The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies

monogamy

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

Speak your mind

560 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Junior
Junior
4 years ago

@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… Read more »

Jay Fink
Jay Fink
4 years ago

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… Read more »

kfg
kfg
4 years ago

http://www.lolhome.com/img_big/what-happened-with-young-men.jpg

American Bandstand was a TV production. The dancers were cast and costumed to look as the production staff wanted them too, which was clean cut and non-threatening to Iowa parents.

Höllenhund
4 years ago

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… Read more »

Höllenhund
4 years ago

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… Read more »

Jay Fink
Jay Fink
4 years ago

@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… Read more »

Höllenhund
4 years ago

@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… Read more »

Culum Struan
Culum Struan
4 years ago

@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… Read more »

Forge the Sky
Forge the Sky
4 years ago

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… Read more »

Jay Fink
Jay Fink
4 years ago

@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.

kfg
kfg
4 years ago

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.

Junior
Junior
4 years ago

@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… Read more »

From India With Love
From India With Love
4 years ago

@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… Read more »

Eve
Eve
4 years ago

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… Read more »

redlight
redlight
4 years ago

direct image

http://i.imgur.com/s2lq0fB.jpg

kfg
kfg
4 years ago

” . . . 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.

Eve
Eve
4 years ago

@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… Read more »

kfg
kfg
4 years ago

“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.… Read more »

kfg
kfg
4 years ago

” . . . 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.

Blaximus
Blaximus
4 years ago

” … 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.

kfg
kfg
4 years ago

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.

Blaximus
Blaximus
4 years ago

” . . . 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.

kfg
kfg
4 years ago

“7 billion people on the planet, not all are in the West . . .”

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/true-size-of-africa-compared-other-countries-map-image.png

Jimmy B
Jimmy B
4 years ago

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

theage.com.au/comment/how-the-bachelor-turns-women-into-misogynists-20160817-gqv96g.html

trackback
4 years ago

[…] the old social contract, the idea that a man would compromise his sexual strategy to fulfill a woman’s (Hypergamy in the long term) had a presumed exchange – sexual access, parental investment, […]

Andy
Andy
4 years ago

@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. @kfg,Blax,Sun,HABD 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… Read more »

SJF
SJF
4 years ago

@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… Read more »

Andy
Andy
4 years ago

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.… Read more »

mersonia
4 years ago

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

trackback

[…] The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies […]

trackback
4 years ago

[…] And, as you might expect, what article about women’s struggle in finding the right guy would be complete without shaming men for their reluctance to participate in playing the roles the Feminine Imperative demands they play in order to fulfill women’s sexual strategies? […]

trackback

[…] difference in answers the different paradigms yield when comparing the same data.  In his post “The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies” Rollo made a number of points from his paradigm of evolutionary psychology that I’ll respond […]

trackback

[…] only result from a man who so thoroughly satisfies her Hypergamous nature she’s willing to abandon her own sexual strategy. And, like the guy with ONEitis, she dedicates herself to the one guy she was able to (she thinks) […]

trackback

[…] can only result from a man who so thoroughly satisfies her Hypergamous nature she’s willing to abandon her own sexual strategy. And, like the guy with ONEitis, she dedicates herself to the one guy she was able to (she thinks) […]

trackback

[…] diminish the legitimacy of men’s sexual strategies in favor of women’s socially correct sexual strategy […]

trackback

[…] diminish the legitimacy of men’s sexual strategies in favor of women’s socially correct sexual strategy […]

trackback

[…] keep in mind the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies: For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their […]

trackback

[…] sexual strategy will be the socially predominant one. In a social sense it is a conflict in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution the answer has been clear; it is women’s sexual […]

trackback

[…] understand this conflict all we need to consider is the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies – For one sex’s strategy to be fulfilled the other’s must be compromised or […]

trackback

[…] Tomassi, The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies in The Rational Male (July 2016). This really isn’t rocket surgery: the more women are able […]

1 4 5 6
560
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
%d bloggers like this: