A comment on the Iron Rule of Tomassi #4

Rollo mentioned that once a woman gets into a cohabitating situation, that her sexual availability markedly decreases. It seems to me that so long as the man is able to give and act out the ultimatum that "either I get a sexually satisfying relationship or I'm out (or you're out, if it's my place)", then there should be no problem.

Sure, there are financial and legal entanglements, but this would be akin to dead money on any investment - sure it hurts, but that's the risk one takes. And in the case of a lease, the man could always take the attitude that he wants out, and is only living in the apartment because he is on the lease (he could always go back to his available bachelor days.)

Rollo's point was that the competitive fire stirred up by thoughts of other women you might be with when she is not around or the other women you could get with and leave her for is no longer in the back of her mind when she is living with you as she now sees that you are her's completely.

And I think Rollo gave out this rule most probably and specifically for the guy's just coming in to the DJ mindset who think its alright to let a broad shack up with them.

I think Rollo's rule was to discourage guys from doing this because once a chick moves into your place it can be damned hard to get her to leave and not only that but the more important thought I think he was having while making the rule is that most guys that are just coming into the DJ mindset are still too emotionally weak to put their foot down and do what you said that may make the woman they are with be as sexually available as they want her to be once again.

So in this way Rollo's advice sets up guys who are just learning how to become DJ's for success as they will avoid the live in scenario for a long time until they become a mature DJ and consider it fully and know all of the potential risks and pitfalls that could come with it whereas a young guy who is just becoming a DJ might still have far too much AFC mentality in him that gives him the false idea that by having the girl live with him he will definitely get sex more than he would if they weren't living together. The growing DJ who is still a bit AFC at heart thinks this will make the girl happy and bring them closer but what it really does is take away competitive fire and allows them to get used to and bored of eachother quicker than they may otherwise.

This is Leykis 101.

My Dotcomrades! Subscribe to the FREE Leykis podcast.


Thinking that financial and legal entanglements of cohabitation should be viewed as a sunk cost, or as a cost of doing business, seems too defeatist in my opinion. There is no need to have a woman move in with you. If you need help with rent, get a roommate (or a better job).

As KX articulated, once women move in with you, it can be quite difficult (if not impossible) to get them to leave. Rollo's Iron Rules and Leykis 101 serve the same purpose: to initiate the uninitiated.

Leykis, baby. Leykis.

Sure, you can present your woman with the ultimatum you suggest, but you won't end up with what you're looking for.

Essentially, you'll create the mindset that you are willing to trade anything for sex. What you are trying to do is negotiate her interest.

YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE INTEREST. It must come naturally.

You'll end up with a woman who is having mechanical sex with you to fulfil your demands, but who doesn't actually feel the fire of desire. She will never initiate.

Once you set the stage with sex negotiations, she'll also start asking you to do things for her or threaten or withdraw the sex. This is a slippery slope.

MatureDJ said:

It seems to me that so long as the man is able to give and act out the ultimatum that "either I get a sexually satisfying relationship or I'm out (or you're out, if it's my place)", then there should be no problem

Click to expand...

Interesting you used the word "ultimatum" here. It's important that you understand what an ultimatum implies. When a person gives you an ultimatum, always understand that this is a declaration of powerlessness. In other words, "I am so out of control in this circumstance you must do this or I will remove myself from the circumstance." First off, it's far more likely that you'll be the one leaving considering the preference modern legalities give women today with regard to evicting them from such a situation. Secondly, it only confirms for her what she wants to know, that she is your one and ONLY source of sexual intimacy and by you cohabiting with her, emotionally, financially and logistically it makes it almost impossible for you to really make good on your ultimatum. You only consolidate her sexual monopoly by living with her.

I could again go into all the practical reasons as to why a guy should never move in with a woman, but I think it may be better to ask yourself why you do want to move in with her. What are you benefitting from in this situation that you aren't by remaining independent of each other? For most guys the fantasy is more accessible sex, but if you're living as you suggest here already, how is living together any different? And even if this were the case, that you had more sex with her by living together, you are still assuming a greater degree of responsibility, accountability and liability in your relationship and in your day to day life in exchange for that sexual accessibility. How is that an advantage? How is that not like marriage anyway?

As I stated in the prior thread, when you commit to ANYTHING, women, career, education, family, etc., you necessarily lose options and your ability to maneuver in taking advantage of them.

Rather than submit ultimatums, set expectations and establish boundaries.

KontrollerX said:

The growing DJ who is still a bit AFC at heart thinks this will make the girl happy and bring them closer but what it really does is take away competitive fire and allows them to get used to and bored of eachother quicker than they may otherwise.

Click to expand...

Dammit isn't living together in an exclusive soul-mate relationship the meaning of life though? Shoot.

Another great post Rollo. You'd be wise to heed what he's saying, MatureDJ.

I can think of only 2 reasons one should live with a woman. 1. He's married to her 2. They are sharing rent in a non-relationship scenario. And I wouldn't do #2 unless one simply could not afford a one bedroom apartment on their own. Anything else is a disaster waiting to happen.

I enjoy watching Judge Judy when I get home. Every other court case involves a man and woman who moved in together, mixed their finances, bought stuff together, then the relationship went sour.

Bottom line: Choose how you want to learn this lesson. Read and heed the wisdom, or learn it the hard way.

This thread reminds me of a Simpsons episode. Grandpa Simpson meets an elderly playboy.

Playboy: "I've had seven wives."

Grandpa: "Boy, that's a lot of sex."

Playboy: "I said wives, not girlfriends."

persistent exaction said:

Rather than submit ultimatums, set expectations and establish boundaries.

Click to expand...

And what power do expectations and boundaries have expect that of the man withdrawing his affection or withdraw himself. Expectations and boundaries are ultimatums. The ONLY power any of us have in a relationship is the power to withdraw. Why respect boundaries and expectations if the person can't back it up?

Anything besides withdraw is just a false social construct.

MatureDJ said:

Rollo mentioned that once a woman gets into a cohabitating situation, that her sexual availability markedly decrease

Click to expand...

I disagree with this Rollo's statement. It doesn't have to be this way. A girl may have been married to an AFC that she gave it up to once a month, but than she will marry an alpha and will be fvcking him 6 times a week.

Don't let the feminists fool us that womans sex drive are diminished once married. If you carry yourself as an alphamale in the marriage meaning I will not put up with the pu$$Y power game your going to be getting plenty of tail in the marriage.

And if you don't than you leave the fvcking relationship or find somebody that will meet your needs.

Believe it or not, I have lived with three different women for over a year, and I pretty much got as much sex as I wanted with all of them throughout the relationships, except at the end.

That said......never, ever, EVER live with a woman unless you are planning on marrying her. On the flip side, you MUST live with a woman BEFORE YOU DO marry her.

Luthor Rex said:

And what power do expectations and boundaries have expect that of the man withdrawing his affection or withdraw himself. Expectations and boundaries are ultimatums. The ONLY power any of us have in a relationship is the power to withdraw. Why respect boundaries and expectations if the person can't back it up?

Anything besides withdraw is just a false social construct.

Click to expand...

Not true. Setting boundaries is KEY for DIRECTING a woman.

Directing is a MUST after rapport is in place. This is usually the stage where a non exclusive or exclusive relationship begins.

Implementing OVERT boundaries is key here. It does not show weakness due to CONSEQUENCE. The blatant disregard or respect to an implemented boundary is walking away.

One shows high character to share his own boundaries and extend them over to his woman. After all, if a man of integrity has enough discipline to adhere to his moral code, certainly the woman should understand and do the same.

Because no two people could possibly share identical thinking, it is important to communicate and understand each other DO's and DON'Ts.

Some boundaries are just not negotiable. Overtly expressing them is KEY to clearly set the pace and show the DO NOT CROSS areas.

Many men come here and start threads of how their woman are acting strange, distant or unavailable lately. These are the men that have weaker communication skills and have not implemented or expressed their boundaries. How could you blame the woman if she was not AWARE of his boundaries?

Without boundaries, there is no ACCOUNTABILITY. Without accountability, there is no consequence. Without consequence, there is DISRESPECT.

Read that again.

I believe and have much success with OVERT expression. It does not take away from my PRIZABILITY in any form. Quite the opposite. It shows the woman what I expect from her because I hold myself to a higher standard. This is important to differentiate. I covertly tell her because I find such VALUE in myself, you must step up to the plate.

Consequently, I have had this happen several times where the girl will say for all that I ask I better hold myself to what I preach. I respond " I always have, now let us see if you can".

Covertly, the dynamics of qualifying are reversed and the frame is in place. Remember your girl must always RESPECT you. Part of this respect lies in the standards you apply to yourself and follow. You lead by example.

guru1000 said:

Implementing OVERT boundaries is key here. It does not show weakness due to CONSEQUENCE. The blatant disregard or respect to an implemented boundary is walking away... Without boundaries, there is no ACCOUNTABILITY. Without accountability, there is no consequence. Without consequence, there is DISRESPECT.

Click to expand...

Um... that's exactly what I said: boundaries are ultimatums because if you cross the boundry the man walks, if you break the ultimatum, the man walks.

"If you do X, I will walk. If you don't treat me like X, I will walk." Ultimatum, boundary... po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe. Maybe you say the words differently but in the end they both work the same way.

Aside from withdraw what other possible power in a relationship does anyone have?

lookyoung said:

Don't let the feminists fool us that womans sex drive are diminished once married.

Click to expand...

Big mistake. It's not about sex drive it's about her frame imperatives, her desire and her sexual urgency as a result of her competition anxiety.

In fact, for the most part all the guys disagreeing with me are really only proving my point. The idea suggested is that you should lay down the law, be a Man and let her know from the outset that you wont tolerate a reduction in frequency or intensity of sex, and if that occurs then you're done. You've just described feminine competition anxiety. Her priorities while single are driven by a security imperative in that women covertly compete with one another to secure the best male candidate (or what they perceive as the best). A woman's first best agency is using her sexuality to secure that male. At no other time in her life will she be more apt to prove her sexual value than when she is cognizant that she is in competition for the attentions of an uncommitted male. The anxiety and discomfort that is associated with this condition (and combined with the chemical aspects of a new partner of course) is what makes for the intensity of sexual experience. Assuming her IL is sufficient, she's essentially proving herself worthy of commitment and thus removing herself (and him) from that competition anxiety.

Now if you could make the case that if a Man were DJ enough to establish this order that she be sexually available to him as much if not more or else, then a living arrangement might work. However, I think it's safe to assume that for the vast majority of guys in a live-in arrangement this is simply not the case due to the fact that most aren't in much of a position to even conceive that they could overtly enforce such a rule. Covertly this may be applicable, but then, this situation is already in effect WITHOUT you living with her.

lookyoung said:

And if you don't than you leave the fvcking relationship or find somebody that will meet your needs.

Click to expand...

And again I ask, how is this any different than when living independently of each other? Guys will make the case for convenience, but this convenience comes with the price of increased accountability and liability you didn't have when you were living separate. In addition to women becoming comfortable in the live-in scenario, men do as well. Priorities switch from pursuing personal goals to pursuing maintenance of the relationship. Time you would put into doing things for yourself becomes time spent together in order to maintain the relationship. Doing things you give little thought to while separate become "issues" when living with you ever-present reminder. And yet again, for what? Sexual convenience.

Luthor Rex said:

Um... that's exactly what I said: boundaries are ultimatums because if you cross the boundry the man walks, if you break the ultimatum, the man walks.

"If you do X, I will walk. If you don't treat me like X, I will walk." Ultimatum, boundary... po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe. Maybe you say the words differently but in the end they both work the same way.

Aside from withdraw what other possible power in a relationship does anyone have?

Click to expand...

I unequivocally agree.

My point being Boundary Implementation is a MUST to create the framework of Accountability.

Walking away holds no merit without acceptance of wrong-doing (accountability).

guru1000 said:

I unequivocally agree.

My point being Boundary Implementation is a MUST to create the framework of Accountability.

Walking away holds no merit without acceptance of wrong-doing (accountability).

Click to expand...

You expect a woman to admit wrongdoing?

You sir, are an optimist!

Sometimes you Normal people shock me with your casual brutality, but really at this point it shouldn't. It really is all about power and domination for you Normals isn't it?

Rollo Tomassi said:

Big mistake. It's not about sex drive it's about her frame imperatives, her desire and her sexual urgency as a result of her competition anxiety.

Click to expand...

This is only true for women who have not developed themselves on the inside. So yes, that means most of them. A developed woman... a developed human being, would be motivated to have sex for reasons other than their basic drive. Spiritual* intimacy as well as emotional expression come to mind.

Yes, I realize you are appealing to ultimate-Darwinian motives, so it will probably work on weak-willed women. Again, that would be most of them. But if you have to keep your 'loved one' in line by constantly keeping them anxious, then they obviously don't love you very much.

Rollo Tomassi said:

In fact, for the most part all the guys disagreeing with me are really only proving my point. The idea suggested is that you should lay down the law, be a Man and let her know from the outset that you wont tolerate a reduction in frequency or intensity of sex, and if that occurs then you're done.

Click to expand...

If the genders were reversed and a woman did something like this about another topic you know that every member of this forum would tell the man to leave her. If a woman said the above to me I'd laugh and walk away. Twisting her arm in such a way as to keep her in line will just make her grow resentful of you, just as nagging makes men grow resentful of their wives/girlfriends.

Why would a woman need to be told that if sex leaves then the relationship is in trouble? How stupid are the women you're talking about? But then, men believing that marriage is some kind of p*ssy nirvana is equally as retarded, it's a view I've never held and was shocked when I first heard it.

Seriously, what kind of monsters are you Normal people that you think this is the proper way to conduct relationships? If the woman you're with is so reptilian that she needs to be treated in such a heavy handed manner, then its time to leave her ass.

There is no way I could pretend to love someone who I had to bully around. If her soul* is so undeveloped as to be unable to treat you properly, then you have bigger problems with your relationship than sex.

*I use the word 'spiritual' and 'soul' because I have no other words to really say what I want to say... I don't actually believe in spirits or souls in any literal sense.

Luthor Rex said:

You expect a woman to admit wrongdoing?

You sir, are an optimist!

Click to expand...

Very rarely will a woman ADMIT she was wrong unless of course Guru tactics are implemented.

This does not change the fact as she Violates your Boundary, she KNOWS exactly what she is doing.

Then walking away has VALUE.

Next step after a girl wrongs you is Justification.

However, your physical withdrawal has shaken her ancestry up inside. All the Justification she concocts at this point is a last minute attempt to maintain her equilibrium.

But her equilibrium can no longer remain. At least not for now. She MESSED UP and as a result can never have you back.

We often chase what runs from us. The Takeaway and Detachment that you undertake will WEIGH in this girl’s mind. As we know a dangerous mind indeed if left to a girls’ imagination.

If done correctly, you probably would have recieved numerous phone calls, visits and even pleas to your family.

PLUS

An admission of Guilt, Wrongdoing and Pleading.

Now there is a Surprise.

A healthy sex life can very well continue in a cohabiting situation.

If the woman understands that the Relationship is Conditional along with an Overt Delivery of what is expected; there is no problem.

If ONE has the ability to walk away at a moment's notice, One has the correct Context to Set Expectations.

Step 1- Express your Concern
Step 2- Does she Respect Your Concern?
Step 3- If she does not Respect your wish, she does not Respect you.

Walk Away. Remain a Slave only to your Self Respect.

Have a Nice Day; this is no Issue.