CultureRollo Tomassi is hosted by Stefan Molyneux - a broader perspective on hypergamy (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by 1-Fidelio-

This just came out and I think many here will find it interesting to watch/listen to.


It delves into hypergamy, history of male/female relations, career paths, female solipsism and a number of other perspectives on hypergamy that goes far beyond just 'beta bucks, alpha fucks'.

I thought it was interesting, though people who have been here a good while might not get much new ideas from it.

[–]uebermacht 30 points31 points  (5 children)

Yep, definitely a good talk.
Watched the whole discussion and broken down in a nutshell;
It's all about hypergamy and it's characteristics.
Our whole life is about mating and procreating.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Kind of depressing, although nature has it's ruthless ways to show the reality.

[–]1-Fidelio-[S] 23 points24 points  (2 children)

It's as depressing as men's attraction always staying towards the same age and being more visual based in general. It's unavoidable nature.

The difference is that hypergamy is just so unobserved in mainstream culture.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 6 points7 points  (0 children)

and being more visual based in general

Yup. Our genes have learned what everyone is trying so hard to obscure: that women do nothing for us except their bodies.

[–]4matting 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't say it's unobserved. More that it's not looked at as something negative.

First movie that comes to mind is American Beauty. Everyone blames the man, but never the woman.

[–]GodOfDinosaurs 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Our whole life is about mating and procreating

If you really believe this you need to take a break from this sub and read some philosophy or go on a hike or something. Come back when you have perspective.

[–]lastdumra 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Kind of depressing

It is only depressing if you are under some kind of delusion. Accept reality for what it is and it will stop being depressing. Then it will just be.

[–]Cross_De_Lena 11 points12 points  (1 child)

I've always imagined Rollo as a big half naked guy with a long white beard. Kind of a disappointing.

Nevertheless, great talk.

[–]4matting 10 points11 points  (0 children)

You're thinking of Master Roshi

[–]3LiveAFTSOV 44 points45 points  (7 children)

Commenting what I said on Twitter:

Oh shit. The Red Pill is going mainstream.

Terms like Incel, MGTOW are used without irony by average every day people and the media alike.

The realities of the SMP and harmful effects of feminism cannot be ignored any longer.

I welcome the changes.

[–]ovrload 23 points24 points  (6 children)

MGTOW and the TRP is ok, just incel shit is a bit extreme which are a bunch of depressed young suicidal men who hate everything and don’t plan on improving nothing but rot away

[–]Reunn 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Incels are just men in the anger phase who have stagnated so long that they don’t see there being any further progression. Five stages of grief and all that.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)


    [–]Designated Reddit Flufferbanned_from_your_sub 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Yup, incels are supposed to shoot up schools, and punish a society that has fucked them.

    [–]conflagratorX 11 points12 points  (1 child)

    You are partially right, but some incels definitely make attempts to improve their situation. Many of them are going to gym, some of them makes cold approaches, others are planning plastic surgery.

    [–]TheYekke 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    What you call incel is simply the outcome of a SMP that is female centric up to a few years past The Wall. We call the female variety spinster. Both are a direct result of completely unbalanced supply and demand between ages 18-35 and 35-65.


    [–]dulkemaru51 5 points6 points  (6 children)

    The two guys recorded a podcast several months ago, yet it was never released by FDR (Moly). This can't be that same talk, can it? Rollo addressed the fact that Moly never released it but didn't know the reason behind it. Maybe they mention that in this episode? Going to watch the whole thing.

    [–]aegir98 2 points3 points  (5 children)

    I asked Rollo about it on twitter a while back and he saud Molyneux would release it when "the time is right."

    [–]1-Fidelio-[S] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    The time was probably right after Molyneux & Southern visited australia / new zealand, so that they wouldn't have to delve into that topic and could focus on immigration instead.

    [–]FOODYUMONION 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    My prime minister in New Zealand pissed me off when she slandered Stefan and Lauren. Absolute clown she is. Glad Stefan destroyed the tv interview

    [–]dulkemaru51 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Do you know if this is that same one or is he still waiting to release their first talk?

    [–]aegir98 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    This is their first & only talk as far as I know.

    [–]colcrnch 3 points4 points  (13 children)

    I’m not totally convinced I agree with this subs stance on hypergamy. While I agree that women almost always date up socioeconomic hierarchies, I think TRP takes it a step too far when they say that women will then always try to swing to the next better option. I haven’t found that to be the case in real life. Besides, there are switching costs associated with constant branch swinging and there’s a time value of depreciation which is ongoing in the background.

    I think it’s more something like this: a woman will optimize the balance between sexual attraction and socioeconomic status of her mate and will stay at that optimized level unless something catastrophic happens within the relationship.

    [–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat 28 points29 points  (7 children)

    You don't understand hypergamy as TRP defines it. Women do not "try" to swing to the next better option, they desire so. Hypergamy is women's biological imperative. Compare with the counterpart in men, the male biological imperative: polygamy.

    Men are horny as fuck. They desire to fuck more girls than they currently fuck. All married men feel the pull to fuck other girls than their regular, but not all men end up doing it, because of the risks and costs associated. This doesn't prevent the desire to be ever-present and strong. In all men. Give any man the possibility to add +1 to his roster with no risk and no cost and he'll jump at the opportunity. Most common male sexual fantasy is?

    In comparison, women don't have the desire to add to their roster but have the constant desire to upgrade to a better mate. The fact that you don't see many women actually doing it does not mean they don't have this desire at heart. They may not be able to. There may be too many risks and costs associated. But the desire is there, expressing itself as what Rollo terms "hypergamic anxiety" aka "is he really the best that I can do?". Give any woman the possibility to upgrade to (what she deems is) a better mate with no risk (insurance that she won't be pumped and dumped) and no cost (particularly, social one), and she'll jump at the opportunity.

    [–]colcrnch 4 points5 points  (3 children)

    This is an excellent explanation.

    Problem is it discounts emotional attachment. You presume she’ll bail irrespective of her feelings for the current partner even if she can do better. I’m not sold on that.

    Just like I’m not sold on the idea that all men will add a +1 even if there were no consequences.

    If people are realistic about mate selection I.e. both partners optimizing their choices, I don’t think the risk of hypergamy is something to be overly concerned with. Now, if all you have available is low quality options then it probably will be a problem at one point or another. That said, why would you mess around with women like that in the first place?

    [–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat 5 points6 points  (1 child)

    I agree that pair-bonding may very well act against that biological imperative. But I don't think her "feelings for her current partner" exist independently from hypergamy. Women's feelings are fleeting. If a woman meets a man whom she deems is a better prospect than her current partner, or more commonly, if she feels that her current partner's SMV has fallen, then her "feelings" for her current partner change. In other words, her "feelings" adjust to hypergamy. In such conditions, a woman refusing an opportunity to switch mate because she "feels" an "emotional attachment" to her partner may very well only reveal that her hypergamic impulse still deems her current partner the optimal choice (for the time being).

    Just like I’m not sold on the idea that all men will add a +1 even if there were no consequences.

    If a wife tells her husband "hey let's have a threesome with my friend you find so hot" with a complete insurance that this is not a trick of sorts, you think he won't jump on that opportunity?

    If people are realistic about mate selection I.e. both partners optimizing their choices, I don’t think the risk of hypergamy is something to be overly concerned with.

    You would make a grave mistake. Again, consider the male equivalent that is polygamy. Do you think there is any man on earth who would rather have one and only one sexual partner, instead of a willing harem of women, all things being equal? The historical "lifelong monogamy" is a model imposed by society that implements a compromise between men's polygamic impulse and women's hypergamic impulse. Neither man, nor woman's biological imperative is truly fulfilled under this model (except the woman monogamously paired with her hypergamic ideal best mate).

    Again, surely, pair-bonding is the sugar that sweetens that bitter compromise (at least temporarily). But do not make the mistake of forgetting the hypergamic impulse beneath it. Women do not choose a mate "realistically", "rationally" or "optimizing their choice" and certainly do not sit on that choice forever after they made it (at least not in this modern permissive environment that encourage people to re-evaluate at any time, no question asked). There are very many men who can tell you they "never saw this (breakup/divorce/cheating/change-of-heart) coming".

    [–]Morphs_ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    Do you think there is any man on earth who would rather have one and only one sexual partner, instead of a willing harem of women, all things being equal?

    Now that you mention this, this is exactly what masturbating to porn is. It's fucking an imaginary harem. Porn is the outlet of men wanting to be sexually stimulated by other women and releasing sexually.

    The fact that virtually all men watch porn, even in relationships, attests to this innate biological desire.

    [–]Morphs_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Problem is it discounts emotional attachment.

    In many real life cases this happens through relational turmoil: fights, resentment and ultimately the lightswitch effect that completely shuts down emotional attachment. Furthermore women are emotional creatures. A Chad able to evoke strong sexual emotions means the feeling of attachment for her bf/husband will be temporarily overwritten, and thus nonexistent at that moment in time.

    It doesn't mean it will happen for every woman. But it does mean a scenario is possible for every woman where these conditions are met succesfully. Proper vetting will enable you to find out if a woman purposely puts herself in situations that make these scenarios more likely to happen.

    The same holds for men. I'm convinced that for every man, some sort of scenario exists with some woman that will make it impossible for him not to fuck her. Depending on the guy that scenario may not even be realistic (such as him being in together with that woman in a bedroom, horny af) but the susceptibility to such a scenario is present in every male.

    [–]eccentricrealist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    You also have to remember that the better male will be situational. A businessman won't be the alpha at a rock concert and the rockstar won't be the alpha in the classroom.

    [–]TheYekke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Desire to is identical to paralysis by analysis.

    [–]1KyfhoMyoba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I've found that the model that works best for my tiny brain is that there is a floor to women's arousal/desire. A man below that level can only be fucked if he provides (BB) some other value, like, say, for instance, resources! This floor is closely related to her own perception of her own SMV. That's why that when she hits 30 and maybe gets a case of babies rabies, she actually gets more aroused by Mr BB. I think that it's Changing Lanes where Rollo points something like this out. Her hormones are working for her, pointing her to what (who) she needs at that particular stage of her life.

    [–]womans_algorithm 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    that women will then always try to swing to the next better option.

    You misunderstood. TRP says she is capable of doing it (AWALT acronym), not that she necessarily will.

    I think it’s more something like this: a woman will optimize the balance between sexual attraction and socioeconomic status of her mate

    Than the next question is, how does she optimize this balance? What variables go into it, how does she decide, can it be applied more broadly, or it's just your local observation? And so on and so on.

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)


      [–]colcrnch -1 points0 points  (2 children)

      I’m not an asshole mate. Moreover, I’ve never seen the dynamic you butt hurt fucks cry about day in and day out happen in the real world.

      I’ve literally never seen a woman happy with her guy bail on him because some guy with more resources comes along. If this is happening to you it’s just cause the girl your with was settling for you.

      [–]dulkemaru51 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I’ve literally never seen a woman happy with her guy bail on him because some guy with more resources comes along.

      That doesn't in any way go against the RP definition of hypergamy; she's happy with her guy, you said it yourself. The bit about a woman inevitably branch-swinging to a man with more resources, was solely made up by you.

      And possession of resources is just one of several positive factors in a man's SMV.

      [–]victor_knight 0 points1 point  (14 children)

      Things are out of control because the world is overpopulated. The powers that be therefore feel the need to undermine male/female relationships to reduce the number of births. Just about every kind of nonsense men have to deal with in this regard leads to that... fewer babies being born. Maybe it's all a coincidence but I don't think so. Even women working ensures they have 1 or 2 babies (if any) as opposed to 5-10 if they were uneducated and sitting at home. Never mind the divorce laws that thoroughly discourage men from marrying women too. Like I said, all kinds of nonsense. I guess 7.5 billion apes (and growing) is indeed too many. Science, government and social engineers would say they are trying to save the species.

      [–]drbldmny 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      every single person on earth could have a house in alaska, overpopulation is a myth to stop white people from reproducing

      [–]victor_knight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      White people have taken it on themselves to set the example for the rest of the world (in the hope that they will follow). This is why (native) population growth in developed nations is already reversing whereas in the rest of the world it's just slowing down. Migration also helps ameliorate population growth in developing countries. Again, white man's burden, if you will.

      [–]red_matrix 5 points6 points  (7 children)

      I don't buy that the powers that be want to limit population growth. I think they want to grow it. Why else are western nations giving billions to Africa? Families theirs have 8 children on average. In the past most of them would have died off, but with foreign aid and tech they all live and in turn have babies. Look at Nigeria population boom and projections. Africa is growing so fast they have to spill over into places like Europe. And the foreign aid is still happening and then budget is growing. Many have argued that western foreign aid is the root cause for Africa's population explosion.

      [–]SpaderAce 2 points3 points  (4 children)


      I think if "the powers that be" were really trying to mess with population growth, they are trying to grow the African population and stagnate the white population. Since as you say, money is going to Africa and leading to migration out to the rest of the world.

      [–]1KyfhoMyoba 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      They're not trying to grow the African population. The vaccines they're giving out often have sterilizing effects, so says the Catholic church in Kenya and another NE African country. Reported in the UK and other mainstream pubs.

      Why do you think Bill Gates thinks that vaccines are the key to overpopulation?

      [–]red_matrix -1 points0 points  (2 children)

      Why would the "white"'western elites want to destroy their own race and beautiful capital cities and replace with an alien race? There is zero logic. Look, this is going to happen but it will not end up in utopia - it will be chaos and possible war. What the western elites built - beautiful cities and culture, will be lost or destroyed with an African takeover. Why would the elites want this?

      [–]Incel9876 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Why would the "white"'western elites want to destroy their own race and beautiful capital cities and replace with an alien race?

      Good question, why would the "white" elite do this? What if the real "elite" don't identify as "white" but as another ethnicity that is hostile to the rest of the "white" race? What if they already had a homeland for their particular group, a place where they employ the opposite of all the open border and multi-cult policies they peddle elsewhere?

      [–]drbldmny 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      jews don't consider themselves white

      [–]victor_knight 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      The "aid" Western nations send to developing nations (not just Africa, but many Asian countries too) is actually used in large part to fund female-empowerment programs and influence their laws. This is because female empowerment is virtually guaranteed to lower birth rates and it has, even in developing countries. Instead of 7-12 kids they are now having 3-5, on average, which still results in unsustainable growth but it's an improvement. Migration also helps redistribute people to parts where populations are dropping. On the whole, the planet's population growth rate has been slowing down. Maybe some day it will even reverse.

      [–]dulkemaru51 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      That's not a plot to grow the human population as a whole, without regard to which parts of the population are growing, as if the powerful weren't aware of racial and cultural differences and the inherent consequences of mixing them, even though they make sure that other people aren't or at least that other people pretend that they aren't out of fear for being labelled evil, racist, sexist, ageist, lookist, colourist oppressors.

      The powers that be are actively raping the west with non-European hordes of migrants and artificial population control, that will also, as you said, contribute to the (artificial) intermingling of races.

      [–]WholesomeAwesome -1 points0 points  (2 children)

      Malthusian nonesense. Start by getting a permanent vasectomy and knock yourself out of our futures

      The carrying capacity of earth is primarily limited by man's mind. When man organizes like stupid, millions die of starvation. When man organizes intelligently, even though by accident, the population explodes. Explain that historical fact maltu nigger.

      I'll reconsider when we are 5 quadrillian on the planet with 500 floors/surface of hydroponic food farms and somehow our materials can't handle more and there is no room for more capital upgrades. Which of course there will always be room for capital upgrades

      [–]victor_knight 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      The carrying capacity of earth is primarily limited by man's mind

      This is precisely the point. The capabilities of science or "man's mind" has been drastically overestimated. We can't solve every problem or cure every disease (nor do we want to given the effects on the evolution of the species). We put a man on the moon over half a century ago yet today there isn't even a research colony there. We aren't going to move to Mars (not for a thousand years, at least). Again, why? Like you said, there's plenty of room on Earth but that isn't the point. The reality is, more people = more problems. So if you want fewer problems (and less conflict), then reduce the number of people. We will have a cleaner Earth and more resources for all. I'm not saying I agree with this (I would prefer a technological solution that could sustain and manage peacefully 1 trillion humans) but again, the human ape just isn't that smart.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)


      [–][deleted]  (1 child)


      [–]_Last_Man_Standing_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      great... I love listening to Rollo...
      but lately he's only been talking to that "enterpernures in cars" guy... he's fucking annoying...
      Rollo and Stefan will be way better... :)
      thanks for the suggestion...

      [–]FrankVillain 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      I cant read the Rationale Male articles anymore, pages wont load on Chrome or Mozilla. Am I the only one?

      [–]1-Fidelio-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      works fine for me. Maybe reinstall it fresh without plugins?

      [–]synchronicity9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Stefan actually talks more than Rollo... Haha