I have a lot of respect for Rollo Tomassi, The Rational Male, for all the criticisms he has levied at him on a day by day basis, there is very little use in attempting to deny the contributions that he’s made to our collective understanding of female sexual selection. However, on some occasions, I find myself wondering if the sheer volume of legendary essays he’s produced over the past decade contribute to the fact that critics and fans alike, fail to understand some of his more salient points. He’s sheer proclivity and productivity can on occasion make it difficult to grasp the salient points.
Very few places is this more obvious than in discussions of hypergamy and looks. Rollo himself authored two great essays on looks that I would recommend for all men the classic “Looks count” and “Have a look” however Rollo also authored many essays on the concept of Hypergamy, which is a fancy word for saying “Women are looking for the best reproductive deal at all times” (I would link various essays by Rollo on Hypergamy but I only have 2k words to write this essay).
Many men seem to read either both sets of essays or merely one and then make their conclusion “Looks do no matter, I’ll get fat, dress like shit and skip my shower” or “Looks are everything, if I was born 5 ft 8 and with red hair I’m fucked”, neither of these are correct.
Just for the sake of proving once and for all that the red pill is not a cult, I will point out that I disagree with Rollo’s quote from “Looks count”
“Your bulletproof Game and charming personality wont make you look any better when your shirt comes off.”
In that in my experience, one my shirt comes off, the girl is already naked and there is no going back. However, this is a digression from the main point of this essay. The way I view it, hypergamy is quantitative, “Does this guy measure up?”, “Does he have enough value to be inside me?”, “Is he tall enough for me to ride him?”.
Looks are qualitative, “Is this my preferred way of scratching my itch?”. On a recent Red Man Group episode Jon from Modern Life Dating explicated this in the statements “OMG that guy has a pink jacket I want him to fuck me right now” vs. “OMG that guy has a fucking pink jacket, he has to be gay”. It’s very easy to fall into the trap of thinking that as long as you are high enough SMV, have a strong enough frame, show enough dominance traits and so on, a woman cannot help herself. Women become mesmerized in the presence of high value men. However this is not the case.
Having a high value will grant you more mating opportunities, you get shot down less, you get laid more however you can never hit that 100% hit ratio. If it was merely a qualitative judgment by the women, then it would naturally follow that if you hit high enough value, then all girls would find your irresistible. However, this is a phenomenon in poorly written literotica novels more than a facet of reality.
This is where the qualitative aspect kicks in, some girls like musicians, some girls hate musicians, some girls love men in uniforms, some don’t, and female preference is the difference between a “Hell Yes” girl and a lukewarm prospect. Women do not see men who are lower than them in SMV, a man who is lower than a woman’s self-perceived SMV may as well be invisible. However, women do see men who are at the right SMV level, yet do not quite hit the spot. This is where “He was hot … but …” comes from.
Women have preferences in the same way men have preferences and being “hot enough” is not enough, if the man has a specific preference for a given type of woman. You can be a perfect value for a woman, but not be “her type” and this is the major challenge with developing “bullet-proof” frameworks to help men become successful in the sexual market place.
We can teach you the game, get you lifting, sort out your diet, get rid of those trash shoes and cargo shorts, however we cannot guarantee that the specific look that your particular one-itis is looking for will automatically land you in bed with her.
That’s why I think the Red Pill catch phrase has to be akin to “We cannot get you that girl, but we can get you those girls” because we cannot promise that you will get that one girl you really want, but if you do what we tell you, you will get plenty of other girls for whom you fit their model.
Summary and Conclusions
To summarize in this rather short rant, there are general, quantitative things you can do in order improve your position in the sexual market place. This would be the business equivalent of improving general product quality, service deliverables and so on. Then there are qualitative things that you CAN do in order to improve your results in the sexual market place, which relate to differentiation.
I wear a suit for work every day, some girls love a guy in a suit, some girls view it as the embodiment of male privilege, dominance and surrendering individuality for financial success. You cannot please both 100% of the time, however you can make a cold-read on a girl and estimate which group she falls into. However, if you fake your look for that one date, and she becomes a plate, that requires more work to maintain.
Thus, the point of this rant, is that even if you dial your sexual market value to 11, you cannot get every girl. Women have preferences, just as men do and this is what I think a lot of men are confused about.
“If I can make myself a 10, I’ll have every girl I want!”
No man, if you make yourself a 7 with the right look, you can get certain types of girls, if you maximize your SMV to 10, without a look you become the best toilet paper that doesn’t make a girl’s ass sore.