Intersexual Hierarchies – Part I

One of the withdrawal symptoms of unplugging from the Matrix is usually an overwhelming nihilism that results from being torn away from the previous blue pill preconceptions a man has been conditioned to for most of his life. It’s my hope that in the future red pill men will make the necessary interventions and apply what they’ve learned from their unplugging and red pill truths in general towards their sons (and daughters) as well as other men they know or are related to. Until then, the process of breaking away from that conditioning is usually going to begin as the result of a traumatic breakup, a divorce, or having had the relational equity he thought he’d built a long term relationship on proved worthless in the face of hypergamy.

It’s a sad reality of unplugging that it most often starts as a result of emotional anguish, but to pour salt in those wounds is then having to live with the harsh realities that the red pill makes men aware of – that more or less everything they’d held as an ego-investment up to that point was founded on a feminine-primary conditioning. I summed this up in The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill:

The truth will set you free, but it doesn’t make truth hurt any less, nor does it make truth any prettier, and it certainly doesn’t absolve you of the responsibilities that truth requires. One of the biggest obstacles guys face in unplugging is accepting the hard truths that Game forces upon them. Among these is bearing the burden of realizing what you’ve been conditioned to believe for so long were comfortable ideals and loving expectations are really liabilities. Call them lies if you want, but there’s a certain hopeless nihilism that accompanies categorizing what really amounts to a system that you are now cut away from. It is not that you’re hopeless, it’s that you lack the insight at this point to see that you can create hope in a new system – one in which you have more direct control over.

Try to keep this last part in mind as you read what I propose in these next two posts. I read a lot of guys in various forums getting despondent after having the red pill make sense to them, but that despondency is really a simple lack of not having a path already preset for them to follow. Instead of the easy answers and prerequisite responsibilities that the blue pill and the Feminine Imperative had ready for him to follow, now in his new awareness he’s tasked with making a new path for himself, and that’s both scary and exciting at the same time.

Love Styles

In almost 3 years of blogging and a book written, my three most popular posts have been the Love seriesWomen in Love, Men in Love and Of Love and War. Though my SMV graph gets the most link backs, these are easily the most viewed posts on Rational Male. Unfortunately they’re often the most misquoted and misunderstood.

One of the toughest revelations of the red pill is coming to terms with the difference in experience and concept that men and women apply to love. The core principle in Women in Love is often misunderstood. For different reasons, deliberate or otherwise, both men and women critically misunderstand the main premise of that post:

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

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

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

Most critics of my differing assessment of how either sex interprets and considers love tend to blow past this last part. They oversimplify my meaning and sputter out something to the effect of, “That Tomassi guy thinks that women can’t ever really love men, what preposterous crap!”

Of course that isn’t my assertion, but I understand the want to dismiss this notion, particularly for men and women invested in the ideal of equalitarianism. It’s a threat to the ego-investment that men and women are anything less than fully equal and rational agents who come together for each other’s mutually agreeable benefit. The simple fact of women’s innate hypergamy puts the lie to this presumption, as well as confirms the relevancy of women’s constant, qualitative conditionality for whom (really what) they’ll love. I think it’s ironic that the same people who disparage this concept are among the first to readily embrace the pop-psychology notion of Love Languages.

I get why that premise pisses off women (and feminized men); it’s very unflattering to be accused of loving men from a position of opportunism. However, it’s important to understand that I don’t make this observation to condemn the way women approach love – although I’m sure it will follow, my point isn’t to presume a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way for women to love men or vice versa. There are beneficial and detrimental aspects of both women’s opportunistic approach to love, and men’s idealistic approach to love. That said, I happen to believe that the differing ways men and women love each other evolved to be complementary to the other and for the betterment of our species.

For all the “OMG I can’t believe this red pill asshole thinks women can’t really love men” misdirection, I should point out that well intentioned men, especially the newly red pill, are also guilty of the same oversimplification. Theirs is an attempt to find validation in the (usually recent) trauma of having been cut away from their prior blue pill conditioning. A similar, “Rollo says women can’t really love men, of course, it’s all so clear to me now” satisfies a simplistic need for confirmation of their former condition.

And again, it’s not a right or wrong way of loving, it’s the lack of recognizing the difference and being on the punishing side of that lack. Most men will want to apply their concepts of honor or justice in assessing how ‘right’ men’s idealistic love is, while women will still see the inherent value in loving what a man is as a prerequisite for loving who a man is. Hypergamy doesn’t care about men’s idealistic expectations of love, but neither does men’s rationality make concessions for what facilitates women’s opportunistic approach to love.

Romantic Souls

From The Red Pill subreddit:

My whole life, I’ve had it nailed into me that I would be able to find true love if I was honest and hardworking. As I grew older it was, “If I’m somewhat fit and have a good job making 60k-80k a year, I’ll find that beautiful girl that loves me as I love her“.

As I’ve stated on many occasions, it is men who are the True Romantics. Granted, it’s the unthoughtful result of centuries of evolved ‘courtly love’, but in the realm of what qualifies as a true act of romance, it’s men who are the primary actors; it’s men who ‘make’ (or want to make) romance happen. And of course therein lies the problem, a man cannot ‘make’ romance happen for a woman.

For all a man’s very imaginative, creative, endeavors to manufacture a romance that will endear a woman to him, his ‘trying’ to do so is what disqualifies his intent. For every carefully preplanned ‘date night’ after marriage, there’s a college girl swooning to bang her boyfriend living in a shithole, sheets over the windows, furniture from the dumpster, pounding shitty beer and sleeping on a soiled mattress on the floor. Romance isn’t created, romance just happens, and it’s a tough, but valuable, lesson when men come to realize that a happenstance bag of skittles, or a ring made from a gum wrapper at the right time meant more to a woman than every expensively contrived ‘romantic getaway’ he’d ever thought would satisfy her need for lofty romance.

An important part of the red pill is learning that the most memorable acts of love a man can commit with a woman are acts of (seeming or genuine) spontaneity and never apparently and overtly planned (and yes, that applies to sex as well). This is a source of real frustration for a man since his blue pill conditioning expects the opposite from him, and his romantic nature – the nature that wants her to love him as he loves her – conspires with his problem solving nature, thus prompting him to ever greater romantic planning for what he hopes will be an appreciated, reciprocated love.

The Hierarchy

The true source of a man’s frustration lies in his misdirected hope that a woman’s concept of love matches his own. His ideal is a beautiful girl that loves him the same way he loves her. The presumption (a romantic one perpetuated by the myth of egalitarian equalism) is that his concept of idealized love is a universal one which women share with men in general and him in particular.

Thanks mostly to men’s blue pill conditioning, what most men fail to ever consider is that women’s hypergamic based love always considers what he is, before who he is. For a more detailed explanation of this I’ll refer you to my post Love StoryThis is the root of the intersexual hierarchy of love.


Before the rise of feminine social primacy, the above ‘flow chart’ of love prioritization would hardly have been an afterthought for a man. Through any number of evolutionary and sociological progressions the base understanding of how Men’s love began from a position of protecting, provisioning for and directing of the lives of both his wife and children wasn’t a concern worth too much of his consideration. Neither was a prevailing desire for a reciprocal model of love an overshadowing concern.

To be sure, a baseline requirement of a returned love, sex, respect and fidelity were important elements, but this wasn’t the originating basis of male desire for being loved; there was no expectation of a woman loving him as he loved her (and by extension their children). To be a man was to have the capacity to provide a surplus beyond his own provisioning.

“A man provides, and he does it even when he’s not appreciated, or respected, or even loved. He simply bears up and he does it, because he’s a man.”

Gustavo’s monologue in my opening video may seem like an anachronism, especially in the light of a red pill awareness of the potential for injustice and the veritable certainty of a provisioning arrangement that will almost always be a one-sided proposition for a man – whether he’s loved, respected, appreciated, married or divorced.

Undoubtedly there’ll be men reading this bristling at the idea of a non-equitable model for love, but I’d argue that the idea of an equitable model is the result of the conditioning an egalitarian equalism has predisposed men to believe is even possible.

Before the rise of feminine primacy, a man’s expression of love through his support and guidance simply weren’t things women or children had the capacity to reciprocate. The advent of women’s independence, real or imagined, has served to strip men of this core understanding of the differences between male and female concepts of love. In the effort to feminize men more fully, and position men in a condition of confusion about what constitutes masculinity, this concept of love was replaced by a feminine-primary model for love.

While a woman’s respect, and a degree of love may flow back to her man, her primary love and concern is directed towards her children. One reason we’re still shocked by women who kill their children (pre or post natal) is due to an inherent acknowledgement of this natural dynamic. Women’s brain function and biochemistry largely evolved to predispose them to bonding with their children, and thus ensure the survival of the species. Beyond the rigors of physically gestating a child, raising children to self-sufficiency required a considerable investment of effort and resources – not to mention a constant attention. Nature selected-for women with an innate capacity to nurture and direct love primarily towards children.

The internal psychology women evolved to vet for men who displayed traits for both Alpha physical prowess and parental investment / provisioning potential are a result of children being a priority for a woman’s love. While a degree of maintaining a man’s continued commitment to the family unit requires her attentions in the form of sex and affections, a woman’s primary love focus is directed towards children.

Granted, not all women are capable of having children (or some even desirous of them), but even in these instances substitute love priorities still supersede directing her primary attention towards a man. It may seem like I’m attempting to paint women’s love as callous or indifferent, but this ‘directioning’ isn’t a conscious act, but rather due to the innate understanding that a man is to direction his love towards her as a priority.


This should give readers a bit to chew on for a while. In Part II I’ll detail the alternative hierarchy models prevalent for modern, post-feminine primacy relationships.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

166 comments on “Intersexual Hierarchies – Part I

  1. Thanks for the pingback.

    It’s long been a blue-pill observation, really, but it’s become a hardened piece of red-pill knowledge that there’s a paradox to kindling a woman’s attraction – if she gets the idea (true or not) that you are “trying,” that you are making some conscious effort to spark her attraction, if it doesn’t come from an unconscious, totally intuitive place, it doesn’t count. Don’t ever let her see the sausage being made.

  2. >While a woman’s respect, and a degree of love may flow back to her man, her primary love and concern is directed towards her children.

    No, that’s just how it used to be. It clearly isn’t any more. Now a woman’s primary love and concern is directed towards herself.

    The functional — and almost etymological — definition of feminism is the prioritization of women’s interests ahead of those of men


    and the institutionalization of that prioritization.

    And just as marriage has fallen apart because communities are no longer keeping up their end of the marriage contract,. so too has motherhood, and for the same reason: virtually no man can keep his wife’s ‘solipsism’ — i.e., juvenile egomania — in check alone. He must have the assistance of his community to accomplish that, *just as that community keeps men’s parallel exploitive tendencies in check where their wives etc. cannot.

  3. I sympathize with the ex Blue Pill 20 somethings that are told all their lives “do the right thing” and all will go well. Then these 20 somethings get older and find out “doing the right thing” was NOT so right after all.

    I was once in this situation. I was once an Alpha that was captured into marriage slowly turning beta. Now I realize that at the other end of platitudes and sayings TRUTH is always laid bare.

    A Man provides
    A Man has needs
    A Woman will never love a man as he wants her to
    There is the Alpha way or the Beta way and being Beta leads to a man at the mercy of Hypergamy.

    This is not a sad thing it simply IS.

    A Beta’s lot is to survive, dodge, or run out the clock on Hypergamy.
    An Alpha’s lot is to RISK ALL in the effort to reclaim manhood and fight Hypergamy (by ruse or force).

    It’s all in the style of life one chooses after all. Anyone can go Cypher and replug themselves and pretend that Hyperamy will not end the Relationship Bliss.

    Ignorance IS bliss after all.

    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference.

  4. Outstanding post Rollo.

    The funny thing is that many Christians (Churchians, if you will) are the biggest proponents of this “love equality” paradigm. And yet scripture, especially the New Testament, lends itself to the other direction.

  5. Also, this seems like a topic area where MRI scans would be rather revealing. It would be great to compare the brain reactions of male love and female love, both directed at the opposite sex and at children. Might kill a few sacred cows, that.

  6. Another brilliant essay, Rollo. One that directly challenges (me), never prevaricates…one that is almost ‘prescriptive’ as to one’s internals. It seems that the gateway to experience these understandings is actual participation in at least an LTR if not marriage. (Some red pill blogs will barely touch on anything beyond game. Their prerogative.)

    If men are the true romantics, but a woman’s experience of romanticism occurs more powerfully in iterations of spontaneity, this would seem a natural disadvantage to the LTR frame…

    Just another challenge of the LTR path. The challenge to maintain and grow her excitement in an apparently ‘unconscious, totally intuitive’ way as Badger says. But in LTR where over-familiarity can be the default position – anathema to ‘women’s romance’.

    Here’s another challenge I have. In that ~1 year between my last LTR and current one, (after the deepest bruises subsided the first couple months of that) it was so easy to be carefree about ‘the necessity for relationships to ever work, period’. To simply assume as the new default paradigm that relationships *never* work, everybody cheats or desperately wants to cheat within them, and that LTRs are just utterly fucked up in every way and non-workable forever. So my plate spinning was buttressed by a deeply-felt nihilism. That any woman (or man), in the darkest recesses of their ‘hearts’, would be an unleashed, feral mega-slut.

    But in the LTR, that sure is an unpleasant belief. And the nihilism gets stripped away enough to give the LTR ‘a fair shot’. It is more difficult to be carefree about how fucked up intersexual relations are through a redpill lens. Because their is an investment in an entity I no longer believed in *in the same way as before*.

    That nihilism can be lonely, dark, and deep. But in the LTR, I have promises to keep. And so I too must deny my own feral, slutty nature out of duty, love, honor, you name it. To abstain from that is to lose touch with living out that raw nihilism to its core. And that’s all the lonelier. As ‘Angry Gamer’ said so well, the Cypher effect can rear it’s ugly head even after one’s ‘red pill conversion’, and I understand why that is.

  7. Great deep stuff. The gist of the hierarchy is conveniently taught in kindergarten as The Farmer In The Dell song (the farmer takes a wife, the wife takes a child) as a mnemonic. One of the main ways a woman’s characteristic incapacity to love a man properly (I’m callous enough to call it right and wrong, even if you’re not) is revealed is after the honeymoon period, when she starts to view him as a big baby through no fault of his own. Until recently (past few decades) the psychological teaching was that that was because she had children, except the effect is even stronger when there aren’t children.

    I believe this is also the reason that psychologically enables, nay drives serial monogamy: after a couple of years (or so) a woman MUST transfer her main affections to the new infant instead of the toddler.

    This formulation of the problem suggests the work-around solution: against all his deepest wishes, the loving husband must sometimes become a Stranger in order for his wife to return occasionally to loving him right. But she never will for long.

  8. I would say physicality aside (sex) love, obviously, is emotional based.

    One thing I’ve noticed is that when a man is very attracted to a girl sexually he could develop lust over her and want to have sex with her. And, when she additionally shows signs of “need” from him–like she needs him for her happiness etc.–that is when the man feels ‘love’ for her. He is needed to provide for her (aka his natural state and purpose in life feels like it’s being met).

    On the contrary, a woman feels this love when she has the children or when her body Is being used or she is in a nurturing state (the opposite of men). The less ‘neediness’ and beta nurturing that occurs the more her life feels more natural and purposeful on an emotional level.

    Does that make sense?
    But then how exactly do you coin up a healthy lifelong LTR? HA I literally keep coming back to this same exact question it doesn’t make sense…pretty sure it’s not supposed to happen? Idk.

  9. If it doesn’t work for a man to show that he is “trying”, then why is it so generally accepted in the manosphere, based presumably on experience, that offering to cook a woman dinner, at your place or hers, is one of the most sure-fire ways to get her in the sack? I have done this, and it has worked for me 100% of the time. I have never tried to frame it as cooking dinner for myself and she is invited along. It has always been obvious that I was doing it for her. Isn’t cooking dinner for a woman an obvious act of “trying?”

  10. When woman declares that she is in love with a man, it means something as follows: “I want you to feed me, fuck me, clothe me, protect me, provide me with your genes/child…until I catch the better slave”

    Man in love: “I am eager to be your provider, soldier, protector, partner and generally….I will do anything that makes you happy”.

    Man is the tool for survival for her. Tool, once broken, has to be discarded and replaced.

    Of course, she is wise not to show him her parasitic nature too early, otherwise he might run into the hills for his very freedom and she will not succeed in catching him. Therefore she plays her role in dating game carefully – she is able to become whatever the script calls for hooking a man. She will blabb about “togetherness”, adopt his viewpoints, hobbies, switch religions, provide him with plenty of free sex..her personality will change to suit his.

    That way he believes that he has found his very partner, soul mate, his best friend. This brilliant tactic only cements his romatnic illusions….so he agrees and puts that ring on her finger. Then the charade is no longer necessary, and when the child arrives, he learns his true role of a replacable tool rather quickly. He is even raised and prepared for this role by his very MOM…henpecked dad is “nobody” and teaches him nothing about women.

    Just take a short look on some principlnes that constitute “manhood”..aka slavery, as they are cemented into his head by his lovely mummy:

    “you have to hold your word, be honest, direct, you have to fight to protect others, you have to provide….you have to follow STRICT RULES of behaviour and then, some gooood woman appears and….”

    That way his moves are predictable, he is prepared for his role of provider and females have much surer footing in dealings with him. They can predict his moves long before he applies them.

    But take a look at what is “normal” for women:

    – she can change her mind anytime she wants, she need not hold her word, vows..etc….she ESCAPES any rules, she is above them..

    That way her moves are not predictable and she maintains upper hand in dealing with males. She is not subjected to any codes, rules, anything…she is “emotional”…aka beyond control!!!! And as a being without sense of justice and consciounsness, she can manipulte realtionships to her advantage with ruthlesness and caprice that the majority of males can not match.

    She – as the ruling class, resist to be subjected to ANY rules, to maintain absolute control over male. Tears will save her in any occasion…she is just the pooor girl, she did not know that she was doing wrong, she was in loooove…. she is not responsible!

    As the queen…she can do everything!!!! True queen ,indeed. Religions were attempts to subject females to rules so that they were more predictable and males have better chance in this mating game.

  11. I still don’t fully understand the male side of your definitions of romance.

    My understanding from myself and Jon.
    My love is in great parts base attraction (he’s the only human who’s ever drawn me in like this and who I’ve ever wanted to make happy), narcissism (he reminds me of myself), practicality (he’s useful) and reproduction (he wants many children); in lesser parts sexual urges (I am very sexually active, moreso than him, but a male wasn’t part of the equation before him and I COULD do without; he’s become a preference, though), attention (again, I used to do entirely without it and even avoid it in some cases, but I like the way he pays attention to me), conversation (I like talking but I don’t like most people; as we share most interests, he makes for very good conversation) and future goals (currently in the lesser category because I’m not yet 100% how we’ll get there).
    His love is in great parts practicality (I am useful to him, this pleases him), conversation (he finds me worth talking to), social interaction (neither has to compromise on most things, as we enjoy the same sort of things, we can go to National Trust houses, metal festivals and pubs and both enjoy them all); in lesser parts sex (he could have other options, but has developed a preference for me), base attraction (we’re bonded and he wants me to be happy), future goals (he has more solid goals and sees me as an asset to all of them) and his own joy (he could pursue it elsewhere, but I make him very happy).
    In essence, I see practicality, opportunism and selfishness as the main driver behind both sides of the relationship. Neither loves the other “just because”, both sides love entirely conditionally. This is the only example I have from the inside as he’s the only person I’ve ever felt this way about and vice-versa for him. What’s commonly understood as romantic love never featured on either side.

    I haven’t ever observed truly romantic relationships from the outside either. I have seen lustful relationships, dutiful relationships, compromising relationships and practical relationships. I have seen the odd incident of a romantic act in most relationships. But I have never witnessed romance.

  12. in my view, women as herd animals have conditioned or at least encouraged the idea of romantic love into men in ever increasing ways since the Civil War (when IMO we lost many of our strongest Alphas) as a mechanism of control.

    you see the same messaging in anti-porn crusaders talking about how if you over indulge in porn you somehow loose your ability to connect with the opposite sex.

    in reality, men are highly autonomous save needing a woman for sex, and they know it. strip away the perceived need for “love” and the practical requirements for sexual access and women as a group become irrelevant to the average male. enter the rise of herbivores and the explosive growth of the gamma.

    alphas don’t give a shit if the girl stays or goes, new 22 yo’s popping up weekly.

    its a slim lens of earning betas that are the target today…..and i submit that’s just who you are writing to in this essay and i have one suggestion for them…….run. shake that love monkey off your back and NEVER marry.

    hogs to the slaughter.

  13. A woman’s love towards a man is increased and optimized when she isn’t sure that he loves her on an equal basis. Fact: and men need to get this if they hold desires for their female partners to love and respect them.

    Look how older women (>50) emotionally appear with their male loved ones. Their expressions of love are greater than the projected love he shows onto her. Why is this? His de-leveraged appreciation of her beauty, in comparison to her younger self, manifests to show a lack of natural loving gestures on his behalf. Because of this, the older woman tries harder to please him and to make him love her like she loves him. Younger men would do well to take a leaf out of this book.

    And if you crave desires to understand how women pragmatically select a man, this link will illustrate:

  14. @Acksiom and Rollo

    It will be telling if this “address” discusses abortion or not.

  15. @Carlos re: “so generally accepted in the manosphere”? Where is it so accepted? It cannot be more generally recommended that, e.g. stopping in fo a drink. That being said, it probably is a B game move that works when it works because
    1) Everybody eats
    2) Good way to dispel the serial-killer vibe if that’s your tendency

    Otherwise, and pay attention, *beta* primate males bring bananas to the females and pick bugs out of their fur to comfort the females and try to get them to not run away so fast. Alpha males permit females to bring them bananas. That’s A game.

  16. Women will often use other excuses to try to keep a man as a provider but not fuck him…some of these tricks include pouring her energies into her work or use caring for children to “triangulate” her relationship with her man…using the diversions and energy poured into taking care of the kids as an excuse for not banging him.

    if he gets upset..she’ll blame him. If he has an affair, she’ll leave him.

    As for the first part about the Red Pill being both liberating and painful—yes.

    We all want to live happily ever after. But sadly after understanding game, there is no “happily ever after’…women want dominance and men who fail to grasp this are doomed to lives of celibacy.

  17. @superslaviswife re: “I haven’t ever observed truly romantic relationships from the outside either.” I truly doubt that. I understand you’re just expressing how you feel, but I know you have seen, often, a man acting romantically: doing things for his woman, that he would never do otherwise, in order to exhibit or “prove” his love. This includes all the usual stuff, e.g. getting flowers “just because”, or showing up unexpectedly on break at your work because he couldn’t go a minute longer without a kiss, or arranging a date night (after married) for Tuesday after next in hopes of you seeing him as a boyfriend the way you haven’t in over a month and counting. All the usual stuff. I simply refuse to believe you don’t know what the usual stuff is.

  18. @jf12: I’ve seen the actions, but in every case where I have known the motivations there are ulterior motives. As far as I’ve seen, most do it out of fear, because they’re told that’s what’s right, because she asks for it or because they think it will get them sex. Hence why the “Nice Guys” who predominantly engage in these behaviours are so bitter. They aren’t doing it out of the love of their hearts, they’re doing it because they expect something, because they’ve been told to expect something. That’s not romance, that’s culture.

    However, if we’re to argue that, regardless of motivation, those acts in and of themselves are romance, then I and most females I know have engaged in it. Suddenly dressing up in his favourite clothes for him, buying him an energy drink or a coffee because he commented in passing that he was tired, seeing a flower we thought he’d like and bringing it home, making him a good dinner and a tea and loading his favourite game when he’s had a rough day, giving him some of our ‘personal’ stash of treats or booze if he so much as asks or if we know he likes it… That sort of act isn’t exclusive to males. Whether it’s romance is highly debatable.

  19. “There is no reciprocity. Men love women. Women love children. Children love hamsters. Hamsters don’t love anyone; it is quite hopeless.”

  20. @superslaviswife, yes rationally “ulterior motives” and expectations are what it’s all about, but no you are wrong about that he’s not “doing it out of the love of their heart”.

    A man in love does romance because it is an internal drive: He *has* to do it if he thinks it will be pleasing to her, not because of culture. This is the great disconnect between men and women: women HATE HATE HATE to make sandwiches because he “expects” them, but a man in love LOVES LOVES LOVES to show his love because it’s expected. It’s why every man all through all of history has always felt that his going to work and bringing home the bacon was both super-romantic and expected.

    “seeing a flower we thought he’d like and bringing it home” You’ve got to be joking. Never in a million years. Not once, not any woman.

  21. Re: hierarchy. The way that apex alphas make women feel “romantic”: “Ooh, if he was mine I’d rub his feet and cook him a romantic dinner and dress in his favorite lingerie etc etc etc” this is how ordinary women make ordinary men (i.e. betas) feel. All the time. Sadly.

  22. I feel I’m in pretty good shape. New GF says, “You are definitely in charge.” Religious, attractive, in shape, kind, she cooks, affectionate, respectful, loyal, good listener, praises and brags on me, etc. Am I missing something? Yes, I understand hypergamy, but this seems like a good catch in the current milieu.

    1. @Nathan, I’m ashamed to admit I never watched Breaking Bad when the series was running, but I’ve been working my way through it on Netflix recently.

      I thought this scene was particularly relevant to what I was writing last weekend.

  23. Angry Gamer:

    “An Alpha’s lot is to RISK ALL in the effort to reclaim manhood and fight Hypergamy (by ruse or force).”

    No. Men who are or would be alpha must reclaim manhood with calculated risks.

    Men who are or would be alpha do not fight hypergamy. They recognize it, harness it, and use it to the advantage of themselves and their wives/lovers.

  24. Alphas get a lot of ass and don’t spend a lot of time theorizing, discussing, or thinking much about “hypergamy.” I only began to care slightly about this stuff after a couple of relationships went unexpectedly sideways, and I realized it had something to do with letting my guard down and being “too nice” once things were on cruise control. I’m more on guard about that, but that’s really been the chief contribution of all this literature.

  25. Angry Gamer:

    Men who are or would be alpha take calculated risks. And they don’t fight hypergamy. They recognize hypergamy, harness it, and use it to the advantage of themselves and their wives and lovers.

  26. @jf12: From my observations, I’d say it’s a specific breed of modern woman who hates doing the expected “romantic” things and they’re the vocal minority. Like the ones who in their 30s are proud they never reproduced. Loud? Yes. Majority? No. Most women do nice things for a man they love. It’s not a man vs woman thing in this case. It’s more about types of people, the same way every man isn’t a grovelling beta or a completely uninterested alpha. Some people do romantic things. Others don’t. And spontaneous, zero-interest-in-reward romance is pretty much a Disney fantasy.

    And yes, we do. All the examples I gave are things I’ve recently done for Jon.

  27. Do you think that a man’s frustration with love nowadays is also due to the fact that as a child he received “love” from his mother and thus expects the same from a wife/women? I believe this is another reason for men’s idealized love from women. We simply reference that our mothers “loved” us and “would not let anything bad happen to us” and “would sacrifice herself for us” etc. (this is stuff my mom says/said to me). so we assume that all women are the same and thus capable of loving us in that way. Of course this misconception is further amplified by the Feminist/Feminine social conditioning and a lack of assertive, Masculine Fathers that can develop there sons into “real” men that know about reality and life, and teach their daughters to be nurturing, show tenderness,and be pleasing toward men.

    I believe in the inter-sexual hierarchy Love goes down and Honor goes up. A man loves a women, a women loves her children, and children honor their parents, and a wife honors her husband.

    That’s my 2 cents adjusted for inflation

    Great Post!

    P.S I cam to the red pill/manosphere via this blog I am eternally grateful. Thank You.

  28. Ackisom: [Rollo: “While a woman’s respect, and a degree of love may flow back to her man, her primary love and concern is directed towards her children.”] “No, that’s just how it used to be. It clearly isn’t any more. Now a woman’s primary love and concern is directed towards herself. The functional — and almost etymological — definition of feminism is the prioritization of women’s interests ahead of those of men AND THOSE OF CHILDREN.”

    Men seem to have a much harder time overriding innate predispositions. When Red Pill men talk about themselves, they often describe how hard it can be, for example, to avoid being primarily nice, even though they know the negative effect that this has on women.

    On the other hand, women seem to have a much easier time overriding, for example, their supposed nurturing instincts and dumping their children … when they change men, when they are told that what they really want is to have careers, when they forget about their toddlers locked in a hot car because shoes, …

    Perhaps the tenuous nature of female instincts is all part and parcel of the “War Brides” adaptation.


    Will: “… a woman feels this love when … her body is being used … (the opposite of men).”

    This was the most counterintuitive to me, and I wasn’t aware of it until a few women told me how much they had enjoyed “being used” (and not only sexually).

    I had never thought of it in that way because, while I was never reserved about what they experienced as “being used”, I always balanced it with also taking care of them to the same level. But this showed me which part was being noticed and appreciated.

    Once you become aware of it, you start seeing this everywhere, and how it can act as a catalyst, and how some form of it seems to be in the foundations of successful long term relationships, married or not.

  29. Great supplement to the other Love posts in the past. This really flushes out that dynamic of women not capable of loving us in the way we’d like. And the part about their preference to their children is dead on. I don’;t have kids but my GF and I got a dog and she showers that dog with more affection than I’ve ever gotten. She treats the dog like a kid in a way so I’m getting a window into that dynamic. You can easily see this unfold on FB. When women first marry, they won;t shit up about their fabulous new hubby and how wonderful he is. Then the kids show up, and he is rarely even mentioned. He may get the obligatory happy bday and anniversary shout, that’s about it. You wonder if the guy is even around anymore when all you see are the kid pics.

  30. I agree with Acksiom. The paradigm shift started 40+ years ago. Women were ‘liberated’ and this is the direction they have gone.

    What’s the answer? I don’t know. Our species will just have to see where this goes. However, for men it is clear: BLIND, IDEALISTIC LOVE IS MALADAPTIVE.

    Marriage stopped being an actual ‘contract’ decades ago. The age of trusting in promises is over. Men don’t have to carry on with a totally nihilistic outlook, but we do have proceed with an attitude of self-interest and self-defense. This is not easy as the traditional/legal construct for human pair bonding and family formation (marriage) is quite simply: a trap and a suckers bet. Maybe laws will change to make it less so, maybe not, but the time of trust, blind optimism, and idealistic love is over.

    Now, what we see in the Manosphere with a certain regularity, is a woman who posts to claim that she is not like that. She proceeds to list all of the ways she is not like that. To her I would say: ok, I believe you. I have no reason not to, but it’s doesn’t have any bearing on the issue because:
    1. You may not be like that, but the majority of women are like that.
    2. You may not be like that today, but you cannot guarantee you will not be like that tomorrow. No marriages or relationships start out with the woman being ‘like that’.
    Men do not need idealistic hope. Men need ways to protect their own interests when she decides to be ‘like that’.

  31. “It’s my hope that in the future red pill men will make the necessary interventions and apply what they’ve learned from their unplugging and red pill truths in general towards their sons (and daughters) as well as other men they know or are related to. Until then, the process of breaking away from that conditioning is usually going to begin as the result of a traumatic breakup, a divorce, or having had the relational equity he thought he’d built a long term relationship on proved worthless in the face of hypergamy.”

    Sorry Rollo, it just ain’t worth it. For one, it is foolish and impractical for a man to have children in the current social milieu. Secondly, there is a vanishingly small number of men who are receptive to Red Pill ideas until they’ve experienced the trauma. Even then, most wish to remain in denial.

    As far as female “love”, it is simply a manifestation of the inherent sickness inside of all women, a sickness that is projected onto men so much that they start to feed into it. Fear and emotional hunger is what drives the pursuit of “love” for both men and women. The difference is that men start from a position of soulfulness, while women are essentially empty, a void.

    Dave Sim said it best: “if you look at her and see anything but emptiness, fear, and emotional hunger, you are seeing the parts of yourself that have been consumed to that point”.

  32. “We simply reference that our mothers “loved” us and “would not let anything bad happen to us” and “would sacrifice herself for us” etc. (this is stuff my mom says/said to me). so we assume that all women are the same and thus capable of loving us in that way.”

    I do not think that boys superimpose their mothers on the girls that they find attractive, because mothers start out being perceived primarily not as women, but as their own category.

    Instead, I think that boys project their innate predispositions toward attractive girls onto those girls, and that this continues as they mature, unless something external changes these assumptions.

    This type of projection is natural and reasonable, because you are your own first reference, especially when you are young and have little external data. If you are nice, you expect others to be nice.

  33. @superslaviswife re: “Most women do nice things for a man they love.” correct, which is why all men know that their women’s *refusal* to do things is evidence that the women have fallen out of love. Which almost all women do after a short honeymoon period.

    1. I think there are various ‘Beta Tells’ that women telegraph to, or about the Beta men they’ve paired with. One of those is the indifferent disregard women have for ‘getting into’ anything a man may find interesting – a hobby, a passion, a sports team.

      If your wife / GF finds it difficult to shop for a birthday or Christmas present for you, and she knows you’re really into some sport / hobby / music, etc., the Medium is the Message gentlemen:

  34. Vektor says “BLIND, IDEALISTIC LOVE IS MALADAPTIVE.” Currently, in our bizarrely low fertility r-selection milieu. I think it was highly selected for in men in the past when significant input from the man was necessary for survival, besides the boost to the feminine imperative. A man who is so blinded by love that he sacrifices himself for his woman and children, will probably pass on that trait MUCH more than a Machiavellian bad boy who abandons them to be eaten by the bears so he can survive to impregnate someone else.

  35. Great addition to the Love articles Rollo.

    I’ve read the Women In Love post numerous times because I reacted and still react badly to it. I assumed I misunderstood something. I didn’t I understood it perfectly. My reaction is the problem.

    How women love is not something I need, or even really something I want. I don’t see any value in making the effort to obtain that. The cost is far to high in comparison for what I get in return. And let’s not suggest that it’s not a pay for play arrangement. To keep a women around means a great deal of work, and investment, and no guarantee of any sort of meaningful payoff. I am happy to work for negotiated rewards. I refuse to work for the chance at rewards that are unspecified, temporary, and forthcoming at some point in the future.

    I can make my own damn sandwiches.

    If the reality allowed for any margin of error then maybe it would be worth the effort but every mistake will be charged against my account. Goodwill does not accrue interest. Effort is meaningless without the desired result. Results that must be guessed at because they will never be verbally communicated. Rewards not claimed immediately cannot be deferred until a later date. Yesterday’s Herculean efforts will not be appreciated tomorrow. No failure is tolerated. Being human = beta.

    Turns out women are all groupies. They attach themselves temporarily to men to which they are fans. Fail to perform they find an new man. They love everything about the man but the man himself. He is just a mannequin to display the projections her ideals.

    Given that, other than companionship and sex what exactly do bring to they table? Certainly we can agree that emotional intimacy is nothing but a lie. What is so special about any one particular woman that I would forsake all others? Why bother to commit when commitment is just selling myself into slavery?

  36. I fail to see how this should help men overcome their bitterness. All you are saying is that it used to be the way we currently expect, but women changed it. And now men should adopt to the way love currently works. Most men feel that excepting the changes is what got us here. And we would drop the concept completely before we would accept this current horror.

  37. “Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved”

    Unless it’s a woman that you’re not attracted to, indifferent about, or able to appear that way.

  38. @badpainter.
    Precisely. Thank you for putting into words my exact sentiments.
    It’s just funny now…so much of what people hold dear in life (due to uneducated or willful ignorance) is nothing but a joke to me.

  39. It’s the men who are the true romantics.

    Thankfully Rollo, your content and your books will educate the world of such truths. These are already bringing positive changes in the course of human events.

  40. “Why bother to commit when commitment is just selling myself into slavery?”

    Perhaps only for the emotional health of your children

  41. It seems that men’s idealistic, romantic love of women is a way looking at women in a religious (!)way.

    The idealistic love is a purpose. It is a religion substitute in that it becomes his answer to the existential delima.

    She is his diety and their shared love iS his meaning in life.

    1. @Nathan I actually covered this here:

      Later in that discussion the idea of a ‘soul mate’ came up. The professor didn’t actually use the word ‘soul’, but rather couched the idea by asking for a show of hands as to how many of the class believed “there was a special someone out there for them?” or if they feared “the ONE that got away.” Damn near the entire class raised their hands. For all of their rational empiricism and claims to realism in regards to spirituality, they (almost) unanimously expressed a quasi-Karmic belief in connecting with another idealized person on an intimate level for a lifetime.

      Religion of the Soul-Mate

      Even the Frat guys and hook-up girls who I knew weren’t expressly looking for anything long term in their dating habits still raised their hands in assent to a belief in a ONE. Some later explained what that ONE meant to them, and most had differing definitions of that idealization – some even admitted to it being an idealization as the discussion progressed – yet almost all of them still had what would otherwise be termed an irrational belief in ‘destiny’ or, even amongst the least spiritual, that it’s just part of life to pair off with someone significant and there was “someone for everyone”.

      This discussion was the catalyst for one of my red pill realizations – despite all odds, people largely feel entitled to, or deserving of, an important love of their life. Statistically and pragmatically this is ridiculous, but there it is. The feminized Disney-fication of this core concept has been romanticized and commercialized to the point of it becoming a religion, even for the expressly non-religious. The shakespearean longing for the ONE, the search for another soul (mate) who was destined to be our match has been systematically distorted beyond all reason. And as I elaborated in Casualties men will take their own lives in the delusion of having lost their soul-mate.

  42. @jf12: On that I can agree. A Western female trait, but definitely a prevalent one. Seems encouraged by the hookup “culture” and old feminists’ misery-induced advice. Women try and date as often as possible, get as much sex as possible and get confused when a man they picked based on looks, location or a few pickup lines turns out to not be their soul-mate. She leaves him or bullies him until he leaves her. Cue emotional breakdown. Insert ice-cream, alcohol and a few rants about how awful men are. Rinse and repeat.

    Not so much “love” as “horny and clueless”, though. Actual, lasting love seems to rest somewhere between practicality, compatibility and sexual desire. If anything that trio increases infatuation as the years go by and each two keep the other going. Practicality and compatibility lead to obsessive overthinking, mental infatuation and mental infatuation to actual infatuation and horniness. Practicality and sexual desire lead to increased time together, which increases compatibility as they both grow into new hobbies, interests and jobs together. Compatibility and sexual desire lead to both wanting to spend time together, leading to both adapting their lives so as to be more practical to each other, investing to reap the rewards of compatibility and sex. Hormones, chance, investment, selfishness and comfort. Hmm, romantic.

    I’ve just remembered RedPillRoom’s piece on Romance. If you haven’t read it it’s worth a go.

  43. @superslaviswife, thanks, nice read about “romance is verb” although I highly disagree. Any woman will view as romantic the dropped-on-the-floor-for-her-to-pick-up skittles by the man she is in love with, and she will view the “exotic orchid you grew yourself in secret” as a pathetic cry for reward by a man she is not in love with. And there is nothing he can do about it, per se. It’s all up to her.

    The vast majority of women fall completely out of love, regardless of what the man does or doesn’t do. It’s not a verb, it’s biochemistry. To a limited extent, her biochemistry can be jumpstarted after it dies, like shocking a heart with a defibrillator, by using Dread. It’s rare, though. I think, however, possibly him using mini-Dread can keep her love limping along through the years, just like when granma literally depended on granpa so she was FORCED to respect him and therefore love him, because that’s how love works for women.

  44. jf12- “like when granma literally depended on granpa so she was FORCED to respect him and therefore love him, because that’s how love works for women.”

    Therein lies the heart of the problem. Few men today can provide anything so necessary as to gain and retain a woman’s love and respect. Few women can reward a man sufficiently as to make her needs worthy of his efforts.

    1. @BadPainter,

      Few men today can provide anything so necessary as to gain and retain a woman’s love and respect. Few women can reward a man sufficiently as to make her needs worthy of his efforts.

      Part of one ‘love model’ I detail in Part II is based on this. Bear in mind however that the ideology of equalism attempts to convince men and women that (everyone being equal androgynous agents) they should be able to find more esoteric middle ground to base love and respect on in place of provisioning, as well as discarding any considerations of qualifying for ‘worthiness’ of anything.

  45. For what it is worth, I have also had my red pill moment, which from what I have read is brand new territory although I think more and more young anarchist women are coming or will come to the same conclusion.

    I don’t believe sufficient study exists in terms of the behavior of a deliberately childless heterosexual woman in a society which requires endless population growth (whereas celibates, lesbians, and “cat women” are well represented). I do not believe that the agents of heterosexual love are equal as what they bring to the table is more like the ingredients of a chemical reaction than anything stable. If the objective is not growth, is it destruction by explosion?

    I liken the latter to a Black Hole from which a universe may spring while meanwhile destroying the matter sucked within it. What “rational” woman would willing participate in her own destruction? How about one who sees the power of the universe on the other side and thereby no longer fears death?

    The “flow chart” of love assumes that limitless population growth is inevitable or even desirable. Perhaps it is time that the flow reverse its polarity whether it be by our will or a natural evolution/devolution cycle. Your statement, “…even in these instances substitute love priorities still supersede directing her primary attention towards a man,” makes me wonder what priorities those may be in me. Perhaps I over-invest in thinking and reflection but I do this because that’s what my man requires me to do in order to give back to him in energy and conversation as we together seek enlightenment and peace in this “Future Shock” world.

  46. @jf12: I’d be forced to disagree. Women can love. But most women today are encouraged to pursue their horniness, cultivate masculine traits and overvalue money, which, on top of a belief in Disney romance, inevitably leads to an inability to develop love towards anyone. It used to be that love was something you cultivated. Now it’s assumed to “just be”. In that sense the betas who continually pander are definitely more in love than the girls slutting it up every night, as they have cultivated their obsession, lust and practical needs into love. But women have developed it in the past and non-Westernized women (such as myself, most Muslim girls I’ve known and most Chinese girls I’ve known) seem to retain the ability. Even some modern women, if they can be pulled away from modern culture or if they meet a man that suits them well early enough, can redevelop the ability. It’s simply ceased to be a requirement for the modern woman, is all.

    Then again, unless you understand that love is a combination of infatuation, compatibility, lust, practicality and empathy, my descriptions will fail to make sense.

    Shortest form of my stance: “Pure” romantic love is an impossibility. Love is born of chemical waves and practicality. The more time together indulging these chemicals and being useful to each other, the more this love grows. Women and men display this love differently, but ultimately both can feel it. Modern women are taught not to seek it and modern men are taught to project it onto every woman. Everyone is told that a wave of lust is romance and it is worthy of pursuit. Everyone is told that love is spontaneous, rather than built. Thus most fail to experience the only form of love available to most humans. But many are capable of it if they were to try.

    1. @superslaviswife, I think you’re missing the point. It’s not that women “don’t know how to love” or how to love right, it’s that a feminine concept of love is different and originates from a different motive than men’s concept of love.

      You should read the love series of article I linked in this post.

  47. re: summary. First, two axiomatic observations not open for dispute, although elucidation would be welcome.
    1) Most men are betas, and are therefore made to feel unattractive by essentially all women all the time, mostly so women can avoid the waste of time of him bothering to try to express interest.
    2) Most men fall in love easily, and would fall in love with most any girl who treated him like he was attractive to her, because of the scarcity mentality.

    As soon as the in-love feelings are reinforced though sexual contact, the scarcity-mentality man is pair-bonded: latched into feelings of us vs them because of the oxytocin. Other women now appear as Others, and whatever minimal feelings of unattractiveness are mega-amplified, further reinforcing the scarcity-mentality and oneitis. He is latched so strongly that the only possible way to get him off her is for her to treat him so poorly, so disrespecting, undermining his every decision, attempting to become unattractive herself, and denying him 86% of the sex he should get for years on end. So, that’s exactly what she does.

  48. Different T on May 7, 2014 at 8:13 am

    @Acksiom and Rollo It will be telling if this “address” discusses abortion or not.


  49. If women love their biological children more than men, then what can we learn about a woman who chooses to adopt a child?

    Is she being overwhelmed by her maternal instincts or, in the case where she adopts a child from a different race, overwhelmed by a form of pathological altruism?

    I say that because it happens quite often when a couple adopts nowadays.

    I’ll be interested to get any input on this.

    1. I would argue that women’s biology predisposes them towards collective nurturement, whereas men’s predisposes them towards a patrilinear insurance of his genetic legacy.

      Example: there are plenty of instances of tribal/collective nurturing of children among women, but relatively no instances of the infanticide men enact to destroy the line of competing males. That could be due to men not being able to absolutely verify paternity.

  50. A secondary conclusion of this realization is a re-emphasis upon brotherhood. I read stories of men in ancient scripture kissing each other out of gratitude, fully appreciating who each other are, and I begin to see that male friendship, insofar as it remains above petty competition, is the apex of any community we will ever experience, and that is an exciting possibility.

    In comparison to the quality love of men, feminine love excels in its quantity. A woman can never truly love a man, but she can fully love him with all she is, and is an extraordinary thing.

  51. “A woman can never truly love a man, but she can fully love him with all she is, and is an extraordinary thing.”

    Right up until he becomes human, or suffers a bad run of luck, makes a mistake, get’s comfortable, get’s sick, or someone better, hotter, wealthier, badder comes along and gives her an out. Because she loves the provisioning, not the provider.

  52. Many excellent comments. Quoting Will (and Eon’s contraction) – “a woman feels this love when … her body is being used … (the opposite of men).” This gives a whole new ‘legitimacy’ and ‘purpose’ to the player who specializes in soft harems and ONSs.

    Rollo – perhaps one question you could address here or later would be: how a man’s commitment to monogamy contributes to all of the frustrations raised, and eloquently articulated, in many of the above comments. If LTRs / Marriage are so difficult for those of us in them, and so foolhardily untouchable to clear-eyed red-pill men who swear them off, I would think the removal of the ‘monogamy requirement’ might evoke a vastly different reaction to this fundamental conundrum.

  53. This video just came out today and it visually shows the Alpha fucks, Beta bucks strategy at play.

  54. Also, the comment about the truth setting you free, but being painful is a huge elephant in the room. We are only told the good side of this saying, being set free. But Always, ALWAYS, there is going to be a torment of the soul, a fire so hot to burn “you” out of existence.

    There is just no other way!

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

    I would like to add to this: a man who is insistent that he be loved in this “blue-pill” manner, despite all evidence to the contrary, is in my view somewhat narcissistic. He is too invested in his ego, too inflexible, too incapable of adapting.

    Yeah it hurts. Yet what hurts more: constant disappointment for the rest of your life, versus adjusting and growing to fit observed reality. After a couple of years I think that I’m starting to “just get it”. At least, in my better-humoured moments. There’s still plenty of black times.

    I like the Heirarchy of Love, first encountered it when I read BoneCrkr. Always good to refresh and review and reiterate.

    @Greg: Regarding women being parasites: what of it?

    In the old days women worked hard around the house and to raise children. This wasn’t parasitical, it was rational. It was a symbiosis between man and woman: man provided love and protection for all, as per Rollo’s graphic.

    I feel sure that Rollo’s next post will show what the man got back up the Heirarchy in return, so I won’t spoil it.

    At any rate, there appears to be less incentive for a woman to provide the reciprocal symbiotic return these days. In my view a part of what’s happening is that we men are not demanding that return, while we as a matter of course are giving everything. This appears to be a lack of self-respect on our part.

    Parasitism? Only if you don’t demand that return. When you demand the return, on pain of dumping the cow and finding one better, then you get the return – and that return is good treatment that enhances your life and makes your leisure, your home, your interactions with her a delight rather than a constant battle or living in the wastelands that is the aftermath of losing the war.

  56. Romantic love? As Marcellus Wallace said, “…you’ll feel a sting. That’s just pride f’ing with you.” Every woman is physically and instinctually the same woman that roamed the earth back in the Ice Age. She is hardwired to find a man, SOME man, to meet her many needs. (Unlike a man’s needs, hers tend to expand over time so the stakes are higher.) She must trade/exchange–get what she wants by giving him what he wants. When this exchange is flowing well, that’s love. But the exchange doesn’t have to be even or fair. This is where the modern man is getting duped. The media and mothers (with the permission of passive fathers) tell us that men are not giving their fair share and are inherently selfish. Calling compliant men “enlightened” is the water that washes down the Blue Pill. Today, in white middle-class+ relationships, the balance has drastically tilted in favor of women’s needs. Technology and social stability are accelerating the shift by reducing the list of things a woman truly needs from a man, and women instinctually respond by withdrawing more parts of the exchange we call love. However, if we call BS, if we demand a premium “price” for the things only a man can provide, a correction will happen in short order.

  57. I think I wouldn’t mind so much women being so lousy to the nice men they claim to love, except that women won’t admit it.

  58. @blackposionsoul

    “Parasitism? Only if you don’t demand that return. When you demand the return, on pain of dumping the cow and finding one better, then you get the return..”

    To “dump” her, you should be in the position of power. Let us have a short look at reality to determine, who, precisely, is in the position of power NOW. Women initiate 70-90 % of divorces and a vast majority of break ups as well. So, in reality, woman is telling the man – “my way or go fuck yourself” not the other way.

    As far as the past is concerned – she needed him for survival, she had no other chance. Clever parasite would not kill his host. She would have died without him.

    I tell you a little story – my home country is the Slovak Republic (Eastern Europe). Till 1989 we had this communism here. Notwithstanding its faults, family, morals and children were strongly protected. You could even go to jail for adultery, or a couple of naked pictures, etc. Prostitution was non existent. Women were kept in lines, almost everyone was married, divorces were very exceptional and we had this baby boom here. After 1989 we adopted…democracy.

    You would not believe how fast even our married women (under 40) changed from loyal wives into the “eat prey love” bitches. Young generation of women changed instantly – they simply started to behave that way. They adapted very, very shortly and I witnessed it firsthand as a lawyer in divorce courts.

    Now we have almost the same nubmers – majority of marriages end in divorce initiated 70/80 % by women, single mothers, average age for the first baby – 30 and more, cougars with young men, etc. The HOST is now our very country that provides women with everything they want..remove it, and they return to single men in a minute.. Man alone, or small minority of men, will not change anything, you just remove yourselves form dating pool..

  59. An Alpha’s lot is to RISK ALL in the effort to reclaim manhood and fight Hypergamy (by ruse or force).

    It is simpler than that. Women want men that other women want. The supply of those men will always be limited – by arithmetic.

  60. @jf12: The base philosophy I wholly agree on. I just find it’s a Western phenomenon, more cultural than biological, as people can easily be taught to avoid it. Think of the difference between teaching a beta not to attach to a woman too readily (or at all) and teaching a man he shouldn’t have sex. One is a far easier job than the other. One is regularly accomplished by men worldwide, the other a rare feat of religious zealots with plenty of willpower.

    @Rollo: I’ve already read them and found them interesting. I just don’t get why you describe it as a biological divide when in my experience it’s product of Western “gender neutral” culture and education. Again, I only have one point of reference, but Jon and I agree entirely on what constitutes love and generally feel the same way toward each other, even though the manifestations are different (I wouldn’t be very pleased to get home from shopping or finish a lesson and find him in lingerie baking a cake). The concept of love seems to be the same between us. And the concepts of romance I have observed across various cultures are, well, cultural, and again very different to your (highly accurate) observations of Western culture. If we’re talking romance, it’s cultural or an idealistic fantasy with specific roles that often have no biological basis. If we’re talking love, it’s a bond that’s anywhere from similar to the same which has little to do with romance.

  61. Great article, Rollo.

    “Neither was a prevailing desire for a reciprocal model of love an overshadowing concern.”

    A man’s ability to exercise control over his family and his need for emotional reciprocity from his spouse are likely inversely related and thus men’s current greater-than-ever need for it.

    On some level of their psyche, betas (virtually all men) understand the potentially raw deal they get in the human mating game, and hence the need for assurance as it were, that their resource/energy investment into the female and her and hopefully “their” young is worthwhile.

    In a society where women’s ovulation deception mechanism and thus basic mating strategy is granted ever-greater efficacy, men place ever-greater demands for emotional reciprocity from the female when investing in her.

    In this sense, men’s belief in emotional egalitarianism and reciprocity between the sexes – and as such commitment to his monogamous relationship, is literally built into and perpetuated by Nature itself and was always going to rear its head as soon as men were able to fulfill their own biological imperative and figure out how to build a society that gave to women exactly what women wanted – which has turned out to be a substitute for beta provisioning and therefore total control over the mating game – and here we are now.

    At the end of the day the female is designed to hoodwink, the male is designed to be hoodwinked.

  62. @superslaviswife, it is biology. Men biologically fall in love. “Think of the difference between teaching a beta not to attach to a woman too readily (or at all)” apex fallacy. A man can only avoid falling in love if he has the abundance mentality. The only men that have the abundance mentality are the men that already have multiple women, and thus are not betas.

  63. To the comments that women aren’t worth the effort: when a woman is into you it will require little effort on your part to gain her affection. Everything you say and do will be interesting to her. If it feels like you have to put in a lot of effort for her affection, it’s time to back off for move on.

  64. id monster – lana del rey is fascinating. yes, that video does portray AFBB, but the alpha is the heroin-addled stickfigure with neck tats and the beta is a 70+ y/o guy in Vegas.

    in her video for ‘ride’, all the dudes were 30+ years older and she was hanging out with (fucking) them in the most honky-tonk relics of long-past-its-prime Americana.

    hers is a 60s ethos of endless sex-kitten aspirations without any intimations of a white picket fence objective (and this from a 27 y/o woman).

    hers is a hustler’s pathos of never playing by the rules, of never giving a fuck about western societal judgement (see that ‘ride’ video if you haven’t already).

    and also hers is a silent hatred the ‘bitches’ who fucked up her ‘belief in the country America used to be’.

  65. Rollo wrote, “I read a lot of guys in various forums getting despondent after having the red pill make sense to them, but that despondency is really a simple lack of not having a path already preset for them to follow.”

    I believe that I’m one of the despondents. It would be irrational to want to chase down new problems in my life (even though my natural drive tells me otherwise). I care enough to read this blog regularly, so I must be having some form of irrational leap of faith that someday something good can come of all of this despite all of the lunatic and vile women out there.

  66. I’m reminded of the Eagles lyrics, “I got seven women on my mind. Four that want to own me. Two that want to stone me. One says she’s a friend of mine.” These are problems that I don’t want to have in life 🙂

  67. @id monster re: LDR. I just read the lyrics to West Coast and National Anthem and it’s clear it isn’t about AFBB at all: it’s about her narcissistically admiring the extent of her own solipsism. She’s actually after alpha bucks, so she can enjoy herself properly.

    The typical AF girl wants the Brazilian factory owner with whom she is dancing, who is secretly an international spy as she can tell by his sixgun bulge, to take her right then right there on the disco floor, which happens to be owned by her BB boyfriend who she believes is probably watching them with secret cameras and she enjoys rubbing his face in it.

    In contrast, LDR thinks SHE is the disco owner and the dance song performer who is secretly an international spy who is jerking around the Cuban factory owner in order to pickpocket his wallet which she can feel bulging. Because she wants a bigger disco, so she can fry bigger fish. And if we can get her to comment here, I know she’d agree.

  68. -The brilliance of Lana del Rey as an artist is that she embodies brisk, anti-feminist deconstruction of modern western womens’ Cathedral-endorsed aspirational narrative.

    -When she rides the carousel with ‘disgusting’ old men, it’s with her middle finger in the air. Let the ‘ew, creepy!’ barbs of judgement come raining down on her from all swpl angles, and her response is ‘i don’t care. everything i have i want’. It would appear to be solipsism, but it’s too self-aware to meet that criteria.

    -What other relevant artist professes her allegiance to ‘the country America used to be’?

    -To put it differently, she is the anti-Sara Bareilles.

  69. Urban Meyer- “If it feels like you have to put in a lot of effort for her affection, it’s time to back off for move on.”

    Exactly, making an effort is not rewarded thus not worth it. If she’s into you then you don’t have to make an effort. Making an effort is failure. Working is failure. Fighting for the relationship is failure. Trying is failure.

    Since what she’s giving is only good in the moment then there’s no point in anything that can be called investment. Her “love” cannot be saved for a rainy day, cannot be banked for the future. There is no future with a women there is only the now. Which is why I say not worth the effort, not worth the investment. If the payoff isn’t right now then won’t be one.

    A woman’s opportunistic love is not of any value to me. It is at best for entertainment purposes only. It’s ornamentation, it’s not a durable good. It is too fleeting, too fragile, and too fickle to be of any real lasting benefit. It is temporary validation and nothing more.

  70. Not buying it about LDR’s spoofing her own aspirations, “You can be my full time daddy.”

  71. i hear you, jf12. the distinction is Elizabeth Grant vs. Lana del Rey.

    if you take her at confessional singer/songwriter face value, that makes no sense – so i see what you’re saying.

    I could write a 5K word essay on all the ways LDR *the artist* exposes western women for the bleating insecure puddles they are deep down (and they hide with incorrigible misdirection), but that would bore everyone here, i’m afraid.

    and at the same time – who Elizabeth Grant is *being* when she is LDR *the artist* – THAT is a woman that i admire for her brilliance and vision. and that’s probably just me. so be it.

    on another note jf12 – “The only men that have the abundance mentality are the men that already have multiple women, and thus are not betas.” again i understand this perspective, but i’d say this isn’t absolute because a man in an LTR/marriage can *know* that if the relationship should fall apart at any point, he could go successfully attract other women immediately. That’s the abundance mentality that I carry with me always, and it’s the only reason my current LTR has lasted as long as it has. Indeed, over the course of several ‘fights’ my gf and i have had – if not for my abundance mentality, everything would have gone to hell. of that i am certain.

  72. @SteveH, I agree completely that “a man in an LTR/marriage can *know* that if the relationship should fall apart at any point, he could go successfully attract other women immediately.” But the way he can know, really know, is either prior abundance or current testing of waters with other women.

    re: LDR the wannabe “Gangsta Nancy Sinatra” searching for authenticity in trailer trash living while trying to flee her childhood of healthy food and tediously expensive Hamptons vacations

  73. @greg

    Interesting, I had heard such things had happened. I also found the anecdote of more abortions in Russia than births to be interesting: Abortion in Russia

    Regarding relative positions of power: if she isn’t willing to give what you require, then dumping her is the best thing for yourself. You are not removing yourself from the dating pool, you are filtering out an undesirable from your list of prospects.

    This of course assumes that you are one of the men in the 20% who women find attractive, rather than the 80% of men who are invisible to women. If you’re in the 80% you have a different issue to start with.

  74. I’m surprised, gregg. I was in the Slovak Republic briefly during 1999, I guess it was. I met a group of female high school students and had dinner with them, and I found them very humble, appreciative, and a bit overwhelmed by us Americans.

  75. The more I deal with women, the more I’m convinced that business ettiquette is the key to keeping things under control. Business requires that a certain amount of detachment be observed if an honest deal is to be brokered. Emotion (the manipulative tool women abuse to gain advantage) clouds the judgement, and could lead to making a bad deal. Thus, one should hire a pro if one wants sex.

  76. “A man provides, and he does it even when he’s not appreciated, or respected, or even loved. He simply bears up and he does it, because he’s a man.”

    This basically says it all, at the same time as revealing the problems in any modern LTR.

    1.) Unless you’re pushing mid 6 figures, you can’t support a family of 4 on any reasonable level, without wifey working, which instantly gives her 1/2 the trousers. That makes her 1/2 man and you by default 1/2 woman. Plus she’s out and about, instead of under your roof and thus temptations and hypergamy are going to catch all but the unicorns. Que any excuse (minor squabble over who puts the trash out) to start an affair. How can hubby compete with her dynamic boss, co-worker, client etc. – In the long run her cannot.

    2.) Stay home moms, have way too much free time with modern technology etc. so that even if you can afford to keep her off someone else’s payroll (and away from hungry alphas in the work place) – assuming you can sling her a generous monthly allowance, she’ll either get bored, or worse start dabbling in mischief (the devil makes work for idle hands). Plus once the kids pass 7-8 years, she’ll have less and less todo and now start feeling anxious and resentful that she’s not productive in some other way and her career now has a huge hole in it. Kids grow up faster these days and need to get out of the stuffy home environment and do their own thing…. momma is semi redundant before she even started.

    3.) If you are a high earner, it’s likely that your career is interesting and exciting and also demanding, (and probably a lot more interesting than little tommy’s bath night). Thus the time you spend with your family can very well feel like a burden and a chore. An evening downer, when you need refreshing relaxation. A lot of fuss with the kids all weekend when you want some fun. A tedious family holiday with kids, when you could be clubbing, or treking the Himalayas.

    4.) A wife and kids is an accessory to a man. It’s not obligatory by any means, and without the earnings to support it all, it’s just a massive burden. In the 21st Century, there are so many more entertaining, enjoyable and rewarding pursuits than supporting a wife and raising kids. Sorry… FACT!

    5.) In the long run a woman can only love a man like a mother or a sister – Red blooded men appreciate neither dynamic in more than very small bursts. The old expression “for every hot chick there is a guy bored of fucking her”. Plus she’s aging and less attractive on an absolute scale. But the real problem here is spending ‘quality’ time together is a complete myth. You can little in common and a man is better enjoying almost any pursuit outside of sex, with other men, not with women.

    6.) A man spending too much time with his SO – the ‘best friend’ blue pill ideal, will start thinking and talking more and more like a woman, while she will start taking on more male traits. The attraction is depolarized and while the woman may benefit from a little male vibe, if she wants a high powered career…. the man can only lose out, as he starts to be more and more beta, just by virtue of keeping too much female company.

    The whole LTR thing is just a redundant mess these days. I don’t know what you do about the kids, they love the ideal of momma and poppa…… but the problem is that these ideals just simply don’t exist anymore.

  77. The real question is….. whether the selfish, self centered baby boomer generation, have brought up kids that are now so selfish and self centered that they can’t take on family ideals……

    or whether modern life simply provides so much more beyond families and breeding like a rabbit…. to make family life and holding down a wife and kids, seem like nothing but an unnecessary burden.

    they say women initiate 70% of the divorces, but i guarantee you that in 90% of those cases, the man has withdrawn, given up and simply doesn’t have the “I want a divorce” gene, and can’t leave. So he carries on, until she gets the message and does his dirty work for him.

  78. @jf12: Maybe so. Not too sure on that side of the male mind and even Jon finds it baffling how readily some guys “fall in love” and lose their minds over a fantasy. Can’t argue with your logic there.

  79. The part I find baffling is why women won’t admit their own behavior usually. If a man behaving too in-love makes her behave poorly towards him, why won’t she just admit it?

    1. Why won’t she admit it? Because treating men badly is what she was raised to do. To her, there is no wrong being done when she takes advantage of him and gives him nothing tangible in return. She thinks that her presence in his life -along with the Golden Pussy she provides once in a blue moon- is more than adequate compensation for keeping house (to HER standards), cooking (if it can be called that), and “caring” for him, all while she dissipates his hard-earned money. Admitting harm in that process means she has to provide for herself, and she wasn’t raised to do that.


      III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority

      Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.

  80. Re: mission. In the same way that under dangerous (e.g. pre-modern)conditions it is good for her child to be a mother’s mission, under those same conditions it is good for his wife to be a man’s mission, as in the flow chart of love prioritization. We men, we betas anyway, lactate an overabundance of the milk of human kindness, and would like nothing better than our wives to suckle us deeply and appreciatively. Otherwise we just squirt all over ourselves and everyone near.

    It seems, however, women would prefer to complain about the few meager drops they have to work to get out of hard-eyed men.

  81. Re: Mission

    I believe this is the most important lesson of Redpill thinking. Strip away everything else and this is the core. Everything is about the mission. Everything.

    Having an all consuming mission is the only way to level the playing field with hypergamy. A man with such a mission has to have a form abundance mentality. That can either take the form of being able to replace a woman quickly, or realizing that a woman isn’t necessary in the first place. Anything not necessary to the mission therefore exists in abundance.

    If the woman loves your mission you can keep her. But don’t make her a part of the mission. Let her be a fan because that’s about all she can be. Pat her on the head and compliment the T-shirts in support of your mission. Use her like a groupie, because that’s what she wants anyway. She will never be your equal, never be a collaborator, never be a partner, but she might your biggest fan. If not so what she never part of the mission in the first place.

    If she decides to attach to someone else’s mission let her go she wasn’t doing anything mission critical. What she provided was not necessary. If you think she was mission critical then you lost focus on the original mission.

  82. Good post and comments. I would just second Acksiom’s comments that:

    >While a woman’s respect, and a degree of love may flow back to her man, her primary love and concern is directed towards her children.

    No, that’s just how it used to be. It clearly isn’t any more. Now a woman’s primary love and concern is directed towards herself.

    The functional — and almost etymological — definition of feminism is the prioritization of women’s interests ahead of those of men


    and the institutionalization of that prioritization.

    In this regard I wish to denounce the Breaking Bad monologue as being blue pill reprogramming and reinforcing, through an appearance of red pill wisdom:

    ““A man provides, and he does it even when he’s not appreciated, or respected, or even loved. He simply bears up and he does it, because he’s a man.”

    …even in these instances substitute love priorities still supersede directing her primary attention towards a man.

    Poodle dogs, abandoned animals receive the love they are unable to direct towards a man, human beings, and very often towards children as well. So, we’re back to Acksiom’s note. Not that animals are not worthy of respect and good manners, of course, especially elephants, lions, hippos, snakes… all of them.

    That said, I’ll wait for part II and leave the discussion for you. 🙂

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: