Check out Rollo/The Rational Male

Many of you have noticed the new addition to my blogroll as well as Rollo’s insightful comments here.  If you are interested in the game side of the sphere I think you will really enjoy Rollo’s blog.

This entry was posted in Game. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Check out Rollo/The Rational Male

  1. Daniel de León says:

    Definitely THE place to receive swallow the red pill.

  2. Jason says:

    I’m a little confused here.You’ve been – rightly – remarkably critical of the carousel lifestyle that many women engage in which makes it hard for them to be good wives in the future (An important message that I’m glad you’re espousing). Yet Rollo lived that same basic lifestyle and makes no apologies for it (indeed, he suggests that lifestyle for others), and you recommend his blog? That’s inconsistent, I think.

  3. unicorn_hunter says:

    Hey there. I thought you and your readers might appreciate reading some of Dr. Daniel Amneus’ work in which he asserts that civilization is built upon the foundation of patriarchy and patriarchy requires regulation of female sexuality.

    Basically, the man exchanges his lifeblood for being a father and knowing that the children are his, while the woman exchanges restriction on her sexuality for a higher standard of living for herself and her children.

    Lately, this system has broken down as women can repudiate their end of the contract while men have no such option.

    http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

  4. Höllenhund says:

    This is the blog that insufferable, vindictive, paranoid old broad, Ms. Walsh simply calls ‘shit’. I kid you not.

  5. an observer says:

    Jason,

    Think about this for a moment. Women are the sexual gatekeepers. Almost any young woman with a pulse who is not physically repulsive can get sex any time she wants. Buts she confuses this with her actual sexual market vale, or smv. Hypergamy compels her (by her own consent and choice) to seek the highest status partner she can get. Women often use sexual attractiveness ploys in the process. Women do this to progressively less desirable men throughout their twenties as their smv slowly declines, until they fall off the carousel and snag a beta provider, whom they can later divorce for cash and prizes. Like winning the lottery!

    Men however have to constantly prove themselves as qualified. The average man has to work hard to get sex with any woman. The average man gets a lot less sex than the average woman. This is why women’s rate of sexually transmitted disease is a lot higer than men’s. What is happening is that a large numberof sexually active women not in committed relationships are most commonly tangoing with a much smaller number of sexually men.

    A mans smv peaks much later, but needs the bolstering of game to lead a relationship.

    Seen froma moral perspective the carousel is of course wrong. But it is entirely logical. Unfettered female sexuality has led to this. I could even make an argument that the puas and gamers unwittingly exposed the women i wanted to avoid marrying. Women pride themselves on their personal skills. Yet if they cannot recognise brinksmanship, or their own hypergamous instincts and work to subdue them, they are not relationship and marriage material.

    A modified version of game is essential in lomg term relationships too. The womans natural instinct is to seek control, which must be resisted. The joel and kathys of this world will tell men that too much submission to their womans emotional hamster is never enough. But instead of respect, it will simply foster a womans contempt.

    This is why a working knowledge of game is essential.

  6. “A modified version of game is essential in lomg term relationships too. The womans natural instinct is to seek control, which must be resisted. The joel and kathys of this world will tell men that too much submission to their womans emotional hamster is never enough. But instead of respect, it will simply foster a womans contempt.”

    True. A woman in control has no limits. Which is why a man needs to avoid that scenario.

  7. ballista74 says:

    Hollenhund wrote:

    This is the blog that insufferable, vindictive, paranoid old broad, Ms. Walsh simply calls ‘shit’. I kid you not.

    And in related news, YOHAMI joined Dalrock and Rollo Tomassi in the pantheon of “Those Who Shalt Not Be Named” on Ms. Walsh’s site. Claims to not be a feminist, but the true colors always comes out. Deleting comments and now whole blog posts for whatever reason a Rationalization Hamster gets angry. Pathetic, really.

  8. dragnet says:

    Easily one of the most enlightening and subversive blogs in the manosphere. I read the guy almost everyday.

  9. Love Rollo, as a married guy he has a very tight blog and gets into relationship dynamics as much as “game” topics.

  10. Dalrock says:

    @Jason

    I’m a little confused here.You’ve been – rightly – remarkably critical of the carousel lifestyle that many women engage in which makes it hard for them to be good wives in the future (An important message that I’m glad you’re espousing). Yet Rollo lived that same basic lifestyle and makes no apologies for it (indeed, he suggests that lifestyle for others), and you recommend his blog? That’s inconsistent, I think.

    Show me a slut who writes with the insight of Rollo and I’ll add her to my blogroll.

  11. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Show me a slut who writes with the insight of Rollo and I’ll add her to my blogroll.

    Didn’t somebody already mention Susan Walsh in this thread? Zing!

    @Jason

    King Solomon lived that lifestyle, too, and he’s considered one of the wisest men of all time. He came to regret it, and I’m not sure the same isn’t happening to RT (no offense meant, RT). He is married now.

    Also, I’m not sure he subscribes to the idea that carousel riding makes it hard for women to be good wives. If I recall, he did a post not too long ago in which he approximated how many women he’d slept with, and how many men his wife had slept with. I was surprised.

  12. deti says:

    Jason:

    There is no male carousel.

    Women ride the carousel, rack up high partner counts, and it prevents them from bonding to their husbands. There is a study that shows for women, the more premarital sex partners they have, the higher the divorce rate. Correlation, not causation, I know.

    But the same does not tend to hold true for men. More premarital sex partners for a man does not necessarily translate into a higher divorce rate for these men, or at least there is no study that bears this out.

    Men and women approach sex and relationships quite differently. A man makes a decision on whom he will marry, and the decision is settled. That’s it. She need no longer qualify herself.

    A woman makes a decision on whom she will marry, but that’s not the end of it. She’s never settled, never satisfied. Her hypergamous nature always looks for something better, or at least wants to make sure her husband measures up. This is even more difficult if she’s had a lot of sex partners before him. She constantly compares him to her previous partners. If he’s not as alpha, she will lose attraction for him, and start looking elsewhere.

    That’s why it is the way it is. That’s why the word of a married player is taken over the word of a a carousel rider.

  13. Höllenhund says:

    I’ve noticed that Rollo has a peculiar, elaborate writing style that makes him almost unique among Manosphere bloggers. Since English isn’t my native language I sometimes find it difficult to grasp what he has written.

  14. Dalrock says:

    @Rollo Tomassi

    @Jason, it’s easier if you just read this:
    http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/moral-to-the-manosphere/

    What matters to me is that while we in some very important ways see the world differently, I often learn from what you write. I don’t let the former stop me from profiting from the latter. Many of my readers have a different view of the world than I do as well, yet we have a productive exchange.

    The other part I see in this is that Christians have turned their back on biblical sexual morality, but instead of facing this hard truth there is a desire to focus on what others* are doing wrong instead. Men on the pickup side of game didn’t break marriage, Christians did. More importantly, men on the pickup side of game couldn’t fix marriage if they wanted to, but Christians could.

    *By “others” I mean feminist approved targets, ensuring a continuing revenue stream and/or popularity. The list of approved targets ranges from good upstanding Christian husbands and fathers to players who leave their hookups less than 100% satisfied.

  15. g2-04e3dbd2f017ca17aedf5bba7490d0ad says:

    @David Collard:
    True. A woman in control has no limits. Which is why a man needs to avoid that scenario.

    So true. I’m beginning to think that all the bad things said about men are just projection from women:

    Men just want control.
    Men don’t want life-long commitment.
    Men are out of touch with their feelings.
    Men will divorce their spouses once the thrill is gone.
    Men are only after one thing.
    Men are only interested in bad girls.
    Men, left to their own devices, would be wild, and only settle down after sowing their wild oats.
    Men are always looking for another woman.
    Men are uncaring.

    Did I miss any?

  16. Brendan says:

    He writes well and has some insights, certainly, but I don’t like the ideas he has about morals (or rather the lack of addressing them very much) so I don’t read him very much. Sort of like Roissy.

  17. Alarm says:

    I endorse this comment from Cassius at RT:

    “I think a proper definition of morality is a set of behaviors which if widely adopted would be ideal for the stability and growth of society.

    For socially-minded men this would mean whatever is good for the greater society and it will often contradict their own immediate interest.

    For women “good for society” translates into “good for me and my team, in the immediate time frame”. More often it means “give me power, because I have no power”. Both uses of morality to advance their imperative are a reflection of their immedaite nature, ignoring both the larger societal issues and the effects of time. They are also a perversion of the man’s sense of morality which correctly defined also expects him to give up his own interest for the benefit of society. Women tend to simply define themselves as the society men should be concerned about.

    Often when people use the word “moral” it means something between “what I feel comfortable with” and “what serves my purposes”. I try to avoid using the m-word since it usually distracts from the relevant issue rather than contribute to it.”

  18. GKChesterton says:

    @Dalrock,

    What Brenden said. Add to it there is some hypocricy in supporting someone who is essentially the opposite end of morally vacuous as your average feminist. Reading them fine…but I don’t know about active support. That seems a line best not crossed and lends fuel to the “you’re just as much not Christian as the fellows you hang with.”

    Something I’d rather not invite. Maybe links to good posts. But your house. Your rules.

  19. Jason says:

    Thanks to An Observer, Dalrock, Cane Caldo, Deti, and Rollo for their comments, especially since they were all civil – I appreciate that. I wish I could respond to all of them, but I’m very busy right now and I just don’t have the time. I will certainly read the essay you linked to though, Rollo.

  20. MackPUA says:

    Theres no such thing as morals, just boundaries & social traditions supporting social trends as they see fit …

    The ones who complain about idea’s & philosophies not being moral, instead of seeing the benefits & revising their idea of morality, are the same ppl who become extinct as society, continously updates & revises itself …

    anti-gamers & traditionalists are, in view of how violent & brutal society is to men, & mens sexuality, pre-historic & out of date, & even dangerous

    Especially to younger men, who need to be informed on how to deal with the new breed of feral hypergamous, hyper-sexualised women & the society who enables them to screw over men for profit & criminal conduct

    Complaining about the morality of game, while feminists literally destroy men, through everything from emasculation to the courts & legal system, is alot like complaining about men bringing a blunt club to a gun fight …

    Again men who complain about the morality of game, are in fact complaining about holding onto their idiotic & out-of-date assumptions of women & society, while gamers & the manosphere realise & address the true situation of men everywhere

    Whats even these stuck in the 60’s throwback moralisers, dont even bring anything new to the table, apart from parroting the feminists about men being touch in their feelings, ie the moronic manginas from walsh, or the even worse moronic continous drivel from anti-gamers, who ad nauseum state its all a scam & it doesnt work …

    So what isnt a scam & what does work, & most importantly what comes even close, to allow men to deal with the hordes of hypergamous, feminist brainwashed, man hating women today?

    Men have always attacked men, who strive to better themselves, the men who refused to intellectually challenge themselves, out of laziness & sloth, attack men who actually want to introduce ideas & solutions

    The intellectually inferior, the under-educated & poor, always attack those who better themselves, as its alot easier then addressing their own inferiority & lack of research & poverty of ideas

  21. Men have always attacked men, who strive to better themselves, the men who refused to intellectually challenge themselves, out of laziness & sloth, attack men who actually want to introduce ideas & solutions
    —————————————————————————-
    This is likely true, outside the MRM/testostosphere for sure. Men here who are not morally ok with PUA but who recognize fundamentals and wish to employ them in marriage do not fit that description though. Its almost like those who stay tense about game come on here and shove those who are not PUA’s over and over while saying “stop shoving me”. You make your own conflict. If there is no one to argue with you are happy to just carry one side of the argument.

    You have gone too far with intellectually inferior, and maybe even by mentioning poor. What the hell does that have to do with it. This screams of someone who is painfully insecure and you’d have been better off leaving it off. You guys dont talk about anything from research. Its amazing you dont see that (and I sense Dalrock doesnt see that either), you simply claim the research, then go on with hyperbole and insult. Hasten to add, you neednt prove game to me, I have done the reading. What you are doing is helping me , over time, explain my position that I keep poking Dalrock with, and hopefully, agree or not is fine, he will see where Im coning from.
    Its just not sufficient to rattle of insults, claim to be smarter, claim inferiority and that men envy upi, and pass that off as anything like rhetoric. It isnt

  22. Some Guy says:

    I’m a Christian and I’m okay with these pick-up artist sites.

    1) They speak the truth, which is more than I can say for a lot of people.
    2) I have to qualify for my wife. No one ever told me that marriage would deal that to me and these are the only guys that talk about how to do that.
    3) I need to know why my wife gets the hots for other guys, but not for me. These guys are the only ones that can explain what the hell is going on and why marriage and vows and everything else mean nothing to a female brain.
    4) These guys make the best case for explaining to my daughter why she needs to marry a beta-with-some-game. It’s simply the best strategy given what these guys would do to her.

    The straight talk that corresponds to reality… it’s useful regardless of why metaphysical frame you take. The church has really thrown us all to the wolves on these issues, though, so taking some sort of Christian-only high road seems especially ridiculous.

  23. Im also OK with the sites. They have succeeded in framing any and all objections as being simplistic mouth breathing moralizing. Its maddening.
    The sites are fine, I read’em, what I object to is the ever aggressive posture they take by creating their own drama. In the time Ive posted here Ive seen only very few if any take them to task morally, yet that is their counter argument….but no one takes the other side of it. Feminists do that, create these straw men and shoot them down. Like I said it seems like insecurity. Lets assume you are a PUA and have polished your game, cool…..why go around picking fights about it?

  24. For the record, my writing is really more ‘Game Theory’ and the study of intergender social dynamics than practicable PUArtistry. In fact the number one request I get from readers is practical applications for the dynamics I cover. And while I do my best to offer ways and means in which to benefit from these dynamics, I’ve learned that I have to trust my readers to use this knowledge on an individual basis.

    One size doesn’t fit all for Game. The foundational principles of Game are universal, but the application of Game is individual. Contextually, how a guy approaches a Goth Girl in a club will differ greatly from how a guy approaches a girl at Bible study, but both intergender social interactions are grounded in the same truths of Game.

    From a Christian perspective I would argue that a solid Game understanding is even more vital to a Man’s life than a non-religious guy since he’s got so much more personally invested in developing a positively masculine frame with the one woman with whom he’ll ever have sex with.

    This is a particularly daunting lesson to teach contemporary Christian young men in the face of a subversively feminized church culture, an equally feminized secular culture and complicated further by the urgency of a young man’s sexual impulse. This is a particularly volatile combination for a 19 y.o. Christian guy who’s nominally been taught that his only legitimate avenue to sexual release (perish the mention of porn or masturbation) is via marriage.

    Now add to this a churchianity that’s steeped in an accepted, covert, feminization (that even the older males preach) which pseudo-scripturally mandates him to perpetually qualify for the ‘gift’ of a woman’s vagina and you can just begin to grasp how insanely difficult it is to unplug a Christian man from the Matrix. The feminine imperative, the Matrix, IS Christian doctrine now, so attempting unplug him is tantamount to asking him to renounce (at least in part) his religion.

    When you consider the social control, the feminization conditioning, the religious implication, and everything he has riding on establishing a relationship, all arrayed against the average Christian man, understanding and applying Game is more important to him than an unchurched man.

  25. Dalrock says:

    @GKChesterton

    What Brenden said. Add to it there is some hypocricy in supporting someone who is essentially the opposite end of morally vacuous as your average feminist. Reading them fine…but I don’t know about active support.

    The charge of hypocrisy is absurd. I learned what I know about game mostly from men on the pickup side of game. Those few I learned from who aren’t on the pickup side of game learned it mostly from others who are on the pickup side of game. Hypocrisy would be me saying to do as I say, not as I do. I’m saying if you want to learn game, do as I did/do.

    Another definition would be if I secretly learned game from those on the pickup side, getting what they have to offer me, while disavowing them to make myself look more moral. This latter approach is what I see you specifically counseling me to do above.

    As I see it, you are accusing me of being a hypocrite for not being a hypocrite.

  26. Crank says:

    I’m not religious, but I’m married and have no intention of having affairs. I’ve probably benefited more from game/PUA blogs than any other source in recent memory, even though I have no intention of “sarging” or going to clubs or running game on strangers (other than as occasional experiment or opportunity to let my wife see another woman attracted to me). So I don’t get why people can’t read those blogs and take from them what they value and reject the rest.

    Having said that, I’m curious as to the inclusion of Rollo but the exclusion of Roissy/Heartiste (who is clearly the gold standard in this area, no disrespect to Rollo).

  27. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKChesterton
    What Brenden said. Add to it there is some hypocricy in supporting someone who is essentially the opposite end of morally vacuous as your average feminist.

    I do not see Rollo as “the opposite end of morally vacuous as your average feminist”. Perhaps you can provide some pointers to support your assertion?
    More importantly, what source do you offer for young men, especially young churchgoing men, to learn anything true about women? Mark Driscoll? Joel-Kathy? Pope John-Paul?

    There is nothing – nothing – out there that offers anywhere near the unvarnished truths about female hypergamy, and all that flows from it (social proofing, fitness testing, serial monogamy, divorce theft, etc) that the Game community provides.

    Men have the ability to compartmentalize thinking. Therefore, men can read or train in certain arts, and as Bruce Lee said, “Take what works, and leave what doesn’t”. So as Rollo pointed out, the average young church going man of 20 years either learns from the Game community, or very likely sets himself up for a decade of sexual frustration, followed by years of wedded anguish. There isn’t much of a third path.

    Could it be that traditional conservatives just don’t want men to know the truth about women?
    Why would that be, I wonder?

  28. Cane Caldo says:

    @Jason/GKC/Brendan

    Dalrock nailed it here:

    What matters to me is that while we in some very important ways see the world differently, I often learn from what you write. I don’t let the former stop me from profiting from the latter. Many of my readers have a different view of the world than I do as well, yet we have a productive exchange.

    In other words: “Be wise as serpents, but innocent as doves”. The Way is narrow, and neither feminized Christianity or PUArtistry will get you there, but you already have a headful of feminist knowledge to gain wisdom from (by knowing why to reject it). PUAs (loosely grouping RT in this category) have a whole other knowledge set to learn from. There’s no imperative to practice what they preach.

    For myself, I stopped going to Roissy and others because, by nature, I am not a good guy. When I read those sites, a temptation builds in me to use PUA tactics on other women. Not good. But that’s because I’m not good; not because their knowledge is bad. It’s worse for me when someone does derides marriage as for suckers. My reaction is to prove them wrong, but then I think about the truly insidious uphill battle men face. Mix that in with my own animal desires…and I quickly move into “Fuck it” territory.

    So, I don’t visit them very often, and when I do I almost never comment. But I did learn a lot of good, solid theory from Roissy. I’m sure RT’s site has a bunch, too.

  29. Random Angeleno says:

    @GKC, given that you do not like Rollo, could you offer examples of blogs that come closest to espousing what you think young Christian men should be .learning, doing or thinking about women? That’s an avenue of discussion that might be useful for Christian men on the fence.

  30. GKChesterton says:

    @The general “where” question

    Here. And that’s about it.

    @About Rolo

    I’m not even saying don’t read him. I read Roisy I’ll read him (haven’t much). I’d even link to specific articles. But there is something of a “blessing” that linking to the site proper provides. Imagine linking to a feminist site. It might have good articles but I wouldn’t do it to the site. Hypocricy is a strong word…I just can’t think of a

  31. an observer says:

    Young christian men need to know the truth about women’s natures. I hear what you say but. . . They need knowledge of game. It will have to come from somewhere. Most men can practise game to improve their interactions with women. This does not mean that young men with sound doctrine will trsnsform into virginity-stealing, overconfident, uber puas with double digit partner counts.

    Realistically, most cannot. They can improve their skills, but only to a point.

    Realistically, men need to know what they face. Adult women commonly behave like children with their shit testing, overinflated view of self, and the big stick of the justice system if they don’t like how the game progressrs.

    Most christians do not understand, and continue to pedestalise and white knight, a sickening veneration of women that is destroying the family. The few christians i know with any game are all church marginals. Churches are run by mangina men for the benefit of women and their pussy whipped betas.

    Tragic and farce, simultaneously.

    Hence, i would reluctantly recommend young christian men read roissy et al. It is an unpleasant exposure that is badly needed to awaken the next generatipn of men, if they are to have accurate insight into marriage 2.0, and be able to use game to manage their relationships, and discern mate material from the serial rotating ployandrists they routinely share pews with.

  32. JHSD says:

    Rollo is where I started at. I did find some of his stuff amoral, but I also read what he wrote and it all rings true. It was through him that I found this site in a roundabout way (Rollo linked Badger and Badger linked Dalrock). I think Dalrock is much closer to the info I am looking for but I still read Rollo every time something new comes up (that video on The Enemy is Us was fantastic, BTW). As others have said, it all boils down to you taking the info and processing it, filtering it, and then acting upon it in a manner that fits how you operate…”frame”, if you will.

    Furthermore, every manosphere author is important. Open-sourcing is the way to operate. Take input from every available source and utilize what works. The amount of cross referencing (linkage) amongst some of these authors is their greatest strength. Rollo says one thing, links to Dalrock, who then links to UMan, who links to Roosh, and then to Badger, and back to Rollo. All the while the reader is able to pick up numerous little bits that one author ignores. Unplugging is all about expanding your knowledge base. Would any single blog in the manosphere be as good as it is without three or four more to back it up?

    Rollo, Dalrock, keep up the good work. Many thanks to both of you!

  33. “Another definition would be if I secretly learned game from those on the pickup side, getting what they have to offer me, while disavowing them to make myself look more moral. This latter approach is what I see you specifically counseling me to do above.

    As I see it, you are accusing me of being a hypocrite for not being a hypocrite.”

    Have to agree with this assessment. I am new to this blog and many others. Have been recently introduced to the “feminized church” phenomenon, nice guy nonsense, and have realized that I have been nothing more than a beta slave for most of my life. I have produced in my wife (for now, as she is contemplating leaving) a deep seated contempt that is difficult for her to understand or define, yet it remains real. I have now realized that it was produced by my very own desperate attempt to appease at all costs; and trying to produce love, admiration, and peace, I only managed to acquire discontent, contempt, and anarchy.

    I am just beginning to learn to be who I thought I was before I fell down the “promise keeper” hole of “She’ll ‘want’ to submit to you if you just treat her right” sewage.

    I understand GKC’s point, but I believe Dalrock has it right. He would be hypocritical to claim the knowledge without acknowleding the source. God knows I don’t know of any Baptist organization that is teaching men the value and the struggle of actually being men. Not sure about any other denominations in Christendom.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s