The Feminine Imperative

The Something Else


New commenter batfish55 had a stroke of genius in this weeks post.

 I do blow hours on my XBox, but even if modern graphics weren’t amazing and there was no XBox, I’d find something else.

This is exactly what male-feminist concern troll bloggers and ‘Man Up and Marry those Sluts’ Pastors refuse to understand because it completely fucks up their feminine-centric rationales and ham-fisted Beta AMOGing attempts to shame men for the disincentives that their ‘perfect women’ represent to men. The constant drone is how video games are to blame for paralyzing men’s maturation – a maturation that is always merited by how well he serves the Feminine Imperative.

What they refuse to acknowledge is: If it wasn’t X-Box it would be something else.

Countless guys do this already, because on some level of consciousness they get that the cost-to-benefit equation isn’t rewarding with women. As I wind my way through the third book, I’ve read through countless articles written by thoroughly feminized men, all shaking their heads over the reasons for the generation of “Lost Boys” who are so inured by the instant gratification of hi-res graphic video games and free online porn they have no incentive to ‘grow up’ and fulfill some nebulous form of manhood idealized by whatever shifting definition of masculinity their feminized minds think is relevant in that moment.

These hacks are so fundamentally locked into their ego-investment in blank-slate, gender-neutral equalism that it never registers for them that if it weren’t X-Box or widely available online porn it would be something else.

Thus, we have generations of Men in the Garage who feel some desperate need to claw out a tiny space where they’re free to be men in a home they own. These men need something else that’s just marginally rewarding set apart from their unrewarding spouse. And even in this attempt at Male Space, women feel entitled to insert themselves into it or do something compensatory.

Thus, we have married men who’d rather become “workaholics” and pour themselves into their careers rather than rush home to the minimal reward that his wife represents, the negligible appreciation for him as a man or, at best, his answering to the male indenturement that he was taught he should find intrinsically rewarding. Instead, work becomes his something else that he occupies himself with.

And thus, we have men who’ve bought into the feminine-primary conditioning that their highest sense of reward ought to be found in fulfilling the ideals of Fempowerment who instead find that women’s solipsism and their own, life-long approach to appeasing it has instead driven them to find that something else more intrinsically and/or extrinsically rewarding.

It’s not just “lost boys” staring at X-Box, smoking weed and snapping their radish to free porn, those are just young guys being pragmatic in solving the cost-to-reward equation women give them. But married men, men of all walks of life, are solving that equation for themselves now. They’re forced to solve an equation presented to them by women who feel entitled to having their Hypergamous natures optimized and appeased, with no insight as to how disposable men might adapt to their conditions.

These aren’t lost ‘boys’, they are mature, relatively accomplished men responding to their condition.

Men are deductive problem solvers. Our mental firmware will consciously or unconsciously make attempts to solve problems within the context of what we consciously or unconsciously have presented for us. Blue Pill conditioned bloggers, distraught over the ‘lost boys’, aren’t concerned with these guys’ making something of themselves. What they White Knight over is the lack of suitable husbands to join them in their own indenturement. That, or they fret over the possibility that their empowered daughters might not have a suitable Beta ready to marry her once she’s “found herself” at the end of the Epiphany Phase. They argue from the feminine-correct perspective they’ve only ever known. Complacency, like misery, loves company, especially when it confirms the rationales men use in their own denial.

These pearl-clutching Vichy men can’t see the disincentives of forming long-term monogamous bonds with women that their ‘drop out’ generation boys are just pragmatically avoiding. It is indeed a form of Soft MGTOW, but what’s harder for these manginas to acknowledge is the Soft MGTOW that’s been a part of modern marriage for four decades now.

As an aside here I should mention that a foundational tenet of the Red Pill is that a man must always put himself and his passions at the forefront of his life, or as Roissy put it, you shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority. The something else I’m detailing here may in fact be a man’s genuine passion, but his impetus to engage (or over-engage) in it comes as a result of a need for escapism rather than genuine fervor for it. This is an important distinction because what formerly was a dynamic passion for a man can turn into an unrewarding refuge if his perception of it becomes one of escaping his reality.

Market Reset?

Reader Kaminsky had a question in that same comment thread:

How do we incentivize them? (honest question, not loaded snark)

—Do we incentivize by withdrawing?

—Or by becoming yet better men?

I sought to answer this question in Spare the Rod, but I neglected to use the examples from my post Bachelor Nation in that one. This was the video I based the Bachelor Nation essay on.

I’d like to think of this as an example of the sexual market correcting itself, but when you listen to the self-important, solipsistic reasonings as to why these women believe the most desirable men ought to alter their own sexual strategies, change their minds, and rewire their arousal cues to accommodate sub-optimal women such as themselves, you begin to see why MGTOW, even soft MGTOW is a pragmatic response.

The logic of today goes something like this: Alphas change behavior, women respond and Betas follow along to women’s response.

I would argue that Alphas change behavior, women do or do not adapt, and then Betas follow the dictates of the sexual market. Whether you consider them Alpha or in some way marginally desirable by the women in this video these men have taken it upon themselves to find their something else.

In this video you have an example of men who both withdraw and make themselves better men (even if just by assuming some degree of control over their place in the SMP), but the attitude on the part of women isn’t, “Oh shit, we’d better make ourselves more acceptable mates for these desirable men or they’ll outsource us to Brazil.” Instead it’s the same entitled response we expect from women raised in a feminine-primary social order, “These men betterchange to accommodate us! It’s our game they need to play or they’ll be ass-out when they get older and lonely.” It’s this or else it’s some variation of “I make my own damn money” and they end up with the hapless Beta who would accommodate her because he too was raised to fall in line with feminine-primacy.

In all honesty I think correcting women has to begin at home. It needs to come from Red Pill fathers raising daughters from a Red Pill aware perspective. It’s got to come from a bottom up methodology, and quite honestly I don’t think that can happen until more men become Red Pill aware and accept their new role of mentoring the next generations as well as unplugging Blue Pill men today.

We have a generation of women today who are the products of fempowerment and ‘participation trophy’ equalism. That they’d EVER need to self-correct in order to have a better man in their lives is never an afterthought. Look at the women in this video, they are genuinely shocked that guys would be independent enough to save their money and take it upon themselves to look for romantic options outside of their ‘approved’ roles that ought to be in their lives. They literally don’t get it, so they fall back on male shaming and call them ‘sex tourists’ which is one degree away from ‘human trafficking’.

These women are the products of the oblivious entitlement that’s come from a feminine-primary social upbringing that’s taught them women can do anything and be anything. They’re taught to expect men to be compliant with their sexual strategies, but yet be their SMV equal-or-better without any qualifications on their part other than to have a vagina.

I believe the market can correct itself, but it must come from the bottom up and that starts by raising daughters and mentoring young women into more realistic self-understanding and more realistic expectations from themselves and others. I can hear the cries of “well good fuckin’ luck with that”, but at some stage Red Pill aware men will need to have the courage to go against the fempowerement zeitgeist. While encouraging boys to become girls is lauded in today’s world I also understand that encouraging girls to be even marginally realistic or to recognize the realities that their gender necessitates they be concerned with is this side of child abuse.

If women are to be corrected it’s going to need to begin with Red Pill fathers educating their daughters from an early age. If not, their daughters will find a generation of young men who are already looking for something else before she meets them.

Sexual Zoning


Höllenhund brought up an interesting thought a few weeks ago:

This reminds me of something I wanted to ask here in general. The general narrative about MGTOW in the ‘sphere is that they are “avoiding women”. A more general narrative pushed in the mainstream media by Zimbardo, Hymowitz, Milo and other blue/purple pill journalists is that a growing number of young men are avoiding women.

What does “avoiding women” precisely mean in the current socio-cultural context in the West? The word “avoid” entails some sort of active, deliberate, protective measure. My problem with that is that the “avoidance of women”, or a breakaway from women doesn’t look like that at all in practice today, because the social context of male-female interaction has changed completely in the last 2-3 decades.

This is something our pal Novaseeker has described before. In the bygone Western social system, young people were expected to regularly interact with one another in controlled, regulated environments, in a way that fostered productive, long-term, monogamous, assortative relationships. This was a sort of “holistic” milieu, so to speak, where young people treated one another as potential future partners, sexual and otherwise, in a socially regulated manner, in all cases when they were permitted to interact. This was even the norm in workplaces where both men and women were present. The average man found a girlfriend through his extended family or social circle, because families and social circles were normally large.

What we have today is the complete opposite: “sexual zoning”. Some mixed-sex environments, like the workplace, schools and campuses, are made completely asexual – sterile, so to speak. No sexualized interactions are permitted to take place. This is demanded by law and expected by society. In such environments, you’re supposed to treat members of the opposite sex strictly as colleagues or professionals, non-sexual beings. (Hot men are allowed to get away with more, of course, but that’s another issue.) Other mixed-sex environments, on the other hand, like nightclubs, are expected to be full-on sexual. Everybody there knows that all interactions entail the future possibility of casual sex. It’s basically a meat market. You’re expected to hit on girls, and girls expect to be hit on by attractive men. Socializing in these environments requires action, engagement. If you want to find a partner, either just for sex or something more, you have to go there, you have to have Game etc.

In other words, avoidance of women in the old days was an anti-social act of disengagement that was frowned upon. Today, avoidance of women merely means that you’re not expending excess energy and time to do certain things. It’s an “action” with few or no social repercussions – you won’t be socially ostracized or something. But technically it’s not an action. You’re basically “avoiding” women by not hitting the clubs on Saturday night. You’re avoiding them through simple inaction. You can have a full-time job, or go to college, have a social circle, have hobbies, buddies etc., basically a normie life, and still “avoid” women.

I thought this was an interesting observation because there is a stark contradiction in how these sexual zones are presented to men by women. From an old books perspective, men are still expected to be the initiators. It is incumbent upon men to be the sex that approaches and expresses intimate interest in women, and men who don’t, or who fail to build themselves into acceptable mates for women are shamed as being perpetual adolescents or just “giving up.” Our feminine-primary social mandate still promotes the expectation that men will prepare for, and initiate with, women.

However, from a new books perspective men are, as Höllenhund illustrates, expected to know their place in respect to whatever sexual zone they find themselves in, as well as having an understanding of how they are perceived in the SMP. So, in an asexual zone such as a college campus or the workplace, men are expected to know their SMV and act or not act accordingly. Men not meeting or exceeding what would make for an optimized Hypergamy with women are expected not to initiate or approach. In fact, this expected understanding extends to sexual zones and fosters the avoidance Höllenhund talks about here.

For all of the handwringing from feminine-primary gender pundits about men ‘dropping out’ of life or the SMP, it is this contradiction in atmosphere that promotes the avoidance. Hypergamy, being the prime directive of westernized societies, is figuratively best served when women are in complete and unilateral control of sexual selection. Thus, we see laws and social dictates installed to encourage men to self-select themselves out of the process and make this selection easier for women. Men will be shamed for not initiating and not approaching, but simultaneously be held accountable for as much as hate crimes if they step outside what they are expected to know are their appropriate sexual zones.

Why Millennials Might Be Having Less Sex Than Their Parents

Recently there’s been a spate of articles all attempting to explain why millennials aren’t getting after it in an age when it’s never been easier to hook up. Try as they will, nearly all of the explanations fail to account for how sexual zoning has affected the sexual marketplace today. Millennials have the ‘hook up generation’ reputation, but statistically they’re not doing much fucking.

Noah Patterson, 18, likes to sit in front of several screens simultaneously: a work project, a YouTube clip, a video game. To shut it all down for a date or even a one-night stand seems like a waste. “For an average date, you’re going to spend at least two hours, and in that two hours I won’t be doing something I enjoy,” he said.

It’s not that he doesn’t like women. “I enjoy their companionship, but it’s not a significant part of life,” said Patterson, a Web designer in Bellingham, Washington.

He has never had sex, although he likes porn. “I’d rather be watching YouTube videos and making money.” Sex, he said, is “not going to be something people ask you for on your résumé.”

One aspect that these largely millennial writers themselves seem oblivious to is the complexities of sexual zones that shift constantly for guys. In 2016 hooking up is easy, we’ve got Red Pill awareness and we have instantaneous communication, but what we don’t have are clearly defined sexual zones. Put a guy whose social intelligence is sub par into the wrong zone and it’s understandable that he has better things to occupy himself with that he ‘enjoys’.

This is a common refrain from MGTOWs. It’s usually some variation of  “why should I waste my time trying to untangle some girl’s head just to put myself at risk of a sexual harassment or rape accusation?”

Fred Flange had this comment a few weeks ago:

Co-sign, and this “soft MGTOW” observation ties in nicely with the WashPost’s “no sex please we’re collegiate” article. MGTOW is now socially subsidized and easy to implement: just do nothing! At college, don’t engage in class, or even better, “attend” the lectures on-line. Say no more in class or lab than you must, then leave. Start no convos, you won’t be dragged into any. All of this goes for cubicle workers: in the lunchroom, stare at your phone, or eat at your desk, or if you can, get outside but go alone. No feelings caught, no feelings hurt. Everybody gets nothing, therefore everybody wins.

Eventually you can learn the fine art of disappearance in urban settings: yes you occupy space, but other than someone bumping into you, it is possible to go anywhere without your registering with anyone in the vicinity, not even cops. You can switch it on and off like a light.

One possible corollary to look for: see if the “bros before homes” shaming begins to die down. It should. Because before that you patriamalarkey-preaching Tumblr-inas insisted you wanted that cheesy-bro to go? He’s GONE! Soft MGTOW is the mandated social paradigm, outside of “safe social zones” like public streets, malls, clubs, etc. plus in some workplaces and colleges it’s law. You’re going to complain about men obeying the law?

There’s also no shortage of articles decrying the absence of boys and young men these days too. The frequent bugbear in these always point to guys ‘dropping out’ and playing X-Box all day. From America’s Lost Boys:

Young men, significantly more so than young women, are stuck in life. Research released in May from the Pew Center documented a historic demographic shift: American men aged 18-30 are now statistically more likely to be living with their parents than with a romantic partner. This trend is significant, for one simple reason: Twenty- and thirtysomething men who are living at home, working part-time or not at all, are unlikely to be preparing for marriage. Hurst’s research says that these men are single, unoccupied, and fine with that—because their happiness doesn’t depend on whether they are growing up and living life.

Now, granted, this article presumes men’s adulthood ought to be measured by his capacity to get involved with a woman, support a family and maintain a steady job. It’s very hard for writers who tackle this topic to pull their heads out of the old books reasonings. Thus, the go-to answer to the question of ‘why do guys drop out?’ is video games. It’s far easier to goof on men as a whole if they can be made to look juvenile, lazy or stupid to the point men not knowing what’s good for them.

It would take a real effort to tackle the larger reasons as to why men drop out, and men like Samuel James (article author) would be forced to acknowledge the disincentives for men to participate in what his old books reasonings tell him is some mutually beneficial arrangement. Those disincentives don’t paint women in a very flattering light, so it’s much easier to dismiss them as garden variety misogyny.

The drop out generation are content with their lot in life because they’ve accepted the realities of a social order that debases men and manhood to being appliances to better serve women’s imperatives. And the risks of investing themselves in a relationship or finding the inner will to become better men for the sake of “growing up” are significant when the rules of engagement and the acceptable sexual zones are constantly changing.

The Damage Done By ‘Mattress Girl’

“Even in less extreme situations, young men are more skeptical of women’s ability or propensity to consent to sex, which some women on campus consider demeaning.

“I find that men are more and more interested in ensuring that I’m consenting before sex, which would seem like a good thing,” Columbia student Dylan Hunzeker said. “But sometimes I don’t necessarily feel that way. Especially when I have to answer a man’s question: ‘are you sure you’re not too drunk?’ Or ‘you want to have sex with me?’ In a sense, it’s annoying and debilitating to be constantly questioned about whether or not I have agency and am a sexual human being.”

“Men are scared of women on campus now, and fear breeds anger and prejudice. Women are frustrated by men, which inspires a lack of desire to collaborate for solutions.”

I would argue that a large majority of men accused of sexual harassment or even just suspected of impropriety are men who’ve found themselves in an environment they believed was an acceptable sexual zone. We are fast approaching a time when all zones will be so arbitrary and ambiguous that every environment with sexual potential will be avoided. This will have the effect of putting women into unilateral control of their own Hypergamy. It will be a state of Sadie Hawkins world – only women will make approaches on men and only those who match her Hypergamous ideal, an ideal fostered and reinforced by a steady diet of social media ego inflation.

It’s ironic that authors bemoaning the drop out generation of men never acknowledge the other side of the disincentives for men – those generated by a feminine-primary social narrative – the generation of women who remain unmarried well into their middle age. When this is explored, once again, it’s the result of the juvenile, ridiculous men that same narrative has created for itself.

Spare the Rod,…


Two weeks ago in A Woman’s Prerogative I explored the possible social changes that a male-controlled birth control might mean to our feminine-centric social order. I think it’s important to bear in mind that the primary reason something like Vasalgel would be in any way controversial is because we’re considering it from a social state where women are already allowed a unilateral control of birth, and by extension a virtually unilateral control over their Hypergamous choices. More importantly though is the fact the both women’s hormonal birth control and (prospectively) men’s Vasalgel birth control are both concealed forms of contraception. In other words there is always a certain degree of trust or an acknowledgement that a woman will faithfully take her pill, while a man’s word that he is or isn’t on Vasalgel would be the card he plays close to his chest.

I don’t want the discussion to be lost on the mechanics or the semantics of how Vasalgel would or wouldn’t change the intersexual landscape in this post. Rather, I think it’s important to keep in mind just how one-sided the process of Hypergamy is for women today. In all of the post-sexual revolution generations we simply take for granted things like sperm banks, safe and legal abortion, and unilaterally female-controlled birth control that is for all intents a trust-contract for men.

I use the term feminine-primary social order quite a bit in my essays. What I mean in this respect is that we tend to take women’s imperatives as the correct ones in virtually all arenas of westernized societies, and women’s benefits, real or imagined, will always come before any man’s imperatives are considered, if at all. The more we progress socially the more the feminine base of control becomes more evident. Case in point, we don’t really consider the gravity of women’s power in a concealed form of birth control in which women are the only arbiters and only they know the truth of until something like Vasalgel is invented to give men a similar degree of control.

All social mandates revolve around satisfying the insecurities and doubts inspired by women’s Hypergamy, or allaying fears and justifying the fears of having to live with the consequences that result from it.

I coined the term feminine-primary social order because there comes a lot of confusion with other terms like Gynocracy or Matriarchy, also not to be confused with Matrilinear. It’s important to delineate these ideas because Matriarchy implies a direct and overt form of social control while Gynocracy is a self-perpetuating form of indirect or covert social control enforced with the aid of both sexes but neither acknowledging the feminine-primary focus. Men aid in Gynocracy willingly because men (the majority Beta) see a deference to women as an expectation and a benefit to their own sexual strategy.

A feminine-primary social order is a manifestation of a Gynocentric pre-understanding on the part of both sexes, but neither sex considers, overtly, the power imbalance because common understanding is that women are always the victims of male oppression. This is a self-perpetuating status that will never be appeased because in so doing women lose a default form of power.

It’s ironic how, in an egalitarian perspective, women are supposed to be independent, rational free-agents right up until the consequences of their actions begin to impact their lives. Then it’s either men’s fault for their state, men are held accountable for those decisions and behaviors, or they are expected to forgive those consequences and solve the problems women created for themselves.

Self Improvement

One reason I don’t think Vasalgel will be legalized for mass consumption (or will eventually meet stiff legislative resistance) is because it puts a measure of Hypergamous control in the hands of men. We’ve already seen attempts to make ‘sex by deception’ equitable with rape. And we’ve already seen the legislation that makes even approaching a woman on the street equitable with a hate crime. My guess is that not disclosing a guy is on Vasalgel or he’s had a vasectomy could easily be construed as such too.

But what’s really at issue is the presumption of control a woman ought to have over men in this respect. There is no reason a woman would ever consider improving herself to be a more acceptable candidate for an LTR when it is all supply and no demand for her.

I touched on this dynamic in Sexy:

Show Up Naked, Bring Beer

Another great irony of our age is that we still cling to the idea that it’s women who are the best seducers of humanity. In the same misdirection that women would like to believe that they are the more romantic gender, so too would they like to believe they are the most effective seducers. Both of these are far from the truth. It’s Men with the greatest art that have gone down in history as the greatest seducers of the genders. So much more is required of Men to be effective seducers than women.

In this age female seduction amounts to show up naked, bring beer.

Men are stimulated primarily by the physical, but there’s a lot more a woman can do to be seductive. Quite honestly I think seduction is a lost art for women. Very few women know how to be sexy, much less seductive. Even fewer ever feel a need to be seductive. This is due to an environment that, for the past 50 years, has simplified sexual exchange for women to the point that all she need do is stay somewhat fit and wear a thong occasionally. So many men have become so acclimated to just these visual prompts as sexual cues that women don’t really need to learn seduction. There is no greater reward for being sexy or seductive beyond what she’s already capable of prompting in a man, so seduction practices aren’t reinforced for her.

Now add to this the feminine priority westernized culture has placed on women’s sexuality. Any woman feeling a need to be seductive for a man is cast in the role of putting his sexual value above her own. Remember, according to Cosmo and Oprah it is he who needs to be sensitive to her needs. Her sexuality is a GIFT he qualifies for, not something she should ever feel a need to sell to him by means of seduction.

Women don’t need to seduce men anymore. The feminine-priority dynamic has put a default value on women’s sexuality. Those hot enough to simply wear something revealing never need seduction, and those not hot enough can’t sell it anyway. And the girls who’re in between – the one’s who’d benefit most – are discouraged from learning seduction since it’s denigrating to women who should already be on a pedestal to begin with.

Ever since the sexual revolution there’s been less and less motivation for women to develop seduction skills. If anything there’s a resentment for ever having needed them in the past. I’d argue that feminine seduction skills have been replaced with emotional and psychological manipulations (see BPD) in order to make men comply with their imperatives as a result of having abandoned those seduction behaviors.

It’s Men who are learning seduction skills now. How many men do you suppose have read the Art of Seduction by Robert Greene in comparison to women? It’s men who’ve created a global community dedicated to seduction techniques. Perhaps this is the best evidence of the gender reversal the community discusses so often? Women’s sexuality has been elevated to such a degree that it’s men who find it necessary to collectively study seduction.

In the manosphere men are constantly working at self-improvement. For most, self-improvement is their only imperative. Not a day goes by that I don’t read some Red Pill guy talking about how he’s changed his life for the better with his new found Red Pill awareness. Of course, it’ll be argued that this is for our own benefit apart from what women would like as the better of him. Be that what it is, that improvement still raises his SMV and still improves his prospects even its a ‘peripheral’ reward to him.

At present there is no need for women to be anything more than arousing and sexually available. There are no ‘femospheres’ dedicated to women’s self-improvement that parallel that of men’s. Even “Red Pill Women’s” forums would be hard pressed to explain how they planned to improve their selves.

Women no longer have any real incentive to dedicate themselves to self-improvement, to seduction or to embracing femininity for a prospective man. This harkens back to my post Crisis of Motive, why do you do what you do? However, what motivation does even an average woman (HB5-6) have to learn to cook, clean or make a home today? Even when women do, it’s never for men. The criticism is always not wanting to be a man’s mother and this is an interesting feminist oxymoron – literally any act of domesticity is construed not just as servitude on the part of a woman, but the necessity of it on the part of a man, or for men, reinforces the idea that men are all innately children in need of mommy’s services.

Correcting Women

In the last post I mentioned a need for ‘correction’ on the part of women. Naturally, the binary reflex response for some was to presume I meant that some kind of scolding or shaming was due on the part of men. And, of course, the images of men and husbands talking down to women like errant children was the predictable impression.

I think it needs to be said that correcting women needn’t be some in-her-face directly overt affair. It may be as simple as deciding for oneself what a man deems unacceptable behavior from women and voting with their dicks and their wallets. As Red Pill awareness spreads and men become more sensitive to seeing the truths inherent of today’s women there should also come a new pragmatism in men’s dealing with women. Correcting women will always be far more effective when it’s indirect. As I said, women will not learn so long as there is a feminine-primary social infrastructure that absolves them of any accountability. And if a man so much as offers his take on why a woman is in the shape she is or he’s bold enough to tell a woman how to avoid the pitfalls she’s likely to fall into he’s accused of misogyny and being a “monster” for daring to attempt to correct her.

In fact, this correction will likely be something Red Pill men won’t even consider as ‘correction’; it will simply make sense not to bother with women whose character has been molded by feminist influences or whose egos have exceed all sensibility in contrast with her sexual market value. And it will be women who actually inspire this new pragmatism of correcting women.

As open, overt, Hypergamy is more widely embraced by women, as the duplicity of their sexual strategy becomes something women triumphantly use in popular media and culture the more unignorable, that hubris, that raw deal, becomes evident to even the most Blue Pill of men. Mix in a degree of real, unilateral control for men – such as Vasalgel or its like would – and you put women into an uncomfortable and unfamiliar need to actually have to develop some sort of ‘value-added‘ to their characters.

I remember laughing at a Leykis 101 rule where Tom said something like if a woman you’re on a date with insists on looking at her phone or takes a call or is texting you should casually excuse yourself and leave her there to pick up the tab.

I used to think that was harsh, but I understand the sentiment that makes it necessary today. Women can’t learn what men wont teach them. Now, I get that women have Beta chumps on speed-dial ready to console them right after you do something similar, but it’s that drastic experience that’s needed to send a message. If you were Alpha enough to make an impression on her she’ll understand she fucked up. I’ve always advised men that if they know they’re heading for a breakup they need to be the initiators of it. It’s far better to leave her with the impression that the Frame was always in your terms.

I wish I could say that women will eventually learn from their mistakes, but women’s innate nature of solipsism combined with a social order that never holds them accountable and constantly reinforces their ‘correctness‘ in spite of it keeps them perpetually indignant to any insight a man might offer to them. One more reason a woman should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it.

When you combine women’s opportunistic concept of love with a society that never holds them accountable for the ramifications of it, no matter who it impacts, you get generations of women who are simply not worth anything to men beyond sex.

What we’re experiencing is the end result of a blank-slate egalitarian social order; you reduce human interaction to the lowest acceptable transaction. It will be interesting to see how something like Vasalgel will shift this condition by putting the choice of birth in the control of men. I get that Betas will always be available to breed, but women aren’t hardwired to be aroused/attracted to Betas. The onus of shifting their behavior in order to optimize Hypergamy will be on women if they want to consolidate on it with a better-than-deserved man with a higher SMV that her.

Women need the correction of men. How this correction is implemented is really what’s at issue. Being the apex male in a woman’s life as a means to initiating this correction is the first step. Dread can cause a women to self-correct of her own volition, but Dread is only effective if a man has real appreciable value to a woman.

Women will actually need to correct themselves to access the men aware of their Game, who demonstrate higher SMV, and have that guy actually be interested in her for more than a fuck – a fuck he wont need to worry about getting her pregnant with. Women have reduced themselves to sexual commodities and the only means to improving that state is to put a real, actionable, degree of control into the hands of men. At present, men have nothing to barter with beyond their own SMV and their hard won resources.

All that said, men must be prepared to walk at the first signs that he isn’t a woman’s first priority. The correction comes from a woman learning the value of a man the hard way. Demonstrate, do not explicate. You correct a woman by fucking her best friend. You correct a woman by putting all her shit out on the curb when she cheats on you. You correct a woman by being a man so valuable to here that she wants to comply with your rules. You correct a woman by being so valuable to her Dread is an ambient passive dynamic for her. You correct a woman by being aware of Alpha and Beta tells and acting according to the message her medium is telling you.

Women are never expected to shoulder consequences of their actions and as such they have no incentive for introspection or correction. There’s a social infrastructure that’s been established and revised for centuries that expressly excuses women from the consequences of their behaviors and ideologies. Women need correction, but they only learn it from the ramifications of their actions when men enforce it by their non-participation, non-cooperation with women’s ‘correctness’ or by women’s loss.

For Better or Worse


Before I dive in here today it’s going to be important to put things into perspective with respect to an Old Married Guy becoming Red Pill aware and then applying what he’s learned in his marriage. In the last few comment threads the discussion has veered to what exactly the state of “monogamy” (if it can be called that) will look like in the next few decades given Red Pill awareness, Open Hypergamy, the progression of technologies that conflict with (or exacerbate) our evolved capacity to reproduce, etc.

The conversation tends to be a back and forth between what a more feasible and pragmatic approach to long-term relationships might be. The Young Single Guys make a (rather convincing) case for some form of men reserving the option of non-exclusivity; to take on short term lovers should the opportunity present itself – even if for just protecting a man’s state of Frame. Dread, being what it is, would necessarily be a mutually understood cornerstone of this arrangement.

The OMGs who’ve had the benefit of experience with respect to living with women (and in some cases divorces), rearing children (for better or worse) then offer up the realities of what a pLTR might be limited by with respect to actually living in an arrangement like this and the legal ramifications it leaves men open to.

Hashing out what Marriage 3.0 will or should look like is a discussion I’ll reserve for the next essay. For now I think it’s going to be important for that debate to recognize that since Red Pill awareness, in the intersexual respect, is a relatively new social awareness there’s always going to be differing experiences with it.

For the young men who’ve had the benefit of being Red Pill aware and learning Game, courtesy of communication technology and the experiences of countless other older men, it may sound kind of mundane when an Old Married Guy (OMG) finally ‘gets it’ after being Blue Pill for so long. But while you may never consider getting married in the future, you will no doubt get older and hopefully wiser in a way that your elders never had the benefit of. The reason I wrote Preventive Medicine was to do just this; to teach men what to expect from women and their sexual strategies and prioritization at their various phases of maturity. However, I would be remiss not to take into consideration what YSGs relate about the realities of today’s sexual marketplace. I think between us we have a very powerful knowledge-base.

As I said, for YSGs, it may seem mundane for a formerly Blue Pill OMG to kick up his wife’s sexual interest with his new Red Pill awareness, but consider that to him the Red Pill is an exciting answer to a long struggle. Likewise, an older guy reeling from an ugly divorce and rebuilding an even better life and sex life with Red Pill awareness is a fantastic feeling that I think is hard for YSGs to empathize with.

Instant Gratification

In my Stalling for Time essay I quoted reader YaReally and his understandable frustration with dealing with women in what’s become the modern sexual marketplace. I won’t re-quote it here, but the gist of it was how women of this generation are so predisposed to the attentions that social media offers them. The immediacy of social affirmation is just an Instagram post away and Beta orbiters are now a utility women simply take for granted.

It’s important to understand this in the light of how women’s psyches interpret instantaneous affirmation, as well as instantaneous indignation, attention and emotional consolation from both Beta orbiters and ‘you go girl’ girlfriends. I should also point out that there’s an even uglier side to this equation for women and girls who find themselves social outcasts. The cruel venom from haters is equally as instantaneous and likewise women’s evolved psyches struggle to process this.

As is the theme of this series, we have a situation wherein technological advancement outpaces human capacity to adequately process how it is affecting us. In this case we have women’s solipsistic nature that prevents the insight necessary to self-govern themselves with regard to how instant gratification of their base needs for attention is affecting their personalities and the decisions they make because of it. Prior to the communication age women’s need for interpersonal affirmation was generally limited to a small social circle and the opportunities to satisfy it were precious and private. It used to require far more investment on the part of women to connect interpersonally. But in the space of just two generations the social media age has made this affirmation an expect part of a woman’s daily life.

On top of this, we find ourselves in a time when feminine-primacy in our social structure makes criticizing or even making casual, constructive, observations of this self-gratifying vanity on par with misogyny for men. Women cannot hear what men wont tell them, and women have far less incentive to self-examine the consequences of what this affirmation-satisfying attention is working in them.

The Open Hypergamy Future

I get what the Young Single Guys are saying, I really do. I linked this article in a recent comment and after reading through it and author’s blog I can’t help but sympathize with the YSG’s grasp of the modern dating scene and how utterly hopeless it is for men to expect anything less than complete, life altering despair from the prospect of marriage. There is no upside to monogamous commitment, but the real kicker is that this condition is what women plan for and would hope for their own daughters.

Now, I understand Emma Johnson is another click-bait outrage broker, but is the sentiment her reader relates in raising her daughter to expect to be a single mother as an ideal state all that difficult or shocking to believe from women in this era?

My dream for my daughter is that she be in a loving relationship, and have a good ex-husband who really does a great job with the kids, 50 percent of the time.

People forget the joys of divorce — sharing your kids without guilt and having alone/me time.

[…]I also have time to exercise, enjoy vacations that are relaxing and involve lots of book-reading, and I have had time to nurture a relationship with my new husband, with fewer of the stresses of blended families.

The idealized state is one in which I outlined in The Myth of the Good Guy:

The problem with this ‘Good Guy’ myth is not because men can’t or wouldn’t want to try to balance women’s Hypergamy for them, but simply because women neither want nor expect that balance in the same man to begin with.

This is a new step in Open Hypergamy, the acknowledgement and proud embrace of women’s Hypergamous sexual strategy is not enough. The open expectation that one man will father and support her children while another will satisfy her sexually and appreciatively is not enough. The plan is literally to raise a young woman to adulthood with the expectation of her raising another child without a father/husband in her life and the child’s. We’re left to presume that the preferred norm for raising boys will be in teaching them it’s their responsibility to accommodate this norm.

The plan is not simply to end the Sandbergian plan for Hypergamy with the “Equal partner, someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home.” The plan is to leave that well-providing Beta once he’s been locked into indefinite utility and take up with a sexier husband with fewer parental stresses.

Yet, despite the overtness of women’s Hypergamy, men still have an idealistic hope that the worst predations of women wont happen to them. Read this woman’s post, sift through her other posts; she’s despicable, calculating, duplicitous and would put the knife in your back she told you she would,…but she’s also honest.

Whether by our conditioning or some intrinsic idealism, we want to believe in the earnestness of the Old Set of Books in the face of New Book women openly telling us “You stupid men, this is what we plan to do to you from the outset. Naked, open Hypergamy and all its machinations is what I will teach my daughters and grand daughters to do to your sons and grandsons. And you will take it and accept your Alpha Fucks or Beta Bucks roles in all of it because you’ll never get past your inherent idealism that we might not do all of this.”

We want to believe this woman is an outlier, but by order of degree, we know that whether it’s with softly spoken, loving words or a mommy blog that triumphantly yells these truths, women’s opportunistic concept of love will never align with our idealistic concept of love.

Primary LTRs

The arrangement this woman is hoping will be her daughter’s adult life is not too far different from what YaReally was suggesting about pLTRs; a primary long term relationship with a direct or indirect understanding that a man could take other lovers as fits him. He’s not the first to suggest the pLTR scheme as a workaround for marriage or raising a family sans marriage or binding commitment. And if Emma Johnson (or the reader she’s quoted) is to be believed this would be her own ideal relationship, albeit from the perspective of a woman retaining total Frame control.

Even a PUA like Mystery believed he could maintain a literal harem in some kind of live-in pLTR. And then there are the men who subscribe to the Charles Bukowski school of intersexual relations – in the right socioeconomic conditions this pLTR is realtively possible, but I think this is a poor substitute for what, as men we’d like to be an ideal, reciprocal marriage in which men can expect respect, desire, love, honor and all the other words no woman could ever hope to recite from their marriage vows.

I’ve locked horns with more than a few women who want to take me to task over my debating that human beings are not naturally monogamous. From a social perspective, loose monogamy and women’s inherent need for cuckoldry has always conflicted with our more or less successful human progress based on monogamous marriage. This is changing right along with the latest technologies that afford it to. As such, men are also forced to adapt and improvise with women’s inabilities to process these changes and the rapidity with which the next ones occur.

The old gals always like to tout that western society is the result of our agrarian roots and monogamous way of life. This is ironic since it’s women themselves who’ve fought tooth and nail to destroy exactly this ‘successful’ set up. Ruthless, open Hypergamy is now something to be proud of; something to instruct our daughters to utilize for their own solipsistic, selfish betterment at men’s expense – and to feel no shame for it, but rather expect it as the future norm.

It’s now time for men to either accept and adapt to this, or to form our own response to it in a way that not only benefits our interests, but the interests of women who can no longer process these changes without mens’ direct instruction. In Our Sisters’ Keeper I explored the notion that women of today are merely the women we deserve because men have kept their counsel about the affairs of women. We’ve got the women we deserve because our silence, and the silence of our forbearers, was the voice of complicity. Now we’ve come so far that women will send a man to jail or the unemployment office, or a paternity court rather than hear a man criticize her inability to process social changes that harm not only her but the larger social order.

There must come a point where men must unapologetically correct women for the betterment of society. Today this is a bold statement, one that could likely bring consequences to man’s life, but it’s only a bold thought because we’ve allowed women and their imperatives define the Frame of our social order for so long now. The socio-intersexual conditions we find ourselves in today are the direct result of women’s inability to process rapid social changes. As men we need to collectively recognize this. We need to recognize also that our social state is the result of allowing women to set a social framework that indentures men, that calls single motherhood and Hypergamous choices normative ideals.

We also need to recognize that we will be reviled for presuming some patriarchal control or male privilege, but we must have the confidence to set this aside in the knowledge that we now understand that women cannot cope with post-modern social and technological changes.

A Woman’s Prerogative


“A woman talks to one man, looks at a second, and thinks of a third.” – Niti Sataka

Reader/Blogger Ian Ironwood had a really on-point comment about last week’s piece that I’d already considered for the next essay to continue this series:

Excellent post, Rollo. It goes without saying that the Pill and liberalized divorce law was the first step on this path, but few appreciate its logical conclusion. Especially feminism, in the face of evolving technology. Pendulums swing both ways, and the reverse can be devastating.

In particular, your discussion of evolutionary biology/psychology and evolving technologies is spot-on. One element many men (and almost all women) do not appreciate is the social change that will erupt when Vasalgel or one of the similar products/procedures is finally authorized by the FDA. For the uninformed, Vasalgel promises ten baby-free years for a man before it breaks down, and can be removed at any point to get a woman pregnant. It works without messing with your hormones by simply shredding the sperm in the vas deferens. It costs about $1000. One time.

The social implications of this are clear: suddenly for the first time in history, a woman would have to seek a man’s permission to have a child with him. This small, subtle shift will have dramatic consequences, especially as we head into the Age of the Herbivore. When all of those egg-freezing women and their younger, more opportunistic sisters can no longer practice rampant reproductive coercion, then the social balance will shift again, and hard. Men who screw without the shredder are not to be trusted and are demonstrably irresponsible…but men with it are impervious to the traditional biological means of ensuring a commitment. Suddenly we are very much on an even playing field, and everything is back on the table. It will take the conscious will and permission of both parties to have a child, and men in that position will find themselves in a far more powerful spot than they have ever been in.

Finding a suitable father for your kid is hard enough, from a female perspective. Finding one who also sees you as a worthy enough mother for his children to make the conscious decision to remove his birth control is going to be much, much harder. And the prospect of starting all over with a new man as her biological viability evaporates is going to be . . . problematic. We’ll see a much more intense emphasis on the Epiphany phase, and a multi-layered cultural panic as competition increases among women across the board.

The cultural freakout will include more-of-the-same “where did all the good men go?” “manbaby” “dropout loser mother’s basement” frustrated criticism of men; which is why it’s important, from a cultural perspective, that there are men articulating our essential cultural position: marriage, as it stands, no longer serves our interests, and we will select only women of the highest quality to raise our children with – mindfully.

It will be interesting to see how it evolves, but I predict this one little fact alone – independent of the other sexual distractions available to modern man, from internet porn to Tindr to prostitution to robotic sex dolls – will put modern feminism and womanhood in general into a crisis. I look forward to your next few parts.

Despite what a handful of new commenters believe, I have written in the past about the dramatic cultural shift that unilaterally feminine-controlled hormonal birth control has meant to Western culture. I started this by addressing the feminine side of the birth control situation in posts like Fem-Centrism (also an important chapter in The Rational Male) because it offers and confirms for Red Pill men so many examples of how the psychological nature of women interacts with their biological natures:

Sexual Revolution

I got into a hypothetical debate with an online friend as to what it would mean to humanity (and masculinity in particular) if a new method of birth control was developed with the specific and unique ability to allow men to control conception to the same degree women were given with hormonal contraception in the mid-sixties. I thought it interesting that human effort could create reliable contraception for women in the 60’s, yet in 2011 we can map the human genome and yet not figure out how to afford men the same degree of birth control?

Put simply, the feminine imperative will not allow this.

Imagine the social and economic damage to the feminine infrastructure if Prometheus gave such fire to Men? Imagine that balance of control veering back into the masculine; for men to literally have the exclusive choice to fulfill a woman’s sexual strategy or not.

The conversation got heated. Men could never be trusted with such a power! Surely humanity would come to a grinding, apocalyptic end if the feminine sexual strategy was thwarted by reliable male contraception. Societies would be sundered, populations would nosedive, and the nuclear family would be replaced with a neo-tribalism dictated by men’s sexual strategies. Honestly, you’d think the discovery of atomic weapons was on par with such an invention.

The ridiculous, pathetic endemically juvenile and perverse masculinity that 50 years of feminization created could never be trusted to further humanity in pursuing their sex’s inborn imperatives.

Yet, this is precisely the power that was put into the hands of women in the 1960’s and remains today. The threat that male contraception represents to the feminine imperative is one of controlling the framework of which gender’s sexual strategy will be the normative. Prior to the advent of female-exclusive hormonal birth control and the sexual revolution that resulted from it, the gender playing field was level, if not tipped in favor of masculinity due to men’s provisioning being a motivating factor in women achieving their own gender imperative. Latex prophylactics were available in the 40’s, and this may have afforded men a slight advantage, but both parties knew and agreed to the terms of their sexual activity at the time of copulation.

Once feminine-exclusive birth control was convenient and available the locus of control switched to feminine primacy. Her imperative became the normalized imperative. His sexual imperative was only a means to achieving her own, and now the control was firmly placed in favor of feminine hypergamy. Whether in the developing world or in first world nations, the onus of directing the course of humanity fell upon women, and thus the feminine reality evolved into what it is today.

Freelove 2.0

It would appear that if all clinical testing goes according to hopes, Vasalgel will be this new form of unilaterally male-controlled birth control. I am, however, cautiously apprehensive about how accessible this breakthrough in male birth control will actually be. From the research I did for this piece, and coming from the usual feminist suspects, you’d think that Vasalgel would be a Godsend for sex-positive feminism. If I’m a bit skeptical it’s because the usual feminist sources are following the same shortsighted emotionalism that put them into virtually total control of the course of the human species.

Naturally, feminism would like to paint Vasalgel as some equalist responsibility for men. Almost every feminist article I read aboutVasalgel had some exasperated variation of “well, it’s about time men were given some responsibility for birth control” and then citing how difficult it was to remember to take a pill regularly. The other refrain was about how women couldn’t wait to get off the birth control hormones that made them fat, moody or just ornery, and how great it would be to have men be responsible for the convenience of their sex lives – more on that later.

But this is more than a bit facetious for women, because it only illustrates women’s (or feminist writer’s) obliviousness as to how male birth control will affect a base of power the Feminine Imperative has enjoyed for over five generations now. The fact that we’ve had female-controlled hormonal birth control, as well as legal, medically safe, abortion since the mid 60s and we’re only now developing/testing a male-controlled alternative in 2016 should speak volumes about our culture’s feminine-primary priorities.

This idea never occurs to women apparently; at least not publicly. Bear in mind all the development for Vasalgel has taken place almost entirely outside of western cultures (India being the test-bed). It could be that Vasalgel is still in its infancy with regard to a feminine-primary public awareness and women are still caught up in the hedonistically entitled mindset that only speaks to convenience in their sex lives. My guess is that not a lot of critical insight has been given as to how, as Ian and myself have explained, a feminine-primary social order would be affected by men’s far greater control of women’s Hypergamous strategies.

The ‘greater good’ of Vasalgel at this stage is all couched in the hope that it will help end unwanted pregnancies. That sounds like a progressive’s idea of a benefit to society, but at this stage what’s being overlooked is how a new technological advancement will immediately and irrevocably alter the direction of our larger culture.

I spoke to this in last week’s article. The rapid advancement of Vasalgel represents the potential of altering the direction of a social order that’s depended on the presumption of a unilateral control of Hypergamy for almost sixty years now. My guess is that once we get closer to realizing the use of Vasalgel as practical birth control for men the more resistance and legislation will be lobbied against it as the idea of what it could mean to the Feminine Imperative starts to sink in.

Her Prerogative

Now, we have to bring the implications of male-controlled birth control full circle here. There’s been a common idiom about women’s ‘right’ to choice for centuries now – a woman’s prerogative; a woman always has the right to change her mind. I actually looked up where this notion first started and it went as far back as (you guessed it) courtly love of medieval times:

Breach of promise is a common lawtort, abolished in many jurisdictions. It was also called breach of contract to marry,[1] and the remedy awarded was known as heart balm.

From at least medieval times until the early 20th century, a man’s promise of engagement to marry a woman was considered, in many jurisdictions, a legally binding contract. If the man were to subsequently change his mind, he would be said to be in “breach” of this promise and subject to litigation for damages.

The converse of this was seldom true; the concept that “it’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind” had at least some basis in law (though a woman might pay a high social price for exercising this privilege, as explained below)—and unless an actual dowry of money or property had changed hands, a man was only rarely able to recover in a “breach of promise” suit against a woman, were he even allowed to file one.

This is another one of those old books ideas that women playing by the new books of modern times still clung to even after the Sexual Revolution. An important part of men’s Blue Pill Beta conditioning is to always defer to a woman’s judgement and choices no matter how duplicitous they may initially appear. Part of the old books social contract was based on a pre-understanding about what was at stake were a man and woman to come together, have sex and potentially bring a child into the world. Prior to the advent of birth control both sexes were on relatively equal presumptions of risk. A woman’s fickleness, duplicity or even prudence made a woman’s prerogative something pragmatic.

Now we move into an era where women have almost unchallenged, unilateral control of the birthing of the next generations of the human race. As I’ve mentioned before, with safe and legal abortion, feminine-controlled birth control, feminine-primary societal norms, feminine-controlled definitions of rape or harassment, and feminine-controlled legislation of men’s responsibility to fatherhood (irrespective of genetic origin) women’s consolidation on power is nearly complete.

All of these bases of social control revolve around a woman’s control of Hypergamy and the complete exclusion of men’s influence on it, beyond his genetic and provisional qualifications to satisfy it. When we combine the old books idiom of a woman’s right to change her mind with the nearly total control of Hypergamy, we see that the more we progress socially the more evident this feminine base of control is.

All social mandates revolve around satisfying women’s Hypergamous doubts, or allaying or justifying the fear of living with the consequences of them. Even in the current Presidential election we see this dynamic in action with the potential for the first female President.


In the next post in this series I’ll get into how women’s hindbrains struggle to keep up with the immediate rewards of social media and that the advancement of technology that gratifies their evolved psychological natures. However, for this discussion it’s important to understand that the advancements that have led to women’s social primacy of today are still tenuous. Vasagel could be one catalyst that is a game changer; a challenger not just to our intersexual dynamic, but the power hold women retain in directing Hypergamy and putting the direction of human breeding (in a much larger part) in the control of men.

I find it ironic and fitting that the promise of unrestricted sex which men believed they would enjoy with the advent of women’s hormonal birth control is the same rationale I’m reading from women about Vasagel. What they don’t consider is that this new invention will give men a new male prerogative with regard to who they will or will not start a family with.

I understand that in some ‘sphere communities Vasagel is the ‘big fuck you’ to women for have had such uncontested social control for so long, but to them I would advise not to get too elated too quickly. For the most part the socio-psychological infrastructure that conditions men for the Blue Pill will still exist, and there will always be Betas, even ones with the male prerogative that Vasagel implies, who will still defer to the feminine as their only means to sex and intimacy. The Feminine Imperative is nothing if not fluidly redefining itself to work around challenges to it s power. Vasagel may represent a change (assuming men are allowed to have it or can afford it) in our intersexual dynamics, but it will take some time before there is real change in our social dynamics as a result of it.

The Best Of The Rational Male – Year 5


Well another year has come and gone. I generally view the end of August as my year marker for The Rational Male. I didn’t add a page for year 4 since I’m not sure I want to clutter up the top of my blog layout with links pages, but I may yet combine the best of years 4 and 5 into one page.

A lot has happened in this span, I began the Red Pill Monthly talks with Niko Chosky. I still think I sound like a nasally teenager when I hear my voice, but the feedback has been nothing short of amazing on these so I believe we’ll continue with them for the foreseeable future.

Right after my year 4 best-of I did my first liv appearance in Vegas with Christian, Goldmund and Tanner Guzy at The Man in Demand Conference. I’ve discussed doing another one with Christian McQueen and we’re looking into venues for 2017. This was just an overwhelming experience to meet up with my readers in person, do the talk and have dinner at Sinatra’s. This was the first time for me to do an on premise event and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t a nervous wreck the night before, but every guy in attendance just impressed me to no end and the whole thing was something I’ll remember for the rest of my life.

I went through the process of having the audio mastered (courtesy of Sam Botta) to make it available via DigiRAMP for anyone to get a hold of now too.

Probably the biggest TRM news of 2016 was the release of the audio book of The Rational Male. It was a long time coming, but I think well worth the wait. I’ve come to believe that a book needs a time to mature into what its overall reception will be. The Rational Male book continues to sell very well and my focus has always been on emphasizing the printed book above all else since I feel that medium is the best to spark discussions and pass along to men who need it at the right time. That said, Sam Botta convinced me that men listen to books more than they read them so I thought the time was right and he’d just gotten back in the saddle so to speak after his debilitation in a hit & run car incident.

The book has exceeded any expectation I ever had for it and I still receive emails and tweets about how it’s changed men’s lives in the best possible way. The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine is also doing far better than I’d hoped if not eclipsing the first book. Sam and I are now in the process of doing the audio for TRMPM and I expect it will go live in early 2017.

The blog traffic continues to grow too.


As most readers know, I do very little self-promotion for TRM and I only advertise the book on the TRP reddit forum and posting occasional Amazon reviews on Twitter. I always want the the message of this blog and my work to be relayed by the men who read and contribute to it. I’m a believer in the bottom up plan for improving men’s lives and ultimately the social order we find ourselves. I’m glad to see men passing on what they learn here. I’m happy to be able to focus on my ideas and have men spread the word for me.

I’ve done art direction and brand management for over two decades now. It’s what I do for a living so it wouldn’t be a stretch for me to convert TRM into a similar commercial success, but that’s never been my goal. From the outset I wanted to just do what I do and talk about the ideas I’ve come to or the dots I’ve connected. That isn’t to say I don’t appreciate making a little money from it, but I’ll never compromise my message to sell more books or start a Patreon site.

I’ve had guys tell me I should quit my day job and write full time, but I’ve never really needed to be an author for my livelihood. I do quite well for myself and not being beholden to being an official author allows me the freedom to do what I do without the concern of having to write ‘for’ anyone. I know there are guys whose schtick is to treat their writing like a product and they tell you to write for what your audience wants to read, but I think this inherently compromises the authenticity of the real message.

My goal isn’t to sell books, it’s to genuinely change men’s lives for the better with the tools and truths I present in my work. The Rational Male isn’t a ‘product’ for salesmen to sell, it’s a collection of ideas that, really, we’re all responsible for authorship of. Ideas are a hard thing to suppress, and they last far longer than the men who conceived them.

Honestly, when I started this blog back in 2011 I never imagined it would grow into what it’s become today. I have some plans now to do a site redesign. I’ve never really focused on the look of the blog, I just poured myself into its content, but I think after 5 years I’ll freshen the look up soon. I’m also in the middle of the first round of edits for my third book, the working title being The Rational Male, The Red Pill. That may change, but the primary focus will be on defining what the Red Pill is from an intersexual dynamics perspective. As a matter of policy I generally refrain from being too prescriptive for individual men to apply their Red Pill awareness, but in the new book I’ll break this rule and provide some generally applicable ways to live in a Red Pill paradigm.

Red Pill parenting and family interactions in a feminine-primary social order will feature prominently. Yes, it will include selections from the blog again, but with each I’ve added what I believe are general solutions to Red Pill problems, plus more new content.

Well, that’s it. I continue to be humbled by the response and reception of The Rational Male and I want to extend my true gratitude for everyone’s input, participation, reading my ideas and helping me do what I do – even the critics and detractors make me a better Red Pill author. So here’s what I thought represents the best posts from year 5.

Let me know what your favorites were in the comments and let me know how TRM has helped you as well.


With much gratitude,

Rollo Tomassi


The Rational Male Audio Book


Red Pill Monthly

The Red Pill Monthly

The Red Pill Monthly

A Man in Demand Radio – Talk 3

The Red Pill Monthly – Frame

The Feminine Imperative

Solipsism I

Solipsism II

Damaged Goods

Good Girls, Bad Girls


Sugar Babies

Losing My Religion


The Red Pill Parent

Hypergamy Knows Best

Red Pill Parenting – Part I

Red Pill Parenting – Part II


Red Pill / Game

Christian Dread

Ovulation & Dread

The Purple Pill

Don’t Hate the Beta

The Red Pill Balance

The Pareto Principle

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies

Positive Masculinity



Open Cuckoldry

Open Relationships

Evolving Hypergamy

Plan B

Late Life Hypergamy



Empathy 2016

The War Brides of Europe

The Warrior Princess

Gamer Girls


Ghosts in the Machine

Losing My Religion


In the interests of full disclosure, I’ll admit I’ve had this post in my drafts folder for some time now. As always, standard caveats apply with regard to my policy on posts about religion, politics, and socioeconomics. I don’t delve into the particulars of these subjects, but I will dissect how they coincide with intersexual dynamics.

It’s no secret that I’ve been a regular follower of Dalrock’s blog for over five years now. Along with Dal I also consider Donalgraeme and a few other bloggers in the ‘Christo-Manosphere’ Red Pill colleagues if not friends. I’ve always held Dalrock as a sort of Red Pill brother since both our blogs came up around the same time. I’ve quoted and credited him in both my books.

I do so because there was a time I considered pursuing a path in my writing that would follow the same Red Pill critique of religion, (Christianity for Dal) at least in some occasional sense. After reading Dalrock’s very insightful early posts I decided against it. Dal has earned the respect of the manosphere for his Red Pill lens of contemporary Christianity for good reason – he’s a consummate statistician and researcher, and he’s what I’d call “embedded” well within modern (I presume mostly evangelical) church culture. He does it better than I could hope to do that part of the manosphere justice.

I never go into any detail about my own faith for a couple of reasons, the first being it’s only peripherally relevant in my writing. Secondly, it’s always been my position that the Red Pill needs to remain fundamentally areligious and apolitical. That said, I am familiar enough with ‘Churchian’ culture and the psycho-social side of mainstream religion to understand it through my own Red Pill lens.

When I analyze Red Pill principles within social contexts I always have a hard time with religion. It grates on me because I’m of the opinion that one’s religious leanings, one’s interaction with existence and life, one’s consideration of the spiritual, ought to be something personal and private if it’s in anyway genuine. As such, and for some, it can be a source of real vulnerability and exploitation which is really nothing new to anyone. It’s one thing to be even agnostic and trapped in a Blue Pill world, but it’s quite another to have been raised to adulthood in a religious context and coming to terms with having some very deep ego-investments shattered by a new Red Pill awareness.

If you ask anyone steeped in the Blue Pill conditioning of the Feminine Imperative about how this exploitation operates in an intersexual context you’ll likely get the standard answer that religion is largely a “social construct designed to maintain the Patriarchy.” And I have no doubt that in a Judeo-Christian sense this was likely the case for millennia. I won’t dig into how much of this had the latent purpose of controlling for Hypergamy in this post, but in the generations since the sexual revolution and the rise of feminine social primacy this maintaining the Patriarchy is a failing distraction on the part of the Feminine Imperative.

Creating Religion in the Image of the Feminine Imperative

For the past five generations, there has been a concerted re-engineering of religion (and not just limited to Christianity) to better suit the ends of the Feminine Imperative. Just as men are sold the idealism of the old set of books while living within the social context that confounds them, religion has been coopted by the feminine. The old books religion has either been replaced wholesale by a feminine-interpreted, feminine-directed religion that places women as its highest authority, or it’s been restructured and rewritten to serve the same feminine-primary objectives.

For going on six years now, Dalrock has masterfully documented and rightly criticized these shifts in Christianity. Although I’m focusing on western Christiainty here, this re-engineering of modern religion is not limited to just Christianity. A Red Pill perspective reveals a lot of uncomfortable truths, one of these is how well the Feminine Imperative has succeeded in supplanting any and all masculine influence in religion.

I expect there will be female critics who’ll cite that, in most of church culture, it’s still predominantly men who control churches and religious organizations, but in the era of feminine social primacy, it’s not who executes the control, but whose beliefs control the executors. Pair this with the commodification of religion and we can see the spheres of true feminine control and feminine-primary purpose.

After almost six years of following the religious aspects of the Red Pill, I think it’s high time men acknowledge that modern Christian culture simply does not have men’s best interests as part of its doctrine anymore. Christianity, in particular, is by women, for women – if not directly executed by women, though even that is changing.

Church culture is now openly hostile towards any expression of conventional masculinity that doesn’t directly benefit women and actively conditions men to be serviceable, gender-loathing Betas. The feminist narrative of “toxic masculinity” has entirely replaced any semblance of what traditional masculinity or manhood once was to the church. Any hint of a masculinity not entirely beholden to a now feminine-primary purpose is not only feared, but shamed with feminine-interpreted aspersions of faith.

I recently read a study that our current generation is the least religious in history and I think as far as men are concerned much of that disdain for religion is attributable to a church culture that constantly and openly ridicules and debases any male-specific endeavors or anything characteristic of conventional masculinity. It’s no secret in today’s church franchisement that reaching out to, and retaining the interests of, men is at its most difficult.

Again, this is attributable to a generation of feminized men being raised into a church culture, and eventual church leadership, that has been taught to prioritize and identify with the feminine and reinforced with articles of faith now defined by the Feminine Imperative. The modern church has trouble reaching men because the church no longer has a grasp of what it means to be ‘men’.

To be clear, that’s not an indictment of the genuine faith itself, but rather a fairly measured observation of the way a feminine-primary church culture has shaped that faith. In the future, any man with a marginal capacity for critical thought will avoid the contemporary Christian church and religion for the obvious misandry it espouses; the only religious men you will find will be those raised into a life of religiously motivated Beta servitude – or those dragged to the feminine-directed church by wives who hold authoritative ‘headship’ in their relationships.

And even in what some consider to be pro-masculine or “macho” churches, we still find the Paper Alpha leaders preach from a mindset that defers wholesale to the feminine’s “Godly perfection” as they attempt to AMOG other male member to greater devotion to qualifying for, and identifying with, the feminine influence that pervades their church.

Religious men will be synonymous with a Beta mindset.

It’s gotten to a point where it’s better to look after your self-interests and repent of the sin later than commit to an institution that openly seeks to indenture you. I realize that might be anathema to the more determined religious man, but just understand that this is the pragmatic, deductive future that the contemporary, western-feminized church is presenting to men. The social contract of marriage from a religious perspective has shifted into the ultimate leap of faith for men. They literally risk everything in marriage – child custody, sexual access, any expectation of true, male authority or respect, long-term financial prospects, etc. – but this leap of faith comes with a metaphysical price tag.

Men declining to participate in faith-based marriage decline an aspect of a faith reset to serve women; women who are held as a higher order of sinless being than men by this new church. For the agnostic or areligious man, discarding a Blue Pill social conditioning for a Red Pill awareness is a difficult task, but for men raised to believe that their only doctrinally approved path to sex with a woman is abstinence until marriage, that man’s only hope is to accept his fate and stay the Beta a feminized church has conditioned him to be.

And once he gets to marriage and his approved expression of his sexuality, the “Christian” man finds that the feminized church, even the male elders, expect endless qualifications to women and his wife’s unceasing appeasement in exchange for that approved sex. It’s a tail-chasing that holds men to the old books social order expectations while absolving women of all accountability and expecting him to also make concessions for a new (feminized) social order that’s ensaturated the church.

SeventiesJason from Dalrock’s blog:

And then we have “Christian marriage” divorce rates which are only a few paltry percentage points lower than the secular world…… like Chandler will blame “men” for not leading, not being ‘holy’ enough, not bold n’ biblical enough, not going to bed exhausted every night….and a pile of other excuses for why she “had no choice” but to end the marriage.

We have a whole cottage industry of ‘christian counseling’ and self-help books, usually written for and by women. We have conferences, TV channels, broadcast networks, podcasts, radio stations, outreach, plenty of churches in this country……..the Internet. A ton of resources. Books……every pastor great and small today is “working on” or has written a book.

How on earth did the early church survive under the penalty of death? Persecution. Seclusion, and outright shunning? How did it grow? How did it survive?

We are told over and over by pastors that “God has an amazing plan for your life!” and then to sell men in the world this ‘churchian’ ploy that you are somehow not as holy, balanced, ready, equipped, or mature to handle this amazing plan….ah, but your wife to be is! The unspoken consolation prize is “but…..hey, you get to have sex….and that’s the only thing men need or think about and want!”

That seems to be given begrudgingly today (in my men’s group…..goodness, so many of the married guys complain that their wives never want sex)

How did the early church turn the world upside down? All God did was send a few men, and they made it happen. We have so many tools today…..and we’re “helpless” and we tend to think a “building program” will help everything and if we let the men fix things on the property they will feel “useful”

For over five generations now, the modern church has become a Beta farm existing only to produce the same masculinity-confused men that the secular world has perfected today. In our idealism I think too many (even well-meaning Red Pill) men believe that the church is some insulation against the worst of the Feminine Imperative when it is in fact an institution that produces the same men we hope to free from the Matrix.

Dean Abbot had an excellent post about this dynamic in his critique of another post by Mark Braivo:

In spite of what you might hear in the media about how terrible and retrograde evangelicals are, the entire movement, even the “conservative” end is thoroughly feminized.

The central Christian teaching that ALL people are sinners gets glossed over. Instead, the notion that men are somehow worse by nature than women is everywhere, sometimes stated overtly, often in the subtext.

At the same time, women are elevated to a position of moral and spiritual superiority. Women’s sin is often excused in light of a man’s failings. I remember hearing a very well known evangelical leader tell a story about how his wife freaked out and started smashing all their dishes. What was his point? That she did this because he had been neglecting her. See, she is not an adult beholden to practice self-control, but rather an innocent, sweet victim driven to outlandish behavior by his shortcomings.

“Toxic masculinity”, any masculinity inconvenient to a feminine-correct purpose, is a sin both actively and retroactively in today’s church.

With every successive generation of Beta pastors that are produced by this farm you get more and more men whose only experience of that religion is one of servile deference to a faith that’s been fundamentally altered to the utility of women and feminine-primacy. Women love to complain that it’s largely men who do the preaching and decision making in church, but what they ignore is that these men are the developed implements of the Feminine Imperative.

I will wager that in the next 10 years Christianity will be unrecognizable from its prior tenets of well defined conventional masculinity and the faith itself will expressly be centered on deference to the feminine.

Culture Informs Faith

I’ve had several critics tell me that the problem with the modern church is really one of its culture and should be considered apart from the ‘genuine’ faith, however it is church culture that ultimately informs and restructures doctrine and articles of faith. When that culture is informed by the Feminine Imperative, open Christian feminists, and a feminine influence posing as doctrinally sound egalitarianism, this fundamentally recreates an old order religion in the image of a new order, female-primary, imperative.

This and endless variations of the feminization of religion across every denomination and sect is why contemporary religion is openly hostile to any semblance of conventional masculinity. Church is no place for a single man and is just a formality for the man married to a religious woman at this point in time. All considerations of faith aside, I cannot fathom an adult man with any self-respect finding anything attractive about the modern church. Either there is nothing for him there or he is despised and denigrated, openly in a faith altering way or discreetly in resentment, or in pandering ridicule of his juvenilized maleness.

I don’t type this without a sincere sense of what’s been lost, particularly for men genuinely seeking existential answers for himself. My observations here will undoubtedly be thought of as some attack on a genuine faith, but my issue here isn’t with religion per se, but rather the thoroughness with which the Feminine Imperative has either subverted wholesale or covertly influenced really all modern religion.

Yes, I realize that faith is something personal that should be set apart from churchy social influence, but the culture is a manifestation of the doctrine and collective belief system. That culture ultimately modifies and informs the faith itself, thus with every successive generation that social influence becomes an article of the faith for the next.

Better to laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, especially when the ‘saints’ are the priestesses of the Feminine Imperative.

The Red Pill lens in today’s church is a scary prospect.

Another commenter, The Question, had a good comment about this:

You’re absolutely right about the state of the Church in the West.

What makes it so dangerous for a Blue Pill man is that it is ground-zero for girls entering the epiphany phase. The single men who remain in the church are the ones will be pressured to fulfill their role in that strategy and will be treated with hostility if they don’t. I personally anticipate a renewed church “man up” campaign somewhere in the near future as the next wave of twenty-somethings near 30 and beyond.

I’d say the only reason to go is to meet cute single young women and that’s if the church actually has them and its theology isn’t wholly intolerable. College town churches like mine have quite a few young single ladies which is why I go.

I will admit, putting aside conscience and morality, the modern (‘Relevant’) church would be a veritable untapped gold mine for a PUA savvy of christian culture. Churchianity’s already got the perfect social architecture installed for pick up. Christian women aching for sexy Alpha dominance in a sea of preconditioned christian Beta “good guys”, high intrasexual competition anxiety for both sexes, instant reconciliation and sin forgiveness for women, hell, you can even talk a woman into an abortion without her having any accountability for killing her child at this point. What’s not for a PUA to like? Feminine-primary churchianity has been waiting for christian-savvy players for years now.

Men with a well defined Red Pill lens, having the sensitivity to understand the subcommunications of what’s going on around them in church, should be rightly horrified.

This is one reason Men like Dalrock are vilified by Christian women who understand he’s wise to what’s transpiring in the church – the Feminine Imperative has taken the Lord’s name in vain by presuming to promote its agenda and socially engineer generations of men to support it by claiming it’s God’s will.

Read the Fempowerment narratives of any ‘Christian women’s ministry speaker’, they will defend the sisterhood above any tenets of faith. They’ll tolerate blasphemy of the faith, but never the Feminine Imperative. They’ll rationalize abortion as a man’s sin, but never accept accountability for it and any man to attempt to rebuke them (for anything really) is counter-shamed for male chauvinist judgementalism. And being judgemental of any woman is the most mortal of sins a man can make in the new church

In the feminine-primary church, the Holy Spirit is the Feminine Imperative, what she says is an article of faith. Men who become aware of this via the Red Pill are a danger to it.

The Key Masters


In last week’s comments Not Born This Morning dropped this comment in the last thread:

It has been said and it seems fairly well established as a presumed reality that “Women are the gate keepers to sex and men are the gate keepers to commitment”. This model of gender specific “gatekeeping” seems to be the most widely accepted model in the red pill community and the general culture accepts it readily. This model seems rational enough, it significantly forms our frame of understanding about gender dynamics upon which we base our interpretations of behavior & intents, and our decisions to act. But is it the best model to explain what is really going on? Could this model be inferior in that it fails to account for an underlying more fundamental motivator? Is there a more accurate explanation for women’s intents and behaviors? Could this model be potentially deceptive?

The sex side of this model is simple and easy to understand. It is very clear and specific to the fundamental biologic. It is inarguable, not negotiable. The primary drive motivating the sexual aspect is not political or social. It is biological. This is not the case with the commitment side. The commitment side is primary to the political and social realm. “Commitments” are always components of contracts written or otherwise.

To comprehend what I’m about to explain, we must first agree on the primary definition of commitment. As I understand it, a commitment is a pledge to do something, a proclamation to perform certain action (or inaction) within a specific context for the benefit of another usually in exchange for some consideration. In the sexual context women seek “commitment” from a man primarily for provisioning and sexual exclusivity. The man “commits” to the woman that he will abandon his freedom and not enter into sexual relations with other women. He pledges himself financially and sexually to her exclusively. Realistically, this form of “commitment” includes the man abandoning his options. If he becomes sexually involved with another woman, it is widely considered that he has “broken his commitment” and he is dishonored by her and society for “breaking the commitment”. But, has he really broken any commitment other than a self denigrating pledge to forgo his freedom and abandon his options? Since obviously the male imperative is polygamy and spreading his seed, then isn’t the imposition to “commit” in the first place really a dishonor of his sexuality and a dishonor to him? If so, isn’t “commitment” in this context nothing more than a form of enslavement?

So by saying men are the “gate keepers of commitment” aren’t we really saying that men are the “gatekeepers of their own enslavement”?

I’ve read this line of thought from various MGTOW hardliners in various iterations and I’ve even written a post on the concept of commitment  and what it does or doesn’t mean to a man. The idea is to equate committing to a woman with some irrational agreement to self-induced slavery. However, the problem most men have with commitment is that the old set of books has a social mandate for men to keep their word or honor an agreement. It’s what men do. Say what you mean and stick to it, but as with most every uniquely male custom, Honor among men has been one more useful distortion of the Feminine Imperative.

As I mentioned in the Paradox of Commitment, men don’t have nearly the fear of commitment our feminized social order would have us believe. Men aren’t “commit-o-phones” when it comes to military service or dedicating themselves to a business. These are the areas the women’s magazines conveniently overlook when it comes to comparing men’s commitment with committing to women in monogamy. I’m bringing this up because it’s important to see how men commit to things other than fidelity to a single woman.

If we’re going to equate monogamous fidelity to a woman with slavery we also need to see how other commitments can be viewed as being, or not being, slavery. Is the commitment of military service slavery? Particularly if you know have a pretty good idea of what to expect from that commitment? Are you volunteering for slavery if you start a business and become financially beholden to it?

From  the Paradox of Commitment:

You can even take marriage out of the equation; if I’m in a committed LTR with a GF and over the course of that relationship I realize that she’s not what I’m looking for (for any number of reasons, not just sex), even though she’s 100% faithfully committed to me and the LTR, should I then break that commitment? If I do, am I then being unethical for having broken that commitment irrespective of how I break it? Should the commitment to my own personal well being and future happiness be compromised by another commitment?

What’s my obligation; neglect myself in favor of a bad commitment or to the principle of commitment itself?

It’s my take that commitment ‘should’ be a function of genuine desire. Ideally, commitment should be to something one is so passionate about that the limiting of one’s own future opportunities that come from that commitment is an equitable, and mutually appreciated trade. This is, unfortunately, rarely the case for most people in any form of commitment because people, circumstance, opportunity and conditions are always in flux. A commitment that had been seen as equitable sacrifice at one time can become debilitating 5 years after it depending upon circumstance.

Under the old social contract, the idea that a man would compromise his sexual strategy to fulfill a woman’s (Hypergamy in the long term) had a presumed exchange – sexual access, parental investment, companionship, a good, supportive feminine role example for the kids, etc. – that made the commitment of marriage at least somewhat appealing, if not entirely equitable. I supposed a case could still be made that even under the old order of conventional gender roles and expectations men were still committing themselves to a downside bargain. But in our new, feminine-primary social order, with our broader communication, it’s certainly signing up for slavery of a sort in comparison to the options available being single.

A lot of guys think that by my advising men to spin plates and remain as non-exclusive as possible that its sole purpose is to free them up to indiscriminately bang as many women as possible. While sexual variety maybe an upside to non-exclusivity, there are many more freedoms and options that a non-exclusive man can invest himself in where committed men cannot, or wouldn’t even think to.

So yes, from a male sexual strategy perspective, and considering the terms of that commitment and consequences of breaking it are all glaringly apparent, signing up for that commitment might be assigning yourself to a kind of slavery. Under our present social conditions, staying single might be as good as it gets for men.

However, that said, there is still an undeniable, idealistic, hope that men can make the best of a marriage. Most men (see the 80% Beta men) still remarry in far greater margins than women, even after horrific divorces. We can attribute that to the sustainability of men’s sexual market value lasting longer than women’s, but the desire to want for a lasting monogamy is what I’m getting at. Even in light of the fact that women are hardwired for Hypergamy, and in light of women’s inability to appreciate the sacrifices men must make to facilitate their realities, men still, sooner or later, have a desire to lock down or otherwise wife-up a woman he idealizes. I have read the testimonies of men who will go to any length to stay in a marriage if even the outside hope of it improving exists.

I think this desire might be both a conditional and innate drive in men.

In Mrs. Hyde I quoted a study by Dr. Martie Haselton from Why is muscularity sexy? :

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

It’s entirely possible that a man’s sexual strategy is the simple result of his adapting to his circumstance.

Under the old social order, prior to the upheaval of the sexual revolution and feminine social primacy, investing heavily in one’s mate made good sense if the guy wanted to procreate. As men, I think we still want to apply more value to our commitment in this respect. I think it gets back to the fallacy of relational equity, but because most Blue Pill men believe that there is value in their committing to a woman, and they falsely think that women have the capacity to appreciate it, we tend to build more into it as some kind of mutually understood relationship leverage.


Back before Roosh began making his necessities into virtues, he had a pretty good insight about women being “gatekeepers” of both sex and commitment:

A popular manosphere saying is that women are gatekeepers to sex and men are gatekeepers to commitment. I wish this was an absolute truth, but it’s not. As a collective, women are often gatekeepers to both sex and commitment. Most men reading right now can surely attest to their failed attempts to secure commitment from women they slept with, and if you poll the entire population of men, you may find that they are the initiators of monogamous relationships more often than women. It only makes sense for this to be true: it is way more damaging for a man to have his woman sleep with another man and get cuckolded than the other way around. The 0.5% of the population who are skilled players and have more say with commitment don’t put a dent into this common reality. As a sex, men have very little say in determining the relationship dynamic.

[…]It would be a nice fantasy for us men to believe that we have a say in relationships and sex. It’d be nice to think that our “alpha” behavior and our game determines how a relationship can proceed, but often it doesn’t. We’re just giving the girl what she has already decided on. Do you really think you’re selling televisions to customers who came into the store with the intent to buy bicycles? The girl who falls in love with us wanted to fall in love with us, the girl who had fun with us wanted to just have fun with us, and so on. And even when a girl wants a bicycle, she still wants a certain kind of bicycle. This is why game is a numbers game, because girls are incredibly picky even when they are sexually available. The horniest girl in the club who decided on having sex will still have her pick of the litter and opt to get the best that she can.

From the perspective of men using Game to secure some kind of commitment with a woman, I’d agree, it is a numbers game. But, in general, most men aren’t learning PUA/Game to settle into an LTR and most Red Pill aware men (should) understand the nature of women well enough to leverage Game if (ever) they do look for commitment.

Roosh was correct about men not really being gatekeepers of commitment though. I think there’s a definite want on the part of guys to believe that they have some sort of leverage in the ultimate scheme of things. The Feminine Imperative constantly conditions men to think that their commitment to a woman is something insanely valuable to women. Thus, we see shaming tactics designed to call men out for avoiding commitment irrespective of men’s reasons for wanting to take precautions. This has the effect of conditioning men to think that they are the gatekeepers of something valuable.

In a sense, commitment is something valuable to a woman, however, in the age of Open Hypergamy and Strong Independent Women®, the writing is on the wall for men with regard to the convenient need for that commitment at the end-game phase of a woman’s sexual market value. So yes, a man’s commitment to monogamy with a woman has inherent value, but men are hardly the gatekeepers of it when it is a woman who does the deciding as to whether any one guy’s commitment makes any difference to her.

So, we come to a question of comparative equity with regard to men “signing up for slavery” and how inherently valuable his commitment (as convenient as it’s needed) really is to a woman. I have no doubt there are several women reading this right now who are in “relationship limbo” with a guy they desperately want to commit to them in some official capacity. And no doubt they’ll drop a story in the comments personalizing it to be typical of men, but I would argue Roosh’s point that men are the initiators of monogamous relationships far more often than women. Ironically, commitment only has value to a woman when it’s denied to her by a man who’s SMV outclasses her own.

For obvious reasons, highly desirable women, women at the peak of their sexual market valuation, are always the least concerned with men’s capacity to commit. They largely have the luxury to be selective, but furthermore the time at which women are at their highest SMV is usually the point at which men are still building upon their own. Eventually, commitment only has an appreciable value to a woman when she is most in need of it; when her SMV is in decline.

I should also point out that men, the majority being Blue Pill Betas, are the most necessitous of a woman’s commitment when she is at her highest, his is an unproven commodity, and he appreciates the value of a woman’s commitment. Thus, most men look for a stable monogamy in their early to mid 20s, while more mature men who’ve had time to build their SMV into their mid to late thirties tend to be less concerned with monogamy. This is why we hear the constant drone of women bemoaning that highly valuable, supposedly peer-equitable men’s unwillingness to commit and settle down with women aging out of the sexual marketplace. Women are far less concerned with the commitment-readiness of young, unproven men who themselves would commit to even a women in the mid-range of her SMV.

At the end here, I think it’s time Red Pill men disabuse themselves of the idea that they are the ‘gatekeepers’ of commitment, and rather employ their internalized Red Pill awareness and Game to be the ‘key masters’ of women. While I have no doubt that commitment can be a carrot on the stick for some women, the problem really lies in how that commitment is in anyway valuable and balance that knowledge with the fact that commitment, once given, becomes valueless and taken for granted when it’s established. The fact that you’d commit to a woman isn’t something that carries a relationship, no matter how badly she wanted it from you before.

There really is no quid pro quo when it comes to commitment or value in believing you’re a gatekeeper of it.

Law 20
Do Not Commit to Anyone

It is the fool who always rushes to take sides. Do not commit to any side or cause but yourself. By maintaining your independence, you become the master of others – playing people against one another, making them pursue you.