Alpha Male, Submissive Female?
What's Wrong With Red Pill's Worldview, Part 4
If you prefer YouTube and Spotify then please click those links!
Dating has become harder than ever. This is despite access to legacy venues like nightclubs, coffee shops, and the subway, and the emergence of all of the new online venues like dating apps and club finders like meetup.com. The opportunities to meet other people are more numerous than they have ever been, and yet again, it seems like it’s harder than it’s ever been. This is one of the primary reasons that Red Pill has become so popular among men – it promises a solution. It’s this solution that we’ll cover in this essay.
In the last few essays, I covered their model of the world, how they come to know what is true and false, and their value system (1, 2, 3). You won’t need to read those to understand this one, but this series has been about understanding and deconstructing their entire worldview. While I think Red Pill is connecting with some very real grievances that men are struggling with, I also think that the overarching worldview they use to understand those grievances and to provide solutions often makes the problem worse. If we want to challenge the problem of Red Pill, we need to understand the full package.
So, when it comes to understanding Red Pill’s practical solutions for what to do, what Taves, Asprem, and Ihm call a praxeology, we first need to understand how they define power.1 This is something that is going to be a guiding light throughout this essay, so keep this in mind. They define power in the sense of what Bernard Loomer calls unilateral power, which means being able to influence others while not being influenced by others.2 In other words, you are most powerful when you have power over others, over yourself, and when you cannot be influenced by anyone else.
This definition of power as unilateral shapes everything they can possibly say about relationships. They’re zero-sum, meaning that if you win, she loses. That means they’re competitive, it’s a constant battle for control in which no one is happy if the man ever loses. This seems contradictory, but it’s in the constant struggle between the utilitarian, manipulative love of a woman and the man’s indomitable spirit, that the closest thing to real love can ever be born.4
This phenomenon is best represented by their love-hate relationship with hypergamy, the all-powerful explanatory framework for everything women do. Before I get into that, my name is Will. I’m a Theory Artist and Mythwright and on this channel we craft new ways to think about masculinity through psychological development and Jungian psychology.
The Vicious Opportunism of Female Hypergamy
One of the guiding themes I’ve tried to make clear throughout this series is that Red Pill’s issue is that their worldview is far too closed. They treat open questions in sociological and psychological research as decided answers. While in some cases what they say is blatantly incorrect, the biggest thing I want you to take away from everything I say is that all of these questions are open. If it sounds like I’m giving a harsh conclusion, then I’ve merely not expressed myself with the openness I intend.
For Red Pill though, they’ve closed around the question of hypergamy, or that women are biologically predisposed to desire men who are higher status than themselves. First and foremost, it seems that hypergamous choice is a real thing, whether it is biological or not. Fifty years ago, women chose men who made more money than them and who were more educated than them. However, that has now changed since women are now more educated on average than men, in which case they choose hypogamously, dating down in education. Some people were actually afraid that this forced female hypogamy would damage the dating and marriage market, but that’s not necessarily what’s happened at all.5
So, while educational hypergamy is no longer a thing, income hypergamy is, but this is because men are still more likely to earn more money on average. As such, we would expect to find across the entire population that women are choosing men who earn more money. That’s simply what they are most likely to have access to in any random selection of men.5
This is especially true since we live in a society in which having more money is a benefit, and so we are more likely to seek it out. In other words, this has more to do with the value of money in a specific social and economic system in which women are more likely to make less than men, which makes them more likely to need his money to ensure their own safety and life satisfaction, and that of their children. Make a resource more valuable and more scarce for a specific portion of the population, and then wonder why they want a partner who can better provide that resource…
Interestingly, if we look at how men choose their partners, women are now not only more educated, but they have also always been of a similar class.5 This is important because Red Pill assumes that women only date up in status, whereas men will date anyone regardless of status. Based on the data, this just isn’t true. Men won’t date up by income because they’re just more likely to earn more. They will date up in education because women are more likely to be more educated. Interestingly, men will not typically date down in terms of class because they desire women who have similar values that will raise their children to have similar values. Thus, they choose women from the same class.5
My point in outlining all of this is to show you how open the question of hypergamy really is. Again, hypergamy is a thing as a description of a choice that sometimes occurs, but the idea that it’s a biological destiny that women are condemned to follow just doesn’t align with the evidence. In fact, what evidence we do have suggests that a primary reason that women have historically been hypergamous is because they weren’t allowed to earn more money or to become more educated. As their freedom to choose the course of their own lives has increased, the inequalities have shrunk or reversed, and hypergamy has followed suit.
Once again, we see an open question treated as a decided answer by Red Pill. Alex of Date Psych criticizes Tomassi, the Godfather of Red Pill, for exactly this issue:6
“[If] a woman chose an attractive mate she was hypergamous, even if the man’s status was lower than her own. If she chose an unattractive mate then, once again, she was hypergamous if his income was higher. If a man chose a woman of lower status, however, he was not hypogamous. If men prioritized physical attractiveness in women […] they were again for some reason not hypergamous. Hypergamy was simply the sexual strategy of women; it did not matter who they picked, because hypergamy was re-defined in such a way that women could never not be hypergamous. Hypergamy became a shifting goal post that could describe female behavior regardless of what they did.” (bold emphasis added for clarity)
Remember also that Red Pill is focused on becoming as wealthy as possible and on having access to the most attractive women.4,8 In other words, they are quite literally setting up a situation in which they’re becoming the person whose most attractive feature is their money and status, and then looking only for those women whose most attractive feature is their beauty.
If you remember from the essay on their epistemology, Red Pill often makes this mistake. They create the conditions in which their logic can be used to explain their result – I made a lot of money and got a hot girlfriend – and then generalize to all situations assuming they know exactly why they got the result – all women always choose the wealthiest man they can get and all men always choose the hottest woman they can get.
I’ve talked at length in previous essays about how this hypergamy turns relationships into a market where men must constantly compete to become the most Alpha male, just so their partner won’t cheat on them. So all told, this is a good example of unilateral power because it plays into the idea that relationships are a competition between the degree of status a man has and the degree of beauty a woman has to exchange for the greater status of a more Alpha man. If her beauty successfully competes against the beauty of other women beautiful enough for a man of higher status than you, then tough luck you just lost the game. As such, the practical solutions, or praxis, of Red Pill demand dominance.
And yet, hypergamy itself is based on this idea of the beauty-status exchange, which states that women trade their youth and beauty for men’s status and income. Fortunately, in analyzing the data from 37 cultures, the very same data used by other researchers to help “confirm” hypergamy, Dr.’s Eagly and Wood found that women who married up were more likely to have been excluded from the economy. Again, women seem to primarily exchange their beauty for status when society places them lower than men, where all they have to exchange is their beauty.7
So, if women are not necessarily as hypergamous as Red Pill says when it comes to choosing an attractive partner, what CAN we say about them?
Agentic Males, Communal Females
One of the most abiding stereotypes between males and females has been the idea of the agentic male and the communal female. Women as communal, are seen as warm, caring, trustworthy, and considerate, whereas men, as agentic, are seen as self-confident, assertive, intelligent, and competent.9 Red Pill uses these stereotypes in a framework supported by the work of David Deida, particularly his book Way of the Superior Man.10,11 The point is that successful relationships depend on a polarity between masculine agency and feminine communion. In other words, men and women must complement each other as opposites in order to be happy together.
The research says that both sexes desire agentic qualities, though women tend to place more importance on agentic qualities in men.9 Firstly, the data on this female preference for agency is the same that was reanalyzed by Eagly and Wood from before, so maybe not entirely accurate.7 Secondly, Balkan, a primary original theorist in the study of agency and communion, even talked about the attractiveness of female agency and masculinity.12 Think of the femme fatale. Finally, women also prefer prosociality in both short- and long-term relationships.13 The point is that we can already start to question how valid polarity is as an immutable biological reality that women are condemned to, but especially polarity as construed by Red Pill.
Of course, polarity or complementarity is a very deep topic that I want to address in the future outside the context of Red Pill. Again, the point in most of what I’m saying here is to show you that these are open questions, not decided answers. However, for the sake of this series I want to argue within the bounds of polarity. So if you think it’s a bogus idea, then that very well may be the case. This isn’t meant to be an argument that polarity is true or false, but instead about how even if it were true, it doesn’t necessarily lead to males being the dominant in the relationship.
Basically, I want to use Red Pill’s own logic to open them because Red Pill praxeology is rooted in prioritizing male agency unilaterally over female communion. Men must become more agentic and require greater communion from women. Being an assertive, competent leader is what it means to be a man, whereas being prosocial, warm, and focused on relationships is what it means to be a woman.9 The issue is that they’ve conflated agency with dominance and communion with compliance. Red Pill has taken these facets of “masculinity” and “femininity”, and used them to justify a solution for dating that teaches men to dominate a woman into submitting. That is Red Pill’s praxeology.
To explain why that conflation happens, remember that in Red Pill discourses, women are often objectified for the value they provide through their beauty and compliance. They are also seen as the out-group because of the utilitarian, hypergamous tendencies that pit the interests of the woman against the interests of the man.3,4,6
An example of this out-group objectification is seen in their idea of female solipsism. This is the idea that women are incapable of thinking outside their own selfish desires and this is why they’d leave a loving relationship once they get hit on by a more Alpha male.4 Firstly, female solipsism is a concept that Red Pill claims is validated by evopsych, but there is no evidence in evopsych. They just completely made it up.6
Secondly, there is evidence that objectified out-groups are denied agency and competence, especially with appearance-based objectification, and out-groups in general are seen as having less inner experience and sophisticated emotions.9 In short, they’re seen as Red Pill’s definition of solipsistic. So, point being, it isn’t that women are solipsistic, it’s that Red Pill views women as a sexually objectified out-group.
On top of that, the more we objectify women, the more we see them through what Erich Fromm calls the “Having Mode”.14 Red Pill teaches men to view women as a thing to have, a beautiful object to be exchanged for the status and money they’ve accrued. The more you view women as objects in a beauty-status exchange, the more you see them as solipsistic non-agents.
Remember, we’re talking about Red Pill’s praxeology here. We’re talking about what actions Red Pill tells men will get them the results they want with women. If men are taught to see themselves as agentic and are taught that good women are communal, and that through sexual polarity this opposition will create the most attraction, they are being given a worldview that accelerates the view of women as purely communal, non-agentic sexual objects.
To outline this further we can then look at how different groups stereotype each other. In a study by Yzerbyt et al., they had the French and Belgians rate each other on measures of competence vs. warmth. The stereotype is that the French are considered more competent whereas Belgians are considered warmer. Both groups rated French people as more competent and Belgians as warmer. This is already very fascinating because you’d expect Belgians to rate themselves as more competent in retaliation to the stereotype, but that’s not what they do.9
What these groups will do is amplify the stereotypes through what is called compensation. French people will say, yes, we are more competent than Belgians, but Belgians are so warm. Belgians will say, yes, the French are more competent, but they’re so cold.9 I hope you see where I’m going with this. Red Pill says that men are very competent and women…aren’t. However! Men can be so…robotic, cold, and overly rational, while women are so warm and so focused on taking care of people.
Red Pill will also say that women are utilitarian and hypergamous, but when they are in the presence of an Alpha male who controls the relationship, that’s when they behave as they should as women. This creates pressure on men to conform themselves to the ideal of an Alpha male so that their woman will behave as she should. Any time a woman demonstrates agency, this is perceived as being either a failure in his ability to demonstrate dominance or as a sign that she’s been brainwashed by feminism to act masculine.
This is further evidenced in the research on the distinction between high and low conflict between competing groups. When there is low conflict, we see this compensatory effect where women may be seen as very warm despite their lack of competence.9 When there is high conflict however, this compensatory effect disappears and women would be seen as less agentic AND less warm, more manipulative, and more combative. This creates a huge division between so-called “good, traditional women” and “bad, feminist women”.
But, it’s not over there. Other research has found that the more value we place on being part of our group, the more we value conforming to the stereotypes associated with our group.9 This seems pretty straightforward, but don’t overlook the distinction between “being a man” and merely conforming to a set of stereotypes that you are convinced are what makes a man a man. If Red Pill is giving a specific ideal of what it means to be masculine, you are motivated to conform to an ideal that makes you create an even harsher division between yourself and women.
Red Pill also teaches men to value being men because masculinity is under attack from feminists. This pressure to be a man in high conflict with an out-group may cause us to value being a man even more, putting greater and greater emphasis on those stereotypes we’ve been taught to associate with being a man. Women are then divided even more harshly as either low conflict very communal, good women or high conflict very manipulative, feminist women.1
So, all of that to say, we can see how this notion of sexual polarity, or complementarity, is dependent on specific definitions for men as agentic and women as communal. All of this information on stereotypes was to show you how Red Pill radically amplifies the differences between ideal men as purely agentic and ideal women as purely communal. This allows them to then conflate agency with dominance and communion with compliance.
We first defined agency and communion, and then how they’re connected to masculinity and femininity. These definitions are not merely stereotyped to the genders, but we have specific stereotypes about what they are supposed to look like when they’re expressed by either gender. When men are communal or women agentic, what is that supposed to look like? However, what does all of that tell us about what we ought to desire or be repulsed by? Knowing the answers to that question will inform what actions men ought to take if they want to attract women.
Communion as Compliance
Before I continue, if you like this essay so far, I’d really appreciate it if you gave it a like. It really helps the algorithm get this message in front of people. Thank you so much.
So what we’ve done so far is open up the idea that the boundary between men and women as agentic and communal is not as harsh as Red Pill often makes it out to be. My point in saying all of that was merely to show you that through stereotypes and high conflict narratives, we close ourselves down even more around the stereotypes we’ve been taught to believe by our culture. Remember though, that my point was not to argue against the idea of polarity, but to instead demonstrate how even within polarity, the idea of agency as dominance and communion as compliance doesn’t necessarily follow.
To explain why that’s the case, I want to turn to research on female erotic plasticity. This is the finding that women are more malleable in their sexual desires, being open to a wider variety of sexuality.15,16 For example, they’ll make out with a woman even though they’re not gay, but very few men would ever be willing to do that. To be clear this isn’t just about sexual orientation, but also about what women desire to do in sexual relationships in general.
Dr.’s Shibley-Hyde and Durik discussed a model of female erotic plasticity created by Baumeister, who had argued that this was due to biological differences that made women more susceptible to social pressures than men. As such, their sexuality would shift and change based on those social factors.15 For Red Pill, this means that women are compliant and submissive, and so change to fit an Alpha male’s desires. Shibley-Hyde and Durik argue against this, saying that the reason women are more plastic is because they have less social power, and so are forced to adapt to keep the peace.15
Shibley-Hyde and Durik also criticize the way Baumeister frames female erotic plasticity. It assumes that low erotic plasticity in males is the norm whereas high erotic plasticity in females is deviant. That’s why they spend so much time talking about why women are malleable rather than why men are rigid. Why isn’t it the case that men’s sexual rigidity requires an explanation? Think about the consequences of that.15 Why doesn’t Baumeister ask if men’s rigidity is the product of cultural expectations that limit their sexual expression? Why isn’t it the case that women kissing women is the norm, and men not kissing men is abnormal and the result of homophobic social pressures?17
Do you see how there is an implicit cultural assumption that women are submissive, compliant, and at the will of social pressure? This then leads us to try to explain the difference as women simply being more susceptible to social pressure, which makes them deviate from the norm of rigidity. Men, on the other hand, are simply the normal way that all humans ought to be and thus could not possibly be at the will of cultural pressures that make them deviate from the norm of plasticity toward the abnormal rigidity.
I’ve previously discussed Dr. Garcia-Favaro’s research in which women who sought advice for their partner’s porn use were told that they should adapt themselves to their boyfriend’s heightened sexual appetite.18 Again, men have their normal and natural desires, and women are expected to adapt their own abnormal and problematic desires to fit his desires. So what do women do? They adapt themselves to fit those desires. Then, researchers come along, see how women are more variable in their desire, and assume it is a biological dogma that women must follow.
All of this fits into the same idea that we used to deconstruct hypergamy. When society is set up in a way where male interests are prioritized, such as in getting higher education or higher income compared to women, women are simply going to choose such men because that’s all that’s available. When it comes to erotic plasticity, women are expected to adapt to men and so that’s what they do. Women are now seen as merely the compliant sex.
However, Dr. Benuto has another important piece of the argument that can help us disentangle compliance from communion. She studied several facets of Baumeister’s definition to get at the heart of why women demonstrated greater erotic plasticity. She writes the following:16
“[A woman] could choose to go along with someone else's desire because it appears to mean much more to the other person. This could be interpreted as a lack of sexual agency [or] an ability to act on behalf of one's own wishes, needs, and interests […] Research has indicated that women are not active negotiators of their sexual agency especially when they perceive that their partner's sexual needs are more important or more pressing than their own […] However, this purported lack of sexual agency may at times be a willful choice on the part of the woman. Her agency may consist of deciding to pleasure a loved one who appears to want something that she can provide at a relatively low cost to herself. Barring instances of coercion and submissive consent to unwanted sex, it may be a mistake to consider all instances of women having sex when they desire it less than their partners as a lack of agency.”
Again, notice the assumption that if a woman does something her partner wants but that she could go without, she could have only done it because she lacks sexual agency. This is a beautiful combination of the assumption of female submissiveness and a unilateral definition of power. Remember that unilateral power means you are only powerful if others can’t influence you. If you decide to set aside your own desires and do something purely for someone else’s benefit that can only be interpreted as weakness from the frame of unilateral power.
Why couldn’t it simply be that she wanted to do something nice for her partner by her own volition? Why does it have to be interpreted as only being a sign of a lack of any real agency on the part of a woman? Dr. Benuto adds the following:16
“On the one hand, Baumeister suggests that women are more influenced by sociocultural factors than men, yet he notes that women are more fluid than men in sexual orientation. There are no conventional forces in our society that encourage women to choose same-sex partners for long periods of time. Furthermore, engaging in sexual relationships with other women in the absence of sociocultural influences seems very authentic to self, and yet Baumeister describes […] erotic plasticity […] in a manner that mirrors the definition of inauthentic self in relationship.”
In other words, Baumeister expected to find compliance and so that’s what he found, despite the fact that he uses long-term romantic relationships that can exist between otherwise heterosexual women as evidence for women’s susceptibility to social pressures. What social pressures motivate women to get into long term same-sex relationships? Lesbians are primarily accepted short term and as a vehicle for male pleasure. The very example he uses makes little sense for his own sides and makes perfect sense when interpreted as sexual agency in women.
Dr. Benuto writes further:16
“Research has suggested that women tend to place a greater emphasis on the relational context of sexuality than do men”
“[Diamond] argues that given […] society's systematic suppression of female expression of sexual desire in favor of relational bonding, and […] the substantially higher female levels of oxytocin (a hormone related to bonding behavior), it is not surprising that women are more likely than men to develop relationships that lead to sexual desire rather than vice-versa.”
Remember that my argument has not been that women have just as high a sex drive as men, or that women are not relationally motivated when it comes to sex, or that complementarity is false. Each of these things could be challenged. However, my point is just to say that even if women are more communion-oriented and polarity does exist, that does not mean that women are meant to be submissive to dominant men.
A final quote from Dr. Benuto:16
“Women may indeed have a lower sex drive than men, but plasticity seems better explained by what women have more of rather than less of, and that is a motivation to develop and maintain relationships. Women may be more erotically plastic not because of a low sex drive or as an adaptive reaction to male power, but rather because they place such a large premium on relationships. This premium may create a willingness to change and/or be persuaded in the service of something they value more than sex; relationships. That does not mean that there is necessarily a low sex drive but rather a higher relationship drive.”
In other words, women are not erotically plastic because they want to comply to an Alpha male’s desires, but because they actively, by their own agency and values, choose to do something they know their partner’s will appreciate. That willingness to give and to care about someone else’s desire is not submission or weakness, but is its own form of agency and power. It is agency to express oneself through the deepening of connection and communion. It is power as defined by relational power, which is the idea that one becomes more powerful with others.2 This is power through the ability to influence and be influenced by others, who can in turn become more powerful themselves. The point is that women are not more susceptible to social pressure. They are more motivated to create connection.
This distinction seems contradictory. I’m saying that there is a definition of relational power where you are more powerful if you influence and are influenced, but women are not necessarily more susceptible to social pressure, they are simply more motivated to create connection. They have sexual agency but they seek sex through communion…my point is that you actually should be confused.
Remember, my goals were to show you that these were open questions not decided answers, and that there had been a conflation between masculinity and femininity, agency and communion, and dominance and submission. If you do find this confusing and contradictory, that is evidence that we don’t have precise enough language to make sense of the complexity of these questions, and that’s why it’s so easy to assume they’re closed. So let’s try to unpack this.
To understand Red Pill’s praxeology you must understand that they define what it means to be a man as hyper-agency and what it means to be a woman as hyper-communion. This leads to a conflation of agency with dominance and communion with compliance. As such, as men who want to attract women, you must become dominant enough for a woman to submit to you.
If she does, she’s a good woman, in which case the stereotypes are not only confirmed, but are made stronger through compensation. You are a competent, rational male, and she is incompetent, but oh so warm. If she doesn’t comply, then the stereotypes are made far harsher through high conflict. Now you are extremely competent, rational, and really understand reality, while she is an incompetent, brainwashed feminist trying to manipulate you based on the deluded feminine imperative. It’s poetic how research on stereotypes could predict the emergence of Red Pill’s narratives so well.
We can disentangle this by firstly acknowledging that women have agency including sexual agency, and men have communion including sexual communion. It’s just that either may value these differently than the other because of how they’re biased toward agency and communion. Men are biased toward agency, but they are also communal. Women are biased toward communion, but they are also agentic. Men have sex to want to create connection, and women create connection to want to have sex.
From this standpoint, we can see how a woman’s active and conscious decision to pursue communion IS NOT equivalent to a passive desire to submit. Women choose based on their own values to create connection by doing things for their partners because the benefit of the emotional connection this creates is greater than the cost of doing something that doesn’t directly pleasure them. There is also the pleasure that comes from doing something for someone you care about that is its own, direct benefit outside the emotional connection created. There is, also, a difference between “doing something you don’t actively like” and “doing something you actively dislike”. And finally, if women really are so erotically plastic, then that means they can learn to love egalitarian men, at least once there is a connection.
To connect all the dots I’ve made so far, we have more and more evidence that a woman’s hypergamy may be the result of cultural values for certain kinds of things (money), the material conditions that require her to need those resources (neoliberal capitalism), and a lack of economic agency to get those resources herself (patriarchal social conditions). Once women are in this position of dependency on men, you hyper-fixate on those attributes that make men excel as agentic and women as communal, and actively demonize either for engaging in the opposite as being brainwashed by a feminist matrix. Finally, you reinterpret everything a woman does as evidence of her need to submit and comply rather than as a conscious choice given the human need for emotional connection, which you’ve already denigrated as “submissive”.
Now, with all of that being said, maybe the polarity piece is not exactly right. Maybe there is research that this is all socially constructed, and men and women are not as biased toward agency or communion as this idea says. The point is to say that even within the framework of polarity, agentic male and communal female is not synonymous with dominant male and submissive female.
However, this idea of relational power brings a whole new way to make sense of these conflations. That is what we turn to in the next essay, when we begin our discussion of Red Pill’s cosmology, which is the last part of this mini-series on Red Pill’s worldview, which is a part of a larger series on the cultural context from which it could have emerged in the first place.
Until then, thank you so much for your time and attention. Please hit the like button and subscribe for more conversations on masculinity, psychological development, and the cultivation of a personal mythology. Thanks again, and all the best to you on whatever journey you find yourself on.
References:
1 – Taves, Ann, Egil Asprem, and Elliott Ihm. “Psychology, Meaning Making, and the Study of Worldviews: Beyond Religion and Non-Religion.” Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 10, no. 3 (2018): 207–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000201.
2 – Loomer, Bernard. “Two Conceptions of Power – Religion Online,” 1976. https://www.religion-online.org/article/two-conceptions-of-power/.
3 – Tomassi, Rollo. The Rational Male. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2013.
4 – Van Valkenburgh, Shawn P. “Digesting the Red Pill: Masculinity and Neoliberalism in the Manosphere.” Men and Masculinities 24, no. 1 (April 1, 2021): 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X18816118.
5 – Alexander, Scott. “Hypergamy: Much More Than You Wanted To Know.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/hypergamy-much-more-than-you-wanted.
6 – Alexander. “Rollo Tomassi vs Evolutionary Psychology - Date Psychology,” July 23, 2024. https://datepsychology.com/rollo-tomassi-vs-evolutionary-psychology/.
7 – Eagly, Alice H., and Wendy Wood. “The Origins of Sex Differences in Human Behavior: Evolved Dispositions versus Social Roles.” American Psychologist 54, no. 6 (1999): 408–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408.
8 – Debate Roundtable w/ 9 Women... Fresh And Fit w/ Sneako AFTERHOURS Show, 2022. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=juS-lQ3j9B0
9 – Abele, Andrea, and Bogdan Wojciszke, eds. Agency and Communion in Social Psychology. London New York: Routledge, 2019.
10 – Deida, David. The Way of the Superior Man: A Spiritual Guide to Mastering the Challenges of Women, Work, and Sexual Desire. Sounds True, 2017.
11 – “Red Pill Books | Goodreads.” Accessed May 18, 2025. https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/red-pill.
12 – Bakan, David. The Duality of Human Existence;: An Essay on Psychology and Religion. Chicago, Rand McNally & Company, [, 1966.
13 - Caitlin, Alexander &. “The Orgasm Gap, Prosocial Males, and Evolution - Date Psychology,” August 8, 2024. https://datepsychology.com/the-orgasm-gap-prosocial-males-and-evolution/.
14 – Ep. 8 - Awakening from the Meaning Crisis - The Buddha and “Mindfulness,” 2019. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=EWumJSBqXa8.
15 – Shibley-Hyde, Janet, and Amanda M. Durik. “Gender Differences in Erotic Plasticity—Evolutionary or Sociocultural Forces? Comment on Baumeister (2000).” Psychological Bulletin 126, no. 3 (2000): 375–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.375.
16 – Benuto, Lorraine. “Exploring Erotic Plasticity as an Individual Difference Variable: Theory and Measurement.” UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones, August 1, 2009. https://doi.org/10.34917/2583005.
17 – Mize, Trenton D., and Bianca Manago. “Precarious Sexuality: How Men and Women Are Differentially Categorized for Similar Sexual Behavior.” American Sociological Review, March 15, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418759544.
18 – García-Favaro, Laura. “‘Porn Trouble’: On the Sexual Regime and Travels of Postfeminist Biologism.” Australian Feminist Studies 30, no. 86 (October 2, 2015): 366–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2016.1150937.
See what I did there?