NOTE: This is a reprint of a previous email newsletter. If you’re not receiving my weekly newsletter on Biblical masculinity, you can subscribe here >>
This week I wanted to share something a little different…
If you haven’t noticed yet, I like to pull insights from different domains: Bible, red pill, systems theory, history, entrepreneurship, etc.
I do this on purpose. Even though hopping around between domains limits my ability to master one domain, I believe it gives me greater ability to find useful insights to important questions.
The Most Important Question I’m asking right now is:
How can we reconcile the instinctive sexual strategies of men and women?
The red pill has been helpful in this inquiry. But it’s incomplete.
Rollo Tomassi believes that men and women’s sexual strategies are fundamentally opposed to each other. It’s a matter of “battling it out” until one side wins or an acceptable compromise is reached.
The predominant attitude of the manosphere is that a woman’s hypergamy needs to be “kept in check” while a man’s polygamous instinct is silently acknowledged but seldom discussed seriously. (Though with Andrew Tate’s notorious flaunting of his supermodel harem, I suspect the topic will be in the open soon enough.)
To borrow a newly coined term from Scott Adams, I believe the manosphere suffers from “loserthink.”
Adams describes loserthink as “unproductive ways of thinking.” It’s not about being dumb (many smart guys in the manopshere.) It’s about lacking experience across multiple domains, and thus failing to see the solution.
Manosphere bloggers just write about what other manosphere bloggers write about. They might put their own spin on it, but there’s nothing new to talk about.
Women want to fuck high value men.
Come up with a thousand variations on that theme and you get the manosphere.
I have a very small audience right now. But most of you are very engaged.
The open rates on my emails are 3-4x the average for email broadcasts and the click rate is about 11x the average.
The reason for the high engagement is because I provide fresh insights to compelling questions. And the reason I consistently provide fresh insights is not because I’m so smart, but because I look for insights across multiple domains. Nor do I limit myself to the constraints of orthodoxy, whether it’s the church or the red pill.
I believe that’s the only way we will find productive solutions to the problems that matter most to us.
So there’s the meta-lesson: search for answers in different places than you found the problem.
All that said, here’s a new domain I believe can yield some leverage in the timeless manly quest to subdue women:
Specifically, old-school “advertorial” ads. These were ads that were written to look like newspaper articles and, for a hefty fee, placed in a prominent position in a popular newspaper (back when people actually read them.)
It’s probably the most difficult form of selling that’s ever existed. If you’ve never written an ad before, you should try it. It’s a humbling experience. It will reveal how little you understand about human psychology. But imagine how difficult it would be to convince a complete stranger to send you a check via snail mail before they even met you or saw the product.
Point is, the few people who made a real living at this craft were absolute masters of human psychology. And they had the checks to prove it.
And by “human psychology”, I of course mean female psychology since men rarely buy products not related to sex, money, or a specific hobby. Women make most of the purchases, hence mass advertisers had to understand female desires better than anyone.
As an introduction to this domain, I recommend studying the 1994 ad by legendary copywriter Gary Halbert titled:
There’s a masterclass level education embedded in that ad if you read it carefully.
Here are a few things to pay attention to as you read…
- Appeal to desired identity: “attractive woman”
- Assigning a compelling role to the desired identity: “professional model”
- A challenge: are you serious enough? are you good looking enough? do you have what it takes? Women are very competitive.
- Anticipation/intrigue: “this will be the most exciting message you’ve ever read”
- Showing past the sale: no wasted effort convincing women why they should try modeling; he simply assumes they already want to and describes what they will be doing, both the glamor and the hardships.
- Showing success of less attractive women – showing a woman that less attractive women than herself are having more fun than her is one of the most powerful ways to motivate a woman. Women want to get the most they can out of life for their looks.
- A logical reason – contrary to popular opinion, women are persuaded by logic… but only after the emotional hook. The obvious objection is “why are so many ‘regular’ women getting hired as models?” The ad gives a logical explanation.
You can learn a lot about women by studying these old ads. And the one linked to above is an absolute goldmine of insights.
Once you understand the psychology behind it, start thinking how you can reframe your desires in terms that will appeal to her.
Until next time,