The Rational Male: alpha kings, beta slaves & female hypergamists

While looking at various Youtube videos on the MGTOW lifestyle, I accidentally ran into 21 Studios, a men’s self-improvement channel, featuring numerous and rather entertaining lectures on masculinity, self-esteem and dating. Speakers included Rollo Tomassi, author of “The Rational Male“, a book that intrigued me because of the enthusiastic feedback of its readers, ranging from men who were considering suicide after a failed relationship to concerned mothers seeking sound dating advice for their sons.

Women as hypergamous “relationship hoppers”

Rollo Tomassi’s book, “The Rational Male” is based on the premise that women are naturally ‘hypergamous’ creatures, i.e.  unfaithful relationship hoppers, constantly looking for another man who better meets their material and sexual requirements. According to Rollo Tomassi, women’s libido increases when competing with other attractive females for the  same exceptional male. Likewise, their sexual appetite and attractiveness decreases, when they feel secure in a long-term relationship. In order to assure men of a regular sex life, Rollo Tomassi recommends that they artificially place their partners in an atmosphere of competition with other women. Tomassi not only recommends this in the dating stage, where men are advised to maintain several non-exclusive relationships, which can be shifted around according to their sexual needs ( “turning plates”). He also encourages men to continue maintaining a spirit of competition for their wives after a long-term relationship is established.  The purpose is to maintain women in a subtle atmosphere of uncertainty, so they will keep investing into their relationship, by staying attractive and providing their man with regular sex.

Beta male behavior is detrimental to the female libido

Tomassi’s view on women is rather one-dimensional. He seems to have little use for them, except as interchangeable providers of sexual pleasure and offspring. He also warns his readers against ‘One-itis’ the idea that there is a special soulmate out there for everyone. According to Tomassi, there is no such thing as a unique soulmate. Soulmates are a female construct, aimed at making men compliant to their imperative, i.e. being the devoted, caring ‘Beta male’ or ‘nice guy’ who sacrifices everything for his love interest. A lot of Beta males try to be a woman’s ‘best friend’, because they mistakenly believe that this would make them sexually appealing to her. Unfortunately, these ‘Beta males’, according to Tomassi, are not rewarded for their efforts. On the contrary. Because they place their woman in a secure position, Beta males unintentionally kill their partner’s libido, eventually losing her to that dark, mysterious stranger,  who will satisfy her competitive, hypergamous nature. This explains why women often leave perfectly good providers to have affairs with their sexy personal trainer or that mysterious player who turns out to be a total jerk.

Men need to ‘unlearn’ beta male behavior to cope with hypergamous femininity

So what are men to do? According to Tomassi, Beta males or ‘nice guys’ need to ‘unlearn’ their feminized behavior to become what women really want: the independent, self-assured, elusive and completely unapologetic ‘alpha male’. The ‘Alpha male’ is the ‘Beta male’s’ opposite in terms of following women’s imperative. For the ‘Alpha’, women’s preferences are not a priority: there is only his way or the highway. He’s the top dog, the ambitious leader, the rogue, the man who does not need to explain himself to attract women in droves. The alpha male is neither good nor evil. He can be a top executive or a gang leader, an artist or golden boy, a rough biker or that sexy pool boy. Ultimately, it’s not his social status that really counts, but his attitude of mystery and independence. Women are always revolving around him, so when one of them leaves, there is always another to replace her. Alpha males do not get dumped like the wretched Betas. And if they do, it never brings them the same devastation. The alpha male is very much like the hypergamous female: always looking for the best option for themselves, putting their egos at the very top of their priorities.

Where I agree with Rollo Tomassi

1. Submissive ultra-Beta males are not sexy

While most women want husbands,  who are their best friends, supportive partners and tender lovers, they also want their men to command respect both within the family and society.  This has everything to do with the role of men as providers and protectors. To find out whether a man is a good protector, women ‘shit test’ his loyalty and strength. Why? Because a man, who is unable to stand up to his woman,  is going to have an even harder time dealing with the many other challenges of life (both professional and personal). The last thing women want is another problem child to worry about. They want a strong protector to stand beside them and to raise children with, not a push over or a liability.

2.  Myth of the soulmate

Under the influence of the media and the ‘female’ imperative according to Tomassi, a lot of people believe in the myth that there is a special Soulmate out there for everyone, also known as ‘The One’. Nothing is further from the truth. Actually, there are numerous compatible partners out there for each and every one of us. A separation does not mean that your life is over and that you’ll never find a suitable partner again.

3. Myth of women as ‘perfect snowflakes’

A lot of men tend to have unrealistically high expectations of women and relationships, often to their detriment. It goes without saying that women are fallible human beings, not morally superior angels or goddesses. Putting women on a pedestal is not conducive to a healthy, balanced relationship and will almost certainly lead to disappointment and heartbreak for men.

4.  Don’t reveal all your secrets and vulnerabilities right away

No one is perfect and people do make mistakes. However, it is a bad idea to reveal all your ‘dirty secrets’ during the early relationship, especially if they are not representative of your personality. Don’t reveal your past partner count or other embarrassing details you’d rather not share on a date. A certain level of mystery does contribute to your sex appeal. It’s a myth that ‘being yourself’ will help you score with women. Also, you’re not necessarily misrepresenting yourself if you put your best foot forward.

5. Never shack up or buy a home with a woman who is not your wife 

Tomassi’s reasoning behind this is that cohabitation not only makes it impossible for men to see other women (i.e. no opportunity to ‘shift plates’), but also decreases a woman’s libido due to the lack of competition. I agree with him that unmarried cohabitation is an inferior arrangement, compared to real marriage. In many cases, it is a band-aid against loneliness and sexual starvation, a trap which prevents men and women from achieving their genuine professional and personal goals.

Points where I don’t agree with Rollo Tomassi

1. All women, without exception, are potential hypergamists + Women are incapable of the same type of love as men

Although studies indicate that women tend to ‘marry up’ (the original meaning of the word hypergamy), in order to secure material well-being for themselves and their children, constantly ‘shopping around’ for wealthier and more exciting men seems like a very stressful activity for them to engage in. I have no doubt that there are women who will use any opportunity for instant gratification, especially in our current consumerist culture. However, constantly changing her affective and social environment is not conducive to a woman’s procreational and emotional need for stability. Also, cultural and religious norms do tend to civilize women’s  basic instinctual drives, very much like they do for men.

Finally, although Tomassi writes that men and women have a different definition and perception of love, he does not manage to explain this claim in a convincing way. Do men really love for love’s sake, while women’s love is conditional and based on their hypergamic nature?  I doubt there is any serious evidence to back this theory.

2. Maintaining competition stimulates the female libido

Competition can be exciting, but too much of it can be experienced as a threat. While a subtle atmosphere of insecurity and sexual competition, may force a woman to invest more into her (sexual) relationship, this could also backfire and actually encourage her to broaden her options, just in case hubby runs off with a ‘slimmer, younger model’. That brings me to the following question: isn’t the male quest for ever more beautiful women indicative of a masculine version of hypergamy? What does this say about men’s capacity to ‘love for love’s sake’? To answer these questions, is to know the answer.

3. If a woman won’t have sex with a man after three dates, he should stop seeing her

Because Tomassi believes that all women, regardless of their self-declared principles, will have sex when placed under the right circumstances,  he encourages men to stop seeing women who delay the sexual part of their relationship. Why wait for any woman, since they’ll all agree to have a one night stand with the first alpha male jerk who gets them into the right mood? In Tomassi’s eyes, all women are sluts and if they are not, it’s merely due to a lack of opportunity or sex appeal. This seems like a very cynical, not to say misogynistic  (and I don’t use this word lightly) opinion of women. This is very similar to the claim that all men would be sex fiends and rapists, if they were given the opportunity. Such generalizations tend to be very damaging to gender relations.

Conclusion: 

In his book ‘The Rational Male’, Rollo Tomassi paints a very bleak picture of women, men and their sexuality. Humans are slaves to their most basic instincts in a hedonistic and basically loveless world. If men feel the need to leash the hypergamous, sociopathic ‘nature’ of women, doesn’t that make them loveless sociopaths in the same process? An alternative solution may be the use of sex bots: female androids with bionic vaginas. For Mr. Tomassi and his fans, this may actually be the most sanitary and painless route away from the hell of “hypergamy”.

4 thoughts on “The Rational Male: alpha kings, beta slaves & female hypergamists”

  1. Nice article. Actually surprised to read, as it is in line with MGTOW philosophy, mostly. I will offer my critiques. Assume them coming from a MGTOW perspective (though, not all MGTOWs hold this)

    Assumptions –
    1. Unless, there is a reason to think they are forced, what people do should be assumed to be the result of their own volition.
    2. What people do of their own volition reveals something about their nature.
    3. Men and women are different and have characteristics that can be pointed out by careful observation.
    4. In a (comparatively) free sexual world like West, Economics is a better model for explaining behaviour than Morality.
    5. It is an error to attribute virtue to people or classes without reason.
    6. Lex Talionis;)

    1. Submissive Beta Males were never meant to be sexy – Beta males were the need for women who were breaking out of the mould because they needed to return to someone. The Alpha-Beta dichotomy, the way it is now, is the product of Feminism and Sexual Revolution, as the idea of Beta being sexy (desirable, actually) was pushed by females as rear guard action against Alpha’s they were trying to have sex with. Because most males cannot be Alpha, because if they were they would push the envelope only higher, there can be no more top 20% males, Betas won’t go away.

    “Traditionalist” women (looking at Blonde in the Belly of Beast, Lauren Southern) who complain about Beta do not realise that Beta is not a collection of attributes, it is a relative measure. What is meant by “strong males”? Beta males are on many occasions still stronger than their partners. Obviously they mean “stronger” than other males. If a Beta becomes an Alpha, he only displaces Alpha. The quantity of Alpha males does not increase by 1.

    Now, betas are submissive. They are because betas trade up, and alphas trade down.Betas exchange their resources to make up for the fact that they have less value, which they have because all people in a competition cannot have same value. Their need forces them to buy sex at exceptionally high prices, and make poor trades, like if you really need something, any artificial illiquidity created by the owners forces you to but the product at much higher price than what is rational and sane.

    2. Women trade up (or at least, try to)- The biggest evidence of it is the makeup and sexualized attire (which are common to 90% of women, to some orthe other degree) as it artificially inflates their value and if a woman was as good as the person she was dating, she won’t have to dress in a revealing dress or apply tons of makeup as she would be secure without it.

    Alphas, on the other hand, trade down. This is true for Alphas can literally have sex without spending a dime, though some do.

    3. Why men “love” for love’s sake but women don’t – Because men are attracted to traits that women have, while women are attracted to men’s resources. If some guys says to his gal that she is beautiful, he is complimenting what she is. Notice “is”.
    But women are after what a man “has”.

    Now, both “love” are not love but one is more of a love than another because one is intrinsic property (though, of body) and the other is extrinsic.

    Similarly, a man if he chooses to settle down with a woman will only choose so because he wants to love. Men have higher libido. So, why they would restrict their opportunities, unless they are sure of it to some extent? It is either sex or love, but it cannot be sex (most of the time) because limiting
    yourself to one partner decreases your options, not increase them.

    For women, it can be fair to assume that it is either love or resources. But notice that because women get both by marriage or settling down, you can’t be sure it is which.

    Now, a male quest for ever more beautiful women is not indicative of hypergamy theoretically (emphasis), because if a man really wanted to pursue ever more beautiful women, he won’t marry. Marriage provides women with access to resources, it limits however men to ever more beautiful women.

    4. Sluts, Sex Fiends, and Rapists – Well, that’s the most easy one. MGTOWS have what they call “a freedom/power test”. In all forms of society, whether it be patriarchial like Islamic (where rapists are punished by stoning/death) or progressive (#MeToo), men invariably, “as a collective” choose not to rape, even if they are in power and left free to decide.

    Women’s liberation however, does involve being slutty, as, women as they have become “freer” have become “sluttier”.

    The question is very easy to answer –

    “If men are given all the power, would they legalise and promote rape” – The answer seems to be a resounding no, as there has been no system of power of men that have done so.

    “If women are given some the power, would they legalise and promote slutiness” – The answer seems to be a resounding yes, they actually believe it is their right.

    I have talked to women who value it more than Freedom of Speech, hence the purge of “slut-shamers”.

    Now, are men by nature at least “sex fiends”?

    Well, here the answer seems yes, dependent though, on how you define a “fiend” (assumption 3 is gender-neutral, and applies to men as much as to women) but the only problem that comes is Religion. Religion seems to counter that effectively.
    Today’s most popular monotheistic religions are entirely MEN’s constructions, and they all are anti-sex to some or other degree.

    Consider that in India, the most loved God and the ideal of men, is Rama, who is “ekampatnivrata”, a chaste virtuous man who chose monogamy against the culture of his time.

    Funnily, what (modern) women go gaga over is Ahilya, who was a very pious woman caught into adulterous action by her husband. Women complain how their sexual freedom of being a cheater is hated by society.

    Contrast the ideals.

    5. Tomassi’s main arguments seem to be that “love” is a losing deal for men as it forces men to make bad trades. A competitive market forces you to give away limiting emotions to get success. Won’t you fire your employee whose performance is not up to the mark, though you may love him? You need to, to survive in the market.

    6. While sex bots are not the only way, they are one. The good thing about sex bots is they increase competition and break hegemony. No wonder feminists are upset.

    In one case, feminists (basically prostitutes) forced Government to ban a sex bot prostitute that was bought by brothel, as she reduced the demand for them significantly.

    Communism in Prostitution. LOL. Stalin and Adam Smith, both would be rolling in their graves.:)

    1. “What is meant by “strong males”?”

      A strong man is a man who is able to stand up for himself, against bullies, unfair employers, an abusive wife, fake friends. He is the protector of his family and the people who fall under his responsibility. He is a man with self-respect and respect for others.

      “Betas exchange their resources to make up for the fact that they have less value, which they have because all people in a competition cannot have same value. ”

      Perhaps the “lesser value” of betas has more to do with their bad self-esteem than who they really are. Generosity of character is a high value asset in my book. I greatly appreciate people who don’t calculate the amount of friendship and love they give to others. Besides, there is a difference between a Beta with self-respect and a doormat. A doormat Beta is the type that allows others (employers, fake friends, bullies) to exploit and humiliate him. If the wife feels like her husband is an “extra child” she needs to protect (I know several women in this situation), this is not a balanced marriage.

      “Alphas, on the other hand, trade down. This is true for Alphas can literally have sex without spending a dime, though some do.”

      Alphas are useless and selfish individuals. A waste of space to be avoided at any cost. If alphas are your cup to tea, ladies, buy a copy of Fifty Shades. It’s safer and way more enjoyable.

      “Why men “love” for love’s sake but women don’t – Because men are attracted to traits that women have, while women are attracted to men’s resources. If some guys says to his gal that she is beautiful, he is complimenting what she is. Notice “is”. But women are after what a man “has”.”

      Loving women for their temporary outer shell is a very one-dimensional and shallow type of love. The body is only a vessel for the immortal soul. And it is the soul that craves love. This is why feminists resent the worship of female physical perfection so much. It’s like being in love with the latest iPhone to replace it with the next model, with even more exciting features, at the earliest opportunity. This is why hypergamous men marry an attractive model, but eventually divorce her to remarry a newer, younger model. This consumeristic and one-dimensional view is highly disturbing to women, who feel like they are being reduced to their bodies.

      If women were after what a man “has”, they would not fall in love with bikers, pool boys, starving artists and other such critters. Women fall in love with an “image” or the “idea of love”, often discovering later on that it was all in their heads.

      “If men are given all the power, would they legalise and promote rape” – The answer seems to be a resounding no, as there has been no system of power of men that have done so.

      Wrong. Read the life of the Prophet Muhammad, or, for more recent history, about sex slavery under the Islamic State.

      “If women are given some the power, would they legalise and promote slutiness” – The answer seems to be a resounding yes, they actually believe it is their right.

      Wrong again. Women are very territorial. Try to seduce what is theirs and you’ll see how “tolerant” they are of sluts.

      “Tomassi’s main arguments seem to be that “love” is a losing deal for men as it forces men to make bad trades. A competitive market forces you to give away limiting emotions to get success. Won’t you fire your employee whose performance is not up to the mark, though you may love him? You need to, to survive in the market.”

      If a couple (or family) is the same as running a company to you, you really do not understand what couples are about. Couples are about complementarity and mutual support. Competition has no place in a couple. If you compete against your wife or you allow her to compete against you, don’t expect your marriage to survive. If you make your woman feel like an employee or “unsafe” against competition in her own home, she’s going to look for another “company” with higher “job security”. Likewise, if a woman reduces you to a ‘human resource’ or slot machine (play with the joystick and $$$ comes out, sorry for the double meaning), I’m sure this is not going to endear her to you.

      “While sex bots are not the only way, they are one. The good thing about sex bots is they increase competition and break hegemony. No wonder feminists are upset.”

      Sex bots are a band-aid for lonely people and I feel sorry for those who will need to resort to them. I don’t think they are a threat to real women, or the real sexual experience at all. They may put human traffickers out of business, but somehow that does not worry me at all… 🙂

  2. “A strong man is a man who is able to stand up for himself, against bullies, unfair employers, an abusive wife. He is a man with self-respect and respect for others ”

    See, how is all of this relational and relative. It is not – a man who can do 100 push ups or bench press 300 kilograms. It is that he has to be more powerful than other men/women. Obviously, this means that a set percentage of men will always be “weak” and “beta”.

    If I become first, then someone else becomes second. It does not matter that both of us can run like cheetahs. We both are objectively fast, but one of us is still slower than the second.

    Women’s criteria will always render most men “beta” because every women will attracted to the most powerful men in a setting. The rest will always be compromises.

    “Perhaps the “lesser value” of betas has more to do with their bad self-esteem than who they really are. Generosity of character is a high value asset in my book. I greatly appreciate people who don’t calculate the amount of friendship and love they give to others. Besides, there is a difference between a Beta with self-respect and a doormat. A doormat Beta is the type that allows others (employers, fake friends, bullies) to exploit and humiliate him. If the wife feels like her husband is an “extra child” she needs to protect (I know several women in this situation), this is not a functional marriage. ”

    It is not bad self-esteem from the start. People’s self-esteem goes down because of failure. Men’s value is based on their success. 80% of men will always be not the top 20%, whether it be Turkey, Bahrain, USA or Bangladesh.
    A “door mat beta” allows others to exploit it because he is not in a position to bargain. He needs to eat. A man who works in a coal mine, is not there out of his choice, nor is the one cleaning sewers. He needs to eat. So, he is there.

    If he does not allow his employer to treat him like dirt, his employer will fire him in a flash. Men do not have an option to sit at home. They have zero value if they do so. Conservative women hate them, so do liberal women.

    There are no feminist organisations pushing women to do menial jobs, because those jobs are objectively bad. Yet, men do them. They are not happy. But they have to. If they were in a position to bargain, they would. They can’t because plenty of other men would willingly replace them, and the employer would be happy to fire them.

    “Alphas are useless and selfish individuals. A waste of space to be avoided at any cost. If alphas are your cup to tea, ladies, buy a copy of Fifty Shades. It’s safer and way more enjoyable. “_

    This is not the first time I am hearing it. Almost every woman says that. But most still chase Alpha. They do so because Alphas are selfish. Selfishness is an indicator of success. The big guns at Wall Street or the biggies of Hollywood are not generally very altruistic people.

    “Loving women for their temporary outer shell is meaningless. ”

    Yes, it is. That is why I put “love” in quotes. But women want it. When I step out my home, I see all women try to sell sex to me. Jennifer Lawrence did not brave a breast-showing, ass-showing dress in cold, while males around her were dressed in almost a burqa (barring face) because she wanted to show her personality.

    Men, on the other hand, will hate it if you say you are in for money. They call ’em Gold Diggers.

    “It’s like being in love with the latest iPhone to replace it with the next model, with even more exciting features, at the earliest opportunity. This is why hypergamous men marry an attractive model, but eventually divorce her to remarry a newer, younger model. ”

    I think you are wrong here. Men who remarry a newer, younger model are not hypergamous. They are forced to marry because of society. They don’t want to. Do you think Donald Trump ever gave a damn about his marriage? I love that guy, but I don’t think he did.

    Or in other words. A man will never court a woman he does not like, if he can court a women higher up his scale (unless, of course he is serial court-er). But women do court men who are betas, or send signals to them because of resources.

    In a study, around 50% of women accepted of having a back-up man in their lives.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2769593/HALF-women-fall-partner-standby-fancied-case-current-relationship-turns-sour.html

    Those men are their beta back-ups.

    Remember, my point is not that men are more committed or not. It is that a man will marry a woman only if he is convinced of “love”. If he is not, he would just have sex with her. A woman, not so much.

    “If women were after what a man “has”, they would not fall in love with bikers, pool boys, starving artists and other such critters. Women fall in love with an “image” or the “idea of love”, often discovering later on that it was all in their heads. ”

    These are exceptional stories.

    “Researchers have done this* and find that for men there is no amount of income that the woman in the bottom ten percent in terms of appearance can earn to make men prefer her over women in the top 10 percent. That is, looks really matter to men relative to income. For women though, if the man in the bottom ten percent in terms of looks earns more than $248,500, they will prefer him over the more attractive guy earning $60,000… ”

    http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/do-women-really-value-income-over-looks-in-a-mate

    Of course, it is not just money. But money is good enough for the ugliest guys to get laid.

    “Wrong. Read the life of the Prophet Muhammad, or, for more recent history, about sex slavery under the Islamic State.”

    I think you are mistaking instances of rape (especially, war time rape) to what people believe about morality of rape. Men raping, is a fact. Men agreeing that rape is good, is not. If you believe in evolution, you have to accept a simple thing. Women use sex to gain power. Men use power to gain sex. It is as simple as that.

    “Wrong again. Women are very territorial. Try to seduce what is theirs and you’ll see how “tolerant” they are of sluts. ”

    Again. I am talking about collective. Personal morality and behaviour is meaningless because unless there is an ideal in the society, the society will sway.
    Compare it to men saying “Rape is ok, but damn you if you rape my wife or sis”. I don’t know anyone who says that. Society is guided by principles. If you are right then women believe that “they can seduce someone else’s hubby but heck someone seduces theirs”. If that is true, I will say it is comical.

    Women enable sluts, as far as I have seen.

    “If a couple (or family) is the same as running a company to you, you really do not understand what couples are about. Couples are about complementarity and mutual support. Competition has no place in a couple. If you compete against your wife or you allow her to compete against you, don’t expect your marriage to survive. If you make your woman feel like an employee or “unsafe” against competition in her own home, she’s going to look for another “company” with higher “job security”.”

    There is idealism. And then there is reality. What you are saying does not change the fact that trend is towards adultery/polyamory. It is worse than company. 50% contracts don’t end in cheating there.

    This is the assumption that I made earlier. Economics over Morality.

    It is not what you should do or not. It is what it is. Closing eyes towards a fact of Western Civlisation does not make it go away.

    A man gets cheated three times. Still people push him to marry or have a girlfriend. Sometimes, it is best to look other ways of happiness.

    “Sex bots are a band-aid for lonely people and I feel sorry for those who will need to resort to them. I don’t think they are a threat to real women at all. They may put human traffickers out of business, but somehow that does not worry me at all… 🙂”

    But do they choose to be lonely? I have been hit by most beautiful women. One of them sat on my lap in front of my friends.
    I didn’t give a damn;) And that was when I was a teen with raging hormones.

    Most men see through the act. Only a few act though.

    1. Thanks for this response; you’ve obviously thought this through. Of course, we could go on and on in this discussion, finding examples to confirm this or that opinion. Humans beings are amazingly complex creatures, whose behavior is difficult to capture by statistics, or alpha/beta/hypergamic “boxes”. I think it’s important to learn to think out of your box and gain ownership of your life. The fact that this pretty girl could sit on your lap, without being able to trigger any response, shows that you’ve reached a certain point in maturity and independence. It’s always better to be in control of your passions than be controlled by them. Cheers!