Manosphere Blogger Justifies Rape to Give Men More Control

Rollo Tomassi, male supremacist and founder of Rational Male, has suggested that rape and other abusive practices would allow men to control female sexuality, which is their right.

Tomassi provided this commentary when Rabid MRA and divorce-obsessed blogger Dalrock ridiculed a post at The Week by Damon Linker in response to the Eliot Rodger murder spree.

Linker writes:

“The woman you long to sleep with, like the world itself, owes you absolutely nothing.

Let that be seared into the brain of every leering, groping, cat-calling, date-raping, would-be mass-murdering man in America.”

One would imagine that the MRA/PUA community would be eager to deemphasize male sexual entitlement just at the moment, which was front and center in Rodger’s manifesto. Dalrock’s dismissal of Linker’s too real point about aggrieved entitlement is troubling to be sure.

But that’s nothing compared to the truly alarming reply from Tomassi:

Pay special attention to this next part, screenshot continued:

As you can see, Tomassi is to the English language what the signer of Obama’s eulogy at the Mandela funeral is to American Sign Language. (Binary retort? Self-entitlement? Self-perceived prequalifications? Ouch.)

But there’s nothing funny about Tomassi’s message, once you parse it to get his meaning. I highlight this because it is precisely Tomassi’s poor communication skills that potentially provide his wiggle room. Since no one can be sure what he’s saying, he often relies on plausible deniability when challenged, or moves the verbal goal posts in circuitous ways.

When we look at the language carefully there is no doubt as to his meaning.

By way of background, Tomassi opposes what he calls the “feminine imperative,” which he defines here:

“From this is derived men’s default status as the ‘disposable’ sex, while women are the protected sex. It’s this root that the imperative uses to excuse (not apologize for) the most blatant inconsistencies and atrocities of women.”

Tomassi wants male sexuality to be on equal footing with female sexuality, and for men to have as much say in the mating process as women do. In other words, he wishes to remove sexual agency from women – in Tomassi’s view women should not have the sole right to choose their own sex partners.

Let’s look closely at his commentary. Tomassi recognizes that women rebel against the concept of male sexual entitlement.

“It offends women’s self-entitlement to being filters of their own hypergamy.”

Translation:

Women resist the claim that they owe men sex, and specifically refuse to forfeit their right to select a mate. They wish to preserve their right to have sex with the highest status males they can get.

Tomassi objects because women are liars and deceivers:

“The trick of women’s mate selectiveness lays in keeping men ignorant of what qualities (beyond the sexual) might make for the best long-term relationship pairing long enough for her to capitalize on her beauty and youth, but not so long as to push past the expiration date of her hitting the Wall.”

Continuing:

“To presume a man is owed for sex due to services rendered”

What services does Tomassi refer to? Paying for dates? Fighting in wars? The generous benefits of patriarchy?

“Or due to his own self-perceived prequalifications for a woman’s intimacy.”

 Translation:

Women are unreasonable in not giving primacy to a man’s opinion of himself. He is the proper judge of his value, which is what should determine his access to sex.

Did Eliot Rodger’s perception of himself as a “magnificent gentleman” represent a valid claim for sex from the woman of his choosing?

As a self-described evolutionist, Tomassi is very aware that women have every reason to filter aggressively, as each sexual encounter may result in pregnancy and the need to provide for offspring.

He makes hypergamy – the female desire to mate with men of high status – a dirty word. But again, this is textbook, straight from Evo Psych:

“Women should pursue a “quality” strategy, prioritizing the future allocation of resources. They prefer partners who show signs of commitment, and who are intelligent, ambitious, and high in socioeconomic status. (Buss & Barnes, 1986; Feingold, 1992).”

Prepare yourself, here comes the real kicker.

How far will Tomassi go in removing female agency?

“The offensiveness comes from…that a man might forcibly assume control of a woman’s [choice].”

Here’s where Tomassi will try to find wiggle room. He does not state that a man should  forcibly assume control of a woman’s choice. Yet his commentary is clearly an objection to women’s taking offense at the idea of male control of their sexuality, which is natural and justifiable.

Even Super Misogynist Dalrock is taken aback by Rollo Tomassi’s comment, and asks him point blank whether he intends to justify rape:

 

How does Rollo respond? The natural response if he was misunderstood would be to immediately reply  “Of course not!” No sane person wants to be accused of advocating rape. Instead, Tomassi equates the morality of rape to the morality of Game and other manipulative tactics. In his view, all are equally moral weapons against hypergamy and “feminists” (as opposed to everyone) are wrong to be outraged by the idea that rape is not a valid tactic.

In Tomassi’s view, none of these are actually offensive – they are only perceived as such because of the dominance of the feminine imperative.

I’ll close by offering a simple illustration to explain why female and male sexuality will never be on equal footing. Those of you who have read Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale or P.D. James’ The Children of Men will recognize the point immediately.

Imagine a dystopian future where only 10 human beings survive. Consider each of these  scenarios for their potential to prevent the extinction of homo sap in a harsh environment:

1. Survivors: 9 men, 1 woman

# live births possible in one year: 1

2. Survivors: 9 women, 1 man

# live births possible in one year: 9

Female fertility will always take precedence. That is the natural biological order. Women have every reason and right to be extremely selective in mating. The future of the species depends on it.