Sexual Retirement


Rational Reader, If-I-Fell wrote a comment addressing a common dynamic I think is larger in scope than most men realize. I’ve addressed this before, but I think it deserves a bit more elaboration. This first part was a commentary on Angelina Jolie’s elective double mastectomy surgery. Emphasis mine:

“I don’t know why Brad would still want Angelina. She is no longer a woman”, I said. Wait for it… Wait for it…

“That’s an awful thing to say; she has cancer in her family, and she had no choice,” she said.

This argument occurred after Angelina underwent her “de-womanizing” surgery, and before the “Brad is a drunken child abuser” incident.

This left the question—why did she have the surgery and why does calling a woman a eunuch raise such an emotional response from a woman, concerning a woman that she doesn’t know or really care about?

The Sisterhood Über Alles®, continuing,…

I am going to assert (without proof or study) that the reason is Sexual Retirement from a Beta (or even an Alpha).

I assert that women in hormonal decline (perimenopause) have a subconscious or conscious desire to retire from sex while holding onto their position and status. I believe this is a different dynamic from the operational cycling woman – dead bedroom. In this case, she doesn’t want sex from anyone, as opposed to she wants sex with someone, just not you. The feminine imperative is pushing sexual retirement as a women’s rights issue.

For a better explanation of the sexual retirement dynamic and if you want to get angry, read Lori Ann Lothian’s article “When He Wants Sex and You Don’t.” Basically, Lori has had her bad boy sex and now instead of using HRT (hormone replacement therapy) and making the effort, she wants to retire. She says that she is more creative when hormonally depleted and her cuck husband is understanding and supportive.

Since I began this blog I’ve attempted to outline the endless number of social conventions employed by the Feminine Imperative. It should be noted here that the Feminine Imperative has always evolved to fluidly reinvent these conventions to advantage women – and thus ensure their sexual strategy – at every stage of their maturity, but also in adapting to new truths that would otherwise threaten women’s insurance. There are many examples of the imperative reimagining various social convention in light of unflattering truths that previous conventions no longer account for, but are unignorable in a larger social scope.

The problem inherent in women’s Hypergamous sexual strategy has always been the balance of optimizing the best breeding potential (Alpha Fucks) with the best long-term security potential (Beta Bucks) in men. The capacity for a woman to optimize this balance is determined by her sexual agency (attractiveness & sexual availability) with men. This is why it’s necessary for adaptable social conventions, that sit outside this dynamic, to be established in order to qualify what should be attractive to men. This in turn enables women to distract and dissuade men with social narratives that comfort women, but confuse and shame men.

Yes, that flies in the face of biological truths about men’s arousal cues, but for generations these conventions have successfully convinced (Beta) men that those cues are learned, socially conditioned, triggers, and that if they’d just change their minds about attraction they’d see that they can be “attracted’ to any woman for any made up reason. This is the same social constructivist narrative that would have us believe gender identity is a learned social construct (which also contradicts the narrative of being born the ‘wrong gender’), and as such, attraction cues are also learned. This narrative works well for the Feminine Imperative because it’s a means to prolong women’s artificially inflated concept of attractiveness,…that is until women reach certain stages of maturity in their lives.

There are two points in women’s lives where this contrived idea about a socially conditioned definition of attractiveness fails them. The first, you may guess, is the Wall; the point at which a woman realizes she’s no longer able (or less able) to intra-sexually compete with other women for the attentions of men she hopes to optimize her Hypergamy with. At this stage there are two social conventions prepared for her – shame for men who base their ‘attraction’ on their primary requisite of physical appeal and not her (very marginal) intrinsic qualities, and/or a redefinition of what should constitute attractiveness (“it’s what’s on the inside that should count”). The latter also having the false confidence inflating effect of making a woman believe that her ‘attractiveness’ should be an indefinite, ambiguously defined, commodity; thus encouraging the belief that a woman can prolong her quest in finding the right guy to optimize Hypergamy well after the Wall.

The second phase is what If-I-Fell describes above, a phase where peri- and post-menopausal women are forced to accept that their sexual agency is at an end, but the need for Frame control still persists. This is a stage where no amount of pseudo self-confidence will convince a woman’s hindbrain that she can depend on her sexual agency to ensure her long-term security. But, as with everything else in a woman’s life, the Feminine Imperative is ready with a rationalization and various social conventions to absolve her of her reliance on her sexual agency and, of course, place the responsibility for it squarely on men’s shoulders.

In fact, those conventions can be quite profitable if you can offer any contrived solution to those insecurities.

Sexual Retirement

As If-I-Fell relates, there are no shortages of pop psychologist, women celebrities and talk show hosts ready with a book, an interview or a testimony of encouragement absolving women of their dependency on their sexual agency (for the entirety of their lives) in their menopausal phase while simultaneously shaming men who would even hint at not supporting this absolving.

Even women who would otherwise have been hated rivals during their sexually competitive years are later forgiven when they provide a salve for these insecurities when they reach an age where even the most attractive among them must come to terms with this sexual retirement. It’s at this stage the Sisterhood comes together in solidarity (in place of cut-throat intra-sexual competition) to bemoan their victim’s status.

The Feminine Imperative is indeed pushing sexual retirement, and absolving women of the consequences of their sexual agency and strategy, as a women’s rights issue. There’s a lot of money (not to mention ego validation) in fostering this in women.

If-I-Fell continues:

[…]Now, I have an argument with the wife every time she says she wants to go off HRT.

At this point, many guys blue and red will think I’m an asshole. After all, the Feminine Imperative is telling women to stay on HRT short-term to relieve symptoms and the risk of blood clots and woman-related cancers is increased. To the contrary, it is my understanding the increased cancer risk touted as doubled can be as small as a change of 1:100,000 to 2:100,000.

Suzanne Sommers has written multiple books in support of bioidentical hormone replacement that covers HRT in detail. This may be a good resource for men whose women have begun hormonally misfiring.

So, here’s the point of my long comment and how it relates to the topic of Reconstruction.

HRT (hormone replacement therapy) for menopausal women is the new litmus test for ’empowered’ women, and the personal impact of a woman’s life-long social investments comes down to a crisis of motive dilemma. Does a menopausal woman, whose sexual agency is well beyond her capacity to effectively compete in the sexual marketplace, accept the marginal risks associated with HRT in order to maintain her libido and her looks “for her husband’s sexual pleasure“?

When Angelina chose to desexualize herself the cover story we’re meant to accept is that she did so in order to preempt the breast cancer that runs in her family. That’s a hard decision to make (and one I’d expect from someone as invested in feminist theology and as psychologically imbalanced as Jolie), but there’s no real acceptable counter to it. She had a double mastectomy to save her life and considerations of her lessened sexual agency shouldn’t enter into the conversation. If we’re to accept that men’s arousal / attraction is to be based on women’s intrinsic qualities and not her extrinsic physical qualities, then any conversation about her opting to electively desexualize herself in doing so is rendered moot.

Men’s Pleasure

Brad Pitt’s pleasure, his arousal, his emotional investment in Jolie is never a consideration because the social constructivist position that attraction is learned disqualifies any counterargument anyone might pose. In fact, just doing so makes that person a pariah – she’s saving her life here man!

However, this transitions us to the idea that women do not ‘exist for a man’s pleasure’. This is a common refrain you’ll get from feminists and Women’s Studies teachers when they try to convince us about the infamous ‘male gaze‘ – they believe that a man’s simply gazing upon a beautiful woman is offensive because he’s deriving some visceral pleasure in doing so.

The male gaze is the way in which the visual arts and literature depict the world and women from a masculine point of view, presenting women as objects of male pleasure. The phrase male gaze was coined by feminist film critic Laura Mulvey in 1975.

Men have evolved to assess sexual availability of women and evaluate their fitness in the span of moments. This was a necessary evolutionary adaptation in the past in that it served men well to breed efficiently and evacuate quickly should a rival or monogamously paired man be in the vicinity to mate guard with violence. And this adaptation is also the result of women’s sexual strategy and predilection for making cuckolds of men.

The operative point here is that within a state of Sexual Retirement the long term partner of that woman is expected to identify with women’s experience so intimately, and reform his personality so thoroughly to accommodate the Frame of women that he is expected to default to understanding that ‘his pleasure’ is never to be a priority for women – no matter how devoted. In fact, this premise is foundational to feminist ideology and something men must be conditioned to accept via Blue Pill indoctrination.

This is a very important Red Pill truth men should understand. Blue Pill conditioning, the Feminine Imperative and feminist doctrine is rooted in the idea that women are never to ‘please’ men. Men are always to perform for, qualify for and serve at the ‘pleasure’ of women. Any idea, any effort, any pretense of overtly or covertly initiate a behavior with the purpose of pleasing a man is anathema to a feminine-primary  social order.

This premise is extended to countless social dictates and social conventions across many phases of women’s maturity and many aspects of our feminized society. In this case, the ‘never for men’s pleasure’ doctrine extends to the question of whether a woman should go on HRT with the express reason of staying pleasing and sexual for a man. That answer will always be a resounding ‘no’ for women steeped in the social conventions of the Feminine Imperative.

Side Note: There are of course many different instances in which a woman may intentionally do something for a man’s pleasure. Strippers, lingerie, adopting a sexy attitude, etc., you can probably think of many more. My intent here isn’t to suggest that women don’t intentionally do things to please men, but rather that their so doing is looked down on with disdain by a larger, feminine-primary social order. In those cases the narrative gets reversed and the line gets blurred as to whom a woman does such things for. If others can be convinced those acts are sources of Fempowerment, or that the means (pleasing men) justify the ends (female power) then we validate the action and, again, we return to a Crisis of Motive.

From Late Life Hypergamy

I wondered if she would even consider taking the new “pink pill”, the female form of viagra, but I’ve read enough counter argument articles from women about it to know that women’s hardwired psychology prevents them from even chemically altering themselves to want to have sex with a man her Hypergamy cannot accept. My guess is that even a cheeky holiday in the Maldives won’t be enough to convince Saira to want to fuck Steve.

However, this simple fact, that women will refuse to take the Spanish Fly to work themselves up and bypass their Hypergamy for their Beta husband’s happiness, destroys the convention that her frigidity is the result of her biomechanics. She doesn’t want a pill to fix her because she knows it’s a holistic problem.

I think it’s very telling that women will cognitively refuse to have sex with a man who represents a less than equitable exchange for either Alpha Fucks or Beta Bucks. When a woman is consciously aware of the fact that the value of a man she should be having sex with (due to societal expectations, marriage, etc.) is not commensurate with what her subconscious is telling her there comes an internal conflict – and one that’s rooted in women’s evolved Hypergamous doubts of suitably breeding.

For all of the equalist hopes that sex might be something men should condition themselves to overcome or cure themselves of, women’s subconsciousness won’t allow them to consciously take a pill that would effectively do the same thing they expect of men – to convince their sex drives to want to be aroused by a woman for reasons other than what they evolved to be aroused by.

This is literally what we’ll condition men for from the earliest ages; to deny their sexual impulse in favor of seeing women in a humanist perspective and condition them to feel shame when their biology wont cooperate with social constructivist belief. Yet, when we present a solution to achieve the same effect with women – a pill that would make them want to fuck men who their hindbrains would otherwise reject – women’s hindbrains are disgusted at the thought of taking a pill to circumvent their biology.

And even that refusal isn’t enough. Men must be shamed for attempting to chemically achieve what takes the Feminine Imperative generation to in men.

As I was finishing this essay I came across the following series of Tweets:

i just sat near by two 60+ women.Let me tell you,hypergamy & golddigging never stops & they r not ashamed at all, laughing when talking about potential man. 1st time that i heard about ‘i’m old, weak & forgetful’ cards.They are part of main deck.

Shiite,they r now talking about age,praising each other that they r still young. Major problem is buying new clothes.

They both have facebook. Proud divorces also… 1 was major slut, bragging about it… So much gold, i cant believe this.

I managed to take a pic, its 1pm,both r drinking, right one is loud mouth, attention whore till the end.

Unfuckingbelievable, one of them is talking about doctor who makes women prettier, ‘he fixed tonnes of tits’ -word for word verbatim.

You can read the rest of the exchange, but I thought this was an interesting contrast to the idea of Sexual Retirement. The older women get, the more comfortable they become in embracing Hypergamy openly. This is something for Red Pill men to bear in mind when they are seeing the forest for the trees with women. The less a woman perceives she needs a man to accommodate the aspects of her Hypergamy, the more comfortable she is in revealing how it operates for her and women at large.

If you come across a woman who’s comfortable in Open Hypergamy, the question you need to ask yourself is, what is it that she perceives about herself makes her believe that revealing her Game to you will benefit her with? Granted, these old women are long past their expiration date with regard to their SMV, but isn’t it interesting that in spite of what’s obvious to any Red Pill guy, they still entertain themselves with believing they haven’t retired from sex in their old age? All of the same ego-appeasement we’d expect from teenage girls still persists into women’s 70s and 80s.

So, is there really such a thing as ‘sexual retirement’ for women, or is it just a convenient way of casting off a woman’s Beta-husband need for ‘pleasure’ after a certain age? I covered this further in Preventive Medicine.


Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

325 comments on “Sexual Retirement

  1. @Blax

    Women are not ever our oppressors.

    Individual women on a case by case basis. Sometimes they use the courts (e.g., frivorce rape) or police (e.g., abuse allegations). Women can group and try to harm men as well. I’ve seen it.

    The FI is oppressive, but not our oppressor.

    Wtf? The Matrix is not our oppressor? Do you still not get what Millennials face?

    Women, as a group, are also fed Blue Pills by The Matrix, just like men. We men just see that as not harming them, which may not be true, because we see them getting laid as much as they like. What we often don’t see is that lots of women end up not being able to get married and have children like they would like to. Or they have reproductive problems and it costs them resources to have kids. And they get lots of STDs.

    I would say that the FI is a biological force operating in and gaining strength from both men and women. It currently is oppressive, hence, it is an oppressor.

    Women, as a group, are not a biological force. As a group, they are innocent of the FI’s oppression.

    White Knighting MEN give strength to the FI’s oppression. And various of us have expressed the opinion that socialists, in the past, have attempted to advance the FI’s agenda. There’s no question that feminists have a MAJOR influence in the most leftist political party in the USA–the Democrats. And Republicans also sometimes advance the FI agenda…e.g., Ronald Reagan signed No Fault Divorce in California, which he later regretted. Were feminists involved in that? How about trial lawyers or the Bar Association? Are they leftists? Of course.

    If you’re going to blame anyone, blame those fools who support democrats (obviously, they get blamed just for being fools) and those who push the country leftward (e.g., feminists, trial lawyers, and various other leftist groups). Think of all the leftist actors who are men if you want someone to blame. Also leftist actors who are women. Leftists with influence.

  2. @Blax

    If bad shit is happening to you, then you somehow deserve it because you are a bad person, stupid, or inept in a dozen ways.

    If bad shit keeps on happening to you, over and over, because you are a dumb fuck, then it IS your fault. The lower classes fall in this category frequently. Not always, but they tend to spend their resources on pleasure instead of saving them for the future. And they turn to drugs and crime because that is their context. They join gangs because their friends join gangs.

    Law of Power #10: Infection: Avoid the Unhappy and Unlucky

    Of course, adversity happens to all from time to time, so incidental bad shit may not be a person’s fault.

    People that bad shit isn’t being done to either are able to empathize, or they cannot. Period. Most human beings, taken as large groups, turn empathy off.

    I have empathy. I am working with a buddy who got a raw deal in life and I’m trying to teach him to make better decisions. He seems teachable, but it’s like slogging thru molasses in January. I’m violating LoP #10 by doing this. I don’t expect him to be grateful.

  3. KFG: “If Hector had been an oppressed victim, Achilles would not have wasted his time to take the field and kill him.

    Likewise, Hector would not have presented himself to die at the hands of a mere oppressor.”

    February 15, 2017 at 3:54 am
    “If Hector hadn’t of killed Ajax and Achilles hadn’t of felt the need to avenge his death, then Hector wouldn’t have fallen at the hands of antiquity’s greatest warrior.

    A small matter of honor, forced Hector to accept Achilles’ challenge.

    Oppression has nothing to do with it.”


    “Hector as a “martyr to loyalties, a witness to the things of this world, a hero ready to die for the precious imperfections of ordinary life.”

    It’s apparent to me that Hector was a Blue Pill Trojan Knight. The matter of honor was not so small.

  4. “We men just see that as not harming them, which may not be true, because we see them getting laid as much as they like.”

    IDK, not trying to be contentious, but the trend is otherwise…

    All conjecture here: Porn replaces women, so although women might may be having more physical sex than men, men are getting off as well, and are satisfied enough with masturbation. Women are not fulfilling their hypergamous desires as there are too few men willing to make it go. There are men who would be hypergamously satisfying, but avoid the risks of STR/LTR.

    They’re looking vainly for an long term Alpha, and now can’t even drip-drip fuck a Beta.


    My favorite line:

    “I don’t expect him to be grateful.”

    Our burden of performance.

  5. Oh, and the us vs. them talk drives men along the bell curve of misogyny. Their coping mechanisms are too few to see the big picture, how to navagate the SMP, adjust accordingly, improve. They become hopeless, in a way and lie down.

    Poor guys get mired.

  6. @theasdgamer Feb 15 5:19
    Not repeatedly, like you were.

    wow, “you more than I”…you’re still stuck in sixth grade…no wonder you make so many fatuous comments…kfg’s intellect is multiples of yours and you didn’t understand his comment that you objected to…everyone is laughing at you

  7. “Oppression has nothing to do with it.”

    Ya think?

    The point is that oppression had nothing to do with it. Having an antagonist, even a superior one, does not imply a victim-oppressor relationship.

    “Whether we stand, or whether we fall, victory is fleeting; the fight is all.”

  8. @theasdgamer

    When leaping to someone’s defence, make sure they’ve got their pants pulled up, first.
    Kfg clearly has no understanding of context, nor the reason for why Hector and Achilles, fought. Yet he uses it to try and make a point.
    When I said “Oppression has nothing to do with it”, I mean the duel between Hector and Achilles. In the wider context Achilles is a part of the Achaean army laying siege to Troy. The Trojans are being deprived of their liberty and their lives should they set foot, outside the city walls. The Achaeans are by definition, oppressors and Achilles represents their number. Though, the duel was personal. Achilles approached the gates of Troy and calls out Hector, not as a warrior of the Achaean army but as the friend of Ajax, the man whom Hector had slain.

    Kfg’s use of this incident in the Trojan conflict, is a misnomer. When he states

    “The point is that oppression had nothing to do with it. Having an antagonist, even a superior one, does not imply a victim-oppressor relationship.”

    it undermines his point as Achilles and Hector’s relationship is one of oppressor and victim. Though not in the moment cited.

    There’s so much wrong with his post, the little bit of right (dubious use of that term here) doesn’t begin to mitigate it.

  9. The Trojans are, by definition, the aggressor. If Hector is oppressed, it is by his own people, to whom he is obliged to stand by even though he bore none of the fault personally.


    Achilles, meanwhile, owing no allegiance to the Greeks at all, first tried to evade the war, and then, when events among the Greeks mirrored that of the cause of the war (irony!), actually took up the side of Troy for a time.


    And Ajax won the fight with Hector by the judges decision. It was Ajax who retrieved Patroclus’s body and who survived the war.

    I didn’t shout “You’re wrong!” in an attempt to disqualify your argument, because, ya know:

    It doesn’t fucking matter.

    Do you even tribal warrior culture, Bro?

  10. Blaximus’ Comment

    Imagine if everything you’d ever wanted, EVERYTHING, just happened exactly how you’d want it too. Think about that for a moment. Great things would start to lose their meaning and appeal. It would just be business as usual, and eventually boring as fuck.

    Agent Smith made a similar statement:

    Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from.

  11. Imagine if everything you’d ever wanted, EVERYTHING, just happened exactly how you’d want it too. Think about that for a moment. Great things would start to lose their meaning and appeal. It would just be business as usual, and eventually boring as fuck.

    There is an old Twilight Zone episode where the notorious gangster is killed during a job. He wakes up in heaven where Blax’s comment comes true, and he eventually asks to be transferred to “the other place” because getting everything you want turns out to be such a losing deal. Final scene – some guy in charge tells him he can’t be transferred, he is already in hell…

  12. @Ollie

    it undermines his point as Achilles and Hector’s relationship is one of oppressor and victim.

    You’re not even close. kfg isn’t defending what you’re talking about. The interpretation of the Achilles/Hector fight as oppression/victimization is what kfg is attacking.

  13. Re: Ollie and the Virtue Signalling of Hector and Achilles

    I’m pretty sure Ollie is trying to virtue signal, I’m just not sure what he actually stands for or what he is actually virtue signalling for. I doubt it is because I can’t understand. I think it’s because he is holding his cards close to his chest. I always cast doubt on guys that don’t spill their true emotions based on their frame of who they are and what they are angling for. What is your bias that started the Hectoring back and forth Ollie?

    ….Every good story must have a protagonist and an antagonist, without a solid antagonist the story becomes dull, so when one is constructing a narrative it’s of paramount importance to construct a believable and apparently all-powerful antagonist. After all, if we know the protagonist could easily defeat the antagonist, then there is no suspense. If one does not establish a story of how the protagonist has been victimized by the antagonist, then how does one know who is the good guy? Thus, the protagonist is forged by being victimized, and the role of antagonist is made through his or her creation of victims.

    The protagonist embodies all our virtues, the antagonist all our vices. The anti-hero, is the protagonist who suffers from human vices, the tragic antagonist the one who suffers from corrupted virtue. After the creation of these characters have been completed, the group then cast their lot and seek to signal their allegiance to the protagonist or antagonist depending the group to which they belong. To draw a parallel to my Gendernomics series, a beta male seeks to demonstrate his mating value through signalling his rejection of vices, and by negative his allegiance to perceived social virtues in regards to relationships. For instance by rejecting “players“, masculine behavior and acceptance of the female perspective on relationships.

    In the same manner a social justice warrior seeks to signal their allegiance to the virtues of their ideology by means of their opposition to what are perceived as vices. In summary, one demonstrates embodiment of virtues through antagonism of those perceived as embodying vices. Within the community status is granted by degree of antagonism, and fervent demonstration of allegiance to the virtues. I’m reminded of East German Stasis tactics, where one demonstrated allegiance to the totalitarian regime through reporting as many people as possible to the secret police, in doing so one both demonstrated one’s loyalty to the regime, and one’s rejection of the opposition to the regime.


    Feminist bullshit at its worst…

  15. Women on these radio commercials who exclaim “Sex Matters” as if the marriage depends on it, plus it is only women forcing their husbands and boyfriends into these testosterone houses to make them function, makes me think…..Women are just Butt Whores..

  16. There is something really disturbing about this post and the comments. I don’t know what other example you could have used Rollo, but using Angelina Jolie’s double mastectomy to prove your point just seems stupid. Considering she had 2 family members suffer and die from cancer, and her higher than average genetic predopisiton for cancer, this was very literally a life or death decision. Yet the comments here complain about how unfuckable she has become and somehow Brad Pitt is the victim here when the only thing he risked was blue balls. It’s not like she was chopping of her head, you don’t need boobs to stay alive.

    Another point of contention, If-I-Fell links Lori’s article as something to get pissed off about, while ignoring that she says that she has lived a life trying to please others above herself and wants to have some self-actualization, isn’t this exactly what red pill men have suffered though? It seems like in order to fight the FI men here have decided to become shit human beings.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: