Too Hot


Over the Christmas break I had Dalrock and several SoSuave members alert me to a recent story about the firing of a dental assistant for “being too attractive”. I’d thought it was pretty laughable at first glance, but there’s a lot more going on in this situation than just what’s on the surface here. Naturally the fem-centric media starting point is the egregiousness of the all-male Iowa high court unanimously agreeing that a woman could be fired for something other than her job performance. It’s always interesting to observe the legal twistings when when the feminine imperative smacks into a law it hasn’t yet distorted to its own purposes (like right-to-work laws). I’m sure the case will be taken up the chain to even higher courts, but the operative will be the same – women don’t want to be beholden to general laws that conflict with the feminine imperative. Give it time and new definitions of what constitutes sexual discrimination, and you’ll see how fluidly the imperative achieves its ends.

Beyond the indignation prompting social fallout, there’s an interesting illustration in Game theory here. Melissa Nelson, a semi-attractive 32 year old dental assistant has her 10 year employment stint terminated by 53 year old Dentist, James Knight for representing too tempting a  potential lover and too potential a threat to his marriage. This is where it gets interesting:

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

Well, considering all she wore were standard issue medical scrubs it would appear that it didn’t take much to arouse the good dentist.

While her former boss claimed her clothes were so tight he couldn’t look at her without being aroused, Nelson said the only outfit she wore to work was standard scrubs worn by many nurses and assistants in dental offices.

Think about this for a moment, when Knight hired her 10 years ago she would’ve been 22 and he would’ve been 43. Looking at the more recent pictures of Nelson, I can see she’s followed the standard SMV curve, and while I wouldn’t rate her higher than maybe a cleaned up HB7, no doubt Knight was privy to watching her progress from her SMV peak at 22, to the inevitable two child, postpartum “chop it short” mommy-do at 32. After watching this and enduring the slow-burn, sexual pangs for a decade I suspect that Knight probably spent in inordinate amount of masturbatory energy on her mental image.

He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, “that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

No doubt about, we’ve got a beta here. Blatant and obviously telegraphed sexual interest ham-fisttedly delivered  as a compliment not only belies the beta, but no woman in human history has ever responded positively to it. In all my time counseling in the manosphere I’ve heard some derivative of this line constantly used by beta orbiters hoping that their ONEitis will get the message that she’s not being treated as well as she should be, and he’s uniquely qualified to appreciate her for her rarity. What chumps like Knight don’t get is that genuine desire and sexual impulse cannot be negotiated.

All a long-married beta like Knight is doing is falling back on his adolescent social skill set. This is the hallmark of a chump who’s never developed his Game beyond what it took to convince his wife to marry him.

Knight and Nelson — both married with children — started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.

Once you see the pictures of Mrs. Knight all of this crystalizes for us.


Now we add in the element of Mrs. Knights suspicion and a healthy dose of parochial shame from their pastor (most likely at Mrs. Knights behest) and we see the good dentist moved to terminate “just an ordinary mom”.  Here we see an all too common theme of the feminine imperative; using men to settle a score between women. My guess would be that had Mrs. Knight not discovered said texts, Nelson in all her ‘hotness’ would still be employed.

Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties, he said.

I generally reserve my interpretations of the religious ramifications of Game to blogs like Dalrock’s, but at the risk of encouraging the moralist commenters on my blog, I have to draw attention to how the feminine imperative influences religious perceptions. This very religious and moral individual in all likelihood had been devising scenarios in his head about how he might engage in some kind of sexual tryst with Nelson through out her peak SMV years. He watched her progress through a relationship, watched her get married, gave her maternity leave when she had two kids, and still he pined. That pining only ended when Mrs. Knight demanded Nelson’s termination. Once again, biology trumps conviction, and did so for a decade, but once his back is to the wall he makes necessity a virtue.

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month’s severance. He later told Nelson’s husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

When you compare James Knight to David Petreaus’ situation you can’t help but notice some surface level similarities. Both married to well-past the Wall wives and open (at least ideally) to getting with younger, better looking women. Their stories are an all too common theme in today’s SMP. Just based on what I see from the pictures, Knight strikes me as that archetypal mature guy who married young (well before fully realizing his true SMV), played by the rules, and probably only woke up to his SMV when a hot 22 year old made him realize his past potential. When a guys like this make sexual allusions comparing undriven Lamborghinis to the objects of their sexual desire, the real message is their own sexual dissatisfaction with their wives. Harboring that angst for 10 years while your ‘too hot to work with’ ONEitis is only infrequently getting banged is a special kind of beta hell.

When I wrote about the redefining of men’s mid-life awareness, Knight’s circumstance is the uglier side of that.

The truth about men’s mid-life crises isn’t about recapturing youth, it’s about finally understanding the trappings they’ve been sold into through their 20′s and 30′s and coming to terms with that often horrible truth. Some men do in fact buy the sports car, get the new hottie wife or act in some fashion that appears reckless and irresponsible. This isn’t due to infantilism, but rather new understanding of their own position as men. They’ve “lived responsibly” for so long and for so little appreciation that when that true realization is made they feel the need to move. They’ve become respected, put in the hours, the sacrifice, the censoring of their own views. They realize now that they’ve sold off true passions in favor of maintaining what others have told him was his responsibility – whether it was his choice or not. And all for what? A fat wife? A shrew? Maybe even a fantastic marriage and a wonderful family life, but also a nagging doubt about not seeing enough of the world by 40 because of it.

Now, before it gets said, I’m not suggesting that Knight have gone ahead and got after it with Nelson (if that was ever a consideration), but I do understand his predicament and the motivators behind it. If anything Knight serves as yet one more warning for men in realizing their SMV too late. The real tragedy here is that for a brief moment Knight was becoming aware of his (waning) SMV only to reinsert himself back into the Matrix with the aid of his wife and pastor. The real damage will be dealt in his new need for constant repression of this knowledge every time he bangs his wife, every time she nags, every time she gives him that doe-like thousand yard stare; he’ll understand the oldest manosphere proverb – once you know about the Matrix there is no going back.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

122 comments on “Too Hot

  1. @itsme who said “…but when a woman cheats on a man, she’s sowing her wild oats, or eat pray loving, or liberating herself from oppression…”

    Yeah, let me fix that for you. She’s Exploring Her Sexuality®.

    You Go Grrrrrrl®. 😉

  2. @King A:

    “Marriage isn’t a mere “contract of monogamy”; it is a covenant and a sacrament. There are high-minded reasons to participate in it”

    Oh you mean like believing in a storybook about a magic man in the sky? Definitely sounds logical and rational to me, not like believing in Santa Claus. I would definitely make all my big life decisions based on ridiculous stories in a book instead of real world observation and logic. P.S. I’m not religious, can you tell? Have a field day with THAT one lol try to use the word blasphemer if you can, that’d be completely unpredictable.

    “What’s more, weak men complain of the marriage “trap” as a cover for their own shortcomings. They cannot be the man of their own house, they cannot control a woman’s hypergamy with love or with dread”

    You know what would be a good solution for those weak men? Creating a contract that tries to force the woman to love and cherish them through sickness and in health rich and poor because they are weak men who can’t keep control of their household or own their woman and be the height of her hypergamy through their own self-development and constructing a legal contract was supposed to help keep their pussy from wandering to guys like me.

    Except we all know it doesn’t help and now society favors the woman in divorce so it backfired.

    Oh snap, served you again. lol I’m glad people are realizing that while you write pretty things you shouldn’t actually be taken seriously.

  3. @tatearl on leading women:

    Keep experimenting with it, it’s really powerful. The hotter girls tend to shit-test you more because they need to test your congruency but as you’ve found out if you hold your frame, theirs collapses and not only do they obey but they do it with a smile and a giggle. Some stuff to focus on that’ll help is your voice tonality (use breaking rapport and make statements not questions even if what you’re saying is a question, ie – “Where are you going. (Pause/stare)”. Don’t repeat yourself when they pretend not to hear you and go “what!!?” Just stare and say “you heard me.” Or don’t speak, and try experimenting with using less and less words in response to the shit-tests until your response is literally just a raised eyebrow and “you don’t really think ill let you get away with that do you? I didn’t think so.” staredown)

    I can link some RSD vids on the subject if you want, they started exploring that huge back around 2009-10 and have a ton of teachings on it. Keep it up! You can do it via txts and online too but it’s trickier because she can’t hear your tonality.

  4. Phinn said: There’s something about the religious mindset that fosters your (Matt King A’s) kind of hypocrisy. I think it comes from the incredible amount of double-think that is required to maintain religious thinking. Religious thinking depends entirely on splitting and projection — a constant monitoring of one’s self, a complete inability to cope with most of one’s emotions, and the relentless rejection of most of your own mind as “bad” and intolerable.

    Rather than accept and cope with it, the religious mindset requires that this part of the self be denied and compartmentalized through all sorts of endless magical labels and other defense mechanisms.

    Doing this every day for 20 or 30 years makes a person highly adept at self-ignorance and self-contradiction.

    Pointing this out usually provokes a highly religious person into a rage outburst, because the rage is just another defense mechanism, designed to help keep the lid on all that repression. Taking that away from a religious person is like taking away someone’s oxygen.

    Magic doesn’t exist, Matt, except as a figment of the imagination. Reality may be messy sometimes, but you really don’t have to be afraid of it.

    Fundamentalists freak me out. Not only because they are so eager to invest authority with scary powers, or even because they tend to have an excessive need for “purity”, but because they have shadow and projection issues. They have not made friends with their inner demons, and so when confronted with them project them out onto the outside world. “my last girlfriend was cheating on a dude in the suburbs and her three kids to sneak up and fuck me ten times a week and YOU guys shouldn’t have sex outside of committed marriage! YOU guys are nihilists! And narcissistic parasites!”

    The internal empathy and compassion is so lacking that the hatred gets misdirected onto everyone else. Instead of just making friends with the human condition and not holding unreasonable standards, they have to compartmentalize good and evil, and then project out the evil onto others. “Do not forgive them Father, for it was not I that sinned, it was them!”

    Fundamentalists view more porn than other groups. The hypocrasy is scary. I mean really scary. These people will scape goat anything that reminds them of their own inner natures.

    Then all the while they are shitting and pissing on the world, think that they are holier than thou, and are actually being benevolent and helpful.

    A bunch of downers.

  5. Rollo, Phinn: You are bores who search for motivations and discover cryptic evangelization in everything I write. And I don’t expect a high-level exchange from a grown man who uses pansy, high-school-girl neologisms like “judgy.” Phinn actually had a decent observation/criticism but bungled it by attacking me broadly rather than focusing on his valid point.

    No, my “take isn’t all that different from what YaReally is warning men about marriage.” We disagree about the purpose and place of marriage. He warns them to steer clear of matrimony and — because he has no understanding of its proper uses — suggests the very idea is absurd for any man to consider under 30 or 40. I, on the other hand, challenge them to define the institution, as founding men do, rather than allowing it to define them, as bitter helpless victims do. Women aren’t that hard to conquer once you know what they’re about (red pill, anyone?). When they are isolated from the source of the shrewishness which they themselves hate, they soften, become pliant, and even express appreciation to their liberator.

    Mock my diction all you want — whatever conceals your inability to understand, take seriously, or refute my observations. Seriously: I think the last time I imitated voices in lieu of argument was in eighth grade.

    YaReally (and to a degree myself) offers a plan of action to achieve this state – spin plates, learn about women, self-improve, understand the social implications of the feminine imperative, learn Game, etc.

    True, sometimes this is a process of trial and error; in fact most of this blog wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for those errors, but ours is a process of learning via experience. All I hear you suggest is learning via divine inspiration and high-minded readings of appropriate philosophies in ancient manuscripts. I wont say that doesn’t have its value, but it’s not the same as learning about oneself and women through experience.

    Yup. When you lack the perspicacity to learn from others’ mistakes, I suppose you will think performing the trial and error on your own to be a superior route. Are we talking Rational Male or Self-Guinea-Pigging Male, then?

    What is the point of this blog again? Are you not attempting to convey the wisdom hard-won from your experience? Why would they listen to your advice at all — including the very advice that claims wisdom is unreliable unless learned first-hand through personal trial-and-error? If yours is the superior “process of learning via experience,” then what more do you have to say to other men except, “Go. Have experiences”?

    I do not in fact offer a regimen of “do this” then “do that” because I don’t condescend to my fellow men. I do not pretend it is as simple as A to B to C to D. They may come to you desperate for “commandments” and manuals to manhood, but I respect them to understand complexity and the necessity of inculcating independence. I am not a charlatan. Mastery is not gained programmatically. It is learned through mentorship, direct guidance, applied wisdom, example, imitation, and encouraged autonomy. You mock me for my theorizing? You are the ones who have the zealot’s faith in your general theory’s ability to replace apprenticeship. This entire site is testimony to a quaintly religious belief in quantification.

    You see, your “plan of action” is no plan at all: it is the natural course that every boy already must take in the absence of guidance. I don’t place experience against theory or philosophy because I have the experience to understand they are not enemies at all, whereas you two are intimidated by what you don’t know. Experience and philosophy mutually reinforce the other. What are “high-minded readings of appropriate philosophies in ancient manuscripts” if not the conveyances of other men’s experience? Only they aren’t the casual musings of a single blogger. They are the systematic examinations and conversations that have proven themselves so useful to so many that they have lasted for hundreds and thousands of years.

    Push comes to shove, what are one man’s trials and errors compared to the innumerable experiences that have persevered through centuries of criticism, counterargument, antithesis, and refinement into code? You recommend men attempt to learn on the fly what so many others have learned that they call their lessons “classic.”

    If every man had to literally reinvent the wheel through “trial and error” — or to “figur[e] out what his values and goals and standards are” with regard to engineering and physics, there would be no advanced mechanisms.

    No, you are the worst dogmatists possible: you proselytize The Way while simultaneously denying the utility of dogma. That is a pretty boneheaded handicap you are imposing on yourselves. (Not that you even detect it, especially when the likes of me are pointing out the obvious.)

    But really: carry on. You don’t get it, you’re not going to get it, and there are enough like you in your peanut gallery to give you the impression you’re speaking down to me.

    That is the problem with intellectual pretenders and pipsqueaks. They can’t get over their insecurities long enough to recognize their superiors in any regard, much less to employ them effectively to their own ends, as leaders do. They would rather spend their energy fantasizing about how wretched their opponents must be to not be them, even when their ability to take a little criticism would have avoided making opponents in the first place.

    Trust me, none of this is new. In fact, if you picked up a book, you might realize that the phenomenon is not just persistent but ancient.


  6. E.J. wrote:

    I only found the manosphere in 2012, so I had no idea you’ve been posting the same arguments for years.

    Then how can you cite my conversations with commenters I haven’t engaged in years?

  7. Then how can you cite my conversations with commenters I haven’t engaged in years?

    Because your comments are still visible. If I read a blog post from year ago right now, I can see your comments from 2011. I don’t need to read them in real time, because the websites save comments. How do you not understand how the internet works?

  8. Oh you mean like believing in a storybook about a magic man in the sky? Definitely sounds logical and rational to me, not like believing in Santa Claus. I would definitely make all my big life decisions based on ridiculous stories in a book instead of real world observation and logic. P.S. I’m not religious, can you tell?

    Damn, YaReally, that was disappointingly stupid. You are usually much better, even when tilting at windmills. Are you drunk?

    As for the rest of you pontificating poseurs gangbanging straw men and scratching at shadows: try again. There isn’t enough time in the world to disabuse you from the belief that the phantoms you set yourself against exist chiefly in your head and primarily as anti-role models invented to justify the irreligion which you believe, sola fide, to be the mark of manly independence.

    I am living proof against every single one of the silly caricatures you choose to do battle with instead of me. Seriously, I look at your description of religion and can’t help but think — what in the fuck are you talking about? Where in the world do you come up with this stuff? I can only conclude they are manifestations of some personal issue you think you’re hiding from us (or me). But rather than come to grips with the fact that I contradict your pet hypothesis, you imagine I just have to be some kind of credulous, undiscovered pussy whose skeletons simply haven’t yet been brought out of the closet for sniffing and giggling at.

    I am not here to gently persuade you like a Mormon with his backpack. I am here to baptize you by fire, purely incidental to my presence, or incinerate you in the attempt. It makes little difference to me whether you burn — that fate is above my paygrade. But I do know you already live in hell, and that’s not “storybook” thinking, that’s observational. You inspire pity, not contempt, and certainly not enmity — I choose enemies worthy of fighting.

    I can easily imagine being arrested in ignorance as you are, with only hot breath and fantasizing to avail you. You are in hell as you live — the walking death — and as such, you lack the courage to even acknowledge the circumstances. So you transform your deficiencies into virtues through “magic” words — I’m PUA, I’m alpha, I’m the apex man — and pretend to exude contentment.

    How can I possibly know this? It’s because whenever you attempt to speak about profound subjects, you babble like mongoloids. And among mongoloids, the babble recedes into background cacophony. But I am here now, listening and calling you out. I have heard enough noise like yours. I see past the inarticulate bluffing to the human pain.

    Of course that means you must scream ANATHEMA to unabashed party crashers like me — in reaction against the small part of my message you semi-understand. You have no frame of reference for my kind, you only have lazy interpretations of your own limited typologies, warping me to fit one of a half-dozen poorly delimited categories. Only the hopeless ideologue can be satisfied by this kind of open-and-shut simplicity about fellow human beings. I know you. I sometimes am even sad for you.


  9. lol I want to live inside King A’s head for like 10 minutes. I bet it would be fascinating. I’d probably have to wear a top hat and monacle.

    Keep doing your thing, man!

  10. I completely disagree with all
    the comments analyzing Dr.
    knights betatude, and
    especially that his comment
    about having a lamborghini
    and never driving it was pure beta. If he was trying to
    seduce her, then yes, that’s a
    very beta way to go about it
    but as others here pointed out,
    life is not one long pick-up
    game. He was married, apparently he is satisfied with
    his marriage, and he respects
    his religious precepts. He was
    not trying to lay her, and if he
    wanted to, it sounds like she
    was completely available (situational alpha?), no game
    His comment about the
    lamborghini was freindly
    advice, completely fitting with
    a male mentoring attitude.

  11. “The Manosphere should be pushing men to cheat. Stay married for the sake of kids, as kids grow up best adjusted in two parent homes. ”

    Wrong. Kids grow up best in healthy, loving, ethical, non-dysfunctional two parent homes.

    “What’s interesting is that every article I’ve ever read about how having an affair actually strengthens a marriage was written by a woman, specifically for women, and published in media that caters almost exclusively to women.”

    Maybe, just maybe, if there are no kids involved. But with kids? NO WAY.

  12. @Yareally, I agree with much of what you post, but I could also argue that putting up with and ignoring all the drama and stupid crazy shit girls say and do also as a “weak frame”. That’s the MGTOW’s view, most are just sick of that and no longer think it’s worth the hassle.
    You (and the PUAs) are correct in saying that ignoring it gets you laid, it definitely works. But it also fuels the the fire of batshitness.

  13. @Phero

    You can look at learning the rules of basketball as being a weak frame because you’re not just running around carrying the ball and dunking it in whichever net you want…but some of us like playing the game and find the fun in it because we understand the rules.

    If a guy wants to take his ball and go home because he has no interest in basketball, and talk about being better than everyone playing because he does his own thing, that’s cool, long as you’re happy.

    But if you’re going home because even tho you WANT to play, you don’t understand the rules or can’t overcome them…well, that’s being forced into a decision by your own lack of willpower/discipline, not choosing a decision based on your wants/goals.

  14. @YaReally
    Great analogy. I’m deeply suspicious of guys on the internet who say they’ve “decided to walk away from women.” Once you learn the rules of basketball, win a few games, and decide not to play every weekend, you don’t announce to the world that basketball is stupid and that you’ve “gone your own way” from sports. You just naturally fill your time with hobbies other than basketball, and hold no resentment towards those that continue.

  15. Usually guys that MGTOW would be the guys that blew out their knee (‘divorced raped’) playing ball and remember the horrible surgery and rehab that went along with it. The game fucked them and they are scared to play again.

  16. Not always FF. I understand game been into it since I bought some RJ tapes in the 90s and never married. I don’t consider myself a pua or player just an enthusiast. I’ve only been aware of this “manosphere” for less than a year, lots of interesting stuff though.
    But i also have my bouts of MGTOW, I can understand the not wanting to play “basket ball” this week or even a couple weeks.
    I just don’t see things as black or white as most people on the blogs seem to do.
    Sex drive is a strong persuader, and I would think it’s not that easy to take yourself out of the game. It would seem strong will power for some or just giving up for others. Can’t really lob them all in the same category.

  17. Smelling a male imperative tackling the trying-to-emerge female imperative. Starting from “Common sense” it’s definitely all over…

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: