Rollo Tomassi is a manosphere figure commenting on intersexual dynamics and male rights issues.

We critically examine Rollo Tomassi’s approach, his teachings, and his worthiness as a role model for men.

Poor Thinking Leads To Poor Analyses

Why Tomassi’s analyses are lacking, in one picture:

It’s the “crap-in, crap processing, crap-out” model.

Tomassi falls short at all links of the epistemology chain:

• Poor data, with poor selection and representativeness
• Poor analysis, with poor critical thinking skills and biases
• Poor theories, without the intellectual honesty to self-correct

Let’s review them:

1. Poor Data

Data includes all information available.

Either first-hand experience, observation, or science.
Each of them has pros and cons, so a good thinker uses them all.

Among the many issues in Tomassi’s use of data:

1.2. Rollo doesn’t understand science or logic

Evolutionary psychology is foundational to intersexual dynamics.

And Tomassi has a very limited understanding of evolutionary psychology.

Just one of many examples:

it served a feminine imperative to evolve an ability to cut former emotional ties more readily (in favor of her new captor) and focus on a more self-important psychology – solipsism.

Rollo Tomassi, The Rational Male

Basically:

1. Women get over breakups faster (<—- No data. Opinion presented as fact)
2. because they evolved for quick switching (<—- Conjecture. Likely erroneous. But presented as fact)
3. so they (chose to) focus on (…) becoming (<—- Ignorance of evolutionary principles. Evolution works on heritable traits, not cognitive focus)
4. Becoming more selfish (<—- Unfounded conclusion based on both faulty logic and data)

The fallacies are obvious.
A researcher’s comments on this:

Macken: they say a lot of stupid stuff (…) that women evolved to fall in love with their kidnappers because (…).
(…) What a stupid thing to say you (…) You’re an idiot
(…)
You can’t just say (…) that women have an easier time with breakups (…) there’s mixed evidence on that

In brief, Rollo Tomassi is unreliable on evolution-related topics.

1.3. Rollo is unable to select and filter meaningful data

Tomassi often uses anecdotes.

Some anecdotes can be representative of larger trends.
But we’ve seen Tomassi often picking exceptions.

Several of his anecdotes barely even exist in reality:

Rollo: and you want to know why is that women will kick you in the nuts and we laugh at it or if you’re man spreading pour water or bleach on your nuts, it’s because…
Ben: I’ve never seen that
Charlie: (laughing) this has never happened

This is comical-level nonsense.
I literally burst out laughing.

To be fair, Tomassi then says it was just an example of an “attack”.
But his next example was also poor. And it says a lot about Tomassi’s shortcomings in data selection. Tomassi is bound to come up with poor theories because he selects poor and unrepresentative events from the real world.

It’s funny that for all his talk of masculinity and “empiricism”, Rollo Tomassi’s thinking is feminine*.
Low analytical thinking, and high in “random associations”.

1.4. Rollo can’t make sense of data

The data Tomassi himself presents sometimes directly contradicts his theories.

For example, to prove that women have sex with alphas but marry betas, he says:

According to a recent study by iVillage, less than half of wedded women married the person who was the best sex of their lives (52 percent say that was an ex.)

Rollo Tomassi, Preventive Medicine

But that proves the opposite.
With a conservative estimate of 5 life partners, pure chance to marry the best sexual partner is 20%.
Tomassi’s source at more than double the odds proves the opposite of his point.

This is telling in our opinion.
With months to prepare, Rollo Tomassi couldn’t even cherry-pick data to support his narrative.

Tomassi even titled the paragraph:

Rollo’s own data shows the opposite. It’s an inability to pick meaningful data

2. Poor Analysis

Analysis is making sense of the data.

Good analyses may require high IQ.

You judge whether Tomassi has enough brainpower.

But thinking processes also matter.
And Rollo Tomassi thinks poorly:

2.2. Can’t grasp nuances

Rollo Tomassi thinks in black-and-white terms.

He starts from politically incorrect truths that need to be said. But cannot add nuances and exceptions.
And that makes for poor analyses.

For example, he says:

• Men and women have adversarial dating strategies

Men and women indeed maximize reproduction potential very differently.

But that doesn’t take into account… Everything else.
Few men can even hope to reach “peak male returns”, and many men prefer family lives.

In the real world, most men’s and women’s strategies are both overlapping and diverging.

If that weren’t the case, relationships wouldn’t have evolved.
Instead, all human cultures have them.

I believe this is telling of Tomassi’s (in)ability to provide good analyses.

P.S.:
Research that black-and-white thinking is associated with low cognitive abilities (IQ) and low education.

2.3. Over-generalizes

Tomassi often starts from important truths that few dare to address.

But then Tomassi over-generalizes to the point where it doesn’t accurately describe reality anymore.

For example, Tomassi says:

• Women pursue the imperative dualistic strategy of sex with alphas, lock down beta provider

Some women indeed pursue the “dual mating strategy”.

The nuance is that some women do that, in some cases.

And there is no “imperative”.

There are instead several available and viable strategies.
Including a relationship with a high-value man willing to settle down.

There is also plenty of “Mr. non-perfect alpha, but still high-value enough not to cheat on”.

Read more in our alpha f*cks, beta bucks article.

3.3. Anecdotal thinking

Example:

In my lifetime I’ve had sex with over 40 women and I never once caught a venereal disease (…)
I can also point to men I know who contracted Herpes from the only women they’d ever had sex with. (…) you can equally be a rock star and tap hundreds of women without any consequence and you can be a virgin saint and contract a disease on your wedding night

Rollo Tomassi, The Rational Male

This is faulty logic.

The point he’s trying to make may have some validity.
But you certainly can’t uphold it with that faulty logic.

I’ve noticed Tomassi failing at simple logic several times.
So I believe it’s fair to say that Tomassi struggles with logical thinking – even in basic aspects.

3.4. Myopic thinking misses second-order effects

Understanding the intricacies of complex systems is crucial for good theories.

But Tomassi often seems to stop at the first level of analysis.
He misses the intricacies and second-order effects of complex systems.

For example, Tomassi’s analyses often portray men and women as monolithic blocs.
However, the experiences of low-value VS high-value men and women are completely different.
Sometimes, opposing.

For example:

Bear in mind that monogamy is a dictate of the feminine imperative

Rollo Tomassi, The Rational Male

Tomassi speaks as if monogamy was good for women -in general-.
And bad for men -in general-.

At first sight, it may seem so.

But thinking at the gender level fails to appreciate the complexities of human mating.
And, in truth, monogamy better serves the interest of lower-value men.

If society abandons monogamy, it’s lower-value men who fail to find a mate, not women.
High-value women may still find quality men willing to commit. And will always find at least a mate.

But lower-value men will struggle mightily to find anyone either for long term, or short term.

3. Poor Theories

Theories are high-level models that explain the world.

System thinking develops theories based on data, and data analysis.

However, Tomassi’s theories are often lacking because:

• Weak fundamentals, with poor data and poor data analysis -as per above-. They lack justification in either data, or logic
• Self-referential and “builds upon itself“. Tomassi rarely goes back to any solid evidence. Instead, he connects the dots with his own (lacking) intuition and his other (often biased) constructs

Some issues with Tomassi’s theories:

3.2. Rejects opposing evidence 1: conspiracy excuse

Tomassi often rejects disproving evidence.

For example:

Rollo: (addresses why the “ovulatory shift” so central to his theory is weak evidence) honestly I think that there is a personal bias against ovulatory shift because it is an unflattering truth of female nature that’s why they’re going after it (<— conspiracy to defend his take), that’s why it’s not reproducing or re-replicating (…) the problem is in Academia (…) which also coincides with (…) Dr David Buss comes up with the mate switching hypothesis and comes out with Men Behaving Badly and comes out with his dating program (…) so when I see that… (makes a gun gesture to his head)

Better and larger studies advance science -and undermine Rollo’s takes-.

And…

Rollo says it’s a conspiracy.

Even purely mathematically, it’s far more plausible that Rollo doesn’t want to renege, rather than many researchers conspiring.
And, one could speculate, Rollo’s misogynistic bias prefers the more women-demeaning explanation.

Finally, it’s another example of black-and-white thinking to consider the two strategies as mutually exclusive.

3.2.2. Rejects opposing evidence 2: manipulation

From Rollo’s chat with the guys on Charisma on Command:

Charlie: men do have floors (effectively refuses Rollo’s theory with his real-life experience)
Rollo: Let me tell you why (<— teacher’s frame schooling the pupils) that kinda of (takes some of the edge off) offends your sensibilities here okay (<—- manipulative reframing), because if your sexual strategy is to put all your eggs in one basket, to be monogamous…

Rollo reframes the rebuttal as “offended sensibilities”.

It’s covertly manipulative and babying.
As if an adult couldn’t cope with the fact that humans aren’t perfectly monogamous -duh, under which rock did you hide-.

Maybe it was Rollo who believed in fairytales that eventually turned him bitter.

See full example here.

3.3. Dunning–Kruger effect: Rollo thinks he’s an expert, so he’ll never become one

Low-competence individuals tend to overestimate their competence. 

See if you spot that here:

Rollo: (…) they want to figure out how to get their wife to have sex with them again there’s so much going on (…) I have to be an expert on like neurology, endocrinology, sociology, anthropology, and all these all these little subfields because they all in some way like dovetail into what we took the red pill awareness

“All these little subfields” :).

Those are vast and sometimes complex disciplines. They take high-IQ scientists many years of focused study to master.

With just that one sentence I struggle to take Tomassi seriously.

3.4. Rollo has a philosopher approach

Rollo Tomassi does a lot of theorizing.

But Tomassi doesn’t go back nearly enough to the empirical evidence to back up his theories.

In our epistemological approach, this is known as the “philosopher’s approach”.
And it’s in contrast to a scientist’s approach.

Tomassi displays a typical philosopher’s approach of much thinking with little data. Without good data this approach develops “castles in the skies” theories. These “castles” are unlikely to be good representations of reality

The pitfall of the philosopher approach is that the more you think things over, the further away you move from the data.

That’s why castles in the skies.
They build upon themselves, with little grounding in data.
That’s philosophy, not science.

It’s a generally poor approach if you want to provide realistic models.
The further you go from the data, the lower the odds of getting things right. Even if you’re a genius.
Indeed, more IQ without data may even make things worse.
If Freud, widely regarded as a genius, has been proven wrong with modern science… What are the odds that Tomassi gets it right?

Now it should make sense why our opening picture is a castle of cards.

To sum it up, Rollo Tomassi:

1. Picks poor and limited data
2. Applies poor critical thinking to the already bad data
3. Overdoes the theory, without cross-checking with empirical data

Rollo Tomassi Psychology

Psychology is key to understanding someone’s work -and biases-.

Power is central to the red pill.
And social conservatism is a well-represented ideology.

We feel both apply to Tomassi.
At heart, Tomassi longs for the patriarchal order of male hegemony and control over women.

Hence the mate-guarding tendencies:

Rollo: (if she goes partying, lock her her out and lock the door)

Albeit speculative, the driving force may be fear.
Including fear of women’s sexuality.
Hence the obsession about past lovers, “body count” and mate-guarding.

This is also why social conservatives are not the best dating coaches-not for anyone who wants to be a lover, at least.

1. Rollo Longs For Cultures of Male Hegemony

Tomassi says:

Rollo: Many people will say “Islam is far more alpha, Islam is the way if you wanna have a solid marriage, if you want to be whatever (sic) and my take is that they are still a culture and ethnicity (sic) or whatever you wanna call it, a religion that still has a default authority for the masculine in it. But even that is being eroded

Tomassi regrets Islam is losing power because some Islamist societies are closer to his ideal of male hegemony (and female repression).

2. Potentially Close To Racist Extremists

Tomassi references Rossy:

Rollo: I’m known as one of the three R’s of the manosphere. There’s Rolo, Rossie, and Roosh

What a holy trinity eh? :)

Later Tomassi says men find the red pill via his blog or Rossie’s blog.

And here’s Tomassi linking in one of his live streams:

Note: blurred picture to respect a man who passed away. RIP Pat 🙏.

It seems Tomassi feels they’re in the same camp.
And that he agrees/likes the blog.

I haven’t personally investigated it -the time spent on Tomassi is enough :)-.
But RationalWiki says Rossy is an open racist and white supremacist.

Misogyny

This is the main reason I write this Rollo Tomassi review.

And it’s also part of my dislike and possible bias towards Tomassi

Because all I see in Tomassi’s work is misogyny hiding behind a facade of “sharing the truth”.
And I find that ugly.

Gargamel chases its anathema: the female Smurfette, symbol of female liberation and unrestrained sexuality. Smurfette rejects the yoke of Gargamel’s control, leaving him bitter at his own powerlessness.

I believe the misogyny that permeates Tomassi’s work makes the world worse off.
I’m open to being wrong -and I hope to be wrong-.

The signs of misogyny I see:

1. Rollo Describes A Vile Female Nature

I asked ChatGPT how Tomassi describes women:

How ChatGPT summarizes Tomassi’s views on women. Not a pretty picture

The terminology is seemingly neutral.
But read the description and there isn’t a single positive thing Tomassi says about women.
It’s neutral at best, or negative.

For the record, we aren’t even saying that “it’s not true”.
But selective focus on negatives, in our opinion, is a sign of misogyny.

1.2. Aggressive Choice of words

Show me what they say, and I’ll tell you who they are

– Lucio Buffalmano

See how Tomassi describes women:

• “Cock carousel riding” to describe women’s partying years

For the record, I don’t want to date women highly unrestricted women.
And I think that’s both OK, and smart.
But I still find Tomassi’s descriptions a sign of misogyny.

• “I endure an endless stream of criticism for implying that women are selective sluts.“ says Rollo in The Rational Male

Ask yourself: would a neutral commentator use the word “slut” to describe sexual appetite?
I’ve heard him refer to OnlyFans women as “whores” as well.

• “Spinster”, as in this Tweet

This tweet also shows Rollo’s conflictual tendencies when it comes to men and women

2. Rollo’s Selectively Focuses On Women’s Faults

For example, Tomassi would say:

Women cheat.

He omits that, hello, men also cheat.
And men cheat more than women, according to much research* on infidelity.

2.2. Rollo’s negative focus is a major source of bias

Misogyny is a fundamental bias that undermines Rollo’s ability to accurately describe reality.

Let me explain with an example.

Imagine this epitaph for Tomassi:

Rollo Tomassi was a contentious author criticized for simplistic and misogynistic takes

A hater’s truth

That IS true.
But it’s “negative focus true” and distorted reality.

It’s also a hater’s job to omit the positives.

Like him or not, thousands of men say that Tomassi helped them.
To omit that, is to spread a biased and untruthful depiction of reality.

That’s what Tomassi does focusing on women’s negatives.

3. Rollo Presents Women As Largely Victimizing Men

Example from his book:

My problem is civilly sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner with a hyper-religious woman and the new millionaire husband she married just 8 months after her former Beta husband of 20 years hung himself from a tree when she decided “he wasn’t the ONE” for her. 

Rollo Tomassi, Positive Masculinity

That sucks.
My heart goes out to anyone suffering.

But… Is it a mature and healthy response to take your anger out on all women?
It’s also a convenient thing to say for Tomassi because his material provides a good outlet for hurt men (keep reading).

Some men also knock up women and disappear.

What would you think of women saying that “men are predatory”?
I know, some women do that.
And those are exactly the women to avoid.

4. Rollo Sees The Genders In Competition

Discussing the MGTOW (“main going their own way”) approach, Tomassi says:

Many a MGTOW (men going their own way) will simply suggest men no longer play the Game; that isolationism is the way to go, but this only serves to eventually concede power to the Feminine Imperative.

Rollo Tomassi, Positive Masculinity

Tomassi advises men to not go their own way.
Why not?
Because that only makes “the feminine” unchecked, and more powerful.

What should they do then?
Well… Fight against “the Feminine”, apparently

This tells us that Tomassi sees genders as locked into a competition for power.

And for sure there is a competition for power -that’s also why TPM exists :)-.
However, it’s also true that life is BOTH cooperation and competition.

Tomassi almost exclusively focuses on the competition side between men and women.

Ultimately, Tomassi fails to appreciate the nuances of the sexual market place.

In truth, top men gain with empowered women.
Explanation in this video:

5. How Rollo Hides His Misogyny

To me, Tommai’s approach is sneaky.

For example, he:

5.2. Quotes others for his worse takes

From his blog:

Rollo’s blog: (apparently quoting someone) women were never worthy of such trust (…) women were never worthy of us

Tomassi set the baits to incite his most rabid followers.
Some will run with it.
Then he will quote one of them in the next post.
And on and on with the cycle… Without ever fully exposing himself.

“Yo, easy guys!” Rollo only described women “as they are”, he never told you to hate them.
That’s the ring-leader stock cover after they foment their followers

Similar technique Trump uses.

5.3. “Men & women are better together” BS

Tomassi says that “men and women are better together”.

Feels like a great BS for cover because I wonder:

What kind of idiot would want to be with Rollo’s description of a woman?

Oh yeah, right, Tomassi is married…

5.4. Manipulatively neutral terminology for reviling descriptions

Notice how Tomassi describes women:

• Solipsistic, NOT selfish and egoistical -Thesaurus’ definition of solipsism–
• Hypergamous, NOT calculative, Machiavellian, and coldly driving men to suicide
• Feminine imperative, NOT the oppressive and repressive matriarchy he describes

The names he chooses sound more neutral.
Even “scientific” for those who can’t see beyond the smokescreens.

Funny from a guy who says women are covert, eh?

Remember: Hitler never said he disliked the Jews

Hitler described the Jews as value-suckers.
Within the frame of “doing it for the Germans”.

Tomassi “does it for men”.
While painting a truly dark picture of women’s nature.

Self-Help For Average Joes

Tomassi’s general self-help advice works great for still-naive men.

And since many men aren’t particularly aware or high-value, it does improve many men’s lives.

It’s at the more advanced levels that it starts showing cracks.
Especially in the mindsets.

Here are some examples:

• Women get over breakups more easily = great warning for lower-value men. Not always the case for high-value men
• She’s not yours, it’s just your turn = a mindset that’s mostly useful for average provider types
• Always reject “LJBF” = great advice for clueless men. Higher-value men rarely have that issue (and know better)

It’s no coincidence that you don’t find many life winners, successful players, or happy men among Tomassi’s fans.

Rollo’s Qualities & Added Value

Rollo Tomassi’s review focused on the negatives.

One because we believe they’re valid and important.
And two, because our reviews are generally critical.

However, there are also many positives in Rollo Tomassi and his work.

I recognize among the positives:

• Rollo wants to help men

AND has helped many men.

Kudos to him.

• Respect for a man who doesn’t grift

No courses, over-priced consulting, or BS supplements.

Rollo seems to stay true to his calling.

I respect that.

A lot.

• Doesn’t posture as a guru

Rollo is no Jordan Peterson telling you how to live life.

Rollo says he respects his audience to decide for themselves.

We like that a lot.

• He seems to be a man of ethical standards

Rollo dedicates his book on game to his deceased friend.

He even encourages anonymous donations to greyhounds:

More respect.

• Sparkles of bright creative genius

We said Rollo lacks critical thinking.
BUT he’s clever in a more artistic sense.

• He provided space to many worthy men’s rights

We agree that Western countries now favor women in many areas.
If things become more balanced, it’s also for the courageous work of men like Rollo.

• Great takes based on solid power-awareness

Besides believing The 48 Laws of Power are actual laws, Tomassi has a good sense of power dynamics.

For example, men’s possible loss of power and attraction with marriage.
Also read relationship phases of power and how to maintain attraction.

The Truth In Rollo’s Teaching

Much of red pill wisdom is valid.

For example:

• Social exchanges and sexual exchanges are largely amoral. Your sexual market value is all that matters.
  • Many women will string you along for their convenience
• Cheating is a human adaptation, part of everyone’s mating strategy toolkit
• Men have a “burden of performance”: don’t be naive and expect to be “loved for who you are”
• Etc. etc.

Many red pill’s self-development approaches are effective.
For example:

• Be high-value, become an alpha male
• Stay fit. A toned body is attractive
• Date high-power, lead, display social dominance
• Hypergamy as in “women prefer men who are “more”

And more.

Alternatives To Rollo Tomassi

To leverage bias-free red pill wisdom:

• Intersexual dynamics from the sources. Skip the (poor) interpretations. Good overviews provided by:
  • David Buss
  • Macken Murphy
  • TPM reviews
• Dating from successful players. Most are better and not bitter
  • Best dating resources
• Self-development, effectiveness, achieving goals. TPM may be a good resource
• Masculinity is where I’d consider some red pill gurus

Caveats

We care to specify that:

1. We Criticize Ideas While Respecting The Man

Not respect in the sense of looking up, or liking.

But we extend to Rollo Tomassi the basic respect owed to most other human beings.
And we wish Rollo the best in life.

In that sense, we’re glad that Rollo Tomassi is a pseudonym.

2. We Are (different kinds of) Red Pill

This is about Tomassi, not a criticism of the red pill movement.

We’re kinda in that space as well after all:

TPM was one of the early websites on theredarchive

And some of our alumni had typical “red pill awakenings” to our work:

How a Power University alumni described Power University

I like to think TPM is truth-focused.
But without (as much) bias.

REVIEW

We find Rollo Tomassi to lack critical thinking skills, to jump to conclusions, to over-generalize, and to advance biased opinions that don’t accurately represent reality.

Still-naive men may have much to gain from Tomassi’s work.
But men who are past -or never were- “blue pill” need more advanced material.

Finally, we see important signs of misogyny and misogynistic bias in Tomassi’s work.

On the plus side, Rollo is a bright and creative mind who became an important manosphere figure, and he shaped much of the narrative around dating dynamics there.

Why We Made A Review

Straight talk:

We hope that many men read this, recognize the misogyny they’re absorbing, and change approach.
To stay on that path, we believe, is lose-lose for all.

As a reader wrote:

I found TPM 1 year ago, when a friend of mine recommended me the Rollo Tomassi books.

I found useful information, but disliked his biased approach.

So, I decided to research about him.

This is how I found out about the “Red pill” community and by chance read one of Lucio’s reviews on the subject.

I can say that TPM is the best resource I have found so far.

Andrew McNamara

And embracing our WIIFM, we hope some of these men may consider TPM.

Whatever you choose, critical thinking skills and healthy skepticism will always benefit you.