Controlling Interests


I realize I dropped this quote last week, but it provides us with a unique illustration of the prevailing feminine psychology that’s been evolving since the sexual revolution.

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

In last week’s post I made note that Sheryl Sandberg was blissfully ignorant of her blatant admission of feminine hypergamy, but I felt her ‘advice’ to women here represented so much more than just a display of her solipsistic ignorance.

For as long as I’ve butted heads with many obstinate deniers of hypergamy’s influences, on women personally and society on whole, I’m not sure I’ve read a more damning indictment of hypergamy from a more influential woman. Sandberg’s advice to the next generation of women essentially puts the lie to, and exposes the uncomfortable truth about, women’s efforts deny the fundamental dynamic of female sexual strategy – Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.

Even if you want to argue the evolutionary (psychology) and biological origins of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, the fact is now socially evident; women have come to a point where they’re comfortable in openly admitting the truth that Red Pill awareness has been drawing attention to for over a decade now.

Courtesy of Sheryl Sandberg, the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks basis of women’s sexual pluralism is now publicly recognized. It’s kind of ironic considering that what the manosphere has been trying to make men aware of for years is now being co-opted, embraced and owned as if women had always practiced an open sexual pluralism – incredulous to any man’s shock over it.

However, the truth is that a feminine-centric social order can no longer hide the increasingly obvious fallout and consequences of a society restructured to accommodate women as the predominant sexual interest.

Last week I speculated that Sandberg was ignorant of the feminine-primary implications that her statements draw attention to – and I’m still of the opinion that an innate feminine solipsism motivates more and more women to this admission – but it’s impossible to ignore the new degree of comfort in which women feel in laying bare their dualistic sexual strategy.

To some significant extent the Feminine Imperative no longer needs to keep the ‘Good Genes’ / ‘Good Dad’ dichotomy ugliness a secret from men.

In last week’s post I mentioned that a new ambient sense of an assured long-term security in the feminine mind was predisposing women to prioritize the ‘Best Genes’ (Alpha Fucks) side of feminine hypergamy. Sandberg’s ‘advice’ is a vital confirmation of this, however, she tacitly acknowledges a window of  opportunity during which women possess a better capacity to pursue this side of hypergamy:

The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner.

In these two sentences Sheryl (and by extensions the Feminine Imperative) essentially confirms women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, my (now infamous) sexual market value graph depicting women’s peak SMV and decay, and the first half of the time line of women’s phases of maturity I laid forth in the first two installments of the Preventative Medicine series.

Selling the Beta

With regards to men, I believe the most salient part of Sandberg’s admission is found at the end:

These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.

For the better half of the time since the sexual revolution it was necessary for the Feminine Imperative to convince a majority of men that their eventual Beta providership for women was not only their duty, but also a prime aspect of feminine attraction. As I mentioned last week, under the (pre-sexual revolution) old-order attraction model this may have been the case to a large degree. However after the revolution, and as women’s hypergamy prioritized towards ‘Good Genes’ short-term sexual partners, the ‘Good Dad’ (Beta Bucks) men needed an ever increasing ‘sell’ of their own attractiveness by women.

This persistent sell was a necessary element of ensuring a future long-term security for women while pursuing increasingly more short-term breeding opportunities as feminine-primacy expanded into society. The future ‘Good Dads’ would need to be patiently waiting out women’s “indiscretion years” during their SMV peak, so the sell became an ever-evolving definition of what women found attractive in men based on that old-order model of dependability, patience, industriousness, and every other characteristic that defined a good provider.

Quoted from Why Muscularity is Sexy:

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

Strategic pluralism theory is a pretty good definition of feminine hypergamy, but what this theory hadn’t yet accounted for (at the time it was published) was the necessitousness of women with regards to short-term mating strategies and long-term parental investment opportunities over the course of the various phases of maturity as they aged.

The Beta investment sell was necessary because it ensured male parental investment at a later (usually just-pre-Wall) time in a woman’s life. Thus, Sandberg’s praise of men “who think women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. [Men] who value fairness and expect or, even better, want to do his share in the home” will eventually be sexier than the Alpha “bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys” she encourages women to fuck earlier in life is an excellent example of this sell.

Ironically it’s exactly with this sell that women encourage the very transactional nature of sexual relations with men they’re screeching about recently. It’s the Choreplay fallacy on a meta scale – do more around the house, play into the equalitarian schema women think they need in a provider, support her ambitiousness and opinionatedness and you’ll be considered “sexier” and get her Best Sex she’s been saving just for a guy like this.

Building the Beta

The problem the Feminine Imperative runs into with selling the Beta is that as women’s “independence” expands this sell becomes less necessary and less effective. Less necessary because women’s personal, social and legal long-term security insurances have become almost entirely disconnected from men’s direct (not indirect) provisioning. Less effective because men have become increasingly aware of their disenfranchisement of the old-order provisioning model as being something they might equitably be rewarded for.

As the consequences and repercussions of women’s hypergamous priority shift to Alpha Fucks become more evident and real for men; and as their capacity and comfort with connecting and relating these experiences with other men becomes more widespread, the less effective the sell is for Beta men awaiting their turn to enter into a pre or post Wall monogamy with the women attempting the sell.

Throughout the 70’s, 80’s and most of the 90’s, the sell was effective because men were isolated socially and technologically from each other’s relative experiences. From the late 90’s onward that isolation has diminished while the societal results of feminine-primacy have become more glaringly, and painfully, evident to men.

In its ever-reinventive fluidity, the Feminine Imperative found it necessary to transition from selling men on being later and later life long-term providers for women into building a generation of men who would expect of themselves to fulfill that role when the time came. These men would be raised and conditioned to be the patient Beta providers women would need once they had followed the Sandberg model of hypergamy.

These would be the boys / men who would be taught to “naturally” defer to the authority of women under the auspices of a desire to be an equal partner.

These are the men raised privately and created socially to be ready for women, “when it comes time to settle down, and find someone who wants an equal partner.”

These would be the men ready to expect and accept a woman’s proactive cuckoldry of him in the name of being a pro-feminine equal.

These are the men raised to accept an open form of hypergamy in place of the selling to an old-order Beta provisioning model.

The Hypergamy Schism

The problem this creates for women becomes one of dealing with the men they need to sell a secretive hypergamy to and the men they build to accept an open form of hypergamy to. The increasing comfort with an open admission of hypergamy is relative to a woman’s capacity to get away with it.

A woman like Sheryl Sandberg has the means to decisively ensure her future independence and long-term security (at least in the financial sense) whether she’s married or not. She could very well return to the Bad Boys she found so arousing and advises women ‘date’ and never rely on a man’s direct provisioning. As such she’s very comfortable in publicly revealing the ins and outs of post-sexual revolution hypergamy without so much as an afterthought.

While she publicly affirms the build model of Beta provisioning (under the guise of equalism) and expects “those guys will be awaiting you” this doesn’t hold true for a majority of women. Women with affluence enough, or a physical attractiveness sufficient to virtually ensure their future provisioning are much more comfortable with the build a better Beta model than women who find themselves more lacking in this assurance.

The more necessitous a woman finds herself in the sexual marketplace, the more likely she is to deny the mechanics of her own hypergamy.

A woman less confident in consolidating on her future long-term security (and / or cooperative parental investment) has a much more personal investment in keeping the truths of hypergamy a secret from men. As such, these women will be more predisposed to misdirecting the men becoming more aware of this truth and relying more on the selling model of Beta provisioning.

Needless to say this split between women comfortable in open hypergamy and women reliant upon secretive hypergamy is a point of conflict between the have’s and have not women in the sexual marketplace. The more men become aware of women’s hypergamy and strategic sexual pluralism, through women’s open embrace of it or the manosphere, the more pressure the ‘have not’ women will feel to also embrace that openness.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

310 comments on “Controlling Interests

  1. LOL…

    Dear Carolyn:

    After multiple relationships not working out because both parties were dishonest in one way or another, I decided to use a new approach to my current relationship. I am 23, met my current boyfriend (also 23) online, and decided to be COMPLETELY HONEST.

    This was meant to mostly cover my feelings, as I tended to hold things in unhealthily, but I let it fold over to all aspects, including the disclosure of my sexual history. I have now learned this was a mistake.

    This man is all I’ve ever wanted in a partner, we live together, we’ve talked about getting engaged, and I’ve never had a better friend in the world. But he can’t get past what I’ve told him; he loves to throw things in my face, such as how I won’t try something with him in the bedroom that he knows I did with someone else.

    How can I help him get past it? Expressing the frustration it causes me has had no effect on the way he acts or speaks about it.

    LOL….Yes, it’s all about ME ME ME ME ME….

    Not one iota of brainpower is used by this woman to consider how her man feels now that she told him she did things sexually with other men for free, that he has to pay a commitment for and he still goesn’t get those things.

    Women seem to just ooze solipsism as if it were sap coming out of a tree, they just can’t f-ing help it.

    They consider their sexuality their own prized possession, and any and all inference that they should share it with someone who commits to them is regarded as evil.

    She needs to be slapped in the face with some reality.

    And of course, the advice column comes back with…

    He is the one who has to get past it, and it doesn’t sound as if he’s trying. If he won’t try, then I don’t see any other answer than to break up.


  2. @Jeremy

    “Women seem to just ooze solipsism as if it were sap coming out of a tree, they just can’t f-ing help it.
    They consider their sexuality their own prized possession, and any and all inference that they should share it with someone who commits to them is regarded as evil.”

    The level of narcissism and entitlement on display here by women surely ranks right up there with Elliot Rogers level mentality.

    What always chaffes my nuts after reading something like this is the fact that it is the female who wrote in for advice on how to keep they guy, not vice versa. She obviously sees a value in this guy, a value she probably won’t be able to get from “non beta” men, most obviously because they aren’t sexually starved.

    I’ll never forget the image i saw on Dalrocks of some dumb cunts twitter tweet about how her husband thinks her real number is 5, but in actuality it’s something drastically higher LOL. If ever smacking a woman was justified…

    The woman really wants the relationship to work but is angry and confused as to why this guy who has been stuck in traffic all day long is pissed off that the professional cue jumper who cut in front of him earlier is now upset and refuses to let her ahead now that he knows she’s constantly been getting ahead while he followed the rules of the road (or second set of books)

    I swear, it’s as bad as hearing 2 fat people complain about why they can’t lose weight and how they eat healthy – and then getting mad when you point out their portion sizes are 4x as much as the daily intake value and that they aren’t moving and burning calories off… and that’s before they finally open up and admit they still scarf down a whole pizza and 2L of Coke every night before bed.

    And they get mad at you for telling them why they aren’t losing weight.

    It’s simple ladies. Accept your number loud and proud, and only get into ‘relationships’ with men who can accept your real number. You aren’t entitled to a relationship, especially by lying about your number (i thought it was only ‘playahs’ who lie and use tricks in order to get women into bed LOL). Don’t trick a hapless beta into a relationship by claiming to be something you’re not.

    It’s not up to him to get over your number if you are the one who wants the benefits of being with the guy. It’s up to you to either accept your number carries a different cost to each and every man you meet, or to stay out of the relationship business all together and just stay a slut.

    On a side note, the problem could certainly be ameliorated simply by the girl helping wingman the guy into X number of pussies = to her amount – his current amount. That way there would be no number disparity and they would be on an equal sexual level with no feelings of insecurity. I mean if she cares for him and wants the relationship to succeed, this should be a no brainer right? As former sluts always love to say about all the sex they previously had “It was just sex”.

    Well, it’s just sex darling. Help you man equal your number. What’s the harm in that right? (snicker snicker) Maybe perhaps once he equals your number and gains enough confidence and isn’t starving anymore, he’ll realize he no longer needs you or has to tie himself down for access to sex. Pandora’s box will open.

  3. ““When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.””

    When looking for a path towards health and fitness, my advice is to do it all: don’t work out, smoke cigarettes, drink high volumes of alcohol, eat tons of fried foods, anything with sugar, loaded with empty calories. Enjoy that crap now while you’re young and your metabolism is quite stable but don’t get used to it, the things that make these fun and delicious will eventually kill your body. When it comes time to sit in the doctors office and hear him tell you if you keep this lifestyle up you will die, start eating healthy foods and start moving your body. Foods that will help you become stronger, fuel your body, repair the damage, nourish your health, give you stamina and longevity. Start working out and burn off the life killing fat, build strong muscle, burn calories, get lean, get fit, get healthy. This kind of lifestyle is the best for enjoying quality of life and experiences and trust me, nothing is sexier than a fit hard body.


  4. @JF12

    From the linked article:
    “He needs to be able to support the children he already has when he gets out,” she said, adding that Herald and the state both benefit from the deal, first reported by the Northern Virginia Daily.”

    One wonders why such a requirement isn’t enforced against women?

  5. @M3, re: “On a side note, the problem could certainly be ameliorated simply by the girl helping wingman the guy into [what she won’t do with him]”.

    Correct. The correct answer to the question in the Hax article “How can I help him get past it?”, if it is not merely a pretend question, a rhetorical question, is that her “make me do it” dare from “I won’t try something with him in the bedroom that he knows I did with someone else” is completely defused if she helps him get it from someone else. But she doesn’t *want* to help him; she wants a fight.

  6. Jf12- “One wonders why such a requirement isn’t enforced against women?”

    Because only women have reproductive rights, and men only have responsibilities?

  7. Jf12- “But she doesn’t *want* to help him; she wants a fight.”

    Actually, I think she simply doesn’t want to have sex with him because: icky. As well giving herself to her beta completely, in exchange, for commitment would make her a whore. That’s bad feels.

  8. @Glenn

    when confidence crosses into hubris… become a target.

    because its in the differential of your escalating behavior vs. someone like myself where your girl gets taken.

    not because I want her, but because you offer a quasi-challenge and a method for calibration.

    in your specific case, I’d use the fancy house and car against you. in the words of Sir Mix a Lot:

    “Your man is a trick and his game is weak
    I can pull you in a Benzo with a broke down jeep”

  9. @Badpainter, re: “I think she simply doesn’t want to have sex with him”.

    Yes but no. You may have noticed I was leaning in this direction, but have now definitely crossed well over the line. She is daring him to *make* her do it. “How can I help him get past it?” is the same as “Why won’t he just “get it” that I want him to make me do it.”

    For the record once again, I am not advocating it. I’m saying *she* is asking for it.

  10. “It’s simple ladies. Accept your number loud and proud, and only get into ‘relationships’ with men who can accept your real number.”

    Yyyeeeaah, those chicks will get nowhere with me. There is no correct answer, but to me, the closest is to never, ever mention it. I won’t ask, and I won’t bring up mine. Nicely compartmentalizes things. I don’t know where popular culture got this idea, but people don’t need to know every last detail about one another.

    In this case it’s like battery acid to a relationship. Whether it’s becuase she’s secretly proud of it and wants to relive it (with a touch of shit-testing malice by telling the guy, to emasculate him and establish dominance, especially if he is weak-minded and has assets), or she’s ashamed of it and wants to absolve herself by dumping it on him, sorry, no get-outta-the-jail-you-made-for-yourself-free card, nice knowing you, suspension of disbelief shatterted, I can’t watch this movie any more. You think it’s gonna be a bond, I’m telling you it’s a wedge.

    There’s a reason why girls lose respect for and eventually loathe Cap’n Save-a-Ho. They know it’s not a healthy sign in a guy to be cool with it and stay committed to them. Honey if you have a colorful history and you’re turning over a new leaf, sorry, you gotta sit on that, keep it to yourself and never let a ray of light into Pandora’s box. Protect that like your life depends on it, because it probably does, you are going to leave the easy life of your twenties behind whether you like it or not. It’s just the way it is, and no amount of Oprah-isms are gonna change it. See if you can rehabilitate your goddamn oxytocin response. Tough beans, lotsa guys went to war, saw all kindsa shit, never talk about it.

    Looking at todays cohort of peak-SMV ladies, born maybe 1985-1995, sorry, ain’t no unicorns out there. That sweet face, she’s had stuff done to her. It’s about the saddest thing. I blame porn, at least partly. If pron was around when I was 15, you bet I would’ve had a hard time stopping myself from looking at it. To a 15 year old mind, it’s hard not to internalize the scripts and scenarios as templates for what’s “normal”. And don’t kid yourself, teenage girls look at it too, if not to get off, then as an instructable. So nowadays you get teenagers going around thinking they gotta ATM a chick or spitroast em with their buddies or whatever to really be BOSS, and girls going right along with it, offer them some Molly at the EDM festival and off you go.

    Oh well, too many people already anyway.

    Young guys out there – you do not owe any woman anything beyond universal human decency, remember that.

    Young girls out there – no matter what some washed-up disgruntled slutwalking social justice warrior tells you, your relative chastity is incalculably valuable. Nevermind to guys, think about your future self.

  11. Dammit I sound so old-fashioned and k-selected. Get with the times, right?

    Well OK then ladies, if these are the times, fine, go ahead, bang away. But do not expect me to do ANYthing for you aside from dump a fuck in you once in awhile. You might be fun to hang out with but it will never go beyond that.

    I’ll be like DeNiro in HEAT: “don’t let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat”

    You won’t get my sympathy, you won’t get my faithfulness, and you won’t get my money. I will plan only for myself. You’re on your own, you and your sisters and your developing neuroses.

    And flinging your own shame at me, like a pissed off primate flinging their feces at the gawking humans, ain’t gonna win me over.

    That what you want?

  12. @Jf12

    She wants the fight to justify her underlying desire to fully collect his resources without the requirement of giving him full sexual access. The fight and the drama serve a higher purpose for her.

  13. @Badpainter, re: “higher purpose”. Women *like* to fight. With me, anyway. The same way they like to scream with their neck-veins bulging. I guess it feels good.

    I’m going to try to remember to apply my interpretation from now on whenever it seems to fit. IOW “just get it” is to be interpreted as meaning “molon labe”.

  14. Jf12

    “IOW ‘just get it’ is to be interpreted as meaning ‘molon labe’.”

    In addition to being defective I am also a bad person. I had a girlfriend many years ago with whom I fought, or bickered with all the time. Minor trivial stuff.

    Several times it was serious relationship ending type stuff. I know this because the aim for me was to 1. Win the fight even if it ended the relationship 2. Draw real tears rather than blood. The best part was after it was over denying her make up sex.

    I hate fighting. She enjoyed it, unless it was serious, which were the only times I was invested in the process and the outcome.

  15. Why is there no mention here by Rollo or anyone else of Vasalgel’s impact on all this?

    I don’t understand why something that is likely to have massive consequences for everything you’re discussing isn’t being addressed.

    And this silence is endemic across the entire manosphere. It’s everywhere. Why? Vasalgel is a One Deft Move that would significantly improve almost every issue of interest to almost every one of you, and yet not a single one of you ever mentions it, even when its fundamentally integral to the topics of discussion. . .as it is here.

    What happens when both the Alpha AND the Beta males first need to get two vas injections and wait three months before any woman, no matter how good and nice and pure, can get pregnant by them?

    I’m not going to accuse you of being afraid of facing up to that, because it’s just as nonsensical accusing you of being intimidated by strong competent women, but all I have left otherwise is to stare at you and say:

    WTF? Why are you all ignoring this so consistently and conspicuously?

  16. Acksiom- “WTF? Why are you all ignoring this so consistently and conspicuously?”

    1. It’s not commercially available.

    2. There’s no guarantee it will be commercially available.

    3. There’s no real pricing associated with it so cost benefit analysis is impossible.

    4. It is yet to be established as an affirmative matter of law in the US that men have reproductive rights to include the right to not reproduce.

    5. If DNA testing to determine paternity is forbidden why should we believe this won’t likewise be forbidden or stopped before it is commercially available?

    1. Actually I think we had pretty lively discussion about Vasalgel in a comment thread about 2 months ago.

      I know we’ve discussed male birth control and the social implication many times.

      I’ll see if I can dig up the thread.

  17. 1. Why does it need to be commercially available first?

    VR pr0n and sexbots are much farther away, yet they get far more address. Checkmate.

    2. Why does there need to be a guarantee it will be commercially available first?

    I’m already working on backup plans to *make* it commercially available in Mexico if necessary. Checkmate.

    3. Why does cost-benefit analysis have to be available first? We already know the basic costs from all the RISUG work establishing its validity and safety. Checkmate.

    4. Condoms and vasectomies. Checkmate.

    5. The belief that it might by outlawed (“forbidden” or “stopped”? Why are you using inappropriately vague terms?) IS a reason to start discussing it more. Checkmate.

    Basically your “explanation” amounts to “We don’t already have it, so there’s no point in even talking about how to make sure we eventually do,” which is so bizarrely irrational that it looks like actual, for-real, full-blown clinical denial.

    Rollo. . .first, your “Actually” doesn’t make sense because your response doesn’t meaningfully answer my questions.

    Second, I didn’t ask about condoms and their social implications; I asked about Vasalgel. The distinction matters, because it is such a radical advance over the one, single, sole artificial method we’ve been relying on for literally hundreds of years (and modern, permanent life-long vasectomy) that the suggestion that talking about those “counts” as discussing Vasalgel is immediately laughable.

    Please don’t insult my intelligence like that.

  18. It amuses me that I didn’t even notice the 2nd & 3rd pages of comments before posting. All this Paternity Testing Nondisclosure / Vasectomy stuff? I didn’t even know you’d gotten into it before I started busting your chops about Vasalgel.

    There’s a unique pleasure to mistaken observations that nevertheless end up being correct predictions. And IME, they’re also an excellent signal that someone else is worth listening to and drawing out to one’s own benefit.

  19. Acksiom,

    Vasagel has been discussed previously. It doesn’t come up with great frequency because as a practical matter it doesn’t exist. It might in the future but not today.

    Almost all of the discussions I’ve encountered in the sphere that address possible future outcomes are established based on existing tools, not tools that are in development. The fact that Vasagel is likely to reach market before sex bots doesn’t change the discussion much as both are based on presumption of tools not yet in existence. Hence the lack of frequency of the discussion, and the corresponding intensity.

    To my points:
    1. If it’s not available discussion is for entertainment purposes only.

    2. If you can’t guarantee availability then the discussion is moot.

    3. Until it reaches market the costs are a guess not a price. The price effects availability, and ease of access. If the price creates a high front end cost then the utility as product becomes limited to those who can afford and diminishes the utility as a tool of social change.

    Making people travel to a foreign country for the procedure isn’t going to do much mitigate the general lack of access.

    4. Condoms and vasectomies both predate the sexual revolution. Difficult to ban them now especially condoms because of role played in preventing STD transmission.

    Permanent sterilization is only a valid form of birth control for those who have children already or never want them, a distinct minority. Most men want to retain the option.

    5. No need to outlaw it just tie up FDA approval for 20 years. Or maybe get EPA to have some concerns about waste and whatnot. Have iRS crush anyone involved with pushing it forward. Actually outlawing it isn’t necessary until it is on the market.

    So until we have something tangible to discuss you’re going to see more talk about sex bots and zombies because those things are more entertaining.

  20. Kinda over dramatic with the checkmates. Feel free to start, or direct the flow of the conversation to that yourself. Instead of just saying why isn’t somebody else doing something, The current flow of the conversation dealt with the dynamics of male/female interaction. Broader topic than contraception.
    And anybody else correct me if I’m wrong. But when he/she said they didn’t want to accuse anybody of being afraid of talking about it, did he/she then just passively say everybody is afraid of talking about it?
    Like if somebody says I don’t want to make it seem like you’ve put on a lot of weight, but damn you look different.

  21. I laughed so hard at this:

    A girl thought she was fulfilling her guys cuck fantasies when in reality, he was pimping her ass out. After finding this out, she feels horrible and dirty. Oh but she didn’t feel that way before, lol.

    The comments on the article by the women are gold, too.

  22. Anything to say this, Rollo?

    I’ll preface by agreeing that this study doesn’t really disprove the “Trophy Wife” because it doesn’t take into account second marriages and the age range is restricted to those 35 and under.
    Also it seems to be taken as a sort of disproof of female ‘hypergamy’.

    And while I do support that concept, I sometimes think you guys and gals on blogs like this tend to overplay the concept just a little too much.

    But in any case, your thoughts would be illuminating.

  23. Just one more thing….

    Whenever a woman says ‘X is sexy’, you can bet your last dollar that X is certainly NOT sexy.

    Can you imagine Sandberg telling women that Channing Tatum is sexy? Can you imagine her telling women that Brad Pitt is hot, or that George Clooney is really handsome? No, of course not, because women already know that those men are very desirable and attractive. No one has to tell women who’s actually sexy, because women already know that.

    So if she’s trying to sell the idea that equal partners are ‘sexy’, it’s because everyone [or every woman at least] really knows they are not sexy at all. If they were, wouldn’t they already have lots of women begging them to fuck them?

  24. @D-man re: k-selected. It seems important that I point out that hamsters are the epitome of r-selection.

  25. I hope to remove yet one more layer of bullshit with this and expose the raw ugly truth we all hide from. Security is a myth. Life is inherently insecure, unpredictable, risky and fraught with uncertainty. The illusion of security can only be temporarily indulged. Let’s be completely honest. If women were the weak helpless creatures in such dire entitlement of mans constant protection and provisioning, as they are insidiously and fallaciously depicted by the feminine imperative of lies, then the human race would have gone extinct long before recorded history. Concerning hypergamy, the word “security” should be universally replaced with the phrase “a life of leisure and or materialistic self indulgence provided by the efforts of another or others”. Hypergamy is nothing more than a widely accepted and practiced form of sociopathy. Often, the hypergamic bitches offspring are (in the mind of the hypergamic bitch) are nothing more than hostages used in an callous effort to enforce extortion and “hypergamy” is itself is an excuse, a lie.

  26. Mans significant contributions to human life:

    The telephone, airplane, light bulb, pasteurization of milk, penicillin, electrical generation, combustion engine, automobile, atomic energy, computer chip, metal refinement, hydrocarbon extraction, refinement and synthesis, space exploration, geometry, calculus, general theory of relativity, universal law of gravitation, laws of physical motion, heart surgery, pregnancy contraception, Archimedes Principal, concrete……the list is extremely long and significant.

    Women’s significant contributions to human life:

    Prostitution and hypergamy.

    Ladies feel free to add anything you can honestly and verifiably add to women’s list.

  27. Many are trapped in what should have been a fuck and dump (FAD). This is for all beta males and those who have swallowed the red pill, especially those who are choking on the red pill. As you escape enslavement and take action to disconnect, send her this song. Pay very close attention to the last five lines. They are sooo true. You only live once.

    I’m going fishing
    I got me a line
    Nothin’ I do’s gonna’ make the difference
    So I’m taking the time

    And you ain’t never gonna’ be happy
    Anyhow, anyway
    So I’m going fishing
    And I’m going today

    I’m going fishing
    Sounds crasy I know
    I know nothing about fishing
    But just watch me go

    And when my time has come
    I will look back and see
    Peace on the shoreline
    That could have been me

    You can waste whole lifetime
    Trying to be
    What you think is expected of you
    But you’ll never be free

    May as well go fishing

  28. @Glenn – June 22nd

    It’s not a big deal for me Glenn but I’ve been in Mensa for almost 50 years now, and my IQ when occasionally measured for various reasons has consistently been in the 155 – 165 range.

  29. @heyjay – June 22nd

    Your comment about intelligence is way off the mark.

    I know a plethora of smart men, and if there is anything other than their self-evident brain power which singles them out it is there superior ability to make and sustain relationships of all types, including the male/female kind. I’d back an intelligent so-called Beta to “beat” an unintelligent so-called Alpha any day of the week, no matter what the arena is.

    I repeat, forget “Alpha” or “Beta”, they are just artificial labels. Ultimately, smart always triumphs over dumb, and these are real victories not just pyrrhic ones.

  30. Pingback: Trophies |
  31. Pingback: Open Hypergamy |
  32. Pingback: Back to Basics |
  33. Flip
    June 18th, 2014 at 8:06 pm

    “I think in most cases, the woman ends up having children who are the beta husband’s rather than the alpha bad boys’ she dated, so it is not really a case of getting alpha genes and beta provisioning. Of course there are single mothers who had already had the bad boys’ children and get a hard up beta to be the step-father, but that’s not usually the case. I personally am quite grateful for reliable DNA testing so I can’t be fooled (and will check if I ever have children).”

    Flip, good that you’ll do DNA testing on any and all children you have.
    You and I part company on the frequency women cuckold their beta husbands.

    American women (and U.K. women and Canadian women and German women) are much sluttier than you understand. A collection of cuckoldry rates (which will logically be considerably lower than wive’s infidelity rates):


    From the Guardian, 1998-07-14: “More than 25 years ago the consultant obstetrician E E Phillipp reported to a symposium on embryo transfer that blood tests on between 200 and 300 women in a town in the south-east of England revealed that 30 per cent of their children could not have been fathered by the men whose blood groups had also been sampled”.

    From the Dallas Morning News 1999-10-31: “DNA Diagnostics Center … an industry leader, says 30 percent of the men it tests prove to be misidentified. Similar numbers come from the Texas attorney general’s office, which enforces child support: About a quarter of the men who disputed paternity in the last year turned out to be right. In Florida, the proportion was one-third”.

    From the Sunday Times 2000-01-23: “David Hartshorne, spokesman for Cellmark, said that in about one case in seven, the presumed father turns out to be the wrong man”.

    From the Santa Barbara News-Press 2000-02-27: “For the population as a whole, “The generic number used by us is 10 percent,” said Dr. Bradley Popovich, vice president of the American College of Medical Genetics. [15 to 25 % has been determined from blood tests of parents and offspring in Canada and the US.]”

    From The Age 2000-03-26: “About 3000 paternity tests are carried out a year in Australia. In about 20 per cent of cases the purported father is found to be unrelated to the child. This figure is estimated to be 10 per cent in the general community”.

    From The REPORT Newsmagazine 2000-04-24: “The rate of wrongful paternity in “stable monogamous marriages,” according to the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany, ranges from one in 10 with the first child to one in four with the fourth”.

    From the Independent 2000-05-12: “… biologists Robin Baker and Mark Bellis … review of paternity studies also suggested frequent infidelity, with extra-pair paternity running between 1.4 per cent and 30 per cent in different communities”.

    From The Globe and Mail 2000-05-20: “Anecdotal evidence suggests these numbers bear out in Canada as well…. Maxxam Analytics in Guelph, Ont., performs approximately two paternity tests a day. And according to Dr. Wayne Murray, head of the human DNA department, one out of four men who come in pointing a finger at their spouse is not the biological father of the child in question”.

    From the Sunday Times 2000-06-11: “More than 250,000 tests a year are now conducted in America, and about 15,000 in Britain…. roughly 30% of men taking the tests discover that they are not the fathers of the children they regarded as their own. In the wider community, social scientists say up to 1 in 20 children are not the offspring of the man who believes himself to be their father”.

    From the Observer 2000-09-03: “One study followed couples waiting for NHS fertility treatment, where the men were ‘azoospermic’, meaning they produced no sperm and were totally infertile. The researchers found that 25 per cent of the women became pregnant before fertility treatment started”.

    From the American Association of Blood Banks – 2001-02-26: “The overall exclusion rate for 1999 was 28.2% for accredited labs. Exclusion rates for non-accredited US and foreign labs were slightly less at 22.7% and 20.6% respectively”.

  34. Just thought i’d drop this here… cuz open and flagrant hypergamy is official.

    “The saying that “the grass isn’t always greener” clearly isn’t deterring women of today. They understand that anything can happen and are ensuring they have a solid back up plan should things go sour with their current man’

    ‘With sites like Facebook and Twitter, it’s easier than ever to stay in touch with an old flame.”

  35. Pingback: Yes Means Fear |
  36. u know in my perfect world this is how it would play out….u would get to sleep around w/ any and all sexy, alpha dudes, the ones who plays exquisite mind-games that all women crave since we never get enough and are never satisfied….we could do anything and everything and not even get pregnant unless we really WILL ourselves too, and unless we’re married which is for the best of the child…we could sleep w/ these dudes but after we’re done, we forget them, our bodies, minds, souls forget them and we can truly move on (no oxytocin bonding chemicals for slutting around, only for the hubby and kids)….then we we finally decide to settle down…we can bond w/ the best provider hubby and not even have a memory of the sexy dudes who rocked our world….we didnt bond w/ them and so we can enjoy sex w/ the less -exciting dude because…i mean what else do we know about sex?

    i think this is how feminists truly think, theyve been hoodwinked! obviously we know this is simply not reality…sex is never casual and u can never truly forget your best lover…. this is why i choose to wait until marriage and ill probably be satisfied w/ my man since he wont have anyone else competing for my sexual attention…no ephemeral alphas haunting me…i had a few alpha boyfriends who i only kissed…and still i think about them, nearly 10 years later though no in the same way, not intensely and i can only imagine how it wouldve been if i had slept w/ them? impossible….

  37. I know a solution that would eliminate the hypergamy problems entirely, end the gender war, and potentially alter the course of human history for the better. A men’s sexual revolution. Affordable, widely available, reliable, NON-RISKY cosemetic surgery, and legalized, widely available anabolic steroids, under the care of a physician, coupled with a solid fitness regime. A society where male beauty is the norm, and the stigma of cosmetic sugery/steroid use was removed, would eliminate almost all the game playing on both sides. Yeah, yeah, crazy, but hear me out on this, and i promise you, it actually makes a lot of sense. Women are VERY visual in what they are sexually attracted to, and those standards are HIGH. For thousands of years, they had to pretend otherwise. They are beginning to reveal this more openly, and men in general are about to be shaken down to their very core, once it become increasingly obvious that women are more visually-attracted and hornier than men – totally the reverse of the common cultural myth that has it backwards.

    The average married man has never known what real love from a woman is like, because woman are only truly attracted to fit men with a conventionally attractive face. Unfortunately, women are pressured to either service a beta john or remain single when their market value drops. This is why sex after marriage drops off. She now loses nothing by revealing her real level of respect, love and sexual attraction to her husband. It was an act all along – one that she now no longer feels the need to play, now that she has what she wanted from him.

    The distinction between “alpha” and “beta” is not behavior. It’s looks. The difference in behavior between those groups is merely conditioning brought on by the very different environments. When you are treated like a king, alpha behavior is natural. When you are treated like a pauper, beta behavior is the natural result. Same thing applies to “nice guys” versus “assholes”. Ever notice they often tolerate downight mean behavior from a guy if he is out of her league, lookswise? It isnt the mean behavior that turns her on. She just has sufficient attraction to him that such behavior is tolerated.

    True confidence doesn’t come from “within”. That’s a recipe for self delusion and little more than a politically correct myth.. It comes from previous, repeated and easily-gained success. Women generally treat average-looking guys like shit and cannot even respect a guy who isnt “hot”, even if she tries to put on airs otherwise, which is why so many guys are confused, frustrated and getting fucked over nowadays. Women nowadays have less and less to lose by being open about the reality of female sexuality. Why marry a beta provider when you can make your own living and still fuck the hotties? As guys get more desperate over time, the hotter the guys she can fuck when she’s 50. The sexual market value of aging cougars has been inflated to a degree that marriage, for a woman, is no longer necessary, hence the inflated list of “must do’s” and “must have’s” on her dating checklist.

    Women CAN love a man, but for the majority, only physically attractive men. It is coded in their dna, which is why they often act so neurotic in relationships. The duality drives them a bit batty at times. They know what real love feels like, but they dont feel that feeling when in a relationship with a provider guy, no matter how “alpha” his behavior is. Society tells them they are “shallow bitches” if they remain true to their own feelings and biological drives instead of playing the culturally acceptable act.

    Yes, there are outliers, a select few women who are able to love a man who is average looking or worse off, but they are painfully rare. For every 10 ugly men with beautiful women couples, you have 9 glorified prostitutes who are “wife” or “girlfriend” in name only. Women are excellent actors, and, men who have never experienced real love from a woman who finds him truly physically attractive, are easily fooled because he has never known anything different. He has nothing else to compare it to. The majority of men haven’t a clue what real love from a woman is like, and have been fed only an act in its place.

    I know very well what I speak of. I went from dud to stud physically and it was a completely different world. It shocked me, awed me, but most of all, disturbed me. I cannot stand for such deception at the expense of fellow men. The idea of a “secret club” mentality among “alphas” and women in general is painfully real. Women are just now starting to reveal little table scraps of truth to the “betas” that were once reserved for “alphas” only.

    If you get to know conventionally attractive men, you’ll find that the overwhelming majority of them are red pill. They just generally dont air it publicly. Red Pill has a lot of “alpha” ideas because it is the reality most physically attractive men observe. Women openly brag to their fuck buddies about how they exploit the betas. It’s sickening. When a woman does that shit, I always ask for anal the next time I fuck her, because im dumping the bitch anyways, so its not like im risking a loss. My “n” count for buttsecks girls is surprisingly low, but thats a hole nother subject….

    “Alphas” are often apalled at how women treat their average-looking friends, even if they havent yet figured out why women are much less deceptive, conniving and UNBELIEVABLY FAKE to THEM. THIS is the reason why women complain that the men they want are all “commitment phobes”.

    They have seen the horrors that result when their more eager friends commit to something more serious, so yeah, when a woman wants that word from HIM, its genuinely, honestly, a bit harrowing, even scary. The alpha starts to question his market value. Consider that a little insider secret from the “alpha club”. Here’s another one: When a girl wants commitment, plainly tell her you’re not interested in marriage. IF she stays with you anyway with minimal drama, she’s a keeper, because she has demonstrated that her attraction to you is real. Stay with her for life, but dont marry her.

    Under our current way of thinking, nobody is happy. Women aren’t getting the men they want, the men arent getting the women they want, women feel like whores, further adding to their culturally-induced neurosis. They are continually hit on, stalked, or otherwise made to feel uncomfortable by sexually starved, culturally-decieved and clueless guys who are a natural result of any society with an imbalance of sexual power between the sexes.

    With low-risk, truly affordable, more advaced, and readily available cosmetic surgery, coupled with a good fitness plan in conjuction with legal anabolic steroids,aministered by a licensed physician, we would have a balance of sexual power between male and female for the first time in human history. The majority of men would have the high degree of physical beauty that femake biology requires for most women to feel genuine romantic love. The millenia of deception and unease that has existed between men and women since the dawn of mankind would come to a grinding halt in a world where beauty is the norm, because people would select their mates entirely on things that SHOULD matter most, like personality, common interests, lifestyle, beliefs, etc. People would not need to disguise their intentions in any relationship.

    I truly believe the path to peace and harmony between the genders is acceptance of the true nature of female sexuality, and utilizing the technology we have gained in the 21st century to make it feasible for the majority of men to be truly appealing to women. The is the cultural nuke in the male arsenal that would end the gender war with no losers or winners. Both sides would come out on top, and the animosity on both sides would largely vanish.

  38. The answer.. Marry a 19 year old hottie, one who believes in love, before she figures out her power (small town girls are great). Have some kids.. be poor so there’s nothing to gut you for, and ride it out. When it craters later in life, at least you’ll have your memories, your kids, the knowledge your girl was not a carousel rider, and some twisted pleasure watching her speed toward the wall, knowing she will never ‘have it all’, because you foiled that plan for her, AND GOT YOURS. There.

  39. Pingback: Estrus |
  40. The main culprits in all of this are the Betas, the weaklings, the Uncle Tims, and feminist lapdogs that sold out there own gender for at taste of some mucus lubricated meat. And this is what happens when you let betas breed… personally, the whole cuckoldry is a good thing, this way the useless betas can pay for superior Alpha genes. Had this been a few thousand years ago, we’d be still in packs, with Alpha mating every single female, and betas knowing there place. Females are now simply circumventing the terrible position we are in due to having let the betas breed, and there are of course always more betas than Alphas… it’s simple genetic distribution statistics, there will always be more average and inferior genetics in the gene pool. Anyway, although I fully understand the situation, and the FI and what it has done to our society disgusts me, I hold the betas as the culprit, but the current situation does not affect me much, I get my share of pussy, and there is a good chance I get your share as well.

  41. Pingback: Anonymous
  42. Pingback: Betas In Waiting |
  43. Pingback: Spring Break |
  44. Pingback: The Quick Fix |
  45. Pingback: Open Cuckoldry |
  46. I think the same holds true for most men. when hooking up guys like easy girls, who don’t require investment and aren’t needy, girls who aren’t jealous, girls who put out on the first date. We don’t really care about how many guys they’ve been with in the past. Why? Because its for sex and hooking up and having fun and those types of girls not only are easiest to get sex from they’re the easiest to be with while having other girls as well, that’s it. However, when we start getting ready for a LTR or marriage, the game changes. You DO care if she’s been with lots of other guys (because you don’t want a slut). You prefer she takes more work to get into the sack (because you know she’ll be less likely to cheat if she considers sex a big deal). You want her to be more dependent emotionally on you, to need you. You want her to have good morals that she can pass on to your kids and have traits that would make her a good mom.
    Women can’t seem to handle that there is a big difference and the same girl can’t be both. They think its hypocritical, but they do the exact same thing, only worse, they are devious about it and punt the LTR guy once they’ve used him in his later forties/fifties, or even worse, now continue to have sex with other guys while their with the good dad.
    I think women get confused because they’re told by guys all the time their promiscuity doesn’t matter. Their “independence” is sexy, blah blah… but I think men need to be more clear… because in almost all cases the guys saying that are looking for casual dating and sex, not a wife, you start looking for a wife, its a whole other set of qualifications and they aren’t compatible.

  47. Pingback: Plan B |
  48. Let me tell you a joke.

    “When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. the things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time ,nothing is sexier” – Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook. Divorced twice as of 2015.

    “When you’re young, go on the cock carousel – you won’t be able to do this later. When you’re older, pick a submissive guy who gives you massive attention and praise, who’s easy to manipulate and do the shitty work you don’t want. These cuck-beta-slaves do exist and, trust me (a woman who divorced twice already), over time, nothing [will make your ovaries dry as quick] is sexier.

  49. Pingback: Sugar Babies |
  50. Is being Alpha worth it?

    It’s always worth it. The years you live are much more valuable and enjoyable than the perhaps more years of being an average frustrated chump.

  51. Hi Rollo.
    I have always been irritated by feminist nonsense, but reading your articles has opened my eyes to the subtler effects of their propaganda! This inspires me to be a better woman. Thanks!

  52. I asked a woman who was breaking up with me why? Her reply was, “You make a piss-pour boyfriend because you would make an excellent husband.”

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: