of our sorry state of affairs is about an overabundance of male virility more than it is the social surrender to the dictates of malign hypergamy, as ably documented by Rollo.

    Now that we know the score, what are we men going to do about it together? Game and pick-up artistry only know to take advantage of this anomaly, which will quickly be closed in any event. What kind of place will it be after the Cock Carnival is run out of town? The disaster of sexless feminist matriarchy or the return of the patriarch? We have to consciously work toward the latter to prevent the continuation of the former. The shrikes have the default position, and our selfish looting of the ruins will only bring the Harridan Dystopia back and stronger than ever.

    We’re already living in it: sexual harassment laws, false rape accusations, divorce rape, female responsibility in name only. But can you blame our submission to this regime? Any port in a storm, and the storm is sexual chaos. The feminist alternative requires male castration, obedience, and responsibility for all deviations from the script, all infelicitous consequences of female mismanagement. But that’s still better than the alternative where women are used and discarded and men don’t know who their kids are and their daughters are turned into whores by age 13.

    Even if you think it’s a grand old time, it’s not sustainable: most people will not stand chaos for long. And right now they only have the feminist model to turn to. We have to present the better deal, the one assented to from time immemorial — the simple submission of female will to male authority, which offers freedom for all (and some risk), rather than the stability of feminist totalitarianism, the peace of the grave.


    1. Come on Matt please start writing your own blog soon.

      You speak great truths.

    2. you still DO care about women. Deep down you respect and appreciate them. You do want to direct them, to protect and rule them. You NEED them. You would be a good husband and maybe a good dad as well. Men like you are necessary to keep this life experiment going. There were the times when I was the same.

      I honestly do not give a fuck about their well being. Neither I do hold them responsible for anything. They have lost any real value for me. I use them for occasional pleasure and a dose of life energy when I need it for my business. Besides sex and a timely restricted companion (2 dasy form the week at max) I honestly do not have any other use for them.

    3. This post is quite hilarious almost nine years later, the degeneracy circus hasn’t even reached its crescendo yet. The last time it was put on pause, Europe spent a decade embroiled in total war.

  10. “This is really a new form of Beta Game; “look out ladies, I’ve been through the paces so if you’re not an approximate virgin and know how to bake a hearty loaf of bread, this guy is moving on,..” and on, and on, and on.”

    Very true, and what is striking is that this attitude is no more than a pale copy of the antics of the checklist-chicks out there on the internet dating sites. In other words, conscious vetting is essentially a feminine trait. I would suggest that it will have similar results.

    1. See my interpretation of that demand from a guy is to have standards. I am not sure why that is considered a form of “Beta Game”. If you do not find what you want from a woman, the general rule is to move on.

      How is that phrase above any different

      1. Hi danger,

        This is possibly a problem of terminology. I agree that we all have standards, to a greater or lesser degree, which is perfectly normal. What I thought Rollo was alluding to was conscious “rigorous vetting” i.e. having a mental checklist of what qualities a potential partner must have before even considering them. It seems to me that this goes way beyond simple “standards”.

        I don’t particularly care whether vetting is Beta or not, I just don’t think that it will work. Women do it, and it doesn’t work for them. I would say just go with your guts – they are your best guide to your standards – and see what happens from there.

        In any case, knowing how easily the most demure of women dissimulate their personalities and their past, you will have a hard job vetting them with any kind of certainty, even if they have lived on your street for the last decade…

        1. Good reply.

          I suppose the cold blunt truth is to realize that you will never know what is under the hood, and it will always be changing (in the end we are all guessing, regardless of experience).

          She could have been a h0r, she may end up being a h0r, but all you can do is keep improving yourself and keep your options open.

          1. Danger, my point wasn’t to suggest that guys simply say “fuck it” and not be selective, or ignore red flags, etc., but rather to address this self-righteous ‘vetting’ vibe I’m reading so many guys twist into some form of Game. It’s as if they think their sensibilities are so refined as to be a point of attraction – and any woman not appreciating his exacting standards is automatically a “low quality woman”.

            They believe women will think to themselves, “wow, this guy really must be a prince among men if he demands all this moral imperative stuff”, but all it is is one more variation of the ‘not-like-other-guys’ script Betas think make them uniquely attractive. They’re less interested in ‘vetting’ and more interested in attempting to set themselves apart from the herd by impressing the fact that they are ‘vetting.’

            Newsflash: Hypergamy doesn’t care about pontifications and appeals to moral imperatives.

          2. “Danger, my point wasn’t to suggest that guys simply say “fuck it” and not be selective, or ignore red flags, etc., but rather to address this self-righteous ‘vetting’ vibe I’m reading so many guys twist into some form of Game. It’s as if they think their sensibilities are so refined as to be a point of attraction…

            The bolded portion is key. “Vetting” becomes another form of beta game when guys fetishize it to the point where they think doing it rigorously will spark gina tingle in girls because of some misguided notion that only “alphas” are that exacting and selective. When that happens, the “vetting” becomes gynocentric because they’re doing it to impress the pussy. This is a subtle point—I missed it myself upon the first read through of this post.

            This is the difference between the “vetting” suggested by bloggers like Dalrock which strikes me as purely an exercise in due diligence and self-preservation and the “vetting” you find elsewhere in the manosphere which is mostly about impressing the pussy.

  11. In terms of relational equity- the caveat is that it becomes easier to agree with when you see fewer options.

    As women get older, not only do they not see opportunities (‘where have all the good guys gone?’) but they literally don’t have opportunities. Technically they do, if you can rationalize a long sexual history plus extra kids plus entitled attitude.

    As men get older, their long term confidence has the potential to increase, so that they see more opportunity as well as literally have more opportunities. Its not hard for a woman to rationalize connecting with a confident, sexually experienced, entitled, and socially successful man. Experience translates to preselection and desire- if the guy is smart about it. Else he falls for beta honeytraps.

    Every day I see women choose to be with men who have no equity, all risk. And since I doubt the kind of women i’m attracted to even have the capacity to consider that decision- I will take the risk of being considered a loser, wierdo, shady, asshole, wrong wrong wrong wrong that the sisterhood loves to foist.

  12. Hahaha.

    The way you explained Relationship Equity made me think that it’s like engaging in international trade with a child.

    They have different values for what they want than what you do. They operate for their own interest above yours, though yours (may) factor into their decisions slightly. And if something shinier than what you have to offer catches their eye, they’ll take it and put it in their mouth while giving you large eyes of disbelief that you would consider them wrong for doing such a thing without a thought.

  13. Learning how to manipulate women to advantage has a few simple steps. The first is the most difficult; deciding to do so. This is a big step for many, as we had been conditioned to seek an equal partner and to respect her autonomy and decision process.

    The 2nd step is stop thinking from a solipsistic male standpoint. Women aren’t men with tits and an innie. Their brains are wired differently, and although they can occasionally masquerade as capable of masculine rationality, they connive in female ways allways. To manipulate women you need to be able to know how women think. You need to be able to step out of your shoes and into her scrambled eggs mind.

    The third step is not actually a step. It is to have a meta view, and to know what you want. I can’t put that as the first step because this evolves after you have practiced step one and two. You learn through action what you want as your opportunities change and as your skills and experiences grow. Knowing what you want is a high level cognitive skill that requires a great deal of individuation born from experience and reflection.

    1. Learning how to manipulate women requires one thing which is very hard to achieve for 99 percent of men. It requires to …. wake up.

      Unless we manage this they are still manipulating us – men are learning game, changing places to live, enterug marriages, paying for their shit, slaving in shitty jobs, etc, JUST for being worthy of their company. We are made that way.. otherwise women can not choose. We think that when we have many chicks that we are playing with them. No my friends, we are living just for THEM.

      Manipulation of women – real, cold manipulation, requires to view her as a lower being, the purpose of which is to serve your purpose. Unless she serves YOUR purpose, she has NO meaning and no value at all. You have to FEEL that way, honestly feel. Women are made to see men that way, therefore they are masters of manipulation. And men are made to serve the feminine purpose, our very bodies and minds are created that way so this one is very, very hard to achieve. But once you are there, there is no way to turn back. You become hypergamous too.

  14. Step three grows out from one and two because you can’t know what you want from women until you know women and know what you can expect to get from interacting with and manipulating women. Initially a man might want marriage and babies, but after much experience he may discover his inner desires are not in line with what society taught him to expect to feel. Or he may discover he wants marriage but not monogamy on his part. Or he might find he wants a companionate marriage with a best buddy, and that passion is low on his list of values.

    On a different subject it is hardwired into many (but I believe not all) people to have as their sexual strategy controlling the sexual strategy of others. People can be fascinated to the point of militant frenzy with the sex lives of those around them. We want a Taliban style society to control the hypergamous urges of women. This is a viable and useful sexual strategy – to join together into a mob of stick waving radical youths and whack at the shins of impertinently dressed young girls. I’ve seen such mobs attempt social control in Indonesia, and on the surface they temporarily have effect, closing down discos or enacting modesty laws, but most people just view them as foolish losers and get on with their lives in the same way while avoiding the bullies as best they can. Nobodies sexuality or lifestyle is curtailed in any meaningful way.

    I view it as the most stupid emotional thinking to believe that this innate busybody programming that many are born with can still have any sort of traction in the modern world. It is the most extreme form of wishful emotional thinking. You can dress it up in all the sophistry that you want, but conditions in the world are not cyclical, because technology is not cyclical. Culture is born out of opportunity, and opportunity changes with technology. When we learned farming, culture changed. When we learned to harness coal and mass produce, culture changed. When we made birth control widely available, culture changed. The service economy and anonymous urban living changed forever womens relationship to economic need and the power of social shaming. Culture is not cyclical – it has an arrow of direction in time that follows the unpredictable arrow of technology and opportunity.

  15. This is why it is so dangerous to invest in a woman who grew up in a society where hypergamy is essentially unchecked.

    Absent an obscene amount of wealth men have a laughably small amount of tangible leverage in a relationship. The end result is that your woman has a lot of motivation and means to fulfill her genetic imperative at your expense. She can fuck around on the side and her worst case scenario is that she walks away with a bag full of parting gifts and the knowledge that she can support herself since she’s been working 40 hours per week the whole time anyway.

    How can a man build equity when his contribution is:

    1) Marginalized on the financial end by the fact that the woman is now working and earning close to what he is

    2) Not appreciated in any capacity because women lack that ability and believe that it is their god given right to have things provided for them

    Add to this woman’s capacity to turn off her feelings at a moments notice as soon as she has secured an investment from a new source and you have a recipe for disaster waiting to happen.

    In other words, equity counts for dick. You are expendable. The government, society and culture have devalued you to the point where you are little more than a sperm donor. Just ask your friendly neighborhood single mom.

    1. I agree. Take away the unjust laws and the social bias for women in divorce and I don’t think we men will have to worry too much if our careful wife vetting process isn’t a 99.99999% guarantee. As it is right now, getting married makes you a damn fool, regardless of your Game mastery.

    2. Hear, hear!

      Depressing when it’s stripped down to the bare bone and exposed. Solution? Avoid marriage, kids, and spin plates? Why sign up for such a raw deal? I’d seriously rather love a dog than a woman.

  16. Brilliant post once again.

    Rollo you got to do a write up of this post, the woman is trying to validate her righteousness only to glaringly show her hyperagamy in action. I couldn’t imagine an article that so obviously shows the opposite of what her intentions were.

    By the way Rollo, what is your take on MGTOW, are simply losers or are they following their own masculine centric perogatives.

  17. “He who cares the least, has the power in a relationship”

    Live by those words – and the way to be sure that you don’t care as much is to always have “up and comers” in the wings – even if you don’t use them, always have options. So when you invite someone to something and they bow out, you have others. Then be sure to mention how good it was – that gets the hamster going, “Who did he go with?” Always keep a woman guessing, and never let her be “secure” in any relationship. You have to make sure that she knows she is replaceable, and that if she isn’t living up to her end of the bargain, there are other women out there who will gladly.

    Hypergamy is a “GOOD” thing, since it means that you can access any woman you want, under the right circumstances. As long as you aren’t the schmuck who cares about her, that is a good thing – so there is a lesson to be leaned in that. As long as she has to work to keep you, she will – if she isn’t working to keep you, she’ll be working to get another guy soon enough. So always keep her working to keep you happy. It is as simple as that.

  18. the old proverb “honest men marry early, wise men never” summarizes it all. No need to talk anymore about this one.

  19. Why is it so hard to see that negotiated desire isn’t desire at all? Seems like the most logical thing in the world (what women really want might not be that easy to see, but realness or fakeness of obligated desire should be). After all, men can’t will themselves into a satisfying LTR with a woman they have no physical attraction for, either, even if she is really nice.

    “it’s that no man can ever accurately determine how the love of his life will change over the course of that lifetime.”
    Isn’t that true for any person in a relationship?

  20. “Bear this truth in mind, you do not buy into a good marriage or LTR, you create one, you build one. Your sweet little Good Girl who grew up in the Amish Dutch Country is just as hypergamous as the club slut you nailed last night. Different girls, different contexts, same hypergamy. You may have enough experience to know a woman who’d make a good foundation, but you ultimately build your own marriage/monogamy based on your own strengths or dissolve it based on inherent flaws – there are no pre-fab marriages.”

    SO wise. Yup, as I wrote before, men who think younger girls are the solution as just what I called hypergamy waiting to happen.

    @Stingray: I pulled out the exact same quote you did 🙂
    But where or where is that kind of man? Does your husband have any single friends? lol

  21. This is actually a very defensive position to take. “Relational equity” is not just a man’s strategy, it’s what women are going to rely on when they are old, fat and ugly. The problem is that women have become so short sighted, and to be blunt, stupid. The derisive attitude you take towards beta men who deign to think that behaving well and treating you well is worth something is going to turn to desperate hope that he will appreciate the same from you when you get old. It’s not all about raw attraction and desire, grow the fuck up, because when you’re a fat middle aged housewife you won’t have any market value and hypergamy won’t mean shit.

  22. Solution: instead of investing in the relationship, invest in your growth as a man. She’s more likely to stick around and in any event if she does leave you for a bigger alpha then your investment hasn’t been wasted.

  23. Pingback: Year One «
  24. Pingback: Promise Keepers «
  25. Pingback: House of Cards «
  26. This plays both ways as well. There are many raging broken-hearted women upset that her man left her for a hotter woman despite having kids together, mortgage, marriage, etc. Men trade “up” to a hotter woman just as readily as women do, relationship equity be damned.

  27. Pingback: Soldiers «
  28. Pingback: The IKEA Effect «
  29. Pingback: He’s Special |
  30. Pingback: Relational Equity
  31. Pingback: Left Behind |
  32. I see here frustration and willing to control women, essentially all the “good old” double standarts. but hey sometimes men are wrong too.
    Anyway I saw a “feminist” site that is for ditching all double standards, also those that come handy to women, as this is detrimental to the cause of emancipation.

  33. Pingback: Possession |
  34. Pingback: Suck It Up |
  35. Pingback: Beta Fucks |
  36. Pingback: Owed Sex |
  37. Pingback: Trophies |
  38. Pingback: Boundaries |
  39. Pingback: Memento Mori |
  40. “It’s a noble effort, but where her list falls flat is in the presumption (her hope) that women will make a conscious, rational decision to opt for a Beta male as a suitable long term provider. What a novel concept!”

    They do. After they had their bad boy fun and need someone to play good role model and father figure to their kids. OK fine. But here’s the catch – men are lining up to play Captain Save-a-Ho and by-passing, rational, justice-oriented, child and baggage-free women in the process.

    I asked this question over at Dragon’s blog (from where I followed your link here). Why are men doing this? Why are good, child-free men who should be pairing up with good, child-free women, instead pairing up with baby mamas?

  41. Pingback: The Reckoning |
  42. I know this is an old post but thought I’d still add my thoughts here.

    It’s interesting to read both blog posts “burden of performance” and “relational equity” back to back if you can. It is a very bitter red pill to swallow in coming to realise that a man has his burden of performance, i.e. his need to perform and demonstrate higher value to satisfy a woman’s hypergamous need but at the same time realise that what he is investing to meet that hypergamous need is not always going to be appreciated in the way he would like if what his performance demonstrates does not meet that hypergamous need.

    A man might work himself to the bone to provide an income for his family taking little of the money for himself, spend hours with his wife doing activities that he is only doing for her enjoyment and sacrifice his own goals / life ambitions to be with his one dream girl only to realise that this “build up of equity” is fallacious. If what he is investing does not meet that hypergamous need of his woman she has within her own biology the ability to up and leave without really a second thought for this so called investment in the relationship.

    This burden of performance that we cannot get away from mixed with the relationship equity myth is a cocktail that mixes to produce a heavy red pill drink labelled “men going their own way”. It’s easy to see why men would want to do this having come to realise this state of affairs in life and what is at play.

    What I think is a better way to perform under red pill awareness is to choose elements that both improve yourself and assist her hypergamous need to demonstrate higher value to her. Do not do things to please her that do not benefit yourself thinking it is equitable and she will appreciate your sacrifice (beta blue pill idealisation). Instead, for instance, strive to get a better job or strive to get in better shape. In this scenario you are improving your health and well being (you win) and benefiting your burden of performance to her (she wins). Even if your investment is not appreciated in this context, you are still left with your own wins.

    It’s having the mindset and foreknowledge that the rug can be pulled from beneath you at anytime; hypergamy does not care…. I’m 29 single and know that any future relationship I have with a woman will be under this guidance.

  43. Great blog Rollo. I’m new to the red pill and I’m glad I’m not going mad with these experiences. I found the content in a moment of desperation dealing with women in my life. I’m in the red pill rage phase, seeing their actions for what they are. I see hypergamy and epiphany stages happening in real time. What annoys me or stings the most is relational equity. This lack of reciprocation for the mountain of effort I put in is mind boggling. I feel this way about my wife and about my closest female “friend”. I call her “friend” because I feel it is a fake friendship. An attention whore at best. Plate spinning master. Imagine a bunch of men in a mental file cabinet, categorized for each task that they can provide. This is how I see this female “friendship” play out. A selection of orbiters (“friends”) to provide attention and perform the task that they do best. I’ve even been blamed for being too kind, WTF? “I didn’t ask you to do those things…” Yeah, because you don’t feel any obligation to return the kindness.

    It feels weird that I have to learn how to give less of a fuck. Is this our preprogramming to serve women before ourselves? They don’t seem to give a fuck, how do I go about learning this skill without appearing like an asshole?

    With guy friends, there is a sense of transactional reciprocation. I helped you with fixing your car, you can help me fix my fence. With women you are throwing your good deeds down a bottomless pit. Seeing this with a red pill lense, I now avoid female “friendships” with needy, insecure women. I don’t care to be your emotional tampon.

  44. @New guy

    The rage happens because we expect women to behave like we have been told that they will behave…like men…but women don’t behave like men, so we get angry and frustrated…it’s so much better to just understand how women really are and not expect them to be something that they are not…it’s hard to accept that we have let ourselves be fooled about women’s nature…that we are suckers…but that path leads towards a better outcome after we swallow the Red Pill…

  45. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male.

    This should be “…all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before deciding the relationship is over, for whatever reason.”

    I don’t think another branch-swing is the only reason women leave the relationship. but when they decide to to it, the effect is the same.

  46. Pingback: She’s Not Yours

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: