The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies


When I first began writing on SoSuave over a decade ago I used to get into what I consider now some fairly predictable arguments about monogamy. It was an interesting time since it was around then I was getting into some heated arguments in my behavioral psychology classes in college.

I had just written what would later become my essay, There is no One and a good majority of my classmates and all of my teachers but one were less than accepting of the theory. I anticipated most of the women in those classes would be upset – bear in mind this was around 2001-02 and the Red Pill was yet to be a thing – what I was surprised by was how many men became hostile by my having challenged the soulmate myth.

I got a lot of the same flack from women then that I get from uninitiated women when they read my work now; “Aren’t you married? Isn’t she your soulmate? Don’t you believe in love? You must’ve got burned pretty bad at some time Mr. Hateful.” Those were and are what I expect because they’re the easy subroutine responses a Blue Pill ego needs to protect itself with. There was a time I probably would’ve mouthed the same. That’s how the conditioning works; it provides us with what we think ought to be ‘obvious’ to anyone. And at the same time, we feel good for ‘defying the odds’ and believing in what we take for granted, or common sense.

This is how deep the subconscious need for assuring our genetic heritage goes. For women this assurance is about optimal Hypergamy, for men, it’s about assurances of paternity. In either case, we need to believe that we will reproduce, and so much so that we will attribute some supernatural influence to the process of doing so. The fulfillment of your own sexuality is nothing less than your battle for existence, and on some level, your subconscious understands this. Thus, for the more religious-minded it gets attributed to fate and faith, whereas for the more secular-minded it’s about the romanticized notion of a soulmate.

Monogamy & ONEitis

I contemplated the idea of ONEitis for a long time back then. I’d most certainly been through it more than once, even with the BPD ex-girlfriend. By then I understood first hand how the belief absorbs a Beta and how it is an essential element, effectively a religion, for a Blue Pill life experience. I didn’t realize it then, but I was maturing into a real valuation of myself and I had the benefit of some real-world experiences with the nature of women to interpret and contrast what I was learning then.

Honestly, I had never even encountered the term ‘ONEitis’ prior to my SoSuave forum days. I referred to the soulmate myth in my writing as best I could, but it wasn’t until (I suppose) Mystery had coined the term. Outside the ‘sphere people got genuinely upset with me when I defined it for them.  Back then I attributed this to having their ego-investment challenged, and while that’s part of it, today I believe there’s more to it than this.

The old social contracts that constituted what I call the Old Set of Books meant a lot in respect to how the social orders prior to the sexual revolution were maintained. That structuring required an upbringing that taught men and women what their respective roles were, and those roles primarily centered on a lifetime arrangement of pair bonding.

It’s interesting to note that the popular theory amongst evolutionary anthropologists is that modern monogamous culture has only been around for just 1,000 years. Needless to say, it’s a very unpopular opinion that human beings are in fact predisposed to polyamory / polygyny and monogamy is a social adaptation (a necessary one) with the purpose of curbing the worst consequences of that nature. We want to believe that monogamy is our nature and our more feral impulses are spandrels and inconveniences to that nature. We like the sound of humans having evolved past our innate proclivities to the point that they are secondary rather than accepting them as fundamental parts of who we really are.

Women, in particular, are far more invested in promoting the idea of ‘natural’ monogamy since it is their sex that bears the cost of reproductive investments. Even the hint of men acknowledging their ‘selfish gene’ nature gets equated with a license to cheat on women. This is an interesting conflict for women who are increasingly accepting (if not outright flaunting) of Open Hypergamy.

I’ve attempted in past essays to address exactly this duplicity women have to rationalize with themselves. The Preventive Medicine book and posts outline the conflict and how women internalize and ‘hamsterize’ the need to be both Hypergamously selective, but to also prioritize long-term security at various stages of their lives. Ultimately a woman’s position on monogamy is ruled by how she balances her present Alpha Fucks with her future prospects of Beta Bucks.

Seed and Need

It might be that women would rather share a confirmed Alpha with other women than be saddled with a faithful Beta, but that’s not to say that necessity doesn’t eventually compel women to settle for monogamy with a dutiful Beta. In either respect, the onus of sustained, faithful monogamy is always a responsibility placed upon men. The indignation that comes from even the suspicions of a man’s “straying”, a wandering eye, or preplanned infidelity is one of the most delicious sensations a woman can feel. Women will create syndicated talk shows just to commiserate around that indignation.

But in an era when the likes of Sheryl Sandberg encourages women to fully embrace their Hypergamous natures and expects men to be equally accepting of it, it takes a lot of psychological gymnastics to reconcile the visceral feelings of infidelity with the foreknowledge that a less exciting Beta will be the only type of man who will calm her suspicions.

It’s important to also contrast this with the socialization efforts to make women both victims and blameless. As I mention in the last post, men who lack the appreciation of the necessity to prepare for a sustained monogamy with a woman are considered ‘kidults’ or prolonging their adolescence. They are shamed for not meeting women’s definition of being mature; that definition is always one that centers on the idea that men ought to center their lives around being better-than-deserved, faithful, monogamous potentials for women’s long-term security and parental investment.

On the other hand, women are never subject to any qualifications like this. In fact, they are held in higher regard for bucking the system and staying faithful to themselves by never marrying or even aborting children along the way to do so. So once again, we return to the socialization effort necessary to absolve women of the consequences that the conflict Hypergamy poses to them – they become both victims and blameless in confronting a monogamy they expect from men, but are somehow exempt from when it’s inconvenient.

Pair Bonding

Arguably, pair bonding has been a primary adaptation for us that has been species-beneficial. It’s fairly obvious that humans’ capacity for both intra- and inter-sexual cooperation has made us the apex species on the planet. However, the Feminine Imperative’s primary social impetus of making Hypergamy the defining order of (ideally) all cultures is in direct conflict with this human cooperativity. A new order of open Hypergamy, based on female primacy (and the equalist importance of the individual), subverts the need for pair bonding. There is no need for intersexual interdependence (complementarity) when women are socialized and lauded for being self-satisfying, self-sufficient individuals.

Add to this the conditioning of unaccountable victimhood and/or the inherent blamelessness of women and you get an idea of where our social order is heading.

Both sex’s evolved sexual strategies operate counter to the demands of pair bonded monogamy. For millennia we’ve adapted social mechanisms to buffer for it (marriage, male protectionism of women, etc.), but the cardinal rule of sexual strategies still informs these institutions and practices:


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

In this respect, it is men who are expected to make the greater compromise due to an evolved sense of uncertainty about paternity and the social mandate to accommodate women’s sexual strategy.

The counter to this is that women have always borne the responsibility of parental investment if they chose a father poorly (or didn’t choose), but in our post-sexual revolution social order, the consequences of this responsibility have been virtually eliminated. In fact, those consequences are now viewed as evidence of women’s independent strength.

Even aborting a child is a source of pride now.

Men bear the greater effect of compromising their sexual strategies to accommodate and resolve the strategy of women. When we account for the normalization of open Hypergamy, soft cuckoldry, and the legal resistance to paternity testing (ostensibly centering on the emotional wellbeing of the child in question) it is much clearer that men bear the most direct consequences for compromising their sexual imperatives.

From Warren Farrell’s book. Why Men are the Way They Are (h/t to SJF):

Why are men so afraid of commitment? Chapter 2 explained how most men’s primary fantasy is still, unfortunately, access to a number of beautiful women. For a man, commitment means giving up this fantasy. Most women’s primary fantasy is a relationship with one man who either provides economic security or is on his way to doing so (he has “potential”). For a woman, commitment to this type of man means achieving this fantasy. So commitment often means that a woman achieves her primary fantasy, while a man gives his up. — P.150

Men who “won’t commit” are often condemned for treating women as objects — hopping from one beautiful woman to the next. Many men hop. But the hopping is not necessarily objectifying. Men who “hop from one beautiful woman to another” are usually looking for what they could not find at the last hop: good communication, shared values, good chemistry. — P.153

The meaning of commitment changed for men between the mid-sixties and the mid-eighties. Commitment used to be the certain route to sex and love, and to someone to care for the children and the house and fulfill the “family man image.” Now men feel less as if they need to marry for sex; they are more aware that housework can be hired out and that restaurants serve meals; they are less trapped by family-man image motivation, including the feeling that they must have children. Increasingly, that leaves men’s main reason to commit the hope of a woman to love. — P.159

Dr. Farrell is still fundamentally trapped in a Blue Pill perspective because he still clings to the validity of the old order books/rules, and the willfully ignorant hope that women will rationally consider men’s sexual imperatives as being as valid as their own.

That said, Farrell’s was the germ of the idea I had for the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies, he just didn’t go far enough because he was (and still is) stuck in Blue Pill idealistic hopes of monogamy. Bear in mind, Farrell’s book is based on his intrasexual understandings of everything leading up to its publication in 1986, however, this does give us some insight into how the old order evolved its approach to monogamy then into an open, socially accepted form of Hypergamy now.

He relies on the old trope that men are afraid of commitment by reasoning that men only want to fulfill a fantasy of unlimited access to unlimited sexuality – all shallow, all superficial, while women’s priority of commitment is correct, selfless, valid and blameless. Farrell also reveals his Blue Pill conditioning by making the presumption that men only Game women in the hope that they’ll find a unicorn, and they’re endlessly fucking women for no other reason than to find a woman with good communication, shared values, good chemistry, etc.

I sincerely doubt that even in the mid 8os this was the case for men not want to commit to a woman, or essentially compromise his sexual strategy to accommodate that of women’s. Farrell never came to terms with dual nature of women’s sexual strategy and how it motivates women over time because he believes men and women have, fundamentally, the same concept of love and mutually shared end-goals.

Mandates & Responses

In the decades since this publication, the normalization and legal mandates that ensure men will (by force if necessary) comply with this compromise is something I doubt Farrell could’ve ever predicted. Legal aspects, social aspects, that used to be a source of women stigmatization about this compromise have all been swept away or normalized, if not converted to some redefined source of supposed strength. Abortion rights, single parenting (almost exclusively the domain of women), postponing birth, careerism, freezing women’s eggs, sperm banks, never-marrying, body fat acceptance and many more aspects are all accepted in the name of strong independence® for women.

Virtually anything that might’ve been a source of regret, shame, or stigmatization in the old order is dismissed or repurposed to elevate women, but what most men never grasp (certainly not Dr. Farrell) is that all of these normalizations were and are potential downsides to a woman’s Hypergamous decisions.

MGTOW/PUA/ The Red Pill, are all the deductive responses to this normalization, but also, they’re a response to the proposition of the compromise that the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies presents to men in today’s sexual marketplace.

In all of these ‘movements’ the fundamental, central truth is that they all run counter to the presumption that men must compromise (or abandon) their sexual imperatives – long or short term. Thus, these ideologies and praxeologies have the effect of challenging or removing some of the total control of Hypergamy women now have mandated to them. Even just the concepts of MGTOW/PUA/TRP are equatable to removing this control.

However, it is still undeniable that there is a necessity for monogamy (even if it’s just temporary) or some iteration of pair bonding that ensures men and women raise healthier, stronger, better-developed children. We are still social animals and, despite what equalism espouses, we are different yet complementary and interdependent with one another. Mutual cooperation, tribalism, monogamy and even small-scale polygamy have been beneficial social adaptations for us.

Gynocentrism and the respondent efforts against it defeat this complementary cooperative need.

Gynocentrism / egalitarianism defeat this cooperation in its insistence that equalism, self-apart independence, and homogeny ought to be society’s collective mental point of origin in place of the application of differing strengths to differing weaknesses.

So we come to an impasse then. It’s likely it will require a traumatic social event to reset or redefine the terms of our present social contract to ever make monogamy a worthwhile compromise for men again. We can also contrast this ‘raw deal’ compromise against the Cardinal Rule of Relationships: In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. It’s easy to think women simply have no need of men when their long-term security is virtually assured today, but fem-centrism goes beyond just separating the sexes by need. It wasn’t enough to just separate male and female cooperation, fem-centrism has made men’s compromise so bad that they must be made to despise their sex altogether. Men had to be made not only to accept their downside compromise but to feel ashamed for even thinking not to.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

560 comments on “The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies

  1. @YaReally

    Great reframes, thanks. It’s these small things that make the ride more sustainable & less likely to be something I’ll walk away from before I’ve given myself a chance to fail in order to learn. The bit about not spending any money & waking up fresh the next morning’s been my go-to positive takeaway. My buds were all slurring & messy & no doubt had a painful morning. Appreciate the breakdown about momentum, avoidance behaviours & ego protection – aligns with my experiences & good to have it explained from a veteran so I can be a little easier on myself.

  2. As an older (late 40s) guy it seems to work to my advantage that I don’t have bad boy appeal or any tattoos. I think it’s a reason I don’t give off a creepy old man vibe like many hardened former bad boys do. I am surprised how many young women are drawn to me (no I’m not rich). I recently banged a girl in her mid 20s. I was turned off by her tattoos (which just about all women have unfortunately) but I didn’t let that stop me. I couldn’t help but think if I was her age she would have rejected me for being too nice and clean-cut but for some strange reason these qualities help me now.

    I recently saw a 1976 clip from Dick Clark’s American Bandstand and was in awe by how wimpy young men were back then.No muscles , no tattoos and no bad boy appeal whatsoever. Today’s young men (contrary to popular belief) are 1000X more masculine looking than the harmless looking guys of 40 years ago. The sexual revolution already passed by 1976 so there had to be a lag time of at least 20 years after the revolution before men had to man up their appearance to attract women.

    Does anyone have any thoughts on the role hypergamy has on the current heroin epidemic? It seems there are more drug addicts in general than anytime I can remember. I wonder if it’s because there are more miserable people than before due to hypergamy? Yet I doubt it’s the nice guys who can’t get laid who have needles in their veins. I would guess a lot of male junkies were once popular with the ladies because of their bad boy appeal. As for the female addicts. . Perhaps many were drawn to bad boys and as a byproduct of that environment ended up around drugs, experimented with them and became addicted?

  3. I recently saw a 1976 clip from Dick Clark’s American Bandstand and was in awe by how wimpy young men were back then.No muscles , no tattoos and no bad boy appeal whatsoever. Today’s young men (contrary to popular belief) are 1000X more masculine looking than the harmless looking guys of 40 years ago.

    There are times in history where seemingly contradictory trends coexist in society, which can be confusing to simple-minded people. What you’re talking about seem to be one of these trends. What we’re probably seeing is that tattoos and workouts are becoming more popular among a small and decreasing segment of the young male population, while the majority is becoming more and more wimpy and skinny/fat, not doing any phsyical exercise at all. It’s the same with Game – it’s spearing among a small and decreasing minority, while a much larger and growing segment (but probably not yet a majority, or even plurality) is opting out of the mating market altogether.

  4. Does anyone have any thoughts on the role hypergamy has on the current heroin epidemic?

    It’s mostly driven by economic factors, I’d say. The main reason why young people avoid drugs is because drug addiction mostly results in excommunication from polite normie society (unless you’re some celebrity). That used to be serious stuff, because such ostracism meant the loss of economic opportunities, which used to be plentiful even for average people with high school diplomas and lousy college degress, lacking specialized skills. If you had a reputation in your community as a junkie, you couldn’t get a good job, couldn’t find a worthy wife, probably couldn’t even find a place to rent, couldn’t get a bank loan.

    But times have changed. If you’re an average white dude with a high school diploma or some average, lousy college degree, living in some average normie neighborhood deeply affected by economic stagnation, what do you have to gain by presenting yourself as a hard-working normie? Economic opportunities are shitty or non-existent, stable marriage to a worthy woman isn’t on the table, and reputations don’t matter much in an atomized, stagnant, apathetic society. The idea of doing drugs as a pastime suddenly doesn’t seem so dangerous anymore.

  5. @Höllenhund

    While it’s sad in a way (and unnatural biologically) it sounds pleasant to live in a society with a large and growing segment opting out of the mating market. The idea of it reaching a majority sounds kind of exciting to me actually. I like the idea of not having to see young men peacock themselves in any way. I also see it bringing down all levels of violence from the bar fight to going to war. Perhaps this is why crime (up until this year) has been plunging the past couple of decades?

    Your economic drug theory is interesting and sounds right. I wonder if the powers that made life more dismal/hopeless for a large segment of men knew there would be consequences? Or did they think those men would somehow be motivated to still invest in society?

  6. @Jay

    Come to think of it, “opting out” isn’t even an accurate expression here. It’s not like in the old days, when young men “just happened” to get pulled into the mating market through their wide social circle and extended family, where society was structured in a way that promoted controlled and regular interaction between young men and women, where young people were introduced to each other all the time by matchmakers etc. The mating market was integrated into wider society.

    Today the dating market exists as a separate sphere where you’re only present if you make continued effort to enter. You have to get off your ass, learn Game (otherwise you’re toast), go out and visit various spaces with the sole/main purpose of hitting on women, buy shoes and clothes for the sole purpose of wearing while hitting on women etc. If you don’t do all this stuff, you’re off the mating market.

    So it’s not like many men are “opting out” of the mating market, it’s that they aren’t opting into it. Most of these guys aren’t MGTOW in the sense of the word we normally use here in the ‘sphere, it’s not even a conscious effort on their part. It’s simply that they aren’t doing this stuff because they see it as a hassle with marginal potential gains.

    I wonder if the powers that made life more dismal/hopeless for a large segment of men knew there would be consequences? Or did they think those men would somehow be motivated to still invest in society?

    They don’t care. They probably see 40-60% of the male population as useless, worthless ballast. Current Western society simply doesn’t need them. They aren’t drafted or recruited into the army, because there are no big wars anymore. They aren’t recruited by factories and steel mills as workers, because those are all outsourced or bankrupt. They aren’t needed for farmwork, because small farms are gone. Women don’t want to fuck them, and many women don’t even want to marry them, not even when they’re hitting the wall themselves. And since they are seen as needless, they are also not needed as fathers, because who needs that many male children when grown men are mostly seen as useless in the first place?

  7. @Junior – happy to help with some perspective and most importantly the knowledge that other guys are doing the same thing/same journey as you in similar circumstances (if I remember your posts correctly – you’re also mid-30s like me right?)

    I have one last big FR coming up in the next couple of days on my Sat night out and then I’m done till the next Blitz Week in Sep.

    One thing I’ll add is that it’s very valuable to write up detailed FRs (especially when interactions get more indepth). Ideally you’d post them somewhere like here (strip out identifying/city/girl details of course) but they are valuable even if you write them as private notes.

    It’s a record of your journey and forces you to introspect and be analytical plus if you post them here you get (a) literally world-class free advice not just from YaReally but the rest of the gang – this is the kind of stuff you’d have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for from RSD et al and (b) it helps keep you accountable – I literally have done a bunch of things because I thought to myself “What would YaReally/Sentient/HABD say if I wimped out on doing [X] now?” (that includes my EPIC 20 min meet-to-lay LR from a couple months ago with a 20 year old).

    Don’t worry too much about whether you get much in the way of replies etc if you do post detailed FRs – all the guys who are into the PUA side of things here will read them (the rest will use the scroll wheel) and help to the extent we are able/time allows. But just the act of writing them up is very helpful anyway. I keep a personal journal of all my FRs here (and on CH before this) with a few identifying details added in the personal version – names of girls, venues, etc.

  8. I’m a bit shy on time to write much, but thank you for the extensive replies to my comments. YaReally and SJF particularly – very different perspectives but no contradiction. I’m reading and metabolizing both.

    I couldn’t go out this weekend with good reason, but it’s not for lack of desire. I gotta work on my day opens particularly.

    Having a broader perspective about what’s happening has been very helpful in not letting myself get dragged into the emotional feelz morass that most men are subjected to during betaization. I’m just like ‘pros/cons; ok I gotta get two more plates on the go for the time being and hold frame in the meanwhile.’


  9. @kfg a better comparison to 17 year old Justin Bieber would be someone like Shawn Cassidy or Donny Osmond. Through the decades all musical artists marketed to pre teen/early teen girls have been non-threatening boyish looking types.

  10. Except I wasn’t trying to show that the packaged pretty boys have always existed, but that the bad boys have always existed outside of that marketing agenda, which American Bandstand represented.

  11. @Culum

    Yup, we’re about the same age I’d say. Really awesome hearing what you’re up to, & I appreciate the encouragement to post FRs. The main reason I haven’t is that I don’t feel they deserve attention at this stage ie. I’ve not put in enough field time to generate worthy reports & scrutiny from the more experienced chaps here. I have been lucky in that I’ve had a couple of same night / same day pulls, & girls that I could’ve pulled but didn’t (one was married out with her girls… I chose not to at the time but I’ve changed my views since – & the other was more drunk than I like) which would likely have held value for others here, but they were over a year ago now. Though I hear what you’re saying about using the FRs & statements of intent made here to your peers as leverage infield to push you into scenarios you’d otherwise bitch out of. I don’t have a reason not to really, other than the fear of putting myself in that situation & then bitching out lol. For now I intend to use my personal leverage of disappointing efforts in not pulling the trigger to open to head infield – I believe I know enough to know what I need to work on, & if I open at least 10 sets in a night I’ll indulge myself in a FR here. It’s amazing how much you can read about this stuff, only to fail to simply open consistently. I’ve been writing up personal FRs, & always think over how I could’ve done things better in each set.

    Have also found I seem to be more a PoTH guy than PoS. I’ve got a couple of ex-FBs (who admittedly aren’t quite the standard of girl I’m looking for) I could likely arrange sex with within a few days, & while the prospect seems tempting at the time when I’m horny, it’s usually just easier to rub one out & then I’m no longer interested. My fascination with the dynamics discussed here seems to be more about a kind of social freedom, & ofcourse having many options & hotter women in my life lol.

  12. @DisgruntledEarthling

    After reading yareally’s archives, I am studying Mystery Method again slowly. Like you said, it is reinforcing what ya says and helping in gaining newer insights .

    @Culum Struan

    I do it in a major city which is catching up the western world values.. so it is not as receptive as US. The bars and pubs here only allow couple without exorbitant rates and for a single guy it is fucking madness and too costly.

    There are small groups here and actually I have a lot of wings here since we have our own groups through media channels and we meet,exchange numbers and sarge in same locations and suddenly can see who is sarging and a PUA talking to girls lol.

    Have been reading ya’s archives and TRM from March. Will post some FRs very soon.

  13. I like the “manosphere” for what it is but as a Christian woman all these appeals to rationalize sexual promiscuity in men and women is not at all rational or even red pill. If anyone is under the impression that sexual sins are some sort of “survival strategy” they are still taking the wrong pill, it may not be the “blue pill” but it certainly is not the red one. The truth of the matter is the post sexual revolution societies are dying, literally they have negative birth rates and I think about 1 in 5 pregnancies is ending in abortion now a days. So our little “survival methods” appear to be a big flop. Of course without the ubiquitousness of contraception and safe accessible abortion the lifestyle of sleeping around in one’s youth and then finally marrying at 30 would be a pipe dream for women especially which would automatically curtail men. I think the average age of women for having their first child is actually lower than the age for their first marriage now. So contraception is only working well enough to create a sense of security, it delays child bearing just enough to make whoredom appear “rational” but it’s obviously catching up with us and these “red pill blogs, PUAs, and MGTOWs” are just more symptoms of the sexual degeneracy of our age.

    Bottom line, monogamy is not unnatural for men or women, it may require us to overcome our base instincts but that is human nature, that is what is natural for humans. We are not animals, we do not thrive by behaving like animals, it’s really what sets us apart. I feel sorry for our culture, the divorce rates, the single motherhood rates, the STDs, the rise of LGBT, abortion and child abuse all these stem from promiscuity, the rationalizing of it, the making it “normal” when it is anything but. The problem is the sin, and trying to reason away sin does not work because there is no reason in it. It’s not even about reason, it’s about succumbing to base instincts which are obviously irrational. Reason is overcoming the base instinct for a higher purpose. Reason is thinking before acting. Both men and women are guilty because they have this mentality that they can “outsmart” God or something, like they can rise above natural law and order. But when women are running in the streets “protesting” half naked to defend killing babies in their womb and men are “going there own way” and/or devising methods for sleeping with married women who is “surviving”? Where is the West headed? Looks like death and destruction to me. It’s great that so many men are able to rise above the social conditioning that normalizes promiscuity in women, (the “man up and marry those sluts” narrative) but if they go there own way or become pick up artist they just become another casualty of sexual revolution, much like the children in the trash cans behind PP. We must proclaim the truth about human nature both men and women’s inclination towards sin, but not destroy ourselves in the process. Have faith, all evil destroys itself, I do think a culture of marriage and stability can be fostered but many of us will have to swallow our pride and stick to our principles. I suspect things may worsen before they get better and it will take a few generations to undo the damage but it will be undone one way or another.

  14. ” . . . literally they have negative birth rates . . . ”

    Literally, a negative birth rate would be women walking around sucking people into their wombs where they would degestate them.

    Which is something rather different than a birth rate lower than replacement.

  15. @kfg

    You got me on the semantics there. But my point was clear, if whorish women are literally killing their own offspring in defense of their whoredom, such whoredom cannot be described as a “survival strategy” or some of appeal to natural selection at all. The best way for a society to produce a good amount of healthy kids that grow up to be productive citizens and repeat the cycle is through monogamy, through marriage. Sure there are outliers among individuals but generally speaking monogamy has the highest success rate for societies as a whole. It was always that way and so long as human children require the massive investment they do to survive to adulthood it will stay that way. The reason women and men are so promiscuous today is because the children requiring such investment and stability can be reasonably avoided, (or outright killed within a certain time frame). So when I read people trying to claim that these behaviors are some sort of survival mechanism rather than pure unbridled hedonism (akin really to substance abuse) it’s almost hilarious. The cognitive dissonance is astounding, and to highlight let’s do a social experiment and make abortion on demand illegal as well as contraception I think you can see where this would lead us.

  16. Monogamy isn’t the panacea you think it is in a feminine-primary social order that makes marriage an all downside proposition for men.

    And legislatively it’s only getting worse:

    Abortion is in fact a preemptive survival behavior. Infanticide has been going on a lot longer than since the sexual revolution, but it has the same culling effect of stamping out undesired genetic lines.

    That’s not a moral statement, but functionally abortion (infanticide) is the ultimate expression of Hypergamy (for women because they have exclusive legal rights to do so).

    Legislating Hypergamy

    From the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy this amounts to socially shaming men’s sexual imperatives while simultaneously empowering women’s short-term sexual strategies and fomenting men’s societal acceptance of it (i.e. the Sandberg plan for Open Hypergamy). This is further enforced from a legal perspective through consent laws and vague “anti-harassment” legislation to, ideally, optimize women’s hypergamous prospects.

    When we read about instances of the conveniently fluid definitions of rape and harassment (not to mention the pseudo-victimhood of not being harassed), this then turns into proposed “rape-by fraud” legislation. Hypergamy wants absolute certainty, absolute veracity, that it will be secured in its optimization. And in an era when the only restraint on Hypergamy depends on an individual woman’s capacity for being self-aware of it, that Hypergamy necessitates men be held legally responsible for optimizing it.

    Even the right for women to have safe and legal abortions finds its root in women’s want to mandate an insurance of their Hypergamous impulses. Nothing says “he wasn’t the right guy” like the unilateral power to abort a man’s genetic legacy in utero.

    Feminist boilerplate would convince us that expanding definitions of rape is an effort to limit men’s control of women’s bodies – however, the latent purpose of expanding the definition is to consolidate on the insecurity all women experience with regard to optimizing Hypergamy.

    The Beta Bucks insurance aspect of Hypergamy is evidenced by cultural expectations of male deference to wives’ authority in all decision making aspects of a marriage or relationship. And once again this expectation of deference is a grasping for assurances of control should a woman’s Hypergamous choosing of a man not meet her expectations. This is actualized covertly under the auspices of egalitarian equalism and the dubious presumptions of support and feminine identification on the part of men.

    Beyond this there are of course the ubiquitous divorce, support, child support and domestic violence legalities that grossly favor women’s interests – which should be pointed out are rooted in exactly the same Hypergamous insecurity that her short-term Alpha Fucks mating strategies demand legislation for.

    As Open Hypergamy becomes more institutionalized and made a societal norm by the Feminine Imperative, and as more men become Red Pill aware (by effort or consequences) because of it, the more necessary it will become for a feminine-primary social order to legislate and mandate men comply with it.

    From a male perspective, the social impetus of the past 5-6 generations has been one of socially reinforcing men’s open acceptance of their own cuckoldry. Instead of killing the children of his woman’s prior sexual pairings he’s socially encouraged and legally mandated to provide for and parentally invest himself in offspring sired by another (often more Alpha) man.

    You can paint the situation up with all the Jesus Fish logos you want, but functionally everything you’ve been ranting about is ultimately the fulfillment of the female sexual strategy. In the short term, it seems like wanton sexual hedonism, but that only lasts for an instant next to the long term evolutionary function of it.

  17. “if whorish women are literally killing their own offspring in defense of their whoredom, such whoredom cannot be described as a “survival strategy” or some of appeal to natural selection at all.”

    Eating their own young is a rather common tactic of species survival.

    Most large, predatory animals have biological mechanisms to severely limit the rate at which they can reproduce, including humans. These mechanisms are sensitive to environmental factors and “ramp” up or down.

    Even bacteria usually reproduce at much less than capacity, since over reproduction results in the death of the colony. You yourself are infected with E. Coli bacteria right now, but are not sick because the bacterium are communicating with others not to reproduce enough to trigger your immune system to a major response.

    Populations that only rise – die; and humans have recently undergone a massive population increase, tripling within my own lifetime, from a base which was already double what it had been within a single lifetime.

    In two centuries we have gone from 1 billion to more than 7 billion. It may simply be time for a regression to the mean, for survival’s sake.

    Biological mechanisms do not read the Bible.

  18. ” . . . let’s do a social experiment and make abortion on demand illegal as well as contraception I think you can see where this would lead us.”

    I have lived there, child. The tripling of the population occurred after the introduction of the pill and Roe v. Wade, and is still increasing.

  19. ” … literally they have negative birth rates and I think about 1 in 5 pregnancies is ending in abortion now a days. ”

    Absolute, 100% fantasy bullshit.

  20. The negative birthrate is prima facie retarded (as noted, she meant less than replacement birthrate), but the abortion to pregnancy carried to term ratio actually is 5.0650.

    246 abortions per 1246 pregnancies. Or, put the more typical way, 246 abortions per 1000 live births, rounded off a 4 to 1 ratio.

  21. ” . . . let’s do a social experiment and make abortion on demand illegal as well as contraception I think you can see where this would lead us.”

    Please clarify that you are talking about The West. The broad brushing of the entire world is quite annoying otherwise. 7 billion people on the planet, not all are in the West, or following western dictates.

    Thank you.

  22. The feminine’s true nature revealed in all its gory…

  23. Pingback: The Key Masters |
  24. @YaReally

    “Raising Andy is enough work as it is, I gotta change his diapers every time he shits out another existential crisis”

    fucking lol. Thanks for being patient with me. Same to everyone else.


    All good shit. Thanks for your insights. I must be easy to peg. lol. This place is just an incredible resource. Amazing wisdom being shared here. 🙂

    You’re all right. It’s scary and exciting. I’m just going to keep working on not feeling guilty. The resistance I have to putting myself first is just incredible… I think I’m getting past it, and it just keeps coming back. I’ll get past it if for no other reason than I want to find out who I am SO BAD. lol.

    It’s so cool how you can have control over your brain like this. Like, you can step back and rationally observe your ego and fears/desires/emotions, and like drill into why you feel that way. It’s usually ends up being some childhood bullshit and/or irrational subconscious wiring. Also, it was good to take a break from TRM, but I’ll never be able to take a break from game/self-improvement. It will ALWAYS be there for me. It’s like second in queue in my brain at all times. Which is a bit daunting, but cool too. This whole time I try and ignore this shit, but I get into situations and I feel that hesitation to go out of my comfort zone, and I know what I have to do. I get that it’s a process. Sometimes it feels too fast, most of the time it feels too slow… hehe.

    Hopefully some day I’ll be able to help some other people along the way.


    Dude I don’t know what the ethical implications of helping you are. It seems so obvious to me what you need to work on and I don’t know why people don’t try and help you… but anyway here it goes.

    You need to read a few books on ego or something. It’s easy to recognize other people’s ego, but hard to recognize your own. You have the most stubborn ego here. It’s not even close. It’s also not a good thing. It is literally painful to me to read most of your posts. You need to learn how to step back and recognize when it is taking over. I mean, I’m not perfect. I’ve had some crazy ego-filled rants here, but I don’t even think you recognize it. It doesn’t help when Sentient and Blax back you up and reinforce it either. Like I feel like you’re just throwing darts around randomly with your advice, and sometimes you hit the mark but you don’t really know why and when you do people give you props and hurt your overall progress.

    Also, you need to work on spreading good vibes. Like, in REAL. LIFE. Be the guy that waves first. Give people a genuine smile. Be the guy that makes the cashier laugh or makes somebody’s day better in some way.

    Your ego is going to step in and tell you that you’ve already sufficiently mastered those things, or that that’s just not “you”, or that you already knew it was a problem and have already been working hard enough on it. It’s all BS.

  25. @Andy

    Lol, as if I haven’t read books on Ego in my red pill journey.

    I’m just a dick on the the internet because I can be. I intellectual debate as competition. Guys do that. Sorry if I toy with you for sport on occasion. If that pisses you off, then that is your ego you are not managing well.

    If you want to see real meanness to other red pill men, visit the Married Red Pill reddit. Those commenters are making real progress for other men who are failing in their sexual strategy by being viciously mean and not giving a fuck about whether the target of their disaffection likes them or not. And they are getting a lot of guys through triage.

    It’s actually not about me being liked by you, Andy, it’s about you Andy getting yourself the best you can be by enlightened self interest.

    I’ll pay extra not to have a new friend if that friend doesn’t resonate with me. (Hint: Sentient and Blax aren’t gratuitously throwing me a bone by occasionally agreeing with me. We resonate in our thoughts as old married guys with children who were successfully raised past the age of 21 and are independent half clones of ourselves. And actually satisfying our sexual strategies).

    I had a great hour and 45 minute discussion tonight in real life on the phone mentoring a red pill fellow. The discussion didn’t last that long because he thought I was a dick or had a boner of an ego.

    Ego can be good or bad. You don’t have to tell me how my narrative works in real life. It’s working just fine. I’m very satisfied with my ability to control and succeed in my circumstances with red pill and game and it’s not because I’m a deluded prick.

  26. Andy:

    “Your ego is going to step in and tell you that you’ve already sufficiently mastered those things, or that that’s just not “you”, or that you already knew it was a problem and have already been working hard enough on it. It’s all BS.”

    SJF’s ego:

    “Ego can be good or bad. You don’t have to tell me how my narrative works in real life. It’s working just fine. I’m very satisfied with my ability to control and succeed in my circumstances with red pill and game”

    You DON’T get it. Ego and confidence are not the same thing. If you don’t want help I won’t help you. Just don’t fuck up the innocent bystanders that haven’t yet realized that you’re not actually wearing any clothes.

  27. andy “You need to read a few books on ego or something.”

    sjf” Lol, as if I haven’t read books on Ego in my red pill journey. I’m just a dick(bitch*) on the the internet because I can be.Sorry if I toy with you for sport on occasion. If that pisses you off, then that is your ego you are not managing well..”

    Sfj has released his inner sperglord and completely embraced authenticity

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: