Just Get It

I don’t usually cite Athol Kay on Rational Male, but I have to give him props for his recent How Walkaway Wives Run a Dirty MAP. There’s a lot going on in this post, and as per usual Athol approaches all of his observations from a married perspective constrained by a limited single-life experience, but a few fundamental points of Game really shine here. To be sure, relationship Game (or married Game) varies widely in application compared to the Game used in single-man-sex-life, but the foundational principles are essentially the same – as are the pitfalls – only the risks are higher and the rewards negligible by comparison.

I’ve stated this before, but, having experienced the ups and downs of single-man-sex-life as well as married-man-sex-life, I can honestly say that I’ve never found Game more necessary than when it’s within the context of marriage. I’ve also written volumes about the all-risk proposition of marriage for men, and women’s utter inability to appreciate the all-risk sacrifices men assume in committing to marriage. So it should be obvious that under such conditions if a man chooses to entertain a lifestyle of marriage the only acceptable condition is that it be within his frame and his terms. And this, gentlemen, requires not only a commitment to Game itself, but an understanding of, and an internalization of a much tighter Game than would be necessary in single-man-sex-life.

Higher risks mean less margin for error

In your single-man-sex-life Game, you have the leisure to Spin Plates, drop the ones which don’t produce dividends, and non-exclusively enjoy the ones who do. Though it may pain you to lose a particular girl as the result of fumbled Game, or to miss the opportunity of experiencing a woman due to a failed approach or consolidation, it pales in comparison to the risks inherent in lacking the long-term Game necessary to contend with women’s hypergamy in the context of marriage. Dumping a girl (or getting dumped) when single may be an emotional ordeal for some guys, but the decay of a marriage and the financial, familial and emotional consequences for lacking Game in marriage is a punishment that will make a single man’s break up tears seem like a blessing. Tight relationship Game means much more than just getting your wife to fuck you more regularly after the honeymoon.

A lot of men will respond that marriage is just not worth all that contextualization of Game, and they’d be right. It’s all risk with negligible reward / appreciation and the liabilities are too steep. Furthermore, there’s a contingent of men who’ll say that it’s impossible to perpetuate the solid Game necessary to assuage female hypergamy indefinitely, and they’d be right too, if Game was a constant act for them that they felt they had to keep up forever. Some guys get mad at just the suggestion that they’d need to Game their potential wives. “She should just love me for who I am!” They expect to be able to drop the Game, relax and be who they are, only to have their wives progressively convert them into an imagined ideal which really isn’t the guy who tingles their vaginas. Then they find out that their wives loved them for who they were.


One of the points that jumped out at me from Athol’s post:

When the lines of communication are broken between you and your wife, you aren’t going to get a message that the lines of communication are broken. That’s what the lines of communication being broken means. When she checks out of the marriage, she doesn’t tell you because she checked out of the marriage. That’s what being checked out of the marriage means.

I usually have to control my laughter whenever I overhear an AFC in the crab barrel parrot back the Matrix-speak about how “good relationships are all about communication with your GF/wife.” When this is coming from a single guy I can at least partially excuse him for lack of any practicable experience, but when it comes from a married Plug-In it’s just evidence of the totality of his conditioning. Most guys who tell you this are repeating what their girl-friends always told them was the most important key to a good relationship, but as with everything femme there’s always a latent purpose underneath the veneer of aphoristic truth they sell themselves.

A few months back I was at a liquor event with my usual ‘pour girls’ and during our conversations one tells me about her ‘guy problems’ with a “clingy boyfriend” obviously on the down end of an SMV imbalance.

“It’s so frustrating Rollo, why can’t guy’s just get it?”

With a practiced, but cute, little wrinkle of her nose, and the huff of her $5K tits, my girl had just indirectly revealed one of the most vexing complexities of intergender communication – women want men to “just get it.”

Just Get It

From Female Dating Advice:

The guy with the capacity to call a woman’s bluff with a confidence that implies she is to be worthy of him rather than the other way around is the Man to be competed for. Essentially the ‘chick speak’, ‘chick advice’ phenomenon is a shit test writ large on a social scale. And even your own mother and sisters are in on it, expecting you to ‘get it’; to get the message and see the challenge for what it really is, without overtly telling you.

She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be.

Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shit test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.

In my Pour Girl’s example we see this ‘get it’ paradox from the single-man-sex-life perspective, and in Athol’s scenario we see it from the married-man (or LTR) -sex-life perspective. Many men will complain that they hate the presumption that they need to be a mind reader and ideally women ought to just communicate overtly and directly – just as a reason-based man would communicate. The problem is that in doing so it changes the dynamic for hypergamy. As I’ve stated so often, women say they want the truth, but they never want full disclosure. Hypergamy will not be pandered to, and will not be negotiated with.

This is why the “communication is everything” meme has been responsible for the demise of more relationships than anyone will ever admit. It’s not that you communicate, it’s what you’re communicating and how you communicate it. I’ve counseled more men than I care to recount who’ve sobbed from the depths of their souls, “IF SHE’D JUST TELL ME WHAT I HAVE TO DO TO MAKE HER LOVE ME I’D DO IT!” not realizing that their very verbalization of that and a belief in open, rational communication is the very thing that’s killing (or killed) their woman’s desire for him.

As I’ve written a thousand times, a cardinal truth of the universe is that genuine desire cannot be negotiated. The moment you tell your wife, your girlfriend, that you will exchange a behavior or attitude or belief or any other compromise for her desire you fundamentally change her organic desire into obligation. What she wants, what her hypergamy wants confirmation of, can never be explicated, it can only be demonstrated. If her desire is for you to be more dominant, her telling you to be so negates the genuineness and the validity of your becoming so. Again, observing a process will change it – on a limbic level of consciousness her innate hypergamy is aware of that truth.

She wants a man who knows he needs to be dominant with her, that is the confirmation of hypergamy.

Flushing the Nest

Esteemed SoSuave member HITHARD relates a recent flushing of a nest:

It must be an attitude shift or something. But every time I come back to the SS forums my relationships blow up. I don’t notice myself doing anything different but if I’m with a girlfriend they must notice a change and purposely start pissing me off. Perhaps it’s a good thing, a wake up call that I’m not with the right girl and I should go back to FB for a while. My now ex started getting bitchy last week and it just escalated from there. I’m pretty laid back – but arc up if someone tries to stand over me or dictate terms. Her jaw dropped when I told her to pack her things and leave. She hasn’t been living here on a permanent basis but had managed to horde a bit of her stuff over here in the past three months. She was a really nice girl, very pretty good with money. But she started to not so much nag, but nitpick at me and I’m over that at this stage of my life. It’s either something she has managed to hide for all these months or I bring it out in her. Either way it’s a no go from here. Am I being selfish over this?

So perhaps SS is bad for me short term but a deal saver long term. Or it’s a subconscious thing of ‘relationship is already over time to go on SS’
After all the FB, plates and relationships, I do look around and am just not impressed with the quality of the women out there.
I do worry I’m starting to form a trend of breaking it off with women when I get bored or irritated though. My longest LTR was with what I think was a BPD chick long before what I knew what BPD or the SS forum was. I sometimes worry if that has left a lasting effect.

There’s always going to be a contingent of guys – mostly White Knights, but some well meaning red-pill men too – who’ll presume you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater when ever they read a situation like this. A Scarcity Mentality is one of the hardest mental schemas Men deal with in transitioning over to becoming Game-aware. For most, the better part of half their lifetime has been spent in a psycho-social condition that’s taught them women are to be prized, and her intimacy is a rare and precious gift, rewarded to only the man who can prove himself worthy of it.

It’s a hard schema to unlearn, and even the most unapologetic of PUA still feels that twang of doubt about a decision to NEXT a girl he thought might be of LTR potential. So it’s no shock that to NEXT a woman for what appears to be some minor infraction of nitpicking seems like a wanton overreaction – like stomping on a flower before it has a chance to blossom. Necessitous men, and men recovering from being so, will often adopt the same mentality women will when they hear about situations like this, and call it callous, or selfish, maybe even vindictive of past hurtful experiences. The reason for this is because these men, and women by default, still view monogamy from the perspective of the feminine imperative. Monogamy is meant to serve the feminine, so any action that controverts that, no matter how justified, is by definition selfish.

In the time I’ve been writing in the manosphere I’ve read more stories about how Game saved an LTR more so that the reverse, but that isn’t to say there aren’t breakups that result from a new Game-awareness. Hithard’s self-evaluation about his NEXTing isn’t unexpected. His story isn’t the first I’ve encountered about “Game destroyed my LTR” – that Scarcity Mentality self-doubt needs a scapegoat and Game is an easy foil for this, especially for guys who’ve just unplugged, pushed the envelope back against the shit they were accepting up to that point and the LTR imploded. In virtually everyone of these instances where a man reclaims his balls and the result is a breakup, inevitably the guy realizes what a tough, but ultimately good decision it was to rid himself of a toxic woman, or a woman too insecure in herself to want to relinquish frame after having been in control for so long.

Often enough, a breakup is the red-pill solution.

Flushing the Nest

However, I know Hithard (virtually) well enough to know this isn’t his case. He’s been unplugged for a while now, so my guess is twofold:

First I think there’s more to the ‘nitpicking’ and the nesting that this girl was initiating than he’s going into detail about. I think he’s trying to be more judicious about this because he’s seen (or is subliminally aware of) behavioral cues and attitude cues that are familiar to him from his prior (BPD) LTR, and wants to give her the benefit of that doubt.

He’d hit the 3 month point, and this is usually the time when a woman starts to get comfortable enough with a guy to attempt a frame grab. The obvious tell was how she was semi-permanently establishing a nest at his place. Never a good idea, but entirely expected of a woman who feels the urgency of sex decline with her competition anxiety. I don’t know for certain that this is Hithard’s experience, but it follows a very consistent pattern. At the very least she’s reached a stage at which she feels comfortable enough to make demands of behavioral change (nit picking, nagging, complaining).

On a basic, relational level these are shit tests, but these are now the variety of shit test that qualifies for LTR frame control, as opposed to the types of shit test a man receives whilst dating when the urgency of competition anxiety mediates a woman’s delivery. For example, while single, only the most vapid, self-absorbed women will feel comfortable in making the demands most other women will commonly expect of their LTR man. When single, the art of the shit test is in its nuance and subtlety, when monogamous the shit test is overt and unmistakably direct.

Secondly, after a certain age (SMV), and after some degree of prior relationship chaos there’s a want for some sense of stable normalcy. Most guys are all too willing to compromise what seem, at the time, like small concessions to their women’s demands in exchange for keeping the peace and the legs open. The problem is that this progressively becomes a situation of death by a thousand paper cuts, or frame control by a thousand conceded nitpickings. For beta men, frame control is ceded as part of their wedding vows, but of the Alphas I know who were “fixed” by their women, their backsliding into beta-dom was the result of an incessant etching away of that Alpha dominance by a steady stream of small shit tests and concession of frame by little compromises.

Dumping a woman is DHV (demonstrating higher value) of the highest order. True or not, It implies you had other, better options than her. Dumping a woman is the antithesis of the Scarcity Mentality and it broadcasts this not only to her, but her girlfriends as well as any other girls in her (your) social periphery. Dumping her implies you’ve just gone from a comfortable, familiar beta to the indifferent Alpha that she never realized you had a capacity for. My guess is Hithard will hear from her again. At first it will be desperate and crying, later it will be casual with feigned nonchalance – don’t take the bait.

Whether or not Hithard takes her back or bumps her down to fuck-buddy status, the message is now clear for her – he will control the frame. She will enter his reality or not at all. Most freshly unplugged guys have a very tough time owning this, because for most of their lives it’s been endlessly bashed into their heads that they don’t deserve it. This is the conflict Hithard must resolve.

The Meaning of Sacrifice

Take a deep breath and check your heart-rate before you hit play gentlemen (and ladies), you’re in for a ride.  In general I don’t necessarily promote nor disparage the MRA movement, but after watching this video I can better understand the contempt behind the groundswell. However, my point in posting this wasn’t to trigger any MRA outrage (The Spearhead and A Voice for Men has that covered), rather it was prompted by Rational Reader Dan’s comment in my 16 Years On post:

Rollo, you mention that men make a sacrifice of their desire for sexual variety and their sex life in general, when he marries.

But you are forgetting that for many men, marriage *is* the only or most feasible way to have a regular sex life. one-night-stands, flings, FWB’s, casual relationships – these are not for every guy. Most men dont get the opportunity to be promiscuous. Most men are simply not built for the going out in the jungle and hunting…physically or mentally.

I dont want marriage. I dont even want a committed relationship at this stage But I feel compelled to consider commitment and marriage because of my sexual / intimate needs. I am sure many mediocre young men are in the same boat as me. But you havent considered them here. You’re talking from the perspective of a man who is atleast relatively attractive and can sexually attract women with reasonable ease.

Forgive me Dan, I’m not trying to run you up the flagpole here. My assumption is that Dan hasn’t read Appreciation or Women In Love in their entirety. There’s much more to men’s sacrifices than just a trade off between a regular piece of ass and the potential for more varied sexual experiences. The predictable, feminized reflexive response is to presume that men would fixate on how their sacrifices would impact their sexual strategies, but sexual opportunism is only a single sacrifice among many. The feminine imperative would like nothing better than to have both men and women presume that men’s only concern is about the legs that might have been spread for them had they not opted for marriage, but there’s a lot more to men’s sacrifices.

As illustrated in this video, career, relationships, family, education, and the overarching threat of losing all of his investments in a no-fault divorce are all very real risks men tend not to consider and women would rather they not. A lot of men lament losing half (or more) of their financial assets, but what gets lost in that is the personal investments necessary to establish those assets. Those investments required a sacrifice of time, effort, emotion, determination, etc. and all whilst maintaining an intimate relationship with a woman who cannot appreciate in-full the totality of those sacrifices – because she never experienced them from a male perspective. Men’s sacrifices are only appreciated through the filter of women’s expectations and perceived benefit.

At 46 years old, I have no doubt that Charles Bruce had well over half a lifetime of personal investment into himself, his wife, their family and extended families. For most Men, and manosphere readers in particular, the initial response to Mr. Bruce’s dilemma is one of (understandable) blind rage at the feminized system. As hard as it is, I’m going to ask that readers look past this anger and see the conditions, investments and sacrifices Bruce made that makes his story so tragic.


The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

In other words, hypergamy doesn’t care about Relational Equity. It’s one set of conditions to consider this in terms of how your girlfriend might’ve cheated on you in spite of all your best efforts to invest in your relationship and play by the “rules”, but it’s entirely another when you consider fallacy of Relational Equity in terms of a life long, expected, entitled, commitment. Charles Bruce is on the sharp end of women’s inability to appreciate men’s sacrifices.

If you’ve ever wonder why no male hormonal contraceptive has ever been developed or marketed since the sexual revolution, look no further than Briffault’s Law. For all the bleating about equalism and gender equality of the past 60 years, women have effectively organized and fought like cornered animals to keep the power of controlling the family unit out of the hands of men.

I’ve read studies documenting men’s most productive, creative, endeavors being attempted and/or achieved in the years before they married; innovations, academic degrees, scientific discoveries, great masterpieces of art. etc. Then, a precipitous drop off in what we are meant to assume is ambition and motivation occurs after marriage. Roissy has more than a few links to these articles, but my impression of these studies is less about the neutering effects of marriage (i.e. the responsibilities of settling down) and more about the lack of opportunity inherent in maintaining a committed monogamy and addressing the sacrifices a man must make to advance his interests. Missing opportunities to get laid with new and varied women pales in life-importance when you consider the sacrifices a man makes in having to turn down opportunities that would advance his (and possibly society’s) better interest. Women are the Dream Killers because they cannot appreciate men’s sacrifices.

This is an interesting quote from a man citing Briffaults Law:

“Men love women, but I truly believe that women are incapable of what we men call love. “Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.” How many women are willing to die for their husbands, friends, country, or comrades in arms? Damn few, if any.

Yet it is commonly expected of men (made compulsory under certain circumstances). How many men continue on in their marriages, supporting their family and their wife, while the wife is making their life a living hell? Far too many. How many men choose their wives over their parents and siblings? Most.

Women do not behave like this. Men take out large insurance policies so their wives and children will be well taken care of should they die. Even if the wife is making (nearly) as much money as the husband, she will not have insurance. She sees no reason to reduce her current ability to spend to take care of others after she is dead. She could care less what happens to the husband, and doesn’t want the husband to be able to spend money on some young bimbo, after she dies. The life insurance gender statistics are well known, and widely available. None of this should be a shocking revelation. When my second wife died, her mandatory insurance (free) provided by her teacher’s union covered her funeral expenses. It would have made life much easier if her insurance had paid the over $350,000 my life insurance would have paid.

When does the expectation of mutual benefit in marriage go seriously wrong in the west? It goes wrong as soon as the “I Dos” are said, or very shortly thereafter. Why is this so? Because you, the man have just entered into a contract with the state where you have promised that you will provide everything to your bride, and where the bride has promised nothing. By the way, the full weight of the law and public opinion will support her stripping you of every thing you have, including your children, and most of what you will ever make in the future, when (not if) she decides to dump you.

Hence, once you enter into the contract you have nothing left to offer her. Everything you have, or will have, is already hers.

Seem like a harsh statement? I thought so too, the first time I heard it, during an argument with my first wife towards the end of our marriage. She asked me the eternal female question, “What do you do for me?” (i.e. what benefit do I get from associating with you?) I responded, “I pay all your expenses. I feed, clothe, and house you. And, I am paying for your college tuition.” She told me that all the money I earned was her money and that if she let me have any of it that was pure charity on her part, so I was doing nothing for her. I thought this was unduly harsh.

The divorce courts showed me that it was pretty much just a statement of fact. The wife has it all, and can make her part of the marriage contract, the portion where she is to provide you with companionship, comfort, loyalty, sex, etc., null and void at any time while keeping everything you have/had/will ever have. She has no need to associate with you further once you are married.

To be a married man entais a sacrifice of such utter powerlessness, on so many levels, that no woman will ever comprehend, much less appreciate.

Value Added

There’s nothing more refreshing for me than to read the insights of new Rational Readers. Generally it’s not that most offer anything terribly novel (some do), but it’s the predictable, persistent, feminized societal interpretations that keep reusing the same tired rationales which gives me hope that positive masculinity is cracking that shell. In other words, girl-world isn’t really coming up with anything new; it’s just retreads of old tropes.

One new Rational Reader, ‘S’ (maybe for Susan?) decided to take me to task for my graphically detailed essay on Navigating the SMP. Have Hamster, will spin.

While S suffers from the common female malady of reverse rationalizing her ‘circumstances’, she does provide a perspective on a topic I have yet to cover here in her followup response:

Fine, I read that. I just don’t agree with you philosophy that women somehow have no purpose after the age of 30. What if say there were circumstances outside of her control that prevented her from getting married at what a simpleton might deem as an acceptable time…what if she never partied and slept around? There is more to a woman than physicality and it pisses me off that there are men like many of the above (bitter much?) who don’t appear to see worth in a women once her..what’s it called..sexual market value declines…it just strikes me a scarily misogynistic..like some creeped up from of American Psycho shit and it makes me scared for our society.

There is a lot to be said for developing true companionship with someone, having a kind of partner in crime relationship that endures…A woman of any age is appropriate for this.

To paraphrase Roissy’s inimitable words, the closer you get to the truth the louder the feminine will screech. As odd as this is going to sound I actually agree with most of S’s point here. You see, when I was detailing the timeline of men and women’s respective sexual market values, my intent was to provide a raw and unvarnished view of how, in contemporary social dynamics, men and women’s sexual market values differ over the course of time. I made the efforts (loose as they were) to reveal the slow-burn valuation of men’s SMV in contrast with women’s quick-burn SMV.

Emotional Response

Exposing uncomfortable truths is kind of a mixed bag when it comes to the emotional response to those truths. For instance when I read articles about feminist triumphalism regarding how much more ‘advanced’ women are over men today, or I read reviews like ‘The End of Men‘, the analytical portion of my brain gives way to the more emotive response. Why try right? If I’m obsolete, if the cards are stacked in women’s favor before I even get dealt a hand, why not go my own way? There’s a certain hopelessness to that initial emotional response, especially when there’s no hint of sympathy or contrition forthcoming from ‘powerful’ women and all the women aspiring to that empowerment. This is just how the game has shaken out, too bad for you men, you’re fucked now.

I imagine S probably feels the same way when she sees the landscape of the sexual marketplace on display in such Darwinian, graphic terms. Once you’ve hit the Wall ladies, your value begins its decline in earnest, so The Threat then becomes men becoming self-aware enough of their increasing SMV to capitalize upon his increase and your decrease accordingly. This is the nasty part of hypergamy; the countdown to the Wall is ever-present, but so is the subconsciousness-level doubt about having made the optimal hypergamic mating choice before the clock reaches zero. Every SMP opportunity after that point will always be colored by what opportunities she could’ve consolidated upon before it.

I often get called a cynic or uncaring in the delivery of my observations, but try to understand my approach is always about pragmatism. Should women’s overall value mean more than just her physicality and sexual availability? Yes, of course, just as Men’s intrinsic value ought to be more broadly appreciated for the qualities of his character and the sacrifices he makes to facilitate a woman’s reality. I would love nothing better than to think that the human spirit combined with mutual good-will and understanding could lift us above our base, innate drives. I would love to live in a world where men could get a hard-on based solely upon his estimation of a woman’s respective “worth”, and where women swoon for a humble, noble, loyal and devoted overweight and underemployed man with a negative balance in his bank account.

In the manosphere, every day I read about the conflict between what our higher selves should want in a woman. There’s no lack for articles and blog/forum responses making impassioned pleas for women’s fidelity, loyalty, intelligence, grace, femininity, appreciation, and a long list of other ephemeral qualities as being ideal for an LTR prospect. In fact I’d argue that the majority of men’s misreading women comes more from seeing past the red flags and attributing more importance to these qualities than a woman actually merits. For every divorced man who uttered the words “I never thought she was capable of this” I’ll show you a guy who rationalized his attraction to his ex based on what he thought were her ‘value added’ qualities.

Relationships – Nature and Nurture

I would never argue that a man or woman NOT aspire to be better than they are as human beings. There are always going to be human elements to any relationship that transcend what we’d expect the nature of the Game to dictate to us, but underneath that compassionate understanding, behind the flowery sentimentalism, is still the base drives, the feral hypergamy, the cruel reality of the Wall, etc. that we will never be exempt from. On Friday I’ll have been married for 16 years to a beautiful, loyal, feminine, woman. Mrs. Tomassi embodies a great many of the ideal qualities that most men would put on their LTR vetting list – she’s a great partner in crime for me, but my initial attraction to her had far less to do with those qualities and far more to do with how much she turned me on. However, as comfortable as I am with her, as intimate as we are with each other’s identities, warts and all, I still understand the base framework necessary for all of this to take place within.

A relationship based solely upon physicality and sexuality is every bit as weak as one based solely upon esoteric appreciations of ‘higher‘ value-added qualities.

The strongest, healthiest relationships are those in which both parties have a mature, mutual understanding and embrace of both the natural aspect and the nurturing aspect of the SMP. Women will never come to appreciate men’s intrinsic sacrifices made for them without coming to terms with naturalistic side of Game and the SMP. Likewise men need to come to terms with the reality of their conditioning and the fem-centric Matrix in order to appreciate the gravity of their decision to commit to a formalized monogamy / marriage. They need to appreciate the risk of the situation they find themselves in, but have hitherto ben unaware of. For both genders, coming to this understanding is often an ugly prospect.

Likewise it’s important to develop an appreciation for, and an embrace of those value-added qualities which move beyond the naturalistic side of the SMP. While being of primary importance, sex and the feral aspects of the SMP aren’t the only aspects of a healthy LTR. When it comes time to make the transition from spinning plates to informed, committed monogamy, you still have to live with that person and this is when those value-added attributes make or break the LTR.

I understand S’s and so many other women’s frustrations with the Game as it applies to women’s deficiencies. I’ve written at length about how women would rather have the Game changed to better suit their capacities to play it. In this instance S repeats a common moan in that she expects men to appreciate the ‘value added’ elements of a woman’s persona in priority to her base attractiveness. Her fears that men might adopt some policy of neglecting “quality” women in favor of “arousing” women, while understandable in terms of feminine competition anxiety, are really unfounded. If anything it’s the majority of beta men conditioned to believe that “it’s what on the inside that matters” who’ve borne the brunt of women’s social dissatisfaction for the past 40 years.

Guys don’t seek out the community because they’re getting too much pussy from being ‘Nice’ and appreciative of women’s ‘deeper’ qualities and they don’t know how to let down all these women easy. If anything compromises self-respect (assuming an AFC even has a concept of that) it’s a Scarcity/Sniper mentality. Worry less about the guys tapping their “harems” and more about the chump crucifying himself to be the martyr for his singular “dream girl”. He’s far more common.

Is Seduction Real?

From a SoSuave regular:

This has been driving me crazy for awhile so I got to post this question. Can you REALLY, honestly, seduce a girl? When I say “seduce” her I’m talking about taking a girl that just wants nothing to do with you at all for whatever reason that you might have no control over, and literally saying this or saying that and changing her mind?

Here’s what I’ve experienced:

1.) My “presentation” is mostly the same with every girl and really there’s no presentation at all. I’m about all personality. Most girls that I meet say that I’m “cute” (you know how girls talk) in the looks area, I always present myself wearing high fashion and my car is nice.

2.) But here’s the thing, the results I get depend upon the girl. There are girls that will love me, some that will just “go with the flow,” then some that will flat out say boy get lost. But here’s the WEIRD thing. I would have some average looking chick reject me to turn around and have a total dime accept my offers lol. Looking at it, it doesn’t make any sense, but I think it’s coming back to what I’m starting to see in the field and that’s the result of the interaction with the girl has more to do with the GIRL in question rather than you. I mean of course you need to work your Game, look good and do your thing, but what I’m finding is that the results often depend upon the state of the girl and her life and her background, etc.

I mean are guys here seriously whipping out “lines” and player shit to turn girls that are just totally not interested to being interested? I guess from reading the manosphere I’m more in line with the focus on the girl being interested when I show up rather than believing I can create interest.

Are you really seducing the girl or did the girl find you sexy when you walked in the door and already decided that she would fuck you JUST AS LONG as you didn’t come off as a loser, creep, etc?? Which means all this shyt comes down to is having the balls to go up and spark interesting convos, have an interesting personality, and knowing WHICH girl in the room to go up to and which ones not to?

There’s a PUA idiom that states 80% of seduction is simply not fucking up what’s already there. Attraction is not a choice – however, what you do from there is entirely up to you.

I think people get hung up on the word “seduction.” It conjures up melodramatic associations of doing something nefarious to tempt someone into doing something against their own interests. In some instances that may be the case, but far more often seduction is really just selling yourself effectively by manipulating the emotions and psychologies of others. Politicians, religious leaders, salesmen, etc. are all seducers of varying shades. There’s a very blurry line between influence and seduction, but in both cases there’s a willing participant always present. No seduction, or call-to-action was ever consummated with a person who wasn’t already somewhat desirous of being seduced.

Advertisers have known this for years; the best seductions are the ones where the target isn’t aware of being seduced, plays a willing part in their own seduction and are so rapt in their own involvement that they’ll prefer pathological denial when confronted with having been seduced. To varying degrees, people have an innate, limbic level ego-preservation mechanism that protects them from the damages that humiliation might injure them with. No one likes to think that they could be so inured or naive (i.e. suckered) that they’d fall for a seduction, yet whenever they buy a lottery ticket their heads are filled with fantasies of what they’ll do with all that money.

So, given all of that, naturally no one is going to ever get any concrete, totally verifiable feedback as to what produced an effective seduction from the target that was seduced. That’s the subjective nature of all seduction – you can only draw your conclusions from what worked and what didn’t according to your own observations of your own goals, not the target’s.

For instance, I’d argue that it’s a rare woman who’ll admit to having been seduced by a man. It’s a point of pride for women to think that they have some preternatural ability (feminine wiles) to seduce men (really by virtue of having a vagina). And for those women who would admit to having been seduced, it’s always couched in a sense of complimenting herself for being a woman of such value who could attract a man capable of seducing her.

Bear in mind, everyone has Game. Even the worst beta AFC in the world believes his supplication, pedestalization and outright prostration for a woman will separate him from the rest of the herd of “other guys” and increase his appeal to her. Everyone of us, learned or not, has a Game in that we approach our sexual interests in the way we believe will best produce the desired result – sexual response. The average chump wouldn’t think to call it “seduction”, but his ‘Game’ that’s evolved, misguided as it may be, is still an effort in influence and persuasion over a girl to get to sexual response.

Learning from Failure

In terms of learning seduction, failure is more beneficial than success, and this is exactly what guys fear because failure comes in the form of rejection, or in the case of the already committed chump, a fear of rejection. The young AFC will rely on a deductive reasoning (as most males do) which plots something like this:

I have a physical need for sex -> Women have the sex I need -> I must find out what women require for their sexuality -> I ask women what prerequisites they require for this exchange -> I must model my personality, behavior and ambitions to best exemplify these prerequisites -> I must perform these behaviors for her approval -> I get sex.

This is simple male logic and ultimately self-destructive because the women he petitions find it easier to require the dictates of social contrivances that they feel should be expected of him (and modified by their own set of contrivances) than to actually give him the honest truth which would likely set him on his ass in rejection, but moreover would help him better learn how to genuinely develop his own identity.

It’s this failure that teaches most accurately. On several occasions I’ve advised guys to be more wary of their successes than thier failures. Men meticulously pore over and analyze the minute details of why a date went sour or why a woman cheated on or LJBFed them, but the moment they F-Close for the first time, the minute they taste that sweet successs they’ve been aching for so long to achieve, the story changes to “OK Rollo, thanks for all of your help, I can take it from here.” I can think of at least 4 recovering chumps I’ve personally counseled that aped the behavior well enough to get their “ONE” dream girl then crashed and burned in exactly the way I warned them they would because they never paused to question why they succeeded.

The goal of their ambition was more important than the process of understanding how they came to achieve it.

When I was counseling, the single most common complaint I heard from older AFCs was how they got a “raw deal” for doing everything that was expected from them. They did, to the letter, everything that they thought women expected of them. They were “good guys”, they played by the rules (women had set for them), they weren’t ‘Players’, they paid their bills, they were “Supportive®”, sacrificed their own ambitions to benefit their wives and children, they fed the dog and took out the garbage; but these guys were miserable because the fear of rejection, the “I’d lose her for sure if I rock the boat” scarcity mentality was more powerful than recognizing a deficit in appreciation from their wives for the life-sacrifices they made in order to keep the peace and ensure a steady supply of mediocre sexual exchange.

However, for all of their complaints and commiserations they never stopped to look at the process of events that brought them to their condition. The ‘success’ of having found a woman who’d marry them was all that was important to them at the time. Much of that “don’t question it” mentality was due to them having a Scarcity Mentality, but as their relationships decayed the focus became more about repairing it and themselves rather than untangling the process of events that contributed to it. The car was running, the TV came on when they hit the power button, and that’s all that mattered – it’s only when the car breaks down and the TV wont come on that they finally get to the nuts and bolts.

Romantic seduction has never been one-size-fits-all. In fact this is expressly spelled out in the introduction of the Art of Seduction by Robert Greene (required reading for Rational Readers). A lot of men forget what the ‘A’ means in PUA – artist. You can’t just blindly expect one style of seduction to work for all types of women – that’s why it’s called an Art. Being a good artist of any sort requires time, discipline, an ability to improvise, creation, adaptation, attention to detail, etc. There are certain basic foundational principles women adhere to (hypergamy being the most universal) either due to social convention or biology, but the good seductive artist uses these as a basis for an individual seduction. For instance, the seduction of a church mouse and a goth chick require two separate seductive approaches, but they’ll both be influenced by the underlying influences common to all women (i.e. hypergamy, dominance, etc.). A Man’s Alpha prowess will appeal to those biological foundations, but his approach in seduction needs to be measured by the conditions presented by his target.

Case Study – The Crazy

From a Rational Reader who shall remain anonymous:

I’m not sure what’s going on lately.

I’ve been in a weird way lately…about ready to jump off a bridge with the stress I’ve been feeling. I just don’t know who else to talk to.

Remember that long thread about the “obsessed girl” I was dating who I thought was “crazy”? I’ve been seeing her again…and it’s been a weird, weird story I can’t even get my head around.

I was honestly convinced she was borderline/insane, based on her murky past and her “unstable behavior”. I was done with her…had completely blown her off and was ready to wipe her out of my life forever. Then some crazy shit happened and we found ourselves forced to sit down and talk with each other about what had been going on.

She tells me that every time SHE came over my house, SHE was telling herself, “I can’t do this any more, I can’t keep seeing him, etc”. She said she saw a really great guy in me but the things I was saying and doing were driving her nuts.

She started rifling off this list of things that I did that drove her crazy/drove her to drink herself stupid…things like:

* Suggesting other women were interested
* Teasing her/negging her
* Staying detached
* Treating her like I didn’t need her/wasn’t that into her (she says, “like a call-girl”)

I’m sitting there thinking…god dammit, this all sounds familiar…Has becoming a “disciple” of all this Game bullshit been sabotaging me with women for years now?? Am I the “crazy one”? Has all of this nonsense just been a defense mechanism I built to deal with my OWN lack of self-worth??

I decided to drop all of the BS…and just give it a chance with this girl, legitimately, for real. No more Don Juan games…just seeing each other for who we really are. I’ll tell you…I’m at full-scale war with myself…and I’ve lost complete perspective over which side of me is “right”.

There’s one side of me that is absolutely in love with this girl. I mean, she is smoking hot, she’s intelligent and insightful (though she has what I’d consider to be “flakey” ideas about stuff), she has good practical skills (runs her own business), she’s VERY physical…more than me even. She does ALL of the good “wifey” things that everyone talks about…she cleans, she cooks (deliciously!), she dresses to impress when we go out together. She even tells me she doesn’t want to “monopolize all of my time” and constantly encourages me to do stuff I want to do.

As I said before, her past is a bit “wild”, but she honestly seems like she’s become more mature and intelligent and is REALLY taking steps to leave all of it behind. Who am I to deny her a chance at redemption??


“wild past”

“unstable behavior”



These are your terms.

Her list of prerequisites to stay with a “crazy” woman:

* Suggesting other women were interested
* Teasing her/negging her
* Staying detached
* Treating her like I didn’t need her/wasn’t that into her (she says, “like a call-girl”)

One would rationally think a ‘normal’ woman would find any of these intolerable, yet there you are. So either she is in fact crazy, finds reward in abuse and lacks sufficient self-worth to NEXT you, OR, you are approaching your LTR (such as it is) from a healthy, self-interested perspective that she actually does respect; in fact so much so that she’ll pursue you in spite of it.

I think what you’re experiencing now is not so much confusion with her as you are in owning your role as being the primary partner in your LTR. This is a VERY tough transition for a former AFC to accept. In truth, I would say that accepting and internalizing a dominant role in an LTR for a nominally beta guy is more difficult than realizing that applying Game actually works in attracting women as well as thriving with them in an LTR/Marriage.

It’s really a second unplugging for guys. The first shock of ‘unplugging’ comes in the actualizing that everything feminized society, everything any woman ever told him about the ‘appropriate’ way to engage with women is almost entirely the opposite of what produces the results he wants. Once he’s become so frustrated by his dating life that he experiments with un-conventional Game and discovers that Negs work, C&F works, Amused Mastery works, etc. there comes a point of disillusionment – and sometimes despair.

This comes from the realization that everything he’s held as a long-loved ego investment about women falls apart. Half his life was spent in the ignorance of believing women were equally as rational, equally shared the same mutual desires, equally as sincere in her words. The idea of duplicity based on her being female, or not understanding the gender differences in how women communicate, was shamefully due to his inability to become more like her. In his plugged in life, any failure, any misstep, was the result of his inability to identify with her more perfectly.

So it comes as no surprise when his eyes are opened to how much he’s invested of himself in these female-primary conventions. This is where most men turn back. It’s too much to bear in the revelation that what he’s believed for so long could be other than what women have told him so he enters a rationalized denial. And of course there is a well established social network ready welcome him back and reward him for his denial.

The Second Unplugging

The second unplugging comes when a Man is forced to come to this power dynamic realization again when entering into an LTR. Most guys who reinvent themselves and accept their masculine primacy role after having been subjected to an egalitarian gender equality doctrine for most of their lives feel strange in owning it in an LTR and/or marriage. It’s really put up or shut up time. Essentially you need to become the Man you sold yourself as when you were spinning plates. Guys who unplug and employ Game are initially mimicking the behaviors that used to be respected and attractive to women. Now they’re considered socially inappropriate or rude at best, borderline abusive at worst under feminine social auspices. Regardless, the results are undeniable.

In an LTR you have to actually be THAT guy, and for a formerly plugged-in AFC, the old mental schema of equality returns. Guilt sets in because he doesn’t feel deserving of the primacy he holds because he still hasn’t let go of that antiquated equalism he thought was valid for so long. He wants to play fair, but what he doesn’t realize is his concept of what is ‘fair’ is still rooted in his plugged-in mindset. It’s at this critical point that most LTRs destruct, because the guy reverts back to his old AFC mental habitus, or the girl settles into the comfort knowing she controls the frame and can dictate the terms of her intimacy as she sees fit.

This is one reason I emphasize a complete internalization of why Game works. I catch all kinds of criticism for being primarily theory based in my approach, but if, and when, you transition to an LTR monogamous commitment, by God you’d better understand why those theories are the bedrock of Game.

This is where you’re at. Your distress is coming from a want to return to a simpler way of dealing with your personal life that really never existed. Bear in mind that the “abusive” behavior your “crazy” girlfriend is complaining about is the same behavior that attracted her to you. If you’re feeling guilt for playing X-Box while she waits on you, then put down the console and do something productive, just understand that feeling of guilt comes from you thinking you need to “play fair” with her in order to keep her. That’s the path to her controlling the frame of the LTR.

The Peacekeepers

Whenever I’m asked for examples of ‘successful marriages’ it’s usually in response to a comment or forum thread breaking down the cost-to-benefits ratio of the travesty that’s become Marriage 2.0. To me, the real irony in these evaluative debates is how often they arise. They come up so often it’s as if these men, in their most rational and prescient minds, are seeking permission from more experienced men to enter into marriage in spite of all the overwhelming downsides to what the institution has become. Even when they’re staring down the gun barrel, guys still want to get married. They want it to work like it’s supposed to.

‘Successful’ and ‘Failed’ Marriages

I’ve made prior posts about my own marriage and how I’ve developed it, but I’m always reluctant to hold myself up as some model for other men to follow because I’m painfully and personally aware of the marriage stories of other men. As good as it sounds, don’t use my marriage as your benchmark.

In fact I think the very idea of a “successful marriage” is a very abused, feel-good Oprah-esque term. ‘Successful’ and ‘Failed’ marriages are Matrix-speak. They’re goal oriented terms for a relational condition that’s constantly in flux. You have to stop thinking of a “successful marriage” in terms of years on the clock. There are people married for 50+ years who are absolutely miserable with each other, and there are couples married for 2 or 3 who have a better love and mutual respect for each other than their parents ever realized themselves after 40 years. Perpetuating a life-long state of misery because it became normalized is a much greater ‘failure’ than divorcing a woman who’s poisonous to your well-being, to say nothing of your family’s. Longevity does not equal ‘success’ in marriage.

Whenever I’m asked for examples of ‘successful marriages’, and particularly when asked by guys seeking to turn their Beta-framed marriage around, I always refer to this inspirational post from Dave in Hawaii. This is my go-to model for both the questioning unmarried man and the desperate beta-married man.


The underlying, root problem most men have with regard to women, intimacy, their relationships, etc. is fear. Fear of rejection, fear of isolation, fear of missing out on or fucking up what they’ve been taught should be their legitimate, socially approved desire. So pervasive is this fear that in trying to avoid the consequences of it, it trumps even the fear of death. I personally know Marines who’ve bravely faced real bullets shot at them, who’ll manically avoid any situation they think their wives or girlfriends would even remotely consider leaving them for. Bullets don’t scare them, but the chance of losing a girlfriend’s intimacy paralyzes them with fear. This is the “Yes Dear” fear.

In order to compensate for that fear men will devise all manner of rationales for their relations, but furthest from their mind would ever be ‘experimenting’ or engaging in risk taking situations with their LTR woman. So influential is that fear that they will never attempt changing their own positions no matter how beneficial it would be to both him and his partner. Guys embodying the peak of confidence in other aspects of their lives would still rather “keep the peace” in the face of a bad situation with their wives than risk that loss (of the ONE or otherwise), and be cast back into uncertain conditions where they may actually grow, but again be subject to real rejection.

Dave in Hawaii’s story I linked is an example of a guy who would’ve otherwise divorced his wife and was already in a “nothing left to lose” situation while married, so he overcame the fear and experimented. That led him to a new reframing of his relationship; one where his wife had a renewed respect for him. The possibility existed that she could have taken such offense to his behavior that she would’ve been prompted to leave him, but her leaving was already a foregone conclusion if he hadn’t initiated something new.

There comes a point in a Man’s life where the fear of experimenting with a potentially disastrous outcome is out weighed by the cost involved in not assuming that risk.

Whether it comes (preferably) before he’s committed to a situation (like marriage) or as a result of the conditions created by that commitment, at some point he realizes the truth that he will only get what he has gotten if keeps doing what he has done. This is the internal debate the ‘peacekeeper’ has to confront – is his peacekeeping so debilitating that he wont experiment with risking a new outcome? If you’re still having this internal dialog you haven’t reached that threshold yet.

In July I’ll have been married for 16 years. Mrs. Tomassi and I have always enjoyed a mature, adult, mutual respect and understanding of each other’s identities and how we relate to each other. I’ve been in LTRs where I was constantly walking on eggshells, nervous that any slight might mean the end of what was really a twisted, adolescent level BPD relationship. You cannot live like that forever; you will break it off, or you will commit suicide. For over 16 years I’ve fearlessly ‘checked out’ other women and ask my wife’s joking opinion about them. And yes, she playfully hits me back by saying some random guy is cute, but my confidence to roll with what we’re both aware is part of the Game only serves to amplify her continued attraction for me. That push-pull is an essential part of my wife’s respect for me. Experimentation and a sense of fearlessness is an intentional foundation of my marriage.

Relational Equity

When I started in on the Hypergamy doesn’t care,.. post I knew it was going to come off as some unavoidably deterministic rant about the evils of hypergamy.

That post was born out of all the efforts I’ve repeatedly read men relate to me when they say how unbelievable their breakups were. As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male. There is a prevailing belief that all of their merits, if sufficient, should be proof against her hypergamous considerations.

For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it’s particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a sufficiently better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.

That isn’t to say that women don’t take that equity into account when determining whether to trade up or in their choice of men if they’re single, but their operative point of origin is ALWAYS hypergamy. Women obviously can control their hypergamic impulses in favor of fidelity, just as men can and do keep their sexual appetites in check, but always know that it isn’t relationship equity she’s rationally considering in that moment of decision.

This dynamic is exactly the reason the surrogate boyfriend, the perfect nice guy orbiter who’s invested so much into identifying with his target, gets so enraged when his dream girl opts for the hot asshole jerk. She’s not making a logical decision based upon his invested relational equity. Quite the opposite; she’s empirically proving for him that his equity is worthless by rewarding the hot jerk – who had essentially no equity – with her sex and intimacy. He doesn’t understand that hypergamy doesn’t care about relational equity.

This is a really tough truth for guys to swallow, because knowing how hypergamy works necessarily devalues their concept of relational equity with the woman they’re committed to, or considering commitment with. Men’s concept of relational equity stems from a mindset that accepts negotiated desire (not genuine desire) as a valid means of relationship security. This is precisely why most couples counseling fails – its operative origin begins from the misconception that genuine desire (hypergamy) can be negotiated indefinitely.

The Rational Female

Aunt Giggles recently posted a fluffy little piece of interpretive Alpha fiction extolling the virtues of Beta men (who of course to her are the real Alphas only without teeth, pee sitting down and only say sweet things about girls). It’s not a bad list in and of itself despite the fact that her definition of Alpha is George Costanza who morphs into Sterling Grey upon command when the moment strikes. It’s a noble effort, but where her list falls flat is in the presumption (her hope) that women will make a conscious, rational decision to opt for a Beta male as a suitable long term provider. What a novel concept!

Irony aside, Giggles still falls prey to two fallacies in her pleas for a better Beta. The first is as discussed above; the hope or the realistic expectation that women’s hindbrain hypergamy can be sublimated in favor of a rational cognitive decision making when choosing with whom to spread her legs for, much less settle down with. I understand it’s been at least 28 years since she had to make that particular decision, but not much has really changed in that time with regards to the limbic influence hypergamy has over women’s decision making processes. The short answer is that she believes that healthy relationships can be rooted in negotiated desire (which is also called ‘obligated desire’ in the real world).

This then leads into the second fallacy in which she presumes relationship equity – even the potential for that equity – will make the life time commitment to a “he’ll-haffta-do” Beta endurable while repressing her innate hypergamy. As I stated above, hypergamy doesn’t care about relational equity. If it’s a consideration at all in a woman’s decision making process, it’s only for comparative purposes when assessing risk motivated by hypergamy. Some times that risk association is present in deciding whether to accept a marriage proposal, sometimes it’s present when she decides another man’s genetic potential rivals that of the provider she’s already committed to, but in all instances the originating prompt is still hypergamy.

*late post edit* As is his way Roissy offers up another timely refutation of Aunt Susan’s played out trope ‘WARNING: Alpha traits alone are suitable for short-term mating only!’

The Rational Male

All of that may sound like I’m excusing men from the equation, I’m not. As I detailed in The Threat, when men progressively become more aware of their sexual market value, the better their capacity develops to assess long term investment potential with women. The trouble with this model, in its present form, is that the phase at which men are just becoming aware of their true long term value to women (usually around age 30) is almost exactly the phase (just pre-Wall) in which women hope to press men unaware of their SMV into their long term provisioning schema. As this relates to men, most spend the majority of their teens and 20’s pursuing women, following the dicktates of their biological impulses, and to varying degrees of success learn from experience what really seems like women’s duplicity or fickleness. So it comes as a breath of fresh air for the average (see Beta) guy to finally encounter what he believes is a woman who’s “down to earth” and seems genuinely concerned with hearth and family at age 29. Her past character, her very nature, even her single-mommyness can be overlooked and/or forgiven in light of finding such a rare jewel.

There’s a new breed of White Knight in the manosphere who love to enthusiastically promote the idea of rigorously vetting women as potential wives. It sounds like virtue. For serial monogamists playing the ‘Good Guy’ card, it sounds so satisfying to lay claim to having experience and integrity enough to be a good judge or authority of what will or will not do for his ‘exacting standards’. This is really a new form of Beta Game; “look out ladies, I’ve been through the paces so if you’re not an approximate virgin and know how to bake a hearty loaf of bread, this guy is moving on,..” and on, and on, and on. All any of this really amounts to is a better form of identification Game, because ultimately a profession of being a Good Guy is still an attempt to be what he expects his ideal woman would want – a good judge (of her) character.

Know this right now, no man (myself included) in the history of humanity has ever fully or accurately vetted any woman he married. And certainly not any guy who married prior to the age of 30 or had fewer than 1 LTR in his past. It’s not that high school sweethearts who last a lifetime don’t exist, it’s that no man can ever accurately determine how the love of his life will change over the course of that lifetime.

Right about now, I can hear the “wow, that’s some pretty raw shit there Mr. Tomassi” from the gallery, and I agree, but ask the guy on his second divorce how certain he was that he’d done his due diligence with his second wife based on all his past experience. Bear this truth in mind, you do not buy into a good marriage or LTR, you create one, you build one. Your sweet little Good Girl who grew up in the Amish Dutch Country is just as hypergamous as the club slut you nailed last night. Different girls, different contexts, same hypergamy. You may have enough experience to know a woman who’d make a good foundation, but you ultimately build your own marriage/monogamy based on your own strengths or dissolve it based on inherent flaws – there are no pre-fab marriages.