Our Sisters’ Keeper


“Men are to blame for women’s behavior. The Feminine Imperative only has as much power as men have allowed it to have. Hypergamy (open or otherwise) wouldn’t be the unrestrained social juggernaut it’s become without men’s complicity or accomplice.”

This quote is a go-to rationalization I read a lot from women just coming to terms with their first taste of the Red Pill. Unfortunately it’s also become a common refrain among certain sets in the manosphere; this rationale is usually particular to the moral absolutist strains of the manosphere.

When I read it from women it’s kind of ironic considering it usually comes from women who share in the same moral absolutism, who were “so different when they were in college”, but they’ve had their Epiphany and “got right with God.” They often cling to the Strong Independent® identity for themselves, but turn over a rock and show them the visceral, observable, ugly truth of unfettered Hypergamy and then, then it’s men’s partial or total responsibility for fostering women’s conditions.

It becomes men’s fault for not having the fortitude and presence of mind to correct them when they needed it – never mind the lifetime of Blue Pill conditioning that taught them judging women made them misogynistic assholes. I understand axiom that men and women get the men and women they deserve, but I wanted to explore this blame game dynamic a bit more.

From Validation Hunting & The Jenny Bahn Epiphany:

The Feminine Imperative relies on memes and conventions which shift the ownership of women’s personal liabilities for their sexual strategy to men.

When men are blamed for the negative consequences of women’s sexual strategy it helps to blunt the painful truths that Jenny Bahn is (to her credit) honestly confronting in her article at 30 years old and the SMV balance shifts towards enabling men’s capacity to effect their own sexual strategy.

As I was writing the Adaptations series it occurred to me that men on the ends of both the Alpha and Beta spectrum adapt their own sexual strategies in accord with the sexual marketplace and how that environment dictates the approach to what seems the most efficient.

As I stated in the last post, Hypergamy is nothing if not pragmatic, and efficient. However, men’s adapting to the “market” dictates of Hypergamy has to be equally efficient if that guy is to fulfill his own sexual imperative. Pragmatism doesn’t have time for how things should be. You make the best play with what’s in front of you.

Just to illustrate, for about 25 years or so, popular culture strongly pointed men towards a sexual strategy that could be defined as Beta Game. Play nice, respect a woman by default, be supportive of her self-image and ambitions to the sacrifice of your own, don’t judge her and do your utmost to identify with the feminine, was the call to action that, deductively, should make a man more attractive to a woman.

Furthermore, the intrasexual combat amongst men for sexual qualification was (at least ostensibly) focused on out-supporting, out-sympathizing, out-emoting and out-identifying with the feminine more so than other men. To set oneself apart from “other guys” the seemingly most strategic tact was to accept what women said they wanted from men. To pragmatically effect this men gladly joined the chorus of ridiculing conventional masculinity; denouncing and resisting the very element that would in fact have set them apart from the nebulous “other guys“.

So while this is an illustration of men’s deductive pragmatism in their adapting to the SMP, it’s also an illustration of how that adaptation can work against men’s best interests. Between the 80s, 90s and into the early 2000s this adaptation involved men following women’s lead to systematically turn conventional, positive masculinity into ridiculous or gay-associations of “macho-ness”. Later, defining the very idea of masculinity would progress from ambiguousness to women being the sole authority of what masculinity should mean to a man.

Women and Moral Agency

For as long as I’ve read and commented on Christo-Manosphere blogs a common thread has cropped up again and again; the debate as to whether women have the same moral agency or the same accountability for it as men. I’ve always found it fascinating because for all my dealing in cold harsh observable facts I’ve never paused to consider that women might have some excusable reason for their ethically challenged behavior. In my own estimate Hypergamy isn’t inherently bad or good – it just depends on whether you find yourself on the sharp end of it.

My point here isn’t to reheat that debate, but rather to see how it feeds into the rationale that men are in some way responsible for what contemporary women have become, and how they’ll progress if men don’t assume some responsibility for women’s behaviors.

Hypergamy is pragmatic, but it’s also inherently duplicitous. It’s unjust and unforgivable to a guy who doesn’t measure up to his burden of performance. When you consider the War Brides dynamic it’s downright reprehensible, but we have to also consider the pragmatism in that dynamic. From a male perspective we want to apply masculine concepts of honor and justice to women’s action – and in the past there was a high price to pay for infractions of it – but are we presuming our concept of justice is one that’s universally common to that of women?

Much in the same way we were Blue Pill conditioned to presume that our idealistic concept of love was mutually shared by women I would propose that men’s concepts of justice, honor, and (from an intrasexual perspective) respect are dissimilar from those of women.

For women, whatever actions serve Hypergamy are justifiable actions.

All that needs to be sorted out is reconciling those action with the concept of justice held by men. In the intersexual arena, what best serves men’s imperatives is justice. Up until the sexual revolution the balance between the sexes’ concepts of justice was mitigated by mutual compromise – each had something to lose and something to gain by considering the other sex’s imperatives.

For roughly the past 70 years this balance between the two concepts has listed heavily to the feminine. Our age has been defined by women’s unilateral and ubiquitous control of Hypergamy, and as such it is women’s sexual imperatives that is biologically and sociologically setting the course for future generations.

Along with that unprecedented control comes the prioritizing of women’s concept of justice above that of men’s. We can see this evidenced in every law, social convention or social justice movement that entitles women to rights and privileges that free them of any accountability for the negative consequence their Hypergamously based behavior would hold them to in a concept of justice that men would have.

I would also argue that women’s inherent solipsism reinforces this separation of concepts of justice between the sexes.

Rivelino had a good take on this on Twitter:

1 The woman is always the victim

2 Nothing is her fault

3 She is not responsible for her actions

4 A man is to blame

To which I’ll add a 5th: Any fault is always a ‘strength’.

The problem I see in assigning the blame of women’s behavior to men’s lack of control is that, presently, men have no real control nor does men’s concept of justice align with that of women. There’s a manosphere idiom that says women are the gatekeepers of sex while men are the gatekeepers of commitment. I’m not sure I completely agree with that.

That’s not to be defeatist, or an endorsement of a MGTOW course of action, but it is to say that if a man has neither the sex appeal to be a short term sexual prospect nor the provisioning appeal to be a long term investment, women feel entirely justified in acting in the best interests of Hypergamy and controlling his capacity for commitment as well.

And yes, that’s pretty fucked up if you, again, find yourself on the sharp end of it. Men’s adapting to the intersexual conditions set by women isn’t some deterministic prospect, but the idea that the mass majority of men would be responsible for the state women find themselves in is ludicrous. There will always be men willing to accept the sexual dictates of women because it serves their breeding imperatives. It’s good for him personally and it’s good for the species.

There will never be some global Lysistrata where men organize in solidarity, promising not to fuck another woman until they comply with demands that would place the Masculine Imperative above that of the feminine’s. Our own biology guarantees it.

Personal Responsibility

On a final note here, whenever I delve into the ethical implications of Red Pill awareness I invariably run into the personal responsibility equation. I do my best to make as coldly rational an observation of dynamics I see and allow my readers to make their own judgements. However, those observation are never intended to excuse the behaviors men and women find themselves prone to acting out.

There is always a want on the part of either sex to see their concept of justice enacted on those who would act against it. Thus you get honor killing in the Muslim world, and you have men’s access to the DNA testing of children they suspect aren’t their own denied in the “best interest of the child.”

So are men to blame for the conditions they find their women in? Are we our sisters’ keepers, hamstrung by our own culpability to actually help them be better women? Or do they bear the responsibility to conform to our perspective of justice and police the worst impulses of a Hypergamy most are only peripherally aware of?


Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

722 comments on “Our Sisters’ Keeper

  1. @CaveClown

    Seeing as Sun Wukong is a god from Chinese mythology, I can work with that. Far be it from me to hide from my destiny…

  2. I like sluts, but don’t most men want good girls?

    Eh, I think if you look at it historically, it’s a mixed bag. Men like sluts for sex without strings, and they like more chaste women to raise kids with. Prostitution has been around forever, and that’s basically purchasing time with sluts. Mistresses for the elite have been around forever as well — basically also sluts who used sex to get access to power and money, only a few steps away from being hookers for most of history really. Men do like sluts and more chaste women for different reasons and for different purposes and relationships.

    I think the case that women’s sexuality is conditioned by men can be made to some degree, but in a culture where very early sex is expected by everyone, men and women alike, I think it’s hard to blame one sex or the other for it. I mean, yes, men expect it (at least ones who are in a position to demand it). But women expect it, too, regardless of their moral background or inclinations. It doesn’t make sense in that context to blame men for female promiscuity — it’s a part of the picture, but people who can be promiscuous are often being promiscuous (by the standards of earlier ages), simply because early sex is expected, and most people go through a number of relationships of varying duration (and the number and duration vary wildly by individual) before settling into a longer duration pairing, if they ever do so. In that context, it’s hard to blame one sex or the other for what is actually a joint expectation of what relationships entail and how we go about finding mates in the 21st.

  3. @The Tingler

    “Sixty years ago, women pretended to be more virtuous than they really were because that’s what men wanted, and it made them unhappy. Today, women pretend to be sluttier than they really are because that’s what men want, and it makes them unhappy.”


    It’s in women’s and men’s nature to follow their biological imperatives. They are a constant regardless of socio-political conditions.

    From Rollo:

    “the Beta needs to make the Alpha seem common, while making himself seem unique. In order to effectively disqualify an Alpha, the Beta has to display his empathy for the feminine, and she must appreciate it or it’s been all for nothing (which it usually is). Not only is this an ego preservation mechanism, but it’s also perceived as a tool for achieving the desired sexual reciprocation / appreciation he desires.”

    ~Rollo Tomassi, from his book all men must read: Thank you Sam.

    How can it be anyones fault?

    It’s Darwinian. Natural selection, evolution.

    There never has been or will there ever be a ‘Steady State Universe’.

    If anything you can blame influential philosophers and feminist for setting up the preconditions to move, change or eliminate social mores.

    Perhaps feminist (Hana Rosin & Michael Kimmel) of today know what their doing. . . . RP truths are so much under the radar any way and it is the FI that rains supreme.

    To lay blame on men is more folly from the FI.

  4. @ Novaseeker

    So you’re saying a woman’s moral agency is actually hostile to man’s moral agency. Much like a women’s sexual strategy is hostile to a men’s.

    This is why when the Allies liberated Europe the female collaborators had their heads shaved, and were effectively cast out of polite society and their children ostracized. It was the morally correct action for the men to take, just like the ladies breeding with the occupiers.

    I think you’ve just explained the morality of oppressing women legally/socially for the benefit of civilization. In that case, say the evil 1950s, women had limited options, but the men had incentives. Today in the liberated and enlightened 21st century women have all the options and men have few decent incentives.

    1. @Badpainter, funny I was going to make the same point about Dutch and French women consorting with the occupiers being shaved and humiliated after the war was over.

      I made a similar point in Adaptations Part I with the stats on illegitimate births and abortions, particularly between occupiers, but also among women in Britain and America banging guys at home who weren’t their husbands.

      Hypergamy is pragmatic – its subliminal influence is all about the practicality of women’s breeding situation irrespective of social or political upheaval. If the Nazis had won the war those consort women would’ve been the ones to benefit.

      Hypergamy made a bet; a losing one for those women, but you can see the practicality of the subliminal influence Hypergamy has with women. Even the prospect of death, humiliation and ostracization doesn’t override the influence.

  5. A lot of the blame game is also implying that there’s a “problem” to begin with to blame anyone for.

    If you’re on the losing end of the modern hook up culture, there’s a massive problem. It’s a real shit show for the BB provider roped in to a game of Cap’n Save A Ho with a single mom ready to bail at her first whiff of Alpha.

    If you’re on the winning end, the upper 20% where NSA ass is more available than ever, there’s no problem at all. It’s a pussy bonanza like never before.

    Seeing as no one of us or even all of us as a group can change the circumstances (notice, I’m not saying “fix the problem”), then the best individual strategy is simply to adapt by attempting to jump to that upper 20% or at least have women perceive us that way. People who obsess over who to blame aren’t adapting. They’re trying to make the circumstances adapt to them instead of the other way around.

    The bottom line is pretty simple though: life is bigger and more powerful than you by far. If you try to resist it, it will eat you alive. If you adapt to it though, you can find a way to prosper and even enjoy it.

  6. Women can do whatever they want because, as Ms. Massey explained, “dick is abundant.”

    This is misleading. Beta d1ck is abundant. Alpha d1ck is not.

    It’s men that are at risk of failing to breed, not women. It’s always been that way.

    Uh, no. Once upon a time, women frequently died when attempting to deliver their first child, which child often died. Men got a new wife and tried again.

  7. For the record, the weekend field report I dropped was a mess of failures, brought me a bad hangover, an overpriced cab ride, and blue balls.

    Strangely enough though, spending time just being the lecherous rogue was kind of fun despite the failures. At the very least I got a good story or two out of it; the other two developers on my team howled with laughter and fist-bumped me over the episode with the married chick. I suppose that’s the best example I can give of learning to enjoy it.

  8. So you’re saying a woman’s moral agency is actually hostile to man’s moral agency. Much like a women’s sexual strategy is hostile to a men’s.

    I would say that it’s more the case that, as women do not (can not normally without extraordinary effort) love men unconditionally, women cannot interiorly comprehend/comply with a moral code that is external/masculine in nature, because it contradicts their prime directive. This does put them at odds with men, but the reason relates to the underlying biology and the interior wiring created by that, which is rather different in men and women. Something like Kant’s categorical imperative makes no sense for women from an interior-to-women perspective, because there are numerous cases where that would run afoul of the prime directive for women.

    It’s certainly the case that the masculine moral code is better for civilization building, but that doesn’t mean it makes “interior sense” to a woman, given her narrower moral scope based on her own biological imperatives and the reflection of them in her wiring. Of course, a woman is *capable* of it — it’s just that it’s extraordinarily difficult, because her interior systems and wiring will be screaming at her 24/7 to buck the masculine moral system each and every time it contradicts her prime directive.

  9. On the question of justice. One possible definition of justice is that it is simply power wielded with reason. To be a bit more rigorous here, justice = power + reason. Or you could say that injustice = power – reason. Power itself, regardless of what form it takes, is neither reasonable nor unreasonable, neither just or unjust. It just is. It’s like a hammer. If I build a house with the hammer, we might say it’s good. If I plant it in some old lady’s skull just for fun we might say it’s bad. It’s not the hammer that is good or bad, it’s how and why we choose to use it in the way that we do.

    So what form of power do men have? As was mentioned upthread, male power is in labor utility, the most important form of it being violence. A soldier is just a variation on the worker, only his stock and trade isn’t carpentry or welding, but violence or the threat of it. And the soldier is the first worker among workers since the violence he wields, if it is in the service of the law, is what creates the context in which all the other workers trade their labor for resources of whatever kind. Subordinate the soldier’s violence to reason in the form of law and it creates the possibility of property relations and trade. If it is not subordinate to reason, or law, the soldier becomes the thug, and property relations and trade are replaced with the law of the jungle, with everybody clubbing each other over the head for the things they need to survive.

    The power that women have is not their labor utility but their reproductive utility. Strip a man of everything and what he’s left with is his labor utility, strip a woman of everything and what she’s left with is her sexual utility. Men become workhorses (violent or otherwise), women become broodmares.

    So how do men wield their specifically male form of power? If they do so with reason, we could say that it’s just. Looking at the track record, I’d say men are doing a pretty good job, if the unprecedented level of safety and abundance that western women enjoy under the regime of modern civilization is any indication.

    And women? How do they wield their sexual power? Do they do so with reason? Clearly they do not. That’s the whole problem in a nutshell. The male form of power not only is subject to moral and social convention, it is the very origin of those conventions. Male power is subordinate to reason and thus in accordance with justice, if we take this definition. Women’s power is anything but rational. Hypergamy, like sexuality generally, resists cultural, social, and moral convention entirely. It’s wielded by their Id, not their superego.

    The male conception of justice is explicit, clearly stated, and antithetical to the opaque and arbitrary. But what is the female conception of justice? It’s not even clear that it exists nor could it exist. Women’s power is only ever wielded without reason, and if this is the case, then it’s only capable of tyranny. Law requires universality, linearity, and clarity. And these characteristics describe a male orientation to the world, but women’s behavior and orientation towards the world is characterized by their opposites. With women every answer is the wrong answer or it can be the right one depending on how she feels. Everything is a double bind. There is no linearity whatsoever and her intentions will always be opaque, not only to us, but even to herself. Why else do we need to watch what women do rather than listening to what they say? It’s not even clear if women know they are full of shit. Nobody is entirely sure, not even women.

    What does the female conception of justice look like if you tried to codify it into law? It looks like Yes Means Yes.

    Schopenhauer was right. Women really are somewhere in between children and adults. So, if all this is true, then maybe it really is the fault of men. It’s like letting children run the household. What did we expect would happen?

  10. “This is misleading. Beta d1ck is abundant. Alpha d1ck is not.”

    Yeah, I know. That’s implicit in the post you’re responding to.

    “‘It’s men that are at risk of failing to breed, not women. It’s always been that way.’

    Uh, no. Once upon a time, women frequently died when attempting to deliver their first child, which child often died. Men got a new wife and tried again.”

    Uh yes, that’s why our species is descended from twice as many females as males. Women retain sexual value by default, men’s is entirely conditional if men can mate many times a day theoretically while women have to carry children to term and screen for parental investment. That is why “sperm is cheap and eggs are not.”

    Over the long course of our species history, the reproductive success of men was only half that of women, and this is why she’s the one screening messages on okcupid and you’re the one writing them. So it is as I said. Men are at risk of failing to breed, not women. What the hell would women dying in childbirth have to do with anything anyway? If the child lived, she has successfully bred. Men died in wars and in hard labor occupations. So what? In fact, they are still dying in wars and 90% of workplace injuries and deaths in the United States are attributable to men, not women.

  11. @ Divided Line —

    Indeed, gender feminists like Carol Gilligan several decades ago were making the case that women reason differently morally. She rather self-servingly characterized the female way of moral thinking to be communitarian, relationship-oriented and contextual, instead of simply admitting that it was arbitrary. Following on that, it was very soon after that women lawyers and law professors (and law students, as I saw when I was in LS in the early 90s) started making the case that there should be two sets of laws — because men and women have different conceptions of justice, in other words, expecting women to be held to the standard of justice as embodied by legal rules which were almost without exception conceived of by men was a form of patriarchal and sexist oppression, and that those kinds of rules should apply to men only and not to women.

    It took a while for that kind of academic positioning to gain some traction in the broader legal community (in the educational community, by contrast, it transformed the educational system fundamentally in a half decade), more recently arguments have been made in various legal organizations (bar and related type of things) that the criminal law should be applied differently to women in areas like self-defense, domestic violence, aggravating circumstances for the death penalty and so on, based on how women are “differently situated”, and the idea that applying universal rules is unjust from a female perspective, that the rules are male-oriented and so on. It is coming. YMY is kind of a tip of the iceberg.

    Stephen Pinker, who is no conservative and who considers himself a feminist, was sharply critical of the Gilligan line of thought in his book “The Blank Slate”, where he basically said (I’m paraphrasing from memory) that if Carol Gilligan was correct, no women should ever be permitted to serve on any court in the United States. He took flak for that, I think, but as far as I know he has never backed down from it.

  12. @Badpainter
    @ A Definite Beta Guy

    I would add that governments/states do not exist except in the imaginations of people. Government is not a noun, it’s a verb. It’s what some people do to other people. It’s a behavior, not a thing. There is no “thing” one could point to and say, “That is a state.” They simply don’t exist.

    What would/could you point to when you say, “That is a state”? Some people dressed a certain way? Some buildings?

    The emperor has no clothes. Think about it.

  13. Source for half men procreating is Dr. Baumeister (I can’t link right now)

    40% of men in history dies having reproduced, 80% of women died having reproduced.

    Which means 6 out of 10 men did not. I wonder if that correlates today?

  14. Buddy of mine that faced down false rape charges would argue that the state is very real.

    Sure, the cops, and prosecutors, and judge and such are just people, but they were enforcing the laws of the state.

    I would say “the state” is the will of the people to follow it’s laws. The will is strong right now in the USA.

  15. Bigger picture, Rollo. Men are always the protectors of any nation. This nation, the United States, was originally a white Northern European nation — we made it great. It was our job (that of my grandparents’ generation and the one before it) to protect the nation from foreign invaders.

    Unfortunately, the men from 1865 until 1970 failed to do their jobs, and a foreign invader took over our government, and the foreign invader now controls our government, law, media, access to information, access to a career, and even the printing of money.

    The foreign invader is loyal only to their own tribe, a “nation within a nation”, and they do not even attempt to hide this fact.

    Women are women; we love them, as the correct side of the mansphere points out. They are delicate little beautiful creatures in a dangerous world, who (when not obese) weigh between 105 and 120 pounds, with very little muscle or strength. They must be heard animals and adopt cunning techniques to survive. They will gladly mate with any invading tribe, always. When an invading nation takes over, the host nation’s men are killed or enslaved. The host nation’s women are raped and integrated into society, and they bear the current rulers’ children.

    Since 1960, the tribe that controls our nation has had total control over all media — TV, movies, now the internet, music — and they have very obviously tried very hard to tell our white women to be as they are now: “I don’t need no man” attitude; miscegenation; cock carousel; career first; don’t have children or marriage; disrespect white “beta” men.

    I don’t pretend to know all the answers, but for some reason, the foreign tribe now utterly controls our government and media, and we see what the MSM tells women to do and be, and anyone who would deny anything I’ve written here is either retarded, brainwashed (as they intended) or one of the foreign invaders.

    Sticking to the main point of Rollo’s post, I get it. On a micro level, day by day, personal interaction to personal interaction level, the powerless men of Generations X and Y are not to blame for not “controlling” our crazy tatted up CC-riding anti-marriage/anti-family/anti-white men women — these “betas” would be tagged immediately as controlling “creeper” freaks. They are legally tagged as such in the family courts — a man has NO power over his wife, not even on spending his money, running up debt, only to have to assume all her debt while giving her all assets, while she takes the kids, etc. These are facts. Everyone knows them.

    White men on a macro level failed to protect our nation (and thereby failed to protect our women) on a global scale, from 1865 until …. now… now the invading tribe, which took over our Supreme Court, which does not come close to following the U.S. Constitution, is celebrating its total takeover by doing such things as painting the White House rainbow colors and having the official U.S. Department of Defense website celebrating “transsexual pride” month.

    It is beyond obvious, of course, that being gay or a transexual is nothing to be proud of. It’s a biological defect, regardless whether caused by genes or childhood abuse. Tolerate them as we did from 1776 until 2007? Sure. They can be seen and not heard. We don’t tie them to the back of a truck and drag them through the streets. But *celebrate* them? Are you kidding me?

    Meanwhile we are to believe that a 40 year old man who finds a 17 year old woman attractive, even if he does not act on it but can’t help an accidental double take when she walks by in a cute skirt, is “creepy” even though such a reaction is biologically normal and appropriate.

    That is how wildly wrong the Eskimos who control the national mainstream conversation are. Homosexuals who want to suck each other’s dicks and put their dick in another man’s butt are to be celebrated. Forty year old white man who finds 17 year old woman attractive is to be scorned.

    This view is simply wrong, as a matter of objective fact, not opinion.

  16. @Kyfho – “I would add that schools/universities do not exist except in the imaginations of people. Education is not a noun, it’s a verb. It’s what some people do to other people. It’s a behavior, not a thing. There is no “thing” one could point to and say, “That is education.” It simply doesn’t exist.
    What would/could you point to when you say, “That is education”? Some people dressed a certain way? Some buildings?
    The emperor has no clothes. Think about it.”

    If one is being kind, he can refer to the above as a “distinction without a difference”.

    Objectivism doesn’t exist. Sigh… Other than the anarchic pseudo-intellectual posturing, you are otherwise quite interesting to listen to. The state is a social institution instantiated cross culturally by at least 6 different cultures that had no contact with each other as they became agrarian societies. I explained it up thread – the state enables scale. Scale enables specialization. Specialization enables comparative advantage. A free exchange between two entities with different comparative advantages is how wealth is created. Vast wealth creation is what causes the modern world to arise – otherwise it does not.

    In fact, the modern state is what gave some individuals the ability to own property, work for their own ends and to exchange property with each other freely as they saw fit which is how we created so much wealth so quickly compared to the rest of human history. It’s no accident that the post Magna Carta state leads to this wealth explosion.

    Anarchy is the absence of any boundary conditions on social order. It’s also the absence of political philosophy, it is not a political philosophy (see Nozick if you doubt this, if don’t know who Nozick is, consider that you have skipped over the most trenchant critique of anarchy on offer by a libertarian philosopher). It’s funny, most anarchists don’t even know that there world view is an empty set philosophically. Anarchy relies on emergent properties which are probabalistic, not deterministic. One cannot say for certain what will emerge.

    In fact, any anarchist who actually even understands the ideas they peddle has to admit that in an anarchic world, there is no reason to assume people would enjoy anything like liberty. In fact the only commitment an honest anarchist can make to anyone is “You might be free in some places at some times”. We had anarchy for a long time – the state arises to improve on that horrific condition.

  17. ” . . . male power is in labor utility, the most important form of it being violence.”

    Let a few more chippy joggers get eaten by panthers, then ask again if men are obsolete. One of my later realizations was that women today actually have no idea what it is that men do, or why. The men who guard them from predation while they sleep are invisible to them and they think that panthers, coyotes and bears (Oh, my!) are a “problem” that has been “solved.”

    And when the vegan chick has nothing to eat because she successfully ended the killing of the cute, fuzzy bunny wunnies, she still won’t make the connection.

    And blame men, of course.

  18. Divided line.
    I always like what you have to say.
    When you quoted :
    “sperm is cheap and eggs are not.”

    I think the sperm of the alpha BODY/mind is as valuable as eggs, just wait for 3 more years and women would pay big bucks.

  19. @Anonymous – There you go again, “it’s the Joooooos”, lol.

    “I don’t pretend to know all the answers” – yes you do, but “pretend” is the perfect word to describe approach to understanding the world.

    I wonder, do you even know any Jews? Do you know why they are so successful in our society? Has it occurred to you that they actually grabbed onto education as central to their culture thousands of years ago? That they have a sense of unity and purpose to their lives utterly lacking in most of our watered down, atomized culture?

    Consider the state of the Jewish family – they have very strong families. They also value material wealth because it makes them less vulnerable and Jews feel uniquely vulnerable as their history is littered with others trying to slaughter them. They ended up as money lenders and merchants because that was all that was left to them in Europe. And they became very good at it. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the “the tribe” does seek to serve itself first and last but destroying the U.S. does not serve them. And being self-interested, within the law is what liberty and the U.S. is all about.

    Marxism and communism and socialism appealed to Jews because they represented a challenge to the ancien regime which was always hostile to them. It presented an opportunity to redesign a more just social order and this became baked into 20th century Jewish culture. They also were repressed and discriminated against awfully by conservatives for a very long time, so they never had a home on “the right”. That’s why they are reflexively leftist.

    Marxism is our problem, funnily, created by a self-hating Jew, Marx himself. He was anti-semitic, but born a Jew. And the Jews were by no means the only people to fall for the Marxism, and in fact represent a small part of those who did.

    I simply will not put with this crap in any space I’m part of.

  20. Divided Line, try again. Historically, women had tremendous risk of failing to breed. Even when eggs are expensive, you still could have a higher percentage of men breeding than women. It just means that a high percentage of women would have children by several men.

    There was a time when sons were valuable–more so than daughters. Sons were needed for farming. Daughters were just more mouths to feed. Not valuable for their eggs. The mother was valuable because she could produce sons.

    this is why she’s the one screening messages on okcupid and you’re the one writing them.

    I disagree. The OkCupid situation is because of the pedestalization of women, which is due to a confluence of ideologies like chivalry, feminism, and socialism. It’s not inherently biological. See Patriarchy when women were anxiously seeking beta husbands.

  21. “Women are gatekeepers to sex and men are gatekeepers to commitment.”

    I agree with Rollo for rejecting the bull above.
    I had many one nightstands and non of them wanted to see me after that because they told me I was a Playa not for commitment.

    1. Conversation I over heard from two of my pour girls:

      “Would you sleep with a guy on the first date or the same night you met?”

      “Not if I thought he was relationship material.”

  22. What of 50% of first time marriages succeeding and only 15% of wives report having had an affair? I’m sure there’s some underreporting, but it seems that quite a high percentage of wives actually have committed. I’d guess at least 35%.

  23. A one night stand woman told me she would never date me because she fucked me after 3 hours of meeting me and she can never have a “relationship” with me!.

    I hope she is “haaapy” with a beta provider who sure gave her “commitment”.

    1. @asd, after the fact.

      Those women were still the arbiters of whom they’d marry. Also, see Dalrocks stats about marriage rates. Divorces are down, but so are overall marriages.

  24. Rollo, what used to be marriages are now LTRs primarily. I see quite a lot of LTRs in my social circle. A few marriages as well from time to time. There’s maybe one woman having ONS’s. A few having casual sex with regular partners. I see a lot of women looking for commitment.

  25. Don’t believe the statistics, just put on the lie detector and you will find 90% of women had one night stand fuck , the other 1% had one dawn stand fuck.

  26. Thinking that a woman won’t fuck a guy she just met is a form of pedestalization.

    There are factors that play into whether or not any particular female will give up the drawers, and how fast she will do so, but aside from those limiting factors, in todays society, I’d feel safe in saying that a majority of women will ONS.

    Rollo’s overheard convo has been exactly what I’ve overheard from women countless times.

    N counts may be of some import, but you will never, ever truly know how many dicks she’s had. And most won’t tell under penalty of death.

    If you don’t put too much stock in the ” good girl ” scenario, you won’t be crushed if the truth comes out, or you come home and find the plumber giving her The High Hard One.

    There are no Good Girls. There are girls who will try to subdue their instincts because of religious teachings, strict upbringings, or to snag a guy that they want with the qualities they seek at any given moment.

    Women are fluid. The FI makes them more like heated fluid.

    Remember: ” Good ” is subjective and oft times personal. Get the average chick in the right circumstance and induce tingles, she will be ripe for a fucking. Does that make them a slut? A whore perhaps? Maybe. Degrees matter. Are they all sluts and whores? I say they are all POTENTIALLY sluts and whores.

    Can you patrol the pussy? Maybe under certain circumstances, but one has to decide if the particular woman is worth the effort. I used to think ( decades ago ) that you could get fidelity by being amazing in bed. Now I know that it helps, but there is never a guarantee. Fact of life gentlemen.

    Until society wakes up and holds women accountable for their actions, all men are subject to massive amounts of state sanctioned fuckery from females. Society can’t stop hypergamy, but it could help to curtail it and force women to control themselves and/or take direction better.

    …One can dream.

    For a period of time, I banged a muslim chick. Cutie. Pre-fucking we had a conversation about why she wouldn’t or couldn’t have sex with me. Went like this : your not muslim, and you are ” dirty ” ( meaning I ate pork, smoked cigs, drank alcohol, cursed..etc ). I wasn’t offended or deterred because her IOI’s were too telling. I drove her home from work one day ( beta move ) and she invited me in for ” refreshments ” and to show me some ” pictures ” from Lebanon. I told her that if I came inside, I was going to cum inside. She laughed a belly laugh and gave me the ” ..you so crazy ” non-disclaimer.

    10 minutes inside I was stripping her down on her couch. She never said 1 word. Then I carried her to her bedroom and let her have it with both barrels. The banging commenced for about 3 months, twice a week. It stopped when her boyfriend came over from Lebanon. I had no idea about him.

    All my life I have noticed that if a woman wants sex, she will have sex. Sometimes everybody will know, most times no one will have a clue. There are still chicks I’ve fucked that not a soul knows about except for the two of us. Sluts? Slippery slope? ( pun )

    Don’t misunderstand my point. There are sluts. Enough to circle Earth 3 or 4 times when laid end to end. But there is a grey area N-count that will remain undefined. Granted, you don’t want the broad that gets drunk and has trains run on her a couple of times a year ( I had a 2nd cousin that would drink, strip and invite all comers. Married now. I don’t know if hubby knows. ) but looking for the chaste women may be an exercise in futility. Even marrying a virgin, being her first, doesn’t mean she’s not gonna fuck somebody else behind your back.

    High N-counts are going to be subjective. It’s up to each individual to set their limitations ( h/t Dirty Harry ). Just understand the lay of the land. Hypergamy is unfettered. It’s bigger than you are. You can fight with the correct weapons, and carve out a space for yourself, but it will always be tentative.


    You younger cats, attract the best prospect you can – meaning she must come into YOUR frame and add value to your life. Maybe she won’t fuck your neighbor one day down the road. In the back of your mind always remember she may spread ’em for the coworker or the cable guy. Treat her accordingly in your thoughts and in your actions to a degree. No pedestals allowed. They hate that shit. Rollo has said it best, invite her into YOUR frame. If you find yourself in her frame, you have screwed the pooch. Eject and carry on.

    A strong masculine frame must become 1st nature for you. Practice. A strong frame helps you keep the girl, or buy a used car. It is useful in your life and should be built and maintained for your personal betterment.

  27. In animal husbandry, sperm is expensive because 99 and 44/100 percent of it ends up labelled “cat food.”

    If you want to eradicate the fuzzy wuzzies from your spinach patch, kill the eggs.

  28. A committed woman will mateguard herself. All are hypergamous. There is no “Quality Woman”. As Blax wrote, degrees matter.

    Some not-insignificant percentage of women do commit.

    If a woman is busy chasing you, she probably won’t be busy chasing another man.

  29. What you see is not everything that is happening.

    Women are excellent at hiding their tracks when it comes to sexual things they do not want their “social circle” to know of. They have evolved to be that way for obvious reasons. They will do things like come home from their session with their lover (after showering there) and have sex with hub to put him off the trail that she is disinterested or involved with someone else and so on. They’re good at hiding cheating. Very, very good. And spectacular at lying about it. They had to be — cuckolding as a strategy is nothing new, and the penalty used to be death. So they adapted.

  30. “If all the girls who attended the Yale prom were laid end to end, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.” -Dorothy Parker

  31. “It was very soon after that women lawyers and law professors…started making the case that there should be two sets of laws.”

    “It is coming.”

    Holy shit, that puts a lot of things into perspective.

  32. “Most guys can surely attest to their failed attempts to secure commitment from women.”

    From personal observations nothing pisses a woman off more than a commitment type guy showing interest when they’re in their alpha fucks stage.

    Even my perspective of alpha fucks has changed, far from being the top 20% they’re just men who are down to fuck without any emotional neediness. A breathing dildo.

    Women in their Sandbergian stage just want a good rogering without the icky beta neediness and believe it or not these types of men are quite rare. After all men are the true romantics.

    A beta with feelings just places too many expectations and pressure on women.

  33. @theasdgamer

    If a woman is busy chasing you, she probably won’t be busy chasing another man.

    She doesn’t have to. She’s got a stable of second choices on the back burner just in case you don’t work out in the end.

  34. She doesn’t have to. She’s got a stable of second choices on the back burner just in case you don’t work out in the end.

    So, you need your own stable. Options.

    1. http://nationalmarriageproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NMP-BeforeIDoReport-Final.pdf


      We can play “beat that survey” all day long, the fact still remains, women are the arbiters of sex and commitment irrespective of what their N count is. Granted, the conditions that allow her greater or lesser capacity to secure that commitment with as optimal a man as she’d prefer varies with her phase of maturity, but she’s still doing the “buying” even when she’s in a relationship:


  35. Survey – and they are still holding back, even anonymously, trust that.

    Harder to climax in No Strings sex? Okay, I buy that if the man is being loving…trying to kiss them tenderly…being a gentle and considerate lover and what-not. Pound and ground and pull their hair. CLIMAX 90% of the time.

  36. The fuck of death is when a woman size you up after you fucked her in a lovey dovey way, she instantly places you in her plan B list.
    The bad news You will never ever be considered as an alpha tingle.
    The good news she’ll call you one day.

    Is there a parallel between a man who wants his woman to be his slut alone ,forever ! and a woman who wants a tingle man for one night only?
    I really believe women do NOT want to marry tingle men ,they just want to fuck them, but will marry beta with no tingles.
    Women aren’t afraid of the tingle man, they are afraid of the all so powerful tingle that only an alpha man can spark .
    At least it is love/hate with the alpha tingle but it is hate/hate with beta.

    I hate betas and their Ferrari too and I still think they are responsible for open Hypergamy wanting the Ferrari.

  37. @Johnycomelately – From personal observations nothing pisses a woman off more than a commitment type guy showing interest when they’re in their alpha fucks stage.


    A tale of frame slippage. I was sexing my neighbors niece when I was 18. She was spending a summer, in from Chicago. Church going gurl.

    We were sneak fucking all summer long. I’d sneak her into my basement and screw her on a folding cot. Until it broke.

    After about 3 weeks of trying to break her back, I asked one of my older friends to get me a hotel room and I’d give him the money. I told my undercover lover that we could go out on a date, movies and dinner, then go to the Holiday Inn and fuck like folks are supposed to.

    Shit eating grin included.

    I still recall the look of confusion on her face.

    She said something I didn’t quite catch, but I did catch her question to me : ” You’re not falling in love are you?”, followed by laughter.

    I felt a sharp chest pain followed by monumental embarrassment. But I played it off as ” joking “.

    The next day we went to the basement. That day I thought I invented throat fucking. It was payback. I figured that was our last encounter, but she showed up the next day ready to go.

    The thing is, I didn’t want to have sex with her anymore. Not even to use her for being such a bitch. I spent a week trying to figure out why that happened. How could you have so much sex with someone and not become emotionally involved?

    It was a painful lesson that, looking back, I wouldn’t have changed for anything in the world. Learning the hard way by example. Whew!!! Those lessons STICK.

    We males, we are the romantics. We are the ones with feelings. If we are not informed, it is a rough and painful ride. The nature of women can be brutal and uncaring. Sometimes we don’t get to see it until divorce rape, but there are subtle flashes and clues that are evident beforehand.

    Guard yourself with knowledge.

  38. Blaximus, I find that biting stimulates the most–especially on the inner thighs and behind the knees. Inner elbows, too. Women can get wet just thinking about me–or so they say.

    Cosign the pounding. The harder you go, the more they like it. And grip their shoulders tightly and constrain their legs with yours. Use your limbs as the bonds.

    Mrs. Gamer says that I’m better than a vibrator.

  39. I think it’s time to take this sociobiological critique of the mating market of yours into more cultural specifics. Rollo talks in principles, and they’re all legit, but let’s see how they play out in culture, music, etc.

    For instance, istm that much of what we’re witnessing in terms of the rapid transformation of men’s attitudes really began with our generation, Generation X. Rollo’s an ex-musician from the late 80s/early 90s, it’d be interesting to discuss the role played by the beta male takeover of popular white music/culture in the early 90s, starting with the most beta alpha of all time, Kurt Cobain (anybody else cringe throughout all of Montage of Heck? – can’t believe I used to like that band), and coursing through the 90s with the glorification of self-loathing via songs like ‘Creep’ by Radiohead (who I actually like), the soft-wimpy-sensitive souls like Smashing Pumpkins (ditto), to macho bands like Stone Temple Pilots moaning “I’m half the man I used to be,” to Beck’s ‘Loser’ being the early ’90s white anthem, to Nine Inch Nails making self-hatred glamorous and sexy, to the apotheosis of the I’m-not-man-enough-to-get-the-girl type bands like Weezer, Wheatus, Story of the Year, etc. The Big Bang Theory is specifically geared towards the children of the people who bought Weezer’s Blue Album.

    There came a point in the early ’90s where, in order for a white musician to be credible, he had to berate himself (or at least pretend to – a la Creed), and this carried on when emo and goth took over. Or pop punk. Sum 41 had a huge hit about being a loser. Three Doors Down wasn’t punk or goth but their biggest hits were about being losers too. I can actually see this beginning in the early ’80s with Black Flag, maybe earlier, but I think BF were among the first ones to make that their whole schtick and that was an underground current that didn’t rise to the surface until ’90-’91.

    There’s a good youtube clip of Patrice O’Neal on the Opie and Andy show on, where they’re talking about ‘Creep’ and he riffs for several minutes about how “White people love to feel bad about themselves.” And it’s true. Generation X made self-loathing our culture, and it’s borne fruit today in the white privilege critique movement. No self-confident ruling group would even think about critiquing its own privileges on behalf of others like white people do today. Otoh, I rarely hear rappers making a schtick out of what losers and fuck-ups they are, how much they hate themselves and weren’t cool enough in high school, etc.

    The lone exception, of course, being Eminem.

    And it does make you wonder what black people thought during all those years when self-loathing dominated the white airwaves. Naturally, pop culture narcissism/identity politics today are for everyone *but* white males. What do rappers rap about? How awesome they are, nobody parties like them. What do white female pop stars sing about? How awesome they are, nobody parties like them. What do gay pop stars sing about? How awesome they are, nobody parties like them. What do white male pop/rock stars sing about? How awesome their girl is. Or how sorry they are for fucking up their relationship. Could you imagine a white pop male pop star with the overt egotism of a Kanye or Miley? You couldn’t do it, you have to at least feign humility. What is allowed is, “You don’t know you’re beautiful.”

    At the same time, today’s millennial girls are formed in a culture driven by women who grew up listening to the likes of Courtney Love, Alannis Morisette, Tori Amos, Meredith Brooks, etc. I can remember the sort of guys who dated Hole and Alannis fans, they were far more beta bucks than alpha fucks (much like Cobain). What sort of men wound up marrying these women, and what sort of sons would these women produce? I’m not old enough to remember the ’70s, although I’m aware of the reputation that time has for encouraging sensitive men; but in my lifetime, the ’90s were when the blue pill became truly overt for the first time. Did self-loathing produce the blue pill or vice versa? Or were they both produced by something else?

    And how about discussing the racial/cultural side of this: is it me or is the blue pill not mainly for middle class white men? Is not the manosphere at least 95% white? Let’s face it, who needs the red pill more than white men? If anything, belief in the blue pill in the first place is a white privilege. Certainly doesn’t seem to be a privilege that poor men (white, black or latino) can easily afford, and most of them don’t seem to buy it. Same with self-loathing. Go around the hood singing about what a wimp you are and see how long you last.

    Rollo’s a musician, it’d be interesting to hear his take on all that.

  40. @Softek

    Hehe, don’t think I’ll be keeping it, but it was amusing for this thread.

  41. @Sun Wukong

    16th law of power
    Use absence to increase respect and honor

    Sounds like she’s due for a little absence.

    This is something that takes a lot of internal work to be strong enough to navigate.

    Tempus’ question is a good one. There’s a school of thought about ultimatums…makes you looks strong. The problem is it’s a zero sum game. If you want something, you give away all your cards and walk away….then what? The next time you approach her, you’ve indicated you have no backbone.

    Ultimatums always end up giving the woman the signal the have more power over guys and feeds into their ego. The ‘take it or leave it’ might work with an offer on a house, but a woman’s sexual strategy enables her to be able to say “ok”… and then what? You’ve given away all power and shown how much she means to you.

  42. “So are men to blame for the conditions they find their women in? Are we our sisters’ keepers……?”

    No we are not. Social conventions and physical constraints kept women in check. Hypergamy was always there. It was an evolutionary survival mechanism that has become a maladaptation because it is no longer constrained.

    In the patriarchal past, men had more ‘power’ and they generally used it to protect and provide for their families. Women gained ‘power’ and have generally used it to destroy the institutions of marriage and family. Nobody forced them to be selfish and shortsighted.

    Assigning blame is usually deferred until the situation is resolved. In the case of Western civilization, the march to dystopia is just picking up steam. Besides, assigning blame to a person or group that believes they can do no wrong is….not useful.

  43. @ Sun

    I see, I see…

    @ Tingler

    Interesting observations. I’m right with you on all that. Huge music fan myself. Since becoming RP aware, I’ve become even more acutely aware of what’s going on with the lyrics in songs. One of my favorite pastimes lately is making fun of songs playing in stores/restaurants. I’ll just look over at my friend when a song comes on and go “What the fuck?”

    Or something along the lines of, “I haven’t heard sounds like that since my dog got hit by a car.”

    John Mayer: “Your Body Is A Wonderland.” You might as well cut off your own balls and donate them to science where they’ll actually serve some sort of purpose if you find yourself tapping your feet to that beauty.

  44. @ The Tingler

    Which came first the music of the misery?

    Fortunately for me my own tastes have always been ten to fifteen years behind. So I spent the 90s listening to a lot of 70s Punk and 80s New Wave, lots of jazz.

    I find today the worst offenders in your beta-music model all of course Country and Western. Jeez what a bunch of dickless manginas. All hat and no cattle as they say here out west.

  45. @The Tingler
    “If a woman doesn’t sleep with you on the first date because she thinks you’re relationship material, should you be offended?”

    And your name is : The Tingler!?

  46. Tingler,
    But Sweet Baby James started it all LOL! I fondled my first one-itis all the way to his concert in a carload of sluts then slept through the show….

  47. A rich Saudi oil sheik comes to Vagas and picks up a prostitute where he takes her to his hotel room. He asks her if he gives her $1000 will she shows him her boobs? And she does. He asks her if he gives her another $1000 , will she shows him her pussy? And she does. Then he asks her how much would it cost for a blow job? She looks at him and says : my blow job rate is 30 bucks.

  48. @Softek
    One unintended consequence of eating the red pill is that it’s made me completely reevaluate all the beta music that I’ve listened to over the years. A lot of it makes me cringe when I listen to it now, and even the stuff I still like I’m conflicted about. As for John Mayer…

    Did I go to high school with you? Because my friends and I did the exact same thing. While everybody else was into Nirvana and Pearl Jam, I was getting down to the Sex Pistols and early PiL. Then once Limp Bizkit was all the rage, I got into Nirvana and the Pixies. Music snobbery’s a lonely business.
    Reading Simon Reynolds history of post-punk/new wave, ‘Rip It Up and Start Again,’ was a real eye-opener on this sort of thing. Seems white pop culture has always fluctuated between periods of macho studs preening on stage and periods of wimpy beta males making millions by being sad sacks. I don’t know of any other culture that does that.

    And here I thought country music was the last bastion of white machismo?? I never listen to it, so I’ll take your word for it.

    Ha. I took my name from an old Severed Heads song, I didn’t know ‘the tingles’ was red pill slang when I chose it. I’m as FA as it gets. 😛 But the question remains.

  49. “I thought country music was the last bastion of white machismo?”

    I got a feelin’ called the blues, oh Lord,
    since my baby said good-bye.
    And I don’t know what I’ll do,
    I just sit alone and cry.
    I’ve grown so used to her somehow,
    but I’m nobody’s sugar daddy now,
    and I’m lonesome.
    I’ve got the lovesick blues,
    for me and my gal.

    Hank Williams

  50. Just in case you might want to revert your eyes from the unitard. . . . that’s fucked up.

    /Users/andrew/Desktop/DrewPics/untitled folder/IMG_1200.MOV

    Your welcome. Actually you should thank Candy.

  51. @kfg
    And to think, I used to be a high school art fag, listening to the Cure and getting shoved into my locker by the rednecks at my school.

    And then I grow up and I think, “Of course they shoved me into my locker, I was a mopey art fag wearing a ‘Boys Don’t Cry’ shirt for fuck’s sake. wtf was I thinking.”

    And then tonight you show me every redneck’s idol, Hank Williams, singing about moping and crying.

    Raging so hard right now.

  52. Even MGTOW is effectively an admission of a lack of agency, they have to effectively separate themselves from women to gain a semblance of personal agency. Otherwise they simply cannot help themselves being suckers under the spell of pussy.

    No. The current social reality is one of atomization, fragmentation, small social circles and small families. This means that if you, as a single men, don’t make regular concentrated efforts to put yourself in the company of single and available women, you won’t come into meaningful contact with them. In other words, you can separate yourself from them through simple passivity.

  53. Porn plays a significant role here, too, now that it is available in high definition, in seemingly endless variety and with the privacy and portability of a cell phone. It isn’t the same as the real thing (not close), but for a lot of these guys it’s enough to sate them such that the edge of their sex drive is blunted, which further discourages them from taking the steps required to succeed with women in an open hypergamy environment.

    You’re ignoring the gorilla in the room, which seems to be a common trait even among red pill men. The main factor blunting the edge of the average man’s sex drive is that a large and growing segment of their female peers aren’t making substantial efforts to present themselves as attractive. An overweight, frumpy, nasty, annoying broad who’s a PITA do interact with will blunt that edge well. Hell, we’re already in a situation where the majority of single women aren’t even fit for casual sex due to obesity and/or psychological baggage.

  54. What are men the gatekeepers of? It must be something. I don’t think it’s commitment. It isn’t provisioning, as women are capable of provisioning for themselves, (although possibly not for themselves, their children, and enough extra for taxes that go to the state, as men do).

    Which makes all the difference.

    You can provide a single woman with every imaginable economic opportunity, and she won’t use any of that for anything more than self-preservation. If she’s given the option of not reproducing at all or reproducing while consuming wealth created by herself, she’ll remain childless. She’ll bear children only if she’s entitled to direct male investment, guaranteed by law and society as a whole.

    That’s the reason women simply stop reproducing if stable marriage isn’t promoted and enforced by society – in other words, if she isn’t given the option to choose from potential husbands that are willing, able, and compelled to act as stable providers capable of satisfying her hypergamy. It’s no wonder that large Western cities normally have a total fertility rate below 1.0. They are areas of voluntary extinction.

    The average man is capable of something the average women is not and will never be capable of: volunteering to provide for others and himself as well. He’s the gatekeeper of voluntary provisioning. No progress is possible without that, because it’s not possible to base any social order on extracting net wealth from unwilling men. The cost of extraction would outweigh the benefits.

  55. If this doesn’t confirm everything TRM, PUA, Heartiste, and Evo Psych has ever posited, nothing will. Women on Facebook are eating this shit up like free truffles at a Mary Kay party. Although it may or may not be a joke, I saw the palpable hypergamy happening in real time.


  56. Of course it’s a joke on Leavitt’s part, but it’s like EL James 50 Shades crack for the Single Mom brigade.

  57. “She’ll bear children only if she’s entitled to direct male investment, guaranteed by law and society as a whole.”

    Got to admit that certainly explains a lot.

  58. Got to admit that certainly explains a lot.

    I’m pretty sure it does.

    There are two ways to guarantee direct male investment to reproduction.

    1. Enable, train and compel men to turn into stable providers in the context of traditional marriage. This limits female sexual selection but also results in high fertility rates.

    2. Make all attempts to extract child support from biological fathers. This isn’t as efficient, but it removes constraints from female sexual selection.

    When neither options are on the table, the fertility rate takes a dive and women start demanding legal and social change.

    A good example is Soviet Russia. The bolshevik dictatorship introduced no-fault divorce and strict child support laws in 1918. It turned out it’s kind of difficult to collect child support when the state is torn apart by famine and a brutal civil war among various armed factions, and state bureaucracy is terribly inefficient to begin with. Predictably the women reacted by throwing out their brood on a massive scale. It’s estimated there were 7 million street children in Russia after the civil war ended. It was a social and demographic catastrophe Russia never recovered from, even though the policy of no-fault divorce and free abortion was reversed by Stalin.

  59. Johnycomelately
    July 15th, 2015 at 8:56 pm

    “Even my perspective of alpha fucks has changed, far from being the top 20% they’re just men who are down to fuck without any emotional neediness. A breathing dildo.
    Women in their Sandbergian stage just want a good rogering without the icky beta neediness and believe it or not these types of men are quite rare. After all men are the true romantics.
    A beta with feelings just places too many expectations and pressure on women.”

    This. It’s all simple instincts. If a man doesn’t want commitment, she will and do what she can to get it. Same with sex btw. If the man doesn’t want, she will. She will even do the escalation and all that.

    But if the man wants commitment, he is needy and she will try to get away.

    Even Alpha is just subjective perception. Alpha from the perspective of a women is a man “who’s standards of female attractiveness she bareley meets” (to quote Charlotte Allens revealing self description). They have no clue who is “top 20%”. But they got strong instincts how much he wants her.

    Game isn’t faking to be “top 20%”, it’s playing those instincts.

  60. As a sex, men largely have very little say in determining the relationship dynamic.

    I’ll admit I’m not the most experienced guy, but when you’re giving a chick multiple orgasms it almost seems like they zero control over falling head over heals in love with you. And then they get crazy.

    So basically I’m asking the more experienced guys out there, are there a lot of chicks that’ll take those multiple O’s and still have zero attachment?

  61. @ lh

    Reminds me of the ‘cat string’ theory in The Game. Dangle the string, and the cat goes crazy — give it the string and it doesn’t want it anymore.

  62. @Andy

    So basically I’m asking the more experienced guys out there, are there a lot of chicks that’ll take those multiple O’s and still have zero attachment?


  63. You would think they want Betas and hate Alphas from how they talk too.

    Pay attention to what she does, not what she says.

  64. If a woman is married or engaged or in a LTR with strong finances, they will likely not want emotional attachment, but they will still want sexual access to alpha c0ck.

  65. Chase Amante says he doesn’t give chicks multiples unless he wants a relationship because of the drama factor… Seems like there might be differing experiences.

  66. I’ve given multiples to every chick I’ve had bail for another dude in the end, including my ex who was sure she couldn’t have them at all. It ain’t worth shit to them when they can have another cock the next day.

  67. Indeed.

    Cock is plentiful for women, and even alpha cock is plentiful for women who are attractive/hot. That’s just the facts. The fundamental imbalance in desire is just something men have to work with — it’s natural and baked in. The only counterweight to it is exceptional social/legal/cultural/religious constraints — when those come off, the imbalance rules the roost, as we see today, meaning men need to adapt and become the cock that women want, if they want to get laid.

  68. @JohnnyComealloveryourkeyboard & LH – Giggling at your characterization of “alpha fucks” as “breathing dildos”. No, we are just the guys who are attractive enough AND have dominance/social status and social intelligence that makes women want to fuck us without us begging. I have plenty of emotional neediness, I just know that for me pussy is plentiful. Or was when I was younger, as at 53 it’s much less frequent that I get interest from a young hottie, but still I only choose from women who are interested in me. This is the essence of alpha intersexual behavior – we are not pussy beggars. I always laugh hard at MGTOWs who call guys like me pussy beggars – they are projecting, I never beg. And now with a Red Pill mindset? Women do not rent space in my head, period. Nexting is a tremendously powerful thing.

    I do agree that the term “alpha” can be misused and is also not a great framework to begin with, as even alpha males in say wolf packs demonstrate more complex behavior. But it does capture the idea that females target men who demonstrate dominance and high value. If you read the Red Queen by Matt Ridley, this gets explained quite clearly as high status men throughout history have always reproduced more, meaning more women see them as the “best” path for their genes to succeed. Seeing alpha through this POV is helpful.

    I was out with my wingman again last night, great local country pub with an open mic played by seriously talented folks, and I’m becoming a regular performer (I had sworn off open mics but since I don’t have a regular gig and don’t want to chase one it’s a good way to drum up more gigs and DHV as the place has an amazing music rep in the region). Sadly it was an off night with very few cuties around. But still he did 3 approaches, I made 1 – no success but that happens. Still had a good time which is the entire point anyway.

    The wingman is pure blue pill. He’s been talking to me about this female roommate of his, who he fucked things up with already by asking her “why aren’t you interested” when she rebuffed a completely betaized attempt to fuck her. So he’s campaigning now, like a good beta, and he’s gonna get her, but of course is failing terribly. Even when he ignores her, he’s being beta because he’s doing it to try to “win her over” – essentially it’s all negotiated desire. I’m also getting smarter at dealing with beta guys and know I can talk till I’m blue in the face but that doesn’t really affect the underlying mindset.

    So instead I explained my approach. “I only go after women who demonstrate interest in me. I do consider how my behavior drives that, but it’s never aimed at just one woman. For example, look at how I’m dressed – stylish and sexy as I know women react to this but I don’t give a shit about the women who don’t react, only those who do. I do it to attract womEN not a womAN”

    It was like I dropped a bomb on his world. I continued, “She’s not interested in you, why are you chasing her? Do you think that will make her interested?” Lightbulbs finally popped in his eyes.

    Sadly, the other thing about last night was that I mostly got IOIs from the 40+ and fatties(getting older has consequences). There were only two hotties in the joint who met my standards but they were both with boyfriends AND orbiters, lol. I was watching this in two different groups and it was amazing to see how pathetic the orbiters are, it was like they were begging to be cuckolds. I still got a little EC from one of the hotties but there was nothing I could do with it.

    Mini FR: We are ordering food, and talking to the waitress. The wing has good opening skills in some ways – he’s fearless – but he just drives it into the ditch in a heartbeat every time. But at least I don’t have teach him to try, something most betas just never do. The waitress has huge earrings on that touch her clavicle and are quite notable. The wing is trying to relate to her about it, but I’m teasing her, telling her that if she doesn’t watch out her earlobes will stretch out and she likes it (she’s a 5 and 15 lbs overweight meaning I’d rather jerk off to porn).

    The wing then starts telling a stupid story about how he wore these huge earrings once (he has stud earrings already that look fine) and claims, “It got me in touch with my feminine side.” He then immediately states “all men have a feminine side” and I decide I can’t take it anymore and interject. “No, I don’t have a feminine side.” Waitress lights up. I continue, “I’m very self aware and looked very deeply inside and nope, there isn’t a drop of femininity in me.” Waitress loves it – wingman is sputtering claiming, “All men have a feminine side” – I interrupt him again just tell him, “No they do not.” I watch as he lets this sink in and he gets that what he just said is ridiculous and gets in that second that of course he doesn’t have a feminine side. There was more banter about it with the waitress, but I won’t bore with all the two an fro.

    This is a perfect example of what Rollo explicates about how the FI has convinced men to relate to women as equals. to pretend to understand them better than other men by demonstrating what they believe are feminine qualities that women want in a man. But in this instance, my wing could see easily that his line of BS was crashing and burning. You should have seen the facial expressions on the waitress’s face while he was describing his feminine side and the earings – amused disgust. When I chime in, she lights up, beaming. It’s fun to train the new wingman, and I’m doing with him what I do with women – I’m demonstrating, not explicating. In just two nights out with him he’s already told me – “I have no idea what I’m doing, please help me.” Lol, my approach is so different from him that he can’t avoid the reality of his failure while in every encounter we have with women I get them laughing, I create a little tension, I’m often teasing and criticizing these girls, pushing and pulling. He sees that it works in ways he’s never experienced. We’ll see how he does. He’s a decent looking guy, in better shape then me 15 years younger, is smart, can hold a conversation and is successful in his career.

    For alphas, pussy is plentiful. We also know that women are interchangeable due to experience. This part was hardest for me to acknowledge even while having an N over 100 while I was still blue pill. It was only after the Red Pill and starting to intentionally spin plates and dealing with the Oneitis that comes up from time to time with a woman that I realized how true it was that women are interchangeable. But now that I have internalized that? Women simply are not that important to me. Sex is though…more than ever.

    This is why I think most guys will never be able to “alpha up”. It was only by fucking very hot women and having them interested in me that made me able to “next” and not beg. It’s only by actually having options that I’m able to not get locked into any one woman. I do think that men with the right basic raw material can alpha up. But they have to be attractive to begin with and also have to be smart enough and interested enough to develop a new mindset. I also think that you can’t fake social dominance – I have it, most guys don’t. And never will no matter how many blogs they read.

    Don’t hate the players, hate the game. Prostitutes are viable option for angry Betas but such a man will likely vassalize himself to a prostitute too, lol…

  69. It’s only by actually having options that I’m able to not get locked into any one woman.

    I don’t know how you can still have a beta mindset after the realization of faulty oneitis logic and knowing that women will never love unconditionally. I guess it would be tempting to think that I’m special, but I doubt it.

  70. You can bust a blood vessel trying to parse alpha songs vs. beta songs in any genre, even hip hop. Country can be macho DGAF alpha (Jimmy Dean’s “Little Black Book”) or supplicating whiny beta onlooker whose twu wuv sleeps with “anyone you could get” (Roy Acuff’s “Losing You Might Be The Best Thing Yet”). Eminem straddles both worlds comcially in “Love Game”. The counterpoint to emo-punk or political punk are gems like the Anti-Nowhere League’s “So What” (covered by Metallica), a hysterical dis-fest inspired by two loudmouth yobs. All the above can be ewe-toobed.

    Long ago I kept a list of whiny beta toons like the Beatles’ “I’m A Loser” or “You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away” to soothe me during my whiny beta feeling-sorry-for-myself days; it is quite the larf to look at now. Any a youse piss me off, I’ll crash the comments section by posting it. 🙂

  71. Rollo, I have an interesting anecdote my brother told me and a question (which I believe I haven’t seen in your posts) that you and the fellas here might like.

    So, this guy from work, fairly successful, Game-aware from what I can tell, is in an LTR. The fun part is that he is messing with one of his female colleagues at work.

    So, one time, he takes out his side-girl-from-work blonde on Valentine’s Day (ahehe) to some club, only to run in on his LTR girlfriend. At some point, his girlfriend comes up to him and says “I’ll pretend I didn’t see this”.
    Few years later, she is carrying his child and they are engaged.

    Isn’t this a fine example?

    But let’s not focus on that.

    Regarding this story and the “enlightened self-interest” in males we were discussing, my friend brought up this question:

    “Is there such a thing as woman who has enlightened self-interest?”

    It came as a counter role to this story. Switch the genders, and say this were to happen to a guy who knows his self-worth, he would have just walked away from the situation.

    But in a scene like this, where it happens to a woman, is such a thing possible?

  72. Being able to give women 10 orgazms means zero credit.
    She just have to lean on the laundry machine to get orgazm.
    She uses the orgazm scheme as a leverage.
    For women having an orgazm is like taking a piss.
    Giving her best orgazm or her best piss?
    Women themselves don’t understand men’s obsession in women’s piss (I mean orgazm).

    1. CH once had a post about a study that showed women would fake orgasms more often (or at all) with more Alpha men.

      Betas in the comment section of that study naturally thought thought this was due to their better sexual skills or their greater attention to a woman’s pleasure.

      Turns out women were more likely to fake an orgasm with Alphas in order to keep them around for potential LTR pairing. His pleasure took priority as a value-added prospect. Betas weren’t worth the effort of faking it for because women know they’ll stick around because they lack options.

  73. ” . . . such a man will likely vassalize himself to a prostitute too, lol…”

    And they actually marry those actual hos.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: