While I was watching a recent video by Rollo Tomassi, “What’s Wrong with the Red Pill?”, where Tomassi was making fun of and attacking his various critics in the Manosphere, I ran across something extraordinary, something I wasn’t expecting to see, something I don’t recall ever seeing before in the Manosphere, that is blatant advocacy and excuse making for male initiated infidelity complete with ideological and evolutionary psychology justifications.
Rollo Tomassi poses the cold blooded rhetorical question; “As a man, is your commitment to yourself or is your commitment to keeping your commitments?” Tomassi suggesting by the tone of his voice, of course, one’s highest duty is the “commitment to yourself”, as he puts it; making a commitment to keep your commitments is just plain stupid or illogical it seems in Tomassi’s mind.
The main theme of Tomassi’s video “What’s Wrong with the Red Pill?” was his critiquing, mocking and making fun of really, a video put out by Josh Hudson, Pinnacle of Man, titled “Red Pill: Everything Wrong With Red Pill [EXPOSED]” where Josh Hudson directly brought up the issue of the hypocrisy of men being willing to cheat on their girlfriends but still wanting their girlfriends to be loyal to them. This is what instigated the response by Tomassi and friends that of course the man should cheat on his girlfriend in the hypothetical scenario Josh Hudson laid out.
Here is what Josh Hudson said in his video “Red Pill: Everything Wrong With Red Pill [EXPOSED]” (5:54 to 6:38):
“Let me ask you a question, I’m going to give you a scenario, let’s say you’re with a girl and you’ve been with her for about a year, and she starts to become naggy and bitchy and starts to get overweight and then you go out with some friends one night and this gorgeous woman comes up to you and you guys are flirting you’re connecting she wants you, she’s hot, way hotter than your girlfriend, would you go home and sleep with her? Would you go cheat on your girlfriend?
If the answer is, yeah, in a heartbeat you would? Then that’s the hypocrisy that you’re creating. That, if you’re willing to do that, then of course you believe she would to on you, but if you said “No, of course I wouldn’t, I have better morals, I have better judgment than that” then why do you think a woman honestly lacks impulse control more than a man?”
To this Rollo Tomassi and friends responded in the “What’s Wrong with the Red Pill?” video (57:33 to 59:41):
“Rollo Tomassi: As a man, is your commitment to yourself or is your commitment to keeping your commitments? Right, if something is a challenge to your commitment to yourself, to your own betterment, to who you are, what’s best for you in life, is it more important to be committed to yourself or is it more important to be committed to the idea of commitment, and that’s what he’s getting at right here.
Troy Francis: He’s saying that being committed to commitment is more important because in the scenario he suggests, if the guy went with the girl he met on that night out then that would be poor judgment in his view. But why would it be poor judgment? Maybe it would be good judgment, because clearly the relationship with your girlfriend is not going anywhere, maybe this girl will be better, maybe things will be great with her, but he builds it up as this moralistic sort of argument.
Rollo Tomassi: We can go down the evolutionary route here is that you’re probably there in the first place because you’re looking to solve your reproductive problem which you can’t solve with your fat bitchy naggy girlfriend at home. So, ya, of course you will. It’s not an issue of morals, and, again, what is your biological imperative, what are you prompted to do? Why are you there in the first place? If you’re so moral why are you not at Bible Study instead of a bar?
Rian Stone: Not to mention, why is he talking about unconditional loyalty like that? If you’re going to give commitment away you’ve got to give it to somebody who’s worth it. The fat naggy girl example is not worth your commitment, so you just devalued it anyway.
Rollo Tomassi: Here’s my question to Josh, ok, so, what’s the better scenario? To go and break up with your girlfriend and say “Fuck you, I’m out, you’re fat, you don’t have sex with me, and you’re bitchy and naggy, and I’m going to break up with you and I’m done” and then go out and look for the hot chick or are you morally obligated not to get with the girl who’s right there, who’s hot ready better looking probably a better sexual experience, and if you don’t capitalize on that opportunity then you’re going to be shit out of luck. Is that better? Would that be the solution to the problem right there? Because if that’s the case all you’re doing is you’re saying that your commitment to commitment is actually the priority right there . . .”
Pretty shocking stuff, I must say. Not even hiding their contempt for the very idea of commitment to a well established, dating her for a year, romantic partner. Is it really true, these men feel no emotional investment, no sense of duty or obligation, no sense of attachment, no love, for a woman they’ve been dating for a year? That they are willing to discard such a relationship secretly and covertly on an impulse on the flimsiest of pretexts?
Rollo Tomassi seems to be positing a moral principle that he views as a general rule that he is applying to this particular hypothetical of having problems with your current girlfriend of a year and being presented with an opportunity to cheat on her with a “hotter” girl; that is, Rollo Tomassi asks:
“As a man, is your commitment to yourself or is your commitment to keeping your commitments?”
Rollo Tomassi implying, of course, obviously, that “commitment to yourself” comes before “commitment to keeping your commitments.” This itself is quite an extraordinary assertion. Selfishness and self-interest AS A RULE comes before duty to others, duties that you have voluntarily chosen to take on as part of a reciprocal agreement with another? This phraseology of “commitment to yourself” is quite interesting. You have made a “commitment to yourself” to always break agreements with others whenever it inconveniences you or no longer serves your interests? Do you tell the person you are making a promise to that they should keep in mind that your “commitment to yourself” comes first and so they should expect betrayal as soon as the deal no longer suits you or do you keep this “commitment to yourself” as your little secret that they don’t have to know about?
Any kind of relationship with another will assume mutuality and reciprocal obligations and duties; by definition these obligations towards another will not always serve your own self-perceived interest at the time; that’s why they are called “obligations” or “commitments” and not just mere preferences or choices in the first place. It is completely insane to propose that “commitment to yourself” IS MORE MORAL THAN “commitment to keeping your commitments” as it relates to relationships with others.
How about you make a “commitment to yourself” to uphold your “commitment to keeping your commitments.” In other words, why not make a “commitment to yourself” to uphold the moral standards that you seek to live by and model for others? You don’t have to be selfish and untrustworthy and not care about the damage you do to others foolish enough to place their trust in you; you can be a different kind of man, a man who lives up to their commitments and promises, a man deserving of respect, a man who will gain and earn respect from others over time, a man a trustworthy woman will be able to have trust in.
The other kind of justification Rollo Tomassi came up with to excuse the cheating he wanted to justify in the scenario Josh presented was an evolutionary psychology kind of argument that the man in question was just following his “biological imperative” to have sex with any attractive woman that presented herself to him. Rollo Tomassi said:
“So, ya, of course you will. It’s not an issue of morals, and, again, what is your biological imperative, what are you prompted to do?”
What is this? “of course you will” cheat on your girlfriend whenever you have the chance? All men cheat at every opportunity? This is some kind of iron law of male nature here? “It’s not an issue of morals” Tomassi proclaims? Why not? Because men have no ability to control their sexual urges and therefore bear no moral responsibility for the sexual choices they make? Just because you feel like doing it doesn’t mean you should do it.
Rollo Tomassi is a big proponent and “teacher” of the idea of “hypergamy” and one of the big themes of hypergamy is that a woman will cheat on you and dump you as soon as she finds a better man. This is why women can never be trusted and are no good in Red Pill ideology. Rich Cooper of Entrepreneurs in Cars popularized the saying “She’s Not Yours, It’s Just Your Turn” explaining why you should never commit to a woman, because she won’t commit to you in return. This supposedly being due to women’s inborn evolved “hypergamous nature.”
So I suppose the infidelity that Rollo Tomassi is justifying and legitimizing here is just “self defense” against the cheating and unfaithfulness of women. If the woman is inevitably going to betray you and dump you at the first presentation of a better opportunity then shouldn’t men do the same?
Usually cheating and infidelity is presented in the Manosphere as men being the hapless and innocent victims and men have to do various things in righteous self-defense to protect themselves against the woman’s inevitable betrayal and attack against them. What is new in this case is the open advocacy and legitimization of the man being the one to cheat on his girlfriend as soon as he has the first opportunity and motive to do so.
Are Red Pill men like Rollo Tomassi and friends the innocent victims defending themselves from women’s nefarious ways or are they the perpetrators looking for any excuse to justify their own aggressions and betrayals against women?