Equalism and Masculinity


What a lot of feminists hate about red pill theory is that it simply does a better job of predicting social behavior than feminism ever has. I’d like to think that red pill awareness has fundamentally altered (or enlightened if you’d like) intergender interpretations and understanding in a relatively short time, but that would be a mistake.

There’s a distinct group of self-evincing red pill guys who like to remind us in various comment threads that it hasn’t always been thus. Their story is our forbearers “knew better” with regard to how men and women ought to interact with one another, and essentially spelled this out for future generations in the religious and philosophical texts of antiquity.

While I can’t deny the merit of this, I also know that the men of those bygone eras didn’t have anything approaching the mass of information and the connectivity men possess today. It’s easy to get caught up in the romanticism of the idea that back in some Golden Age of manhood, men knew about the dangers of allowing women’s hypergamous natures to run amok. I’m sure those men knew of the consequences of allowing women to control their fates. I’m sure there were Beta men and cuckolded men as well, but even the most wise Alpha among them could never, for instance, understand the impact that a unilaterally feminine-controlled form of birth control would effect upon a globalized society.

The sages of manhood-past may still have many relevant lessons for the men of today, but they simply lack the compounded experiences and understanding men possess now. Though they undoubtedly were keen observers of human behavior, the greatest thinkers of antiquity simply didn’t have an inkling as to the evolved, biological motivators of the sexual strategies our psyches developed in our hunter-gatherer human past.

What frustrates the advocates of this bygone manhood wisdom is that for all of our collective experience and knowledge, for the past sixty or so years, men struggle to come to terms with what that masculinity should mean to them. For all of the accumulated male experience and relation of it that’s led to red pill awareness, men still grapple with ‘what being a man means to them’.

Undoing of a Man

When I do consults with men of all ages I have to begin from a presumption that what these men’s concept of masculinity is usually is the result of a deliberate attempt by the Feminine Imperative to confuse men about what being a man should be for him.

Even the men who tell me they were raised by the most dominant, positively masculine fathers still suffer the internalized effects from this feminized effort to cast doubt on men’s masculinity.

Recently NPR began a series of articles attempting to suss out what it means to be a man in the 21st century. I do listen to NPR, and while I know bias will always be an inevitable part of news stories, I couldn’t help but assess what a morass attempting to define masculinity has become for contemporary men. Each story, each attempt to redefine masculinity, relied on the same tired tropes the Feminine Imperative has been using for men since the start of the sexual revolution.

Weakness, vulnerability, is sold as strength. Submissiveness and compromise to the feminine is sold as “support” and deserving of praise and a reciprocal appreciation (which never manifests in women). Beta is Alpha and Alpha is insecurity, bluster and compensation.

Those are the main premises, and, to a large degree, most red pill aware men realize that behavior is the only true determinant of motivation, and reject the feminized, egalitarian equalist messaging. However, what still surprises me is that this same, deliberate effort to cast doubt on what masculinity should be for a man hasn’t changed its message or methods of conditioning men to accept this masculine confusion for almost 40 years now.

Through the late 80’s and up to now, the idea of anything positively masculine is either ridiculed, cast as misogynistic, or implies a man might be gay if he’s too celebratory of his maleness. Since the start of the sexual revolution, any definition of what masculinity truly should mean has been subject to the approval of the Feminine Imperative.

In the absence of a clear definition of what masculinity is for men, the Feminine Imperative is free to create as grotesque a straw man of ugly masculinity, or as beatific a feminized model of masculinity as it needs to serve its purpose. With the aid of the Male Catch 22, blurring and distorting masculinity, raising and conditioning men to accept ambiguity and doubt about the security of a ‘manhood’ they’re encouraged not to define for themselves, are all the methodologies employed to ensure a feminine-primary social order.

Equalism vs. Complementarity

Agreeableness and humility in men has been associated with a negative predictor of sex partners.

The problem inherent in applying reciprocal solutions to gender relations is the belief that those relations are in any way improved by an equilibrium between both sexes interests.

The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

The mistake is applying a humanistic, egalitarian equalist ideal to human sexual strategies that evolved over millennia to be complementary to each other, not an equitable exchange of resources to be negotiated over. This is one reason genuine desire cannot be negotiated – this fundamental is rooted in our most primal, complemetary understanding of sex.

The point at which egalitarian equalism (the religion of feminism) fundamentally fails is presuming that intergender relations should ideally exist in a goal-state of egalitarian equalism and / or a reciprocally equal state of mutually supportive interests.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about equalism and reciprocity.

The sexes evolved to be complementary to each other for the betterment of the species. Why do you think women form the most secure emotional attachments to men 1-2 SMV steps above themselves? Why is masculine dominance such an attractive male aspect for even the most feminist of women who’d otherwise plead for equality among the sexes?

I have a bit of a weird relationship with “traditional masculinity”. I’ve looked critically at it enough to know how much damage it does as a paradigm. I’ve seen the harm it can do to both men and women on an individual level. I’ve been subject to the violence it encourages. But despite all that, holy shit does it ever turn me on.


There’s just something about assertiveness (let’s be real, sometimes flat out arrogance) that does it for me. No matter how much I can be attracted to someone emotionally and intellectually, my swoons only happen when confronted by a powerful, competent man.

This has lead to some issues in my personal life. Who knew being attracted almost exclusively to men that inherently make bad partners wouldn’t work out well for me?

What we’re observing here is a rudimentary conflict between an internalized humanist idealism (the way equalism teaches thing’s should be) versus evolved, impulsive realism (the way things are).

The doctrine of equalism presumes a socialized expectation of being turned-on or attracted to men exemplifying a ‘gender equitable’, equalist-correct, mindset and the evolved, visceral arousal / attraction to a man exhibiting the dominant characteristic traits of masculine complementarity.

Another example of this conflict can be found in my essay on Choreplay.

In 2008 the transactional nature of sex-for-equitable-services was an over blown meme. The message then was that men needed to do more feminine-typical chores around the house, and the equitable exchange would be his wife reciprocating with more frequent and more intense sex as a result of his “equitable” participation in that negotiation.

Fast forward to 2013 and now (by the same author mind you):

Hey, fellas, put down those vacuum cleaners and pull out the lawn mowers.

Married men may think helping around the house may up their hotness quotient in the bedroom, but what really matters is the type of chore. Heterosexual married men who spend their time doing yard work, paying bills and changing the oil have more sex than husbands who spend their time cooking, cleaning and shopping, according to a new study on the subject of housework and sex.

“Households with a more traditional gender division of labor report higher sexual frequency than households with less traditional gender divisions of labor,”…

So what you see illustrated here, in just the space of 5 years, is the frustration and conflict between an equalist idealized model vs. the evolved complementary model of gender relations. It’s not about the equitability of like for like exchanges or like for like reward/benefit, but rather the way that equitability is expressed and how it grates against instinctually human expectations of behavior.

Sex differences, biologically and psychologically, didn’t evolve for hundreds of thousands of years to be co-equal partnerships based on humanistic (or moralistic) idealism. They evolved into a complementary form of support where the aspects of one sex’s strengths compensated for the other’s weaknesses and vice versa.

For every behavioral manifestation of one sex’s sexual strategy (hypergamy in females), the other sex evolves psychological, sociological and behavioral contingencies to counter it (mate guarding in males). The ideal state of gender parity isn’t a negotiation of acceptable terms for some Pollyanna ideal of gender equilibrium, it’s a state of complementarity between the sexes that accepts our evolved differences – and by each individual gender’s conditions, sometimes that’s going to mean accepting unequal circumstances.

Feminists (and anti-feminist women), humanists, moral absolutists, and even red pill men still obliviously clinging to the vestiges of their egalitarian blue pill conditioning, will all end up having their ideologies challenged, frustrated and confounded by the root presumption that egalitarian equalism can ever, or should ever, trump an innate and evolved operative state of gender complementarity.

And thus we come full circle, back to a new model of masculinity that is found upon the evolved complementary order and aided by red pill awareness. I have no doubt that it will be an arduous process of acceptance for blue pill, masculine-confused men vainly attempting to define their own masculinity under the deliberately ambiguous contexts laid out for them by the Feminine Imperative, but I do (hopefully) believe that red pill awareness is already making a positive impact on countering a presumption of equalism that only truly serves feminine primacy.

It’ll take time, but with every aware man utilizing red pill awareness to realign his masculine identity and benefit from it, other men will begin to come to the same awareness or else fall off into their own ambiguity.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

154 comments on “Equalism and Masculinity

  1. “I also know that the men of those bygone eras didn’t have anything approaching the mass of information and the connectivity men possess today.”

    Quality not quantity. None of my great grandfathers ever watched romantic comedies or got lectured on queer theory. Their time was never wasted the complete bullshit we have to filter out today. I think my brain has actually been hurt by simple ingesting that data.

  2. “Transfer of power”?To me, power is not transferable. it is either exercised or not. You have your power, I have mine. The decision to exercise it or not is an individual choice always paired with the choice to submit and relinquish control or not. We sometimes fool ourselves into believing that if we sublimate ourselves the other party will appreciate our self inflicted martyrdom and reward us with what we want. This of course is just another attempt to exercise power but usually fails when employed alone. One may argue that martyrdom in a religious or “spiritual” context facilitates ultimate “power”. However, it does not because without exception the control is gained and maintained by the incessant use of threats such as eternal suffering and the use of rewards such as eternal bliss.

  3. “. I’ve worked with one “HB9″ who said she thought her bald plump neighbor had no business driving a Ferrari because “he looks foolish in it” and, “It won’t work”

    Yeah it won’t work for her and other HB9’s in your country, but that is not the universal law. Also, who says you have to get a 9? I’m sure a rich 5 is perfectly content with a HB7 or 8 and that is definitely doable.

    George, the less attractive affluent men you know who are paired up with women of equal attractiveness probably have zero game and are essentially losers with women despite their wealth. Men who understand how to play the game with money end up marrying women who are 2-3 SMV points above themselves, if they have to get a foreign wife.

  4. @Magent

    Hmm, well, you could have just responded to my “key points” without this comment, so I find it a bit superfluous.
    See? Anyone can be snarky!

    Listen man, the only reason I said that was because some commentators want me to refute every point they make. I wasn’t going to fall for that trap this time, so instead I picked out the points you were trying to make. I basically didn’t want an argument to consist of, “Oh, but you didn’t refute what I said there! See! He knows I’m right!!” That’s the way children and women debate but not men.

    If you are looking for a reason why some commentators here find it hard to take you seriously, it’s because of behavior like the above. Someone who was as secure in their intellectual prowess as you believe yourself to be would hold back the snark for occasions where it warranted it. I asked you a reasonable question on a statement you made which had no hint of derision to it.

    The only commentators who will ever take me serious are those who want to. I can’t force anyone to acknowledge the truth I present on the dynamics behind human mating. What I write here is true and it has been backed up by empirical data. I never try to impose my subjective views or experiences on matters regarding the current SMP because for one, everything you need to know is already tried and tested by countless studies and two, my experiences will vary from yours and anyone else’s. I simply weave together the information for you guys and hope some of you will open your eyes to what is truly going on (biologically) between the sexes.

    Also, before you do, don’t give me any of this, “Oh but studies don’t matter!” crap that I hear from so many delusional men. When a vaccine or a new form of technology is being developed, it is backed by studies in order to not only mark its progress but to also ensure it is functional in the end. Funny how when it comes to studies regarding physical attraction, guys want to either shame or insult the messenger. I’m simply showing you how things work. As I’ve stated before, “ I’m simply telling you the way things are, and not for what you want them to be.”

    Before even try to engage with you on this, can you please explain these two sentences, because as I read it, they do are not self-explanatory which rather undermines whatever point you are trying to make.“The mating ‘leagues’ are symmetrical(as evidenced in studies, like the OK Cupid one that showed women are rating 80% of males below average – rendering a skew which hinders assumptions of pair-matching).”

    As for my comment,

    “The mating ‘leagues’ are symmetrical(as evidenced in studies, like the OK Cupid one that showed women are rating 80% of males below average – rendering a skew which hinders assumptions of pair-matching).”

    It contains a typo. It should read, “The mating ‘leagues’ are [ASYMMETRICAL]…” I didn’t proof-read which was my mistake. I did, however, mention in a paragraph above how the leagues were asymmetrical. For instance, take this comment from a paragraph I wrote above the one you quoted:

    Of course, cases of the reverse dynamic are pretty rare (wherein lies the basis for many a male grievance). Yes, and the problem with these ‘leagues’ is that they are ASYMMETRICAL(meaning that there is a higher probability of a female attracting any given statistical subset of ranked males, than the reverse), rendering a disproportionate scarcity of receptive females for lower ranked males.

    I can’t fault you because even if you were to use context clues, it could still cause some confusion. Nonetheless, I still find it funny how you didn’t refute anything else that I have written so far.

  5. I wrote this several years back, Just for laughs…..

    The Nobleman

    His master is chivalry
    Or so he thinks it to be
    Yet the eyes of those who see
    Revile the true despot to be
    Her infantile tyranny

    He accepted her decree
    Handed her his destiny
    Relinquished his ability
    To hold his autonomy
    Bartered for a fantasy

    Could he renounce this deity
    Born on the wings of piety
    Only truth can set him free
    To endure anxiety
    Every choice demands a fee

  6. re Power,Status,Money, and mutual sexual desire:

    Thao Ha et al 2009 tested that male social status does not strongly affect mating desire on female teens and at their first twenty. Another study [Gil-Burmann et al 2002] found women under 40 years old seek mainly physical attractiveness in men, whereas majority over 40, females past their fertile period, want trade-off between resources -socioeconomic status and attractiveness.

    One can also infer that, mutual sexual attraction, traditionally, has never been a requirement for long-term relationships. Rather, sexual desire was (and in many cultures still is) a frequent trade-off that women were expected to make, in securing a long term mate – the reason being, that women are so selective in terms of sexual attractiveness, as to render an insoluble scarcity of males to satisfy this requirement under assumptions of a monogamous mating system.

    But currently, western women are economically independent and they are just following their sexual instincts straight into being choosier and increasing their mate standards according to the natural female human biology:

    1- Preferences for a universally agreed on phenotypic quality (such as physical attractiveness):

    a) Facial attractiveness is the most important for young adults (i.e., at an age of maximum reproductive ability and activity), and of little importance for old people [Rooney (2006); Thao Ha (2009); Burmann (2002); etc]. The older a person is the older the faces they prefer and this effect is more pronounced in female judges [Buss 1999]. The rating of physical attractiveness perceived is own-age linked. Thus young persons tend to prefer youthful facial traits.

    b) Both men and women desire attractive sexual partners, the more attractive the better. [Burley (1983), Kalick & Hamilton (1986); Ellis and Kelley (1999) [Asendorpf et al. 2011, Back et al. 2011] [Hitsch et al. 2010, Shaw Taylor et al. 2011],

    c) Male age is not linked to fertility cues but physical attractiveness is indicative of underlying genetic fitness and and health.

    2-Decision criteria can include preferences for similarity (homophily).

    3- Mate choice systems include interactions limited by geographical, social space and socio-environmental constraints. Young women make their date selection from within their local neighborhoods, college classmates, friends, social networks, etc. Generally men of their range of age.

    4- The impact of social norms. We could expect that norms prescribe preferences for “directed” similarity (similar age, but man slightly older). Alternatively, as Bytheway (1981) argues, age-related partnership norms might lose their relevance for choices by older persons. If this is the case, we expect to observe more idiosyncrasies in the age preferences of older individuals and, what is crucial here, an increasing alignment of age preferences in men and women among older age groups.

    Before women entered into the workforce, the main reason that women married wealthy men was for financial support. If money is no longer a necessity, they can look for high phenotypical quality men. In the Western world, gender equality, the sexual revolution, and in particular the advent of the contraceptive pill has given women more freedom for choosing a partner.

    The contraceptive pill brought about a distinction between childbearing and sexuality, enabling women to choose to be with a partner who suited them but who was not necessarily the most suitable partner to bear children with (usually an older man with a relatively good income). The pill also gave women the option of delaying childbirth or rejecting the notion of having children altogether. Simply women are increasingly of similar education and income levels to men, are taking on senior roles in the workplace, and are gaining more status.

  7. @Siirtyrion

    I’m curious were you are making these observations. Might help us all with very different experiences reconcile WHY you are seeing what we are not.

    Even a region?

  8. Masculinity is predefined in men. Just as femininity is predefined in women. We come biologically as well as psychologically pre-programmed. Socialisation basically fucks with that pre-programming if it deviates from true masculinity or true femininity according to our masculine pre-defined spyche. On a psychological level this pre-programming is through the male and female archetypes. Our male or female “chip” in our motherboards. Men are born with the Anima archetype and females are born with the Animus archetype (See: Carl Jung archetypes). It is true however that neither the anima, nor the animus are a true reflection of how men and women truly are in reality – because In both cases the anima and animus archetypes lead to a romanised and idealised “picture” (in our heads) of the other gender. This is the main cause of misunderstanding between the sexes.

  9. “Listen man, the only reason I said that was because some commentators want me to refute every point they make. I wasn’t going to fall for that trap this time, so instead I picked out the points you were trying to make. I basically didn’t want an argument to consist of, “Oh, but you didn’t refute what I said there! See! He knows I’m right!!” That’s the way children and women debate but not men.”

    We’ve locked horns before, and I did not do this. In fact, one could say I do the exact opposite; I prefer to hammer down on one point at a time. Keeps people from squirming out of things.

    Secondly, if my points were truly redundant, then refuting one would refute them all, no? Logic.

    “I can’t fault you because even if you were to use context clues, it could still cause some confusion. Nonetheless, I still find it funny how you didn’t refute anything else that I have written so far.”

    You find it funny I don’t try to refute you when you yourself admit what you wrote was in error and thus confusing? I COULD have simply just jumped all over you and pointed out what you wrote made no logical sense and mocked you as a fool for it, but I instead gave you a chance to clarify. And for that I am, what? A jerk? A fool?

    Okay, I won’t give that leeway anymore. When I see something you write that is blatantly wrong, I will land on you with both feet.

    You write a lot of posts here, with a lot of words. If you have a habit of mistyping even a moderate amount, then are you amazed that people find it hard to follow you? When I (and others) have told you before what you write is hard to follow, that it is convoluted, you bristled. You think maybe based on the above I have point? Particularly if one needs to rely on ‘context clues’ to decipher your meaning. If you wrote more directly and succinctly, context clues might help. You don’t, so ANY error is likely to lead to considerable confusion.

    Here’s a tip for you: Write less, proof-read more!

    Instead of investing energy in putting forth more words, try to make sure the words you put down say it simply, clearly and accurately.

    And as for your assertion that I am not refuting your points…

    Remember this exchange?

    ““Also, close to everything that I have read here on Rollo’s blog is true.
    I don’t consider Rollo’s blog as a game source, though. It’s more of a blog that shows the underpinning of human sexual nature, and more specifically, that of women’s.”

    **GOD…DAMMIT! That is the point I was trying to make, with you, and some of the other’s who seemed to have suddenly shown up here.** ”

    It took how many posts back and forth between us to get to that point because YOU would not answer a direct question straight up. I had to drag it out of you. Makes it kind of hard to refute ANY point of yours if you make it so difficult to get a simple answer out of you, doesn’t it?

    But, maybe that’s your intention, hmm?

    Here’s how I think you operate, mate. I think you vomit out a huge volume of words written in an obtuse style of prose, using a hefty sprinkling of technical jargon. In that you remind me of this:


    Except you are not doing it to mock pseudo-intellectuals, but instead use it to protect yourself through a screen of inscrutability/deniability. When someone actually tries to address your points, you use the density of the smoke screen you put out to shift position.

    When someone actually tries to refute one of your points you dodge and weave until you are pinned or the clock runs out on the current post.

    Yeah, that sounds like a real good investment of my time. <===(sarcasm)

    Let me spell it out to you this way, Sirrtyrion. I, Rollo, and anyone else here is under NO obligation to pay attention to you, let alone respond to you. Doing so is a courtesy. Reading what you write, attempting to figure out what you are trying to say take considerable time and effort. Trying to then engage with you on what you wrote?

    It becomes a slog; a tiresome slog.

    Bottom line, if you really want engagement and debate, clean up your act and stop being such a tool.

    Otherwise, be content with being ignored, at least by me.

  10. @Tilikum
    I’m not exactly sure of what you’re asking me. If you could, I would appreciate it if you could rewrite your question.


    I don’t have to change my approach or writing style to suit your needs, Magent. I’ve had many other people fully understand the concepts that I write. Even if they have to read it 3 or 4 times to get it, they still “got it.”

    Either way, It’s apparent that no amount of evidence will convince you of the reality here, so it seems you will continue to grasp at ever more distant straws to confirm your beliefs. That, and ignore most of facts & studies altogether, which I have presented on the biology behind human mating.

    With all that said, It’s settle then. I’ll ignore you and you can ignore me. I will keep posting here as for long as the un-modded comment policy goes, so get use to it.

  11. As usual, the whole thing is going into the ditch – an interesting ditch, but a ditch nonetheless. I’m not going to play “web academic” here – I used to and I realized the true sophistry that such an endeavor was. I do possess reasonable expertise in a number or areas, but I’m an amateur when it comes to science. A increasingly well read one, but an amateur nonetheless. What i do is try to identify trusted sources and listen to them SPEAK at length, not just short articles. Thank god for podcasts and youtube – many big thinkers in the scientific fields related to human intersexual dynamics have some place where they present and discuss their ideas for the public.

    Here’s my general impression – and I don’t think any of what I believe is at odds with what you cited, Sirrtyrion. It’s a different meta view and perhaps a bit simplistic of me, but as I said in my comment, I find breaking these ideas down into heuristics works for me in terms of conceiving of them properly and “getting” what’s so in the field of human intersexual dynamics. So what follows are my impressions – not an essay or scholarly article for a journal. While I could easily sound like an expert if I chose to (one my fields of expertise is writing, fyi), I have intentionally veered away from that approach to the Red Pill. For me, what is important is the actual implementation of these ideas, the instrumentation of them, the effect they need to have on my priors and my POV and my behavior. That’s where my energy has gone all this year, and I’ll tell you, wow, what an amazing 8 months it’s been. And I’m just shifting into maybe second gear after a bad 7-8 years, so the results are nothing short of transformative in my life. Hence my obsessiveness with the practical and the cautions to others about the hazards of “web”-mgtow-alpha-academic-mra-pua — whatever – all that matters is the inside job. The rest is just exhibitionism.

    That said, this is the only “game” site I visit, and it’s due to Rollo’s careful reasoning, but even more to the point, it’s his lack of misogyny and crassness and other whacky bullshit ideas that pervade the mostly pathetic fucktards who make up the PUA world, and the manosphere in general. I love it – an alpha man, living to his fullest, playing the game to win and not angry about it. That’s what I respect most about you Rollo – you see the game for what it is but spend no time on self-pity. That’s an example that I can get behind, and am more behind than ever. Mostly because self-pity is not constructive. Okay, enough of my BS, but I wanted to be thoughtful and try and make a contribution here rather than just whip dung at each other, so here goes.

    My first point. This entire field should be approached with great humility. It seems when I listen to real academics discuss these issues that there is still lots evolving and lots of disagreement between serious academics on major issues. I don’t perceive these differences to be solely or even mainly based on the effects of the feminine imperative, but also realize that it’s there for sure. However, from a first principle perspective, I consider much of this dialog to be speculative and still in its formative stages. Just consider the tenuous way a real evo psychologist discusses these issues and compare it to some of the more certain commenters and you’ll get a sense of what I mean.

    I also evaluate what is presented based on my subjective assessment of empirical data (if available) and my experience, and how they match up. I’m kind of uniquely situated in that I’ve had high SMV and average SMV, falling due to ill health and age (52 – making a strong fucking comeback now, fyi). Yet I’m only 5’8″ and while I did lift a bit here and there in my life, I was never “built”. And I often carried around 10-15 extra pounds. But I married and dated and fucked quite a few women who were 9/10s – the hotties everyone in that social circle wanted to fuck.

    How did I do it? I don’t really know and sure, there’s always a chick who’s slightly hotter but I’ve had more women on my arm who turned heads (eliciting applause one night as i cruised South Beach on a harley with a 9 blonde on the back with heels and her cocktail dress blowing up) than I can remember. What I always thought was that I was “good looking enough”, yeah? I’m not saying I was an alpha, cuz I was surely in a beta frame in many ways. But I was always aggressive, intelligent, assertive and funny/charming. I found that I was often sort of tolerated by a beautiful woman at first, and then she would really warm up to me. The “instant on” attraction thing did happen sometimes, but really, I was no chiseled 6’2″ football captain type. More like a cross between Michael J. Fox and Tom Cruise (a notch less handsome) and occasionally slightly chubby or more often reasonably fit, but never 7% body fat.

    Beautiful women. Most men never get to know them, so they don’t understand them and are terrified by them. I was lucky to fall into them and learned to understand them. First – they get a ridiculous amount of attention and hitting on from men. Really, it’s non-stop. They also have learned that if they don’t discourage a guy right up front that they are inviting at least a text stalking that often ends up with a voice mail at 3 am telling them they are a cunt. They also have lots of power in this world , in every social setting, so they are spoiled.

    The downside is that they know better than anyone else the power that they have, and they are terrified of losing it. A look in the mirror is an evaluation of every aspect of her appearance with a critical POV based on constant improvement and always looking amazing. The other problem is that they often get played when they are young and trusting by men who only fuck them because they are hot but promise the world up front. They also are often really only valued on their looks, so relationships that start off promising with lots of romance and grand gestures (men do ridiculous things for beautiful women – i’m always intentionally cheap up front) are not really based on compatibility or shared interests/values so they end quickly.

    They are also usually spoiled, but respond well to discipline. As one such woman later told me when I told her to shut up or I’d drop her off on the side of the road and she could make her own way home, “No man has ever spoken that way to me before. And frankly, it was hot.” She was being completely hysterical and nasty about something stupid and had unloaded on me for the first time in an abusive way, so my reaction was proportional and real. I don’t let anyone speak to me that way – I’d drop Rollo off on the side of the road too if he spoke to me that way. What she realized is that she’d been put in line and needed to be. With this woman this kind of thing happened twice and it was bizarre how she complied completely and quickly once i made clear her shit was not going to be tolerated, and respected me and liked more for it.

    So, I don’t know how to explain all that. I read Rollo’s cite on the guy who was 6’4″ and put on 60+ lbs of weight and I’m like, so what? And fyi, I do get that being muscular and having higher testosterone do help – and realize that it’s only a net plus for any man, and in fact, I am looking into beginning a serious program right now. I already exercise, but as I have been looking into it more seriously realize that what I did was never optimal, not even close. And while I’ve spent a lot of time in the gym at times in my life, never got the kind of results I see guys getting with less time and effort, so I’m all about it. I of course am starting slow, have been doing cardio and some simple home resistance stuff for 4-5 months now. So I’m very willing to take the learning to heart that is being offered here – no doubt.

    I also love the line “instead of working hard to get one woman, why not work hard on yourself and get them all?” – it got through to me and I saw how hard I’ve been working with women these days and how low my success rate is. I get that particularly as an older man, 52 now, putting on some more muscle mass would be a boon to my health, but also is necessary for me to be with really attractive/beautiful women.

    That said. The ‘String Bean’ you cited didn’t really surprise me. He was freakishly skinny. Of course he wasn’t attractive – he looked like a skinny Lurch. And of course, at 195 and 6;4″ and low body fat, more attractive women were interested in him and less attractive women realized he was out of their league. So what – this a newsflash? What conclusion can we draw? As Sirrtyrion cites ” Both men and women desire attractive sexual partners, the more attractive the better” – this just in? Wtf?

    All I can say is that I know how former String Bean feels – there were times in my life when I was just on sexually. I remember overhearing two women who were interested in me comparing notes about me in the office, having no idea I heard their conversation, I was 36. One said, “I don’t know, there is just something about him, it’s like you just know he’d be great at sex, he has the earthy kind of – I don’t know” – and the other agreed. I shit you not – and I was 15 lbs overweight and divorced with a kid and big bills. I did strictly wear Canali suits, as my business dictated I look like a zillionaire, but still, many a dumpy guy wears a nice suit and gets no love.

    I guess what I’m saying is that for me, it doesn’t look like looks determine attractiveness solely, nor does an initial reaction to a person’s high attractiveness mean they are going to bed with them. So when I say it’s a threshhold issue, I mean that I felt I was good looking enough to be trying to get with them in the first place.

    I’m not saying you guys are wrong about anything. It just seems that there is an attempt to project certainty where there isn’t as much as folks here seem to want to claim, and there seems also to be a bit of a simplistic, reductionist kind of approach. Intelligence matters. Being funny matters. Being able to talk matters – that’s why I think my N is over 100, btw, it’s because I’m a good conversationalist and listener. I’m also actually interested and because I had regular access to women, I didn’t just try and be with them because they were the hottest, I picked the hot ones that I actually liked too, at least for a while. The whole beautiful women spiel came from actually listening to beautiful women and being with them and taking them seriously. Trust me, you want to fuck a beautiful women? Get her talking about herself and her life. I say that’s a two point SMV upgrade – but no, I don’t have any citations to back that up…

    How does my experience/POV conflict what’s being presented here? Am I really that off? I’m listening to scientists say attraction and mate selection are more complicated than “AF/BB” – am I crazy? And no, I’m not saying Rollo is wrong. I find AF/BB a very informative lens to look through as well as FI and many other issues he presents. But attraction in women seems a bit more complicated than just finding the buck in the room with the lowest body fat – just saying…

  12. We can google specific words to find articles and “studies” (academic or not) that support our introspective conclusions and find numerous “results” that satisfy our “purpose”.

    Real truth is confirmed when we encounter others previously completely unknown to us who objectively and clearly communicate specifically the same conditions and realizations we experience.

    Academic pontification will never outperform the genius of “common sense”.

  13. Game, the PUA industry and the red-pillers who still cling to the fantasy of being able to attract women based on using their personality and emulating masculine behavior(”Game”/Alphas) do so for two reasons.

    The PUA industry profits from all the betas who can’t get laid. Nothing wrong with making a buck but at least have some morals. Players, the men who are successful with women use sex and women as a measuring tool to determine how much manly they are. Kinda hard to feel like you’ve accomplished something if the majority of the men gave up on women and moved on, right? Where’s the ”competition?”

    Things aren’t going to be like they were during the 60’s. Marriage is dead, co-habitation is on its way,and dating is archaic. Men date to get laid. They don’t get laid, they give up on dating, the vast majority of women become not only sperm-dumpsters of the Alphas in their 20s, but they will fail to attract a beta in their 30s to mate with, women resort to sperm banks, only inseminate their eggs with Alpha male genes, Earth’s male population only spawns Alpha males, all of us average men become extinct.. It was going to happen, anyway. Science just gonna give it a push.

  14. Man, don’t get started on that path. You looked like Tom Cruise in your youth but you dont’ consider yourself to have been attractive? Well, Tom Cruise was and sill is very handsome. Much, much better-looking than most of the younger men in their 20s. Sure, he’s short, but women make concessions when the guy has the face of a god.

    Michael J,. Fox was also handsome.

    Attraction is objective. Women only feel sexual attraction for men who are good-looking, lets say masculine. Tall, or handsome. Don’t end up like those freaks on reddit/noFap. The majority of them believe that non-fapping,. no porn and no sex will turn them into Jim Morrison – that every woman wants to bang them lol.

  15. @ Glenn

    I agree with a lot of your take on this. Seems like this topic has been bounced around the ‘Sphere’ lately.

    Sometimes I feel we men get carried away with our deductive sides. Can we put robots on Mars and calculate the landing within a few seconds? Hell yes! Can we fry that? Hell yes! If I do a DHV at this point and finish it off with a story about my nephew, do a future projection, then I should extract. X+Y=Z…

    Women are likes waves. Men are like the rocks they crash against.

    I used to suck at math. I flunked this and flunked that but I wouldn’t give up. I knew everyone else would stop, graduate, get married and slow down. I eventually passed every course my community college had and went into three high-level courses in college including number analysis and abstract algebra. I didn’t need it but I wanted to prove to myself I wasn’t stupid. The most awe-inspiring topic I studied was non-linear dynamics. My point, women are dynamic. DiffEq taught me this.

    When in school I thought of non-linear equations like a jetliner. Let’s say it takes a dozen variables from fuel, airspeed, wind direction, etc. to keep the plane from plummeting into the ground. All these variables are in constant flux but there are an exponential amount of variations these variables can fluctuate and the plane is still good. My approach to women is similar.

    Some say there “yes” girls, “no” girls, and “maybe” girls. Some say there are “available” girls and “unavailable” girls. When you pay attention to women you notice many factors affect their attraction to men. Here are a few I have noticed:

    *level of attractiveness (note: some levels of attractiveness are socially defined. In Rome chubby women were the shit. Look at statues in an art gallery.)
    *good screening of your target (enough approaches gives you an idea what women like you)
    *she is available
    *similar interests
    *her dad

    Anytime of the day a women can be attracted or not attracted. She could be super hot or average and the same rules apply. I agree with other posts on this topic about the likelihood of super hot women auctioning off their sexuality to the highest bidder in the SMP based on wealth, status and looks but lets look at things from a probability perspective.

    I know attractive guys that literally were too afraid to approach women. I’ve heard of wealthy guys that threw money at women and still lost them. I also know contradictions to both latter comments.

    Many women respond to a partner who emulates her dad whether he was supportive or abusive. Most girls with “daddy issues” have had fathers who were not present in the home or abusive in some way. The response is usually a form of validation through sex (he likes me) with you and many times other guys or straight-up hatred for men. Dating taught me this and the book ‘Women and Their Fathers’ backed this with more information. So a short bald guy may remind a hot girl of her father whom she loved, add in some subconscious triggers, a dash of good game or positive masculinity and there you go. When you go on the RP path you notice so many people conform to societal ideals so the probability of that hot girl succumbing to pop-culture may be high leading her to luv hawt guys.

    There are so many variables in dating women that my approach has been to first off have my own direction and path in life I am actively pursuing without any women. Secondly, be realistic with my expectations based on my physical attractiveness. Stay in shape. Study RP theory and Game theory and above all go infield and apply it. Keep notes of what works for me and continually push for hotter girls. A man can’t control his genetics but he can mitigate negative perceptions via lifting, teeth whitening, success, etc.

    There are many variables that keep a jetliner in the air and flying. Likewise there are many variables that get a woman’s attention and get her in bed.

    Striving to be the best deal for any woman and you may have many women.

  16. @Glenn

    I will offer one cite – merely to substantiate that I’m not pulling this all out of my ass. http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(13)00061-5/abstract
    Attractiveness ain’t the whole story with women. I’m not saying this guy has all the answers either, but anyone with google can find tons of research like this. I wonder, how many of you have?

    Been there, covered that. Rollo asked for my take on that same study via a post Heartiste had on the topic. Here’s his comment:

    Don’t be so sure about that. You want a study? I’d be interested to read your take on this:
    It’s not that I don’t agree with the importance of, and priority women give to physical arousal cues, but dominance IS one of those arousal cues.

    Here was my response:

    This is quite long but I know you (Rollo) will appreciate it for the extensive information and rebuttal. Bear with me and read it all as I know in the beginning it seems like I’m not answering your question. I will answer it in layers.

    Now, let’s see some examples why studies such as these (dominance) will never find a CONSISTENT pattern for approach to the real world:

    1. Hadjistavropoulos et al (1994) proved that there is a mistaken social construct tend to underestimation of the role of physical attractiveness in male mate value. 80 female undergraduates were shown profiles containing photographs and information about the personalities of potential male dating partners and were asked to state the dating desirability of each target person. Subsequently, were asked to introspect about the factors that affected their dating preferences and they tended to intentionally under report the impact of physical attractiveness on their preferences. Later, they were said that they were connected to a lie-detector polygraph, they produced more accurate overall introspective reports, admitted a main extreme influence by the physical attractiveness of the targets. It seems that female mindsets are very influenced by a social or cultural taboo. Women tend to underestimate in questionnaires the importance of male attractiveness.

    They are conditioned, consciously or unconsciously, to express a politically correct choice and thus they do not wish to be perceived as “shallow”.

    2. Weiderman and Dubois (1998) have found men accurately indicated that the physical attractiveness of the targets was the most important characteristic that influenced their desirability ratings, whereas women inaccurately indicated that desired level of relationship commitment was their most important factor, when, in fact, it was one of the least important factors behaviorally. Sprecher (1989) found similar results, in that women inaccurately assessed the role of physical attractiveness in their own ratings of a target man. The women in Sprecher’s study reported that expressiveness was the most important factor in their choice, ALTHOUGH it was the LEAST important factor behaviorally. Physical attractiveness was the MOST important factor that ACTUALLY influenced their ratings. The results of these two studies suggest that women’s self-reported preferences may not match their actual choices. Because it is still considered shallow and inappropriate for women to say that physical attractiveness is very important in their choices, those women may have engaged in impression management. Theory is that women do know what they want, but that when asked, they need to give answers that are acceptable to society. If so, women might misstate their preferences more often because there is more pressure on them to engage in impression management and to give the socially-desirable response.

    Therefore, mate choice research is faced with a solid body of theoretical models and many supportive empirical hints from a variety of methodologically limited paradigms on the one hand, but a dearth of sufficiently ecologically valid studies to evaluate their predictions on the other hand. But an interesting solution to this predicament has recently appeared with the emergence of “online-dating” (See: Tinder) and speed-dating”.

    Online dating and speed dating are real-life tests, with external and ecological validity and both give support for the main role of attractiveness in dating selection:
    a.Speed dating [Asendorpf et al. 2011, Back et al. 2011,Kurzban & Weeden 2005, Todd et al. 2007, Luo & Zhang 2009, etc]
    b.Internet dating [Hitsch et al. 2010, Shaw Taylor et al. 2011, Okcupid Blog, Milward website 2012.], where highly attractive men are universally preferred by female daters.

    This empirical researches prove that women (like men) prefer mates of high attractiveness rather than that similar to their own. And modern women are not favoring investment resources, and other quantities of long term value. They are displaying the opposite pattern in the current mating framework, prevailing male physical attractiveness in their mate choices. This is because physical attractiveness is the strongest and most robust predictor of mate choice (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966), and mate choice is in turn the most important social judgment humans make with respect to their reproductive fitness.
    Somewhat tautologically, we tend to mate with individuals to whom we are attracted, so there is a seemingly self-evident advantage to being attracted to individuals of high genetic quality.

    Now that I mention Heartiste, I tried to debate these topics with him but I went from being heavily moderated, to permanently banned. I wonder why? (I’m being sarcastic here, I do know why.)

    There are so many other commentators who don’t add any sort of value to his blog but yet, he felt the need to ban me. That’s all spilled milk under the bridge now but one can’t help and see that something is being hidden from other men. Men have the right to know how human sexual nature ACTUALLY operates. This is the primary reason for why I post here.


    Real truth is confirmed when we encounter others previously completely unknown to us who objectively and clearly communicate specifically the same conditions and realizations we experience.

    In that case, academic works only re-affirm real truth. Academic work covering human biology and its sexual strategies has given us the ground work for how and why the sexes do what they do, in order to achieve the maximum benefit (given one’s SMV) in the SMP. It’s also proven that certain objective conditions must be met before anyone in the SMP gets any shot at sex or a relationship. But namely, the conditions of having an attractive partner for a short-term mating strategy, which let’s be honest here, will become more rampant as the Western world becomes more r-selected.

  17. “The sages of manhood-past may still have many relevant lessons for the men of today, but they simply lack the compounded experiences and understanding men possess now”

    I’m not so sure about this because the more I read the more it seems women’s behaviour has not changed in mellenia.
    Of course just like kids the more you give them the more they want, and they will quickly re-ajust when given discipline.
    The issue is the who and how that change (discipline) can be had.
    In the last few decades is successful men have too much to lose now, so it appears to be all those with nothing to lose that can put on the alpha bravery.
    The Manosphere has not reinvented the wheel, just pushed it a little further.

  18. ‘I don’t have to change my approach or writing style to suit your needs, Magent. I’ve had many other people fully understand the concepts that I write. Even if they have to read it 3 or 4 times to get it, they still “got it.” ‘

    You admit your writing is so obtuse and lacks clarity so badly that people need to read posts MULTIPLE times just to comprehend them and yet you feel you have no need to change your writing style…

    And you think *I’m* the guy who cannot be convinced of anything?

    You are funny in a sad kind of way.

    Oh, look! Rollo has a new post! Whew! You are safe once again from having to be challenged. That was close!

    BTW, the people who ‘got it’ from you…try reading that link. The whole point of that experiment was to prove some people would nod approvingly to any drivel if dressed up in sufficient layers of jargon and buzzwords. Now, whose writing that sound like?

    Done with you now.

  19. @ Siirtyrion

    [August 22nd, 2014 at 3:48 pm]:

    Glenn: “I do agree, it’s a threshold issue for all humans – nobody, male or female want to fuck people they are un-attracted to. But it does seem that women are working off of many other considerations as well – and not just the AF/BB dyad.”

    Siirtyrion: “Wrong. As I’ve stated before, “…there are only two quantities of value females consider in mate choice: genetic benefits (indicated in physical attractiveness), and direct benefits (indicated in investment strategies with respect to material resources, and paternal investment).”

    What evidence do you have that there are no other influences beyond those two, or that physical attractiveness is the only indicator of “genetic benefits”?

    Remember that verifying the existence of two types of value doesn’t do anything to exclude other possibilities, and conclusions about relative significance and relationships among factors are only valid with respect to the factors that were actually studied.

    That being said, no one is arguing that looks are not very important. They may well be the most important, in many contexts.

    But your absolutist position that nothing else can have an effect, let alone a significant effect, regardless of context, requires objective substantiation than you have not provided.

    [August 23rd, 2014 at 5:41 pm]:

    “re Power,Status,Money, and mutual sexual desire: …”

    Since you listed them as separate entities (which indicates that you are not defining power as being derivative), status =/= power, and money =/= power.

    Since it is not being redefined in that way, then “power” means “direct [capability, will, action, control …]”.

    Power that is derived from status and money is indirect and dependent upon the will of others, and is ultimately little more than wishful thinking.

    Finally, nothing in your comment beyond that first line references power at all.

    When you choose to cite studies, you need to at least provide the title. Otherwise, you are not actually providing references, but just being annoying.

    When I Googled “Gil-Burmann et al 2002”, everything seemed to be pointing to “Free-ranging Baboons in Cadiz”, which might not be the study you were referencing. But then again, you were talking about women, lulz.

    The proper way to cite articles is like this: “Thao Ha et al., Effects of Attractiveness and Social Status on Dating Desire in Heterosexual Adolescents: An Experimental Study, Arch. Sex Behav. Oct 2010, 39(5): 1063–1071.”

    You can indicate references with a number, like this “[1]”, in the body of your comment, and then list them all at the end, to minimize distraction.

    A link would also nice: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih[]gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933005/

    The full article (Thao Ha et al.) at that link states: “Data were used from a sample of 1,913 adolescents aged 13–18.”

    So what did you mean by “at their first twenty”? (“Thao Ha et al 2009 tested that male social status does not strongly affect mating desire on female teens and at their first twenty.”)

    [August 23rd, 2014 at 4:45 pm]:
    “I simply weave together the information for you guys and hope some of you will open your eyes to what is truly going on (biologically) between the sexes.”

    In the first place, a lot of what you provide is neither controversial nor news to anyone here.

    For example, “Both men and women desire attractive sexual partners, the more attractive the better. [Burley (1983), Kalick & Hamilton (1986); Ellis and Kelley (1999) [Asendorpf et al. 2011, Back et al. 2011] [Hitsch et al. 2010, Shaw Taylor et al. 2011].”

    Well, duh, no shit!

    In the second place, that “weaving together” approach is the problem, in the way that you are doing it.

    I enjoy reading a “weaving together” when it is explanatory storytelling that is offered as a map to help me connect the dots and understand what I have been observing directly. And if this guide, or interpretation, does not resonate with my experiences, then it may indicate areas that I need to investigate further.

    But you are telling us to disregard the real world evidence that we have all been observing directly for quite some time, and instead rely solely on your studies, because “everything [we] need to know is already tried and tested by countless studies”.

    You seem to have no understanding, or even awareness, of the limitations of studies, or the extent to which they are susceptible to being intentionally deceptive or incompetently designed (the coverups are what get professors and researchers fired), or to appearing valid for an extended period even though they have critical latent defects.

    And then you insist that self-reporting (answering questions whose structure may contain defects, and which are sometimes presented as forced choices), from a tiny and only possibly unbiased sample, is the definition of truth itself and indeed “everything that [we] need to know”, but that the self-reporting (which is overwhelmingly in agreement) by men who span the spectrum of age, race, socioeconomic status, education, intelligence, geographic location, and so on, over decades, is somehow so suspect that is must not be considered.

    You remind me of mathematical physicists who have lost track of which is primary: their model of the real world, or the real world itself.

    “Also, before you do, don’t give me any of this, ‘Oh but studies don’t matter!’ crap that I hear from so many delusional men. … ”

    People would be a lot more forgiving if you did not presume to give snarky lectures, but instead started from the position that you might not know everything.

    And you should look at the studies that you mentioned in your little rant, to see if they actually show that “it is functional in the end”, or if they merely verify the presence of the constituents of an assumed mode of action, with the conclusion that “it is functional in the end” being an article of faith. This is the difference between effectiveness and efficacy, in that context.

    [August 24th, 2014 at 2:33 pm]:

    “I don’t have to change my approach or writing style to suit your needs, Magent. I’ve had many other people fully understand the concepts that I write. Even if they have to read it 3 or 4 times to get it, they still ‘got it’.”

    Are you trying to say that your writing is self-indulgent preening rather than an honest attempt to communicate, or that you don’t understand your material well enough to explain it clearly to your intended audience, or that you are just incompetent and foolish?

    And, more importantly, why are you so proud of this failing?

  20. In case anyone clicks on that apparently active link above:


    it won’t work, because I messed up when trying to make it inactive.

  21. Thanks George for your eloboration on weight training. Yeah, I’ve implemented it in my life about ten years ago, but because I always was on a diet and made a couple other mistakes I’m not as bulky as I wanna be. I’m pretty strong though. Thing I’ve noticed is it eases the mind, makes me feel more energetic and raises confidence. I think this is a side effect of raised T levels and other hormones which is surely making you more attractive not only through looks but through smell as well. I’ve had the opporunity to smell diferent compounds which are said to be phermones and since then, when I concentrate I can smell those naturally produced chemicals on me as well. Which brings me to another topic.
    Siirtyrion, I think you’re being apologistic, hiding on the top of the ivory tower behind some academic nonsense studies which you claim to be the ultimate truth. There are studies to prove anything you like and the opposite of it as well. Looks, be it symmetry or height or muscles are not the sole factors determining a woman’s attraction to you.
    I like Glenn’s second post very much, because it describes reality and I’ve experienced the same things. Sure, a basic treshold exists for a woman, your face has to be somewhat symmetrical (but not a 100%) to be percieved as attractive, but that’s not everything. You will get nothing if you don’t have other qualities and these are more important than looks.
    It’s not a study but I have some friends that are not attractive but because they’re overtly sexual and dominating they score like crazy.
    I’d love to have yareally have a take on this but you can look his opinion up in his archive (yareallyarchive).
    In a nutshell, don’t use looks which you can’t do anything about as an apology why men don’t get poosy.

  22. “Are you trying to say that your writing is self-indulgent preening rather than an honest attempt to communicate, or that you don’t understand your material well enough to explain it clearly to your intended audience, or that you are just incompetent and foolish?

    And, more importantly, why are you so proud of this failing?”

    For Sirtyrion, it is a feature, not a bug.

  23. @ strauMan – Great points. I too became interested in math, and also probability, later in life and it helped me understand so much about the limits of reason and “formulas” and algorithms etc. I also became very interested in cognitive sciences at a certain point and realized how little human beings are “right” about in general. Anyone unfamiliar with this work should go visit lesswrong.com – a great place to get acquainted with the science on human cognition. What we do individually – at best – is motivated reasoning. We only self-correct collectively, via argument, but even then we are awful at it. But some of these endeavors bend towards being more correct/true, particularly when the empirical data is easy to interpret. Institutions of science try to formalize all this, but still, progress is never linear and paradigms of thought are smashed with some regularity.

    Hayek called the pose of the social scientist preening about his certainty “the pretense of knowledge” and a “fatal conceit”. Sadly, so much of our discussion about all social sciences is often draped in garbage science backed up by laughable studies. I’ve figured this out long ago, hence why I caution against taking “web academics” too seriously. You see, they mostly fact/quote/cite mine for data to support their biases. The more disagreement in a field, the easier this is – and there is a huge amount of disagreement in this field. And given how the FI, through feminism and other institutions and culture, shapes how we study these topics, and the over politicization of that entire field, it’s quite easy to find “evidence” for all kinds of whacky shit.

    I also believe there are a number of men in the manosphere, usually spergs and autistic types, who focus their inchoate, impotent rage on justifying how their losses in the mating game aren’t “their fault” by cherrypicking studies and data that aggrandize their deep sense of victimhood. Such men become MGTOWs or PUA failure incels or troll the message boards of game sites telling us all how smart they are and acting like professors. Yawn, it’s not even unique anymore. And like I said, I’ve taken enough time to read some books on all this now and to listen to many real academics discuss these issues in depth to be pretty sure that this is all a bit less cut and dried than many in the game community, or manophere in general want to deal with. Separately, I think there are also a lot of non-sperg men in the manosphere who really hate women and use all this to aggrandize their loathing. They are similar to the spergs in that they were losers in the mating game as well, but not due to social ineptness. They are just average guys who really don’t have a thing about them that is special or attractive. Many other guys like them simply lower their sites and take the women who will have them – 5s or less – but no, these guys want the hotties who they are invisible to. So instead, they become PUAs and prey on women with emotional and psychological problems, or are just young and gullible. There is a reason the likes of Roosh have success with naive, young eastern Euro girls. And that much of PUA is centered around clubs as these are environments that pre-select for certain types of people.

    Rollo is a rare exception in that I think he’s searching for truth and is a winner in the mating game. As a result there is a good amount of it here to be found as he’s not acting out of pathology. But still, this isn’t math, I can both see value in AF/BB, for example, and also realize that maybe it’s not a precise description of what’s going on.

    @ Prof Von Hardwiggs – You really blew my mind. I have been devaluing my SMV for my whole life. I was a good irish catholic boy, beaten like a bad puppy, and raised via screaming and denigration, and put through the wringer before I was an adult so I internalized some very low thoughts about myself. I’ve only now, since taking the Red Pill about 1.5 years ago, started embracing my actual sexuality and my desires without shame (i fed them plenty but I always shamed my appetites). It’s fine that I want to fuck a hot 25 year old now – I used to feel like that was inappropriate. Now I don’t care, and I also know I’m programmed biologically to do so.

    I act like it’s a mystery, but the truth is simple. i was and still am quite good looking. I also project a social dominance born out of how I was raised and decisions I made about being dominated by anyone when I was quite young (my teen years). It’s palpable and women notice it. But I shamed my natural dominance for so long, as I did all my masculine traits as society denigrated them nonstop. I had internalized all of this – so I never looked honestly at myself in relationship to women my whole damn life. Interesting. I’m also of high intelligence, a gigging musician and a writer and have had some real monetary and career success – there are all kind of reasons why women find me interesting. I also charm them and make them laugh. Yet I still think women are a gift to me instead of me being a treat for them.

    I feel like I’m “a catch” after writing all this, and I don’t think I’ve ever let myself feel that way my whole life. Even when I was fucking a dime. Wow. Thanks for the interesting feedback. It’s a beautiful day by the lake where I am, and I’ve actually taken the day off to fuck about and re-charge the batteries for a lot of work that is coming. Rest when you can, conserve your energy, engage on what is important and fucking crush it. Like a man. Wow. This stuff just keeps getting better and better.

    Last. I used watch women as they squirmed in orgasm underneath me and feel like, “They seem to be having more fun than me”. But since the Red Pill and embracing all this, I think I’m having more fun. I completely let myself go sexually and enjoy it without the shame and guilt I carried around for so long. Don’t get me wrong – I’ve long been a horn dog, I just always thought less of myself for it. Very weird to see all this shit.

    Okay, I’m off to enjoy the lake for a bit. And to start dominating that 25 year old I’m “working” the way she needs to be. I realized this morning that what she really needs is a good spanking. Really.

  24. i just discovered this “red pill” thing. Are you guys deeply retarded or this is a joke that is going on for long?

  25. @ Opus

    “I knew one guy with movie-star looks who women drooled over but who never scored because, psychologically, he was Mister Angry. That is not to say however that one cannot improve ones position or rather wreck ones chances by failing female fitness testing.”

    You do realize that your statement just torpedoes your argument. If the situation was the reverse ie a woman who is physically perfect but always bitchy, she would not only have a man, but many others to choose from on the side.

    I’m not saying looks don’t matter for a man. But they matter a whole lot less than they do for a woman. If a man does not have his “game/act” together, he will be quickly tossed to the side by females no matter how good he looks.

  26. “i just discovered this “red pill” thing. Are you guys deeply retarded or this is a joke that is going on for long?”

    Yep…all a joke. We’re just joshin’. Got ya!

    You can go back to whatever SWPL website you wandered over from. No need to worry. Cheers!

  27. “have I simply aligned myself with a context under which their genuine desire”
    Lol Rollo, it’s called “Doing it hoping to get laid”.
    I agree with most here, but now your using fancy wordings for a very simple concept:
    You’re going to the gym to make yourself more fuckable in her eyes.
    It sounds like a chick wearing makeup & pushup bra just for herself.
    Guys shave their chest, arm leg in hope to get laid too. Cause women like it that way now.
    Maybe it’s modern evolution of copulation, but that’s where it’s at.
    If you want fucking women to be easier, go to the gym and shave your body.
    Chicks do it and expect you to do it too. Some equalisms have been effective.

  28. “You’re going to the gym to make yourself more fuckable in her eyes.”

    I go to the gym to make myself stronger, so that I might ride my bike faster. When I am riding my bike her eyes don’t see me for the simple reason that she can’t keep up.

    If I’m going for a record I’ll shave my legs, because wind tunnel tests show that it actually does confer a significant advantage. I don’t shave my beard, because the wind tunnel tests show that, much to my surprise, it does not.

    I don’t shave my chest because the skinsuit covers it up and is more aerodynamic than bare skin anyway.

    If a woman happens to see me walking through the park and thinks my build is attractive, that is a purely incidental effect.

    If she asks me to shave my chest she can bite my shiny metal seatpost. I’m not interested in women who are sexually interested in prepubescent children.

  29. Rollo – I think that when you talk about humanism and equalism you are in many respects taking things underneath the surface. If the dialectic most people are engaged in is touch and massage, your approach – i think – is a hypodermic needle.
    You are attacking the sub-dermal dialectic – and that’s likely to be lost on a lot of readers.
    I don’t think you mean to collude philosophical and political humanism with gender/sexual relations – but you also don’t really clarify this yourself, you kind of leave it open-ended.
    So – as an example of how this can confuse some readers about what is going on with humanism as it socially changes our culture, versus what is going on with expectations of sexual equalism that we all probably experience and that you are taking aim at, consider these cases:

    Is a male billionaire a humanist or equalist?
    Is a smoking hot woman a humanist or equalist?
    Is an MMA fighter a humanist or equalist?

    Well – if they believe in individual choice, individual autonomy, they are a humanist. Are they equalist? Well – they could be anywhere from a Jeffersonian equality-under-the-law “equalist” to a Marxist “equalist” – it’s not a very useful term because it’s whatever it means to them. Or they can be neither and yet post-modernly believe that the best sex comes from relationships that are equal.

    In all of these cases – it doesn’t change the fact that the three examples have high MV: market value… SMV, MMV – whatever, either, both. They have value – and they will play their value.
    Warren Buffet, George Soros – billionaires – we can be sure that these are men who drive deals and who know how to drive deals.
    The smoking hot woman … she drives deals, and drives for the best one.

    So your point that these evolved sexual complementary strategies can’t be equalized …

    …May be true … it’s your hypothesis/thesis/theory … you ably defend it on this blog. Someone can even disagree with you but they should admit you might be right – at end we are all conjecturing.

    But even if you are right about that – you are hypodermically right. Meaning: the billionaire makes the best deal he can and knows how, and – pun intended, “all other things equal” … there is nothing wrong with that.
    Humanism marches on unmolested.
    People still have their individual autonomy. They aren’t all billionaires, but we credit them their freedom, even if they don’t deal with the billionaire, or get the worse of the deal.
    The smoking hot, high SMV, MMV woman – ditto – she makes the best deal she can and probably knows how, and “all other things equal”, …
    Humanism is ok.
    Look – everyone can’t afford a house in Chelsea Heights.
    Everyone can’t get a deal with Warren Buffet.
    And everyone doesn’t stand a chance with Molly Sims.

    None of this undermines humanism. Humanism is ok. It marches on.
    My worry is that especially in the “dark enlightenment” manosphere where people who have struggled their whole lives to understand non-verbal messages come to study at the heels of men such as yourself, … the hypodermic nature of the point you are making is likely to be lost on more than a few.

  30. Pingback: Alpha Tells |
  31. Pingback: Complementarity |
  32. Hahah,the guys who are saying looks are everything and game is overrated,I can bet have got no game at all.
    Having a tight game is no child’s play and to get to that level is a daunting task.
    But it does work.

  33. Anyone writing with this kind of an agenda in the media is a liar with a purpose. Never totally trust a politician.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: