TheRedArchive needs help
With 700,000+ posts and 16,000,000+ comments archived, and new Red Pill content being added every week, keeping TheRedArchive alive and discoverable to everyone is starting to become very costly. As a 20-year-old student who just moved out and is living independently for the first time, keeping TheRedArchive alive is beginning to cost me much more than I thought.

Therefore, if you appreciate the website, have gained a lot of knowledge and insight from it, and want to show your appreciation, you can do so by donating any amount that you want via the options below. The money will be used on the expensive monthly host bill and any future maintenance of the website.
Thank you, and I wish you all a successful 2021 and a good luck with achieving your goals and dreams!

Best, /u/dream-hunter

Science says: Women most attracted to arrogance, confrontative behavior, and musculature for short term relationships

Reddit View
Facebook Twitter Reddit Email Copy link
PDF EPUB TXT PNG
[deleted]
July 22, 2017
888 upvotes
TheRedPill

This is a repost of a post made by /u/lono12 a few years ago. Unfortunately the hyperlink in his OP is dead. So after painstakingly searching the Internet, I finally found a PDF of the study he referenced. I've reposted his original text with the hyperlink updated to an archive of the PDF.

Changes in Women’s Mate Preferences Across the Ovulatory Cycle

Everybody's been talking about the ovulatory cycle, even mass media articles. So here it is redpill style.

The science is pretty clear. Women go for good genes when they're ovulating and beta resources the rest of the month. Same with short term versus long term relationships. What's interesting is the specific traits and behaviors they're attracted to, and how these traits interact.

This quote for example:

Relative to women low in conception risk, those high in conception risk particularly preferred as short-term mates men who appeared more confrontative, arrogant, muscular, socially respected, and physically attractive. When high in conception risk, women were also more attracted to men who were viewed as lower on faithfulness as short-term mates.

You heard that right. Women are more attracted to men who they think are unfaithful.

We also tested these effects while statistically controlling for two behavioral display > indicators examined by Gangestad et al. (2004), Social Presence and Direct Intrasexual Competitiveness. In most instances, interactions remained significant or neared significance, indicating that the effects reported here are not redundant with the effects reported previously. For confrontativeness, arrogance, faithfulness, and muscularity, ts = 3.13 (df = 7986), 2.64 (df = 8081), -2.27 (df = 8057), and 1.85 (df = 7957), respectively, all ps < .041. For social respect, t(7927) = 1.51 (p = .081). For physical attractiveness, the effect dropped to nonsiginifance.t(7925) = 1.09, ns. Women rely on behavioral information when evaluating the attractiveness of men. The results suggest that fertile women are particularly attracted to these components of physical attractiveness.

What this quote is saying is that even while controlling for two big traits that were found attractive in a previous study (Social Presence and Direct Intrasexual Competitiveness), the traits in this study were still significance and the one that was most significant was social respect (p = 0.81).

confrontativeness: 3.13 arrogance: 2.64 muscularity: 1.85 faithfulness: -2.27

Basically, women love shit starting cunts.

The most interesting part was this chart: http://archive.is/lNvTs

Womens standards of attractiveness do not change across the cycle in general for all mate traits. Standards associated with particular traits perceived systemically change. This pattern is consistent with the good genes hypothesis. This hypothesis however makes an > even more specific prediction. about which male traits should be most attractive to fertile > women. Fertile women should be especially drawn to men who possess traits typically values > in short term mates.

Figure 1 shows the results of these tests. As can be seen, the extent to which male traits > were preferred in short-term mating contexts strongly predicted the extent to which this > was particularly true of fertile versus infertile women. indeed the correlation is close to > perfect .93.

And thus the arrogant confrontational douchebag wins the girl while the warm faithful beta stays home and faps into his sock


Post Information
Title Science says: Women most attracted to arrogance, confrontative behavior, and musculature for short term relationships
Author
Upvotes 888
Comments 215
Date 22 July 2017 01:11 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/44838
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/6ouwnc/science_says_women_most_attracted_to_arrogance/
Similar Posts
Giant Black Pill research and studies compilation

FIRST OF ALL: some of the studies I found when researching are Blue Pill /

Giant Black Pill research and studies compilation

Giant Black Pill research and studies compilation9 points•1 comment•submitted 2 years ago by EvilBananaManRD to r/BlackPillScienceFIRST OF ALL: some of

Just some blackpills

Giant Black Pill research and studies compilation10 points•1 comment•submitted 2 years ago by EvilBananaManRD to r/BlackPillScienceFIRST OF ALL: some of

The Actual Science of Sexual Attraction. (Spoiler Alert: Stop Being "Mr. Nice Guy")

According to research in Changes in Women’s Mate Preferences Across the Ovulatory Cycle. http://archive.is/ARKof

Understanding RP: What I've Learned and Will Teach My Kids

Taking the "red pill" means that I see the uncomfortable realities of male vs female


Red Pill terms found in post:
betalong term relationshipstandardsthe red pillclose
Comments

[–]0signal0250 points251 points  (75 children) | Copy

Psychologists have been saying this for years now.

[–]ghostofpennwast256 points257 points  (45 children) | Copy

Tldr women are biologically programmed to fuck chads

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]steakhause83 points84 points  (40 children) | Copy

“Practical Female Psychology: For the Practical Man” by Joseph South, David Clare and Franco is a book I am currently reading after seeing it mentioned in the comments of a recent post on The Rational Male.

Put simply, it’s the best book on red pill theory I have ever read. Right up there with Rollo’s books. It was published in 2008, so was written by contemporaries of our esteemed elders Pook, Roissy, Roosh, Rollo and others.

It is so good, and yet, in one year of red pill awareness, I had never seen it mentioned or suggested anywhere. So I thought it’d deserve its own post, rather than me casually mentioning it in a comment next time someone asks for book suggestions.

I so strongly encourage you to get it and read it that I’ll allow myself to reprint here a particularly good chapter to motivate you. Hopefully it's ok to do so and will bring some traffic to the authors' amazon page. Before I’d do so, I’d provide a quick lesson learned:

  • Frequent other red pill websites than this sub, and particularly the comments sections of blogs. There are some gems out there.

PS: Feel free to debate and oppose the ideas but remember the following are not my writings – just reprinting.

Chapter 11 Stages of Manipulation

When it comes to marriage, one man is as good as the next. And even the least accomodating is less trouble than a mother. - Marquise de Merteuil in "Les Liaisons Dangereuses," by Choderlos De Laclos.

We believe that manipulation is an instinctual behavior deeply rooted within female biology. Manipulation is also a learned behavior, due to one's need for survival. From a biological point of view there is not too much of a difference between biologically-rooted and learned behavior. In fact, from the point of view of both modern neurobiology and evolutionary psychology, behaviors repeated and learned over time become deeply rooted in the neurological patterns within the brain, to the point where the behavior becomes largely unconscious. As individuals are prone to choose behaviors which support survival, manipulation has certainly been selected as a desirable survival skill.

Manipulation can be defined as the attempt to influence another person's mind to achieve a certain outcome. Manipulation is very often seen as a negative thing. We, however, are not judgmental about manipulation, and actually consider it a positive feature, which has been designed to keep life continuing on this planet.

In order to best manage relationships with women, the Modern Man should understand that there are various stages of manipulation that a woman will go through during the course of a relationship with a man.

On the biological level, the female of our species is programmed to:

  1. Elicit a strong sexual attraction in one or more strong males.

  2. Feel a strong sexual attraction for such males.

  3. Become impregnated by her choice of male.

  4. Have a male to provide materially for both her and her infant child.

  5. Afterwards, she will subconsciously tend to operate in such a way so as to have her sexual attraction for that male decrease.

  6. Wash, rinse, repeat: she will tend to have more sexual intercourse and more children with other strong males.

We call this process betaization, where the strong, alpha male is rendered beta — which means "secondary" or "subservient" — within the relationship, over a period of time. Quite often, this process occurs gradually and almost imperceptibly to both parties.

Manipulation is widely used by women to achieve:

  • Safety and comfort for her and her children, with their survival being the primary purpose.

  • To thereby influence the man's mind in such a way that he will feel compelled to protect her and her children, especially before pregnancy, during the pregnancy and throughout the children's early developmental years.

Female manipulation can be either creative or destructive, depending on the desired outcome. From the point of view of the man, female manipulation can be considered "good" when it supports life and the man's interests and "bad" when it destroys life and/or damages the man's interests.

Succinctly, the more manipulation is used by a woman, the more it becomes natural and unconscious to her. It is like learning to play a musical instrument: at first it is difficult and one needs to pay conscious attention to each note being played, Then, as mastery is gradually achieved, manipulation becomes more and more unconscious.

Behaviors are slow to develop and also slow to be unlearned. In the modem woman of the industrialized countries, the way instincts are expressed has changed slightly with time, due to less-demanding survival conditions. However, the influence of the female's primal instincts on her behavior remains evident.

It is important for you to learn to recognize manipulation. In fact — as we discussed in Chapter 4 "Female Basic Conflict" — for a woman's sexuality to be satisfied, it is important that her manipulation attempts against her man not be too effective. You must learn to observe female behavior and give the right responses, with the goal of making her happy on the emotional level, as opposed to responding to manipulation attempts on a logical level.

Learning to respond appropriately requires knowing the various stages of female manipulation.

Stages of Female Manipulation

A woman's attempt to own you mentally will follow certain incremental stages, which predictably occur with mathematical precision. We will now discuss each of the following stages in detail:

  • Testing the Male

  • Seeking Communication

  • Putting him to Work

  • Evolutionary Selfishness

  • Self-Determination

Depending on the woman's self-esteem, there are big differences in the way these stages will play themselves out. If a woman has high self-esteem (HSE), she will test you and manipulate you in a totally different way than a woman who has low self-esteem (LSE).

Testing the Male

"Let me be a little bitch to him.” A woman knows on the instinctual level — and also on the rational level — that a man can impregnate a large number of women without too many consequences. In our modem age of mandatory child support, this is not always true in practical terms, but biologically it remains the case that the female has a much higher risk and burden when it comes to pregnancy than the man does.

A woman also knows that a weak male will not be able to protect her or her children in any way. Imagine as a man how your thoughts about survival would be different if every time you made love to a woman you faced the possibility of carrying a baby in your belly for the next nine months, followed by the primary responsibility of taking care of the baby for many years to come. Imagine how you would feel if you knew that your partner could leave you at any time and impregnate other women and/or leave for war or for hunting. Get the picture? You would become much more selective in your choices of who to mate with. From this biological reality stems the deep need that a woman has to test the male for his physical and leadership qualities. In our modern society, the need to test for physical qualities and financial stability has become less important than the need for qualities such as leadership, intellectual capacity, and strength of personality; but that would be quickly reversed in the case of war.

One thing is for sure: a woman in this stage will test the male for his skill of being a hunter. This will happen whether you are skilled in hunting animals in the grassy field or company shares in the business field; you can be sure that at the first stage of manipulation a woman will test you.

A woman will always test a male who she is sexually attracted to. For a psychologically healthy woman, survival and sexual desire must always harmonize with each other. A woman who tests men only for survival benefits — such as a man's ability to provide — is denying her sexuality. A woman who tests men only for their sexual appeal, is either planning to live her life without men, or is being self-destructive.

Seeking Communication

"Open up to me, please."

Once a woman has tested the male, and is relatively sure that he is strong enough to serve her purposes, her concern begins to revolve around making the man serve her exclusively. Many men who are relatively strong and pass the tests of the first stage, fail to understand the meaning of this second stage. This stage is extremely difficult for the average man to detect. It is instinctually and often unconsciously masked by the woman as a purely innocent attempt to "communicate" with the male.

It is a feature of the feminine psyche to appreciate communication above all else, but from an evolutionary point of view what the female of our species is really doing at this stage is using language to befuddle her partner, which will hopefully cause him to serve her and her purposes.

This stage is extremely important to the success or failure of couple relationships. Couple therapy fails so frequently because it tends to disregard the real, evolutionary meaning of this stage. A very common pitfall for couples is when the woman starts to feel that the man is displaying an inability or unwillingness to "communicate properly" with the woman. Modern couples therapy almost invariably places the blame for this supposed lack of communication squarely on the man's shoulders.

In the first stage, the woman has screened out the weaker males; the man was specifically chosen by the woman for a relationship. In this second stage, the woman acts as if she is seeking deeper communication with the man. A strong man will start to sense that an attempt is being made to weaken him, and he will then usually react with certain predictable behavior patterns. He may get angry or he may withdraw.

[–]steakhause49 points50 points  (17 children) | Copy

Putting Him to Work

"Honey, please take out the trash and wash the cat, and please hurry!" When and if a man opens himself emotionally up to a woman — in the sense of what we discussed in the preceding subsection — from that point onwards the woman effectively owns the frame of the relationship. Now, the active destruction of attraction can begin in earnest, as she starts her attempts to take over aspects of the man's life which directly affect his material interests. For example, purchase decisions can now be made "jointly" which, in the cool light of rational analysis, really are the result of the woman's manipulation attempts and the man's desire to maintain some semblance of peace in the household.

Female Evolutionary Selfishness

"I am never satisfied no matter what you do or how hard you try." This stage begins once the woman has succeeded in having her formerly-strong male open up to her emotionally. In this stage, any communication with her male partner is only for the purpose of deriving something useful for her and her children. At this stage she will exhibit a total disregard for the man's psychological and material interests. The man will be put under the power of a strong and constant psychological double bind, along the lines of:

"If you don't open up to me I am not satisfied. You don't communicate with me."

simultaneous with

"As soon as you open up to me I will use the information you provide in a totally selfish way for my own needs."

Either way, the end result for the male is usually guilt, shame, or confusion, finally giving way to resentment and anger. Assuming he takes her seriously — and most men do — he will get caught into an ongoing psychological mechanism, which will make him weaker and weaker, with terribly-negative results for her sexual attraction towards him. At this stage, he is no longer the strong male she admired at the beginning.

Female Self-Determination

"I am full grown, independent woman now." Of course, the female in the relationship never was a "little girl." In the self-determination stage, however, another double bind — even more powerful than the preceding — will be thrown at the male. Once he starts to seek out the emotional communication that she had been asking for all along, she will begin to express sentiments such as she is feeling oppressed, or that the man is boring, or that he is too nice, or that he doesn't understand her, and so on. Again, the usual effect of such feminine expressions on the man is bewilderment, shame and guilt.

If at this point the man decides that he does not care at all about what she says or does, she will assert that "he is not a loving husband /boyfriend" or "I cannot live with him because he does not understand me," or "I do not feel anything for him anymore," or "sex without communication is a turn off"; once again inducing some very negative feelings within the man.

In the Self-Determination Stage, the female expresses her resentment and dissatisfaction with the relationship. This happens virtually without exception in the case of male partners who have become progressively psychologically weaker with time.

Men who are able to pass through these stages without a corresponding decrease in their women's sexual attraction towards them are exceptionally-strong men. These men avoid becoming psychologically weaker through the process. We believe that such men are more the exception than the norm. It is much better for nature to first create attraction between a male and a female and soon after have it decrease. That helps to ensure both a safe upbringing of the offspring as well as more sexual interactions with other sexual partners, which in turn results in more offspring and a wider spreading of genetic materials.

This is not much different from what happens with many animal species, including species where the female kills the male after copulation. In the case of humans, this "killing" happens on the psychological level. The killing of human males by their female partners is largely symbolic, but we must also take into account those men who take this process so seriously that they start to destroy their health through the abuse of alcohol or drugs, or start to abuse their partners, or even murder their partners or commit suicide.

In other words, permanently-monogamous sexual relationships are not necessarily natural. They are partly a modern, social construct. Or, put another way, they are a social construct, the evolutionary purpose of which lasts for as long as Nature considers it useful.

Manipulation End-Game

In traditional, male-dominated societies, if the female cannot leave the relationship when her attraction evaporates through the process discussed above, the end result is often clinical depression and/or cheating. Clinical depression occurs when her sexual attraction for her mate decreases or dies out completely, and she is prevented from having sex with other males by social restraint. The woman in this case has to face a practically impossible conflict between her emotions, which demand sexual satisfaction, and her societally-restrained behavior, which prohibits sexual satisfaction.

In modem, politically-correct societies, a common end result of the manipulation process is the woman ending the relationship, or acting in such a way that the man has no other choice but to end the relationship. Infidelity is very likely to happen in either case.

Psychological counseling and family therapy usually fail to help couples in this situation because they start from the shaky assumption that exclusive committed relationships are always "healthy" and that having sex with different partners is "sick." They also fail miserably in detecting the slow and dangerous psychological process whereby the mind of the male is confronted with schizophrenic double messages from the female, which would be considered to fit the clinical definition of Borderline Personality Disorder by most experienced clinicians on the planet.

Usually what happens in therapy and psychological counseling in the western world is that the male is made to be the scapegoat of a process which has been actively maintained by the female. There are some professionals who understand this process better than most, but they often do not have the courage to speak out about it. On a meta-level, what is happening with this social process is simply another evolutionary mechanism, one which allows for more pregnancies and for the upbringing of children in the most viable way possible.

There is certainly a strong cultural influence at work here and it behooves men to understand these forces and to work hard to make themselves strong men who do not succumb easily to female manipulation. Above all, a man with children should start from the premise that he is an equally important and vital link to a child's psychological well being. There are countless studies which show that statistically, children do better in every social and psychological respect when they enjoy the equal influences of a healthy male and a healthy female parent.

Practical Advice

Although the onset, intensity and order of occurrence of each of these stages in the betaization process may vary from woman to woman, in our experience this process has occurred in every long-term relationship we are familiar with: ours, our friends, and our families, and in countless case studies that we have researched. In fact, this process is exactly the means by which women turn short-term relationships into long-term relationships. However, female manipulation is not difficult to counter once a man understands the process. Let's revisit each stage in turn.

Testing never ends. Women test unconsciously. Testing is the woman's primary method for determining congruency and for discerning a man's authenticity; his ability to be genuine. Testing ceases to be an issue of any significant consequence when the man is fully congruent — both internally and externally. The woman will still always test, but once a man has it together, he will pass the woman's tests without much effort or even realizing he is being tested.

Since testing is so closely related to the mechanisms controlling sexual attraction, it is important to remember that testing never ends. Maintaining an appropriate level of attraction within any romantic relationship is very important. One way we, the authors, maintain attraction with our mates is through regular, social interaction with other attractive females. For more information on why maintaining friendships with the opposite sex is important to your relationship, please see Chapter 19, "Male Qualities Attractive to Women."

[–]steakhause50 points51 points  (15 children) | Copy

Seeking Communication is really her signal that she is suffering from emotional ambiguity. Most men view a woman's pronouncement of "I don't feel we are communicating" as a logical statement addressing the exchanging of facts — or a lack of such activity — between two people. It is not. It is an emotional statement involving her confusion and emotional disconnection from the relationship.

When the woman puts the blame on the man, this is normal, for two reasons. For one, women habitually blame their own emotional distress on external factors, thus absolving themselves from responsibility. When a man happens to be the most convenient "blame receptacle", then he gets the blame. The second reason she does this is that she is actually making a request for masculine leadership. She wants her man to step up and deal with her out-of-control emotional state with masculine strength, and without fear.

The only important word in any such statement coming from a woman is "feel." It's so important that in many cases it doesn't matter what she feels, as long as it's any emotion stronger than indifference. Anything with passion will do, as long as it's followed up, in all cases, with the appropriate level of physical commitment. And always make sure that intense displays of passion are followed by intense displays of affection. Let's be blunt: keep her well-sexed.

Being Put to Work can be stopped simply by saying "no." Do it sometimes. Just say no! If your woman has become habituated to your instant obedience, then refusing a request is going to stop her in her tracks. She will literally not know what to do. Lots of drama could ensue, so be prepared.

Another way to handle her constant requests is in a spirit of teasing and fun. You can gently make fun of her being "bossy," and so forth.

Yet another effective way to handle a woman's attempts to put you to work is to negotiate with her. For example, if she demands that you take the kids shopping for clothes, you can kindly request that she prepare a special meal while you are gone. While tit for tat may seem thoroughly unromantic, by the time a man is in this situation, we believe the romance is far gone anyway. There is nothing to lose, and your self-respect to regain.

Best yet, be proactive and act like a leader: women want to feel useful and contribute to something meaningful. Spend some time to give your female counterpart meaningful work, ensuring that you are the one who determines the direction of the family. You will find that agreeing on specific tasks becomes much easier. When you appreciate a good woman for her specific contribution, she will be delighted in her relationship, and feel she made an excellent selection in a man.

Evolutionary Selfishness is understandable when we consider that the female's primary concern is always for her own well-being and that of her children, It is difficult — if not impossible — for most women to feel altruistic or merciful towards a grown man. Your role as the man is to be her protector, or to get out of her way. However, as a strong protector you have great value in the eyes of a healthy woman. So the key here is to assert your value and put a price tag on your leadership of her and the family. This means simply that you lead the relationship and continually give her tasks within the context of the relationship.

Putting a price to your leadership also means having your own moral standards, whereby it's subcommunicated from the beginning and throughout the relationship that you, as a man, expect certain behaviors and certain types of treatment from the female, if she is to retain your interest in being her leader and protector. As we discussed in the chapters on Screening and Female Self-Esteem, certain women, obviously, will never be able to submit to male leadership, no matter how strong you are.

Self-Determination This stage is a very strong signal from the woman that — in her mind — the relationship has ended, or is about to end. She is effectively telling you that she no longer views the two of you as a unit. As difficult as it may seem, at this stage you may need to be prepared to let her go. Your best chance to salvage the relationship may be to start right back at the beginning; let her know that you are equally prepared to leave the relationship if you are not getting the respect and admiration that you want and deserve.

You never want to be in a position where you are chasing or begging a woman. Not only is that a pathetic position for a man to find himself in, but any shred of sexual attraction that had remained in the woman will be completely destroyed by such actions.

In reality, a man can survive just about anything, including the ending of a cherished relationship. Therefore, consider this stage as the ultimate test of how much of a man you really are. If you fail this test, the game is over with this particular woman.

[–]grewapair34 points35 points  (3 children) | Copy

Geez, I wish I understood this in my 20s. As someone in his 50s, this is spot on.

[–]Daddie010 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy

If you don't open up to me I am not satisfied. You don't communicate with me.

simultaneous with

As soon as you open up to me I will use the information you provide in a totally selfish way for my own needs.

Either way, the end result for the male is usually guilt, shame, or confusion, finally giving way to resentment and anger. Assuming he takes her seriously — and most men do — he will get caught into an ongoing psychological mechanism, which will make him weaker and weaker, with terribly-negative results for her sexual attraction towards him.

** I'm 46 and still occasionally fall into this trap, just happened Friday night after a really shitty week. Told her how I was getting aggravated by something people were saying, not her. Wound up with her telling me I was being too sensitive (Pussy). Funny thing is I was just talking normal, she started raising her voice and getting annoyed. She wasn't even there for the conversations, but she knew without being there exactly how it went down. I just STFU after that, and was so pissed at myself for falling into it.

They tell you they want to know, but in reality they really don't.

The most ironic part of all of this is I had an issue with a family member this weekend (hinting at suicide) first part of the shitty week. He actually came to me to talk as the first adult to confide in.

Women: "I don't understand why boys and men cannot open up and keep everything inside them." Because out of everyone they are the most brutal to you after you open up to them.

And we wonder why 4 out of 5 suicides are men?

[–]willowhawk8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

General rule, only share positively spun stories never negative ones

[–]p3n1x0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Men shouldn't "open up" to women in the first place. This is why we have other male friends / inner circle.

Women will ignore anything that bores them or puts them in a negative frame. They may even "bite your head off" so that you never do it again.

You need to show your teeth are bigger. Call her out on her shit. Tell them to shut up. Men are afraid to be confrontational with women via so much indoctrinated social conditioning. Never Be Afraid to Confront! If you don't, this is why they see weakness, if you can't stand up to "lil'ol her", how are you going to protect against anything else?

[–]ziphias16 points17 points  (1 child) | Copy

"For one, women habitually blame their own emotional distress on external factors, thus absolving themselves from responsibility."

Holy shit, that is pure gold. Saved that nugget. Thanks for posting this.

[–]WhorehouseVet2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's basically the definition of a woman's solipsism; she feels something internally, but needs to hamster it with reality. A man is always nearby if she's in a relationship, thus everything that's wrong in a woman's life is always a man's fault.

[–]good_guy_submitter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

My god, if you aren't the author of this book or a friend of his, you should contact someone who is and get this guy to market better. The material is amazing and better than anything I've seen. Not necessarily new ideas, but the way they are presented is perfect.

[–]2Overkillengine5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Not necessarily new ideas, but the way they are presented is perfect.

This is a key point that often gets lost here.

Presentation > Truth.

When dealing with human beings, male or female, the accuracy of your words are meaningless if not conveyed in a manner that the recipient is ready to hear.

[–]czatara2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

These guys were the pillars of the relationships forums in the fast seduction site, together with Blackdragon some 10 years ago. If I remember well, Franco is also a renowned Finnish psychiatrist with Italian ascendency and was considered the theory guru in the group, much alike Rollo is to TRP.

If you like this, look for the numerous posts where they discuss real life scenarios with different people. I find it to be a very good way to internalize these concepts.

[–]TecnoParadox 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

This should be a post of its own. Please copy and paste it all as a new post so everyone can be informed of all the golden facts that you have provided.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

It was a post of his own: http://archive.is/DqZPO

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

wow this sounds like so much WORK to keep another person happy along with actually working at your job, no wonder men live less long

no wonder my Uncle has to continually take his wife on a vacation every month just to keep her content...exhausting.

It's also probably the reason Uncle stays at his job late and asks me to go to the movies or why he's at the movies so often is he gets home and she just complains to him...god what a life most men are living just to fit in and keep the family unit together.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Once you become congruent, it's not that much work. The hard part is being congruent, confident and proud of who you are in the first place. Takes development, introspection, and discipline.

Congruence in general is also congruence with women, colleagues, family, yourself etc...so the more you do it, the more second nature it becomes.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

And a link to a archived version of the post: http://archive.is/DqZPO

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Testing never ends. Women test unconsciously. Testing is the woman's primary method for determining congruency and for discerning a man's authenticity; his ability to be genuine. Testing ceases to be an issue of any significant consequence when the man is fully congruent — both internally and externally. The woman will still always test, but once a man has it together, he will pass the woman's tests without much effort or even realizing he is being tested.

Sounds like an exhausting never ending job, thats why i'm mgtow and wouldn't mind being a hermit monk

[–]fromthecrypt83 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Thanks for that recommendation. I think I really need to read that one. Hope its available as an ebook

[–]Throwawaysteve1234564 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

I REALLY like the way it reads. It's similar to the rational male in content, but a bit more scientific in writing. Nice.

[–]Snazzy_Serval4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

The problem I have with books like these is that while it's good to understand why women act a certain way, it doesn't actually tell you how to get women.

If anything if reading books like these makes you believe that all women are lying cheating cunts, then it's going to make you hate women which will of course make it harder for you to get laid.

[–]willowhawk2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

One thing this book advocates it to limit eye contact with a girl because it makes you look feminine. This advice flies in the face of conventional seductioj

[–]Jake213_04 points5 points  (17 children) | Copy

White and Asian do these things and they are K-selective. Black women however are r-selective and don't really care about resources or money because they routinely get impregnated by bums. They're only concern is getting pregnant and they don't care by who

[–]omega_dawg930 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy

"AWALT except blk women."

you want to believe that... go ahead.

[–]thedanceofpeace2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

It's biological after hundreds of thousands of years, possibly even millions of years of environmental influence. The majority of sub-sahara Africa was a paradise of near infinite food, so there was little to no pressure of starvation, which meant they weren't required to plan food rations for their offspring, and were free to have as many children as possible.

[–]czatara0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

This makes sense, it may manifest biologically as the higher testosterone level found in black human females.

[–]Jake213_00 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Why would that equate to higher testosterone levels? Black women actually have lower testosterone levels and higher estrogen levels throughout their menstrual cycle than other races.

https://www.healio.com/endocrinology/reproduction-androgen-disorders/news/print/endocrine-today/%7Bdd35b6e1-a21a-42fc-b70a-42911ee0e694%7D/estrogen-levels-higher-among-black-women-during-menstrual-cycle

Its strange to me that people believe blacks have more testosterone when they don't exhibit traits that are significant of increased testosterone. Lack of body hair, full lips, more shapely bodies, etc..

In fact based on traits that exhibit testosterone I would say whites have physical traits that exhibit high levels of testosterone. More body hair, height, small lips, larger brow ridge, and even culturally European culture is naturally patriarchal and thrives and conquering and overpowing other groups effectively and skillfully.

[–]-ATLAS-_0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

You have to examine far more than that to test for testosterone, and even then it wouldn't simply be only testosterone that you would want to test for since you are talking about differences in reaction to other hormonal factors among ethnic groups. You would have to test for both free testosterone and standing, androgen receptivity as well as enzyme receptivity (specifically 5a-reductase) since that is where you would see testosterone being transformed into DHT.

Now, this is where I break off from facts and try to remember a study because I can't remember what the exact facts were, but there is some variance ethnically in the sensitivity in the 5a-reductase across different groups, generally African Americans men had the highest sensitivity, and Asians had the lowest. But the variance actually changes in different periods through each lifespan, so those numbers shift with aging, so you that variance among ethnic groups shift with aging in different overall patterns. But again, I don't have the study off hand and if I remember right they had a pretty small testing number so those results can't possibly account for environmental factors and would need a lot more follow up. Even then, the variance in receptivity would only imply a small part of the equation.

[–]Jake213_04 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy

Facts back it up. If black women were K-selective they would make themselves more attractive to find a high quality mate. What they lacked in the looks department they would at least try to make up for in attitude and personality.

However black women are known for shitty attitudes and below average looks. That and studies have shown black women a majority (75%) don't want marriage or a long term relationship. While 43% of black men do. This in itself shows black women are more than happy to be single mothers and don't place value on attaining a high quality mate.

Black women are r-selective.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/06/04/188301149/new-survey-takes-a-snapshot-of-the-view-from-black-america

[–]BewareTheOldMan24 points25 points  (1 child) | Copy

Older black man here...you are in fact correct. Out of wedlock birth rate for black women hovers around 73% - statistically the worst for women of ALL races. This is nothing to be proud of and extremely embarrassing when you consider at the turn of the 20th Century black men were the MOST married men in America (even with extreme racism, inequality, and segregation). More importantly - the [male/female] children suffer tremendously with many females continuing the cycle of single motherhood and 1 of 3 young men [age range 18-early 30's] ending up in prison. The prison statistic hasn't changed in years, while OOW births have gone from 25% in the 1960's [credit source the Moynihan Report] to today's unfathomable numbers. Incidentally OOW births for ALL races of women of marriageable-age [18-35] collectively hovers around 40%.

Noteworthy...there are many more single mothers than unmarried [never-married] fathers. You are all most likely familiar with the 80/20 rule - hence, women are breeding with the same number of low IQ and degenerate men. Every now and then a professional/blue collar male gets caught up as a "baby daddy," but these OOW mothers are NOT reproducing with scientists, doctors, attorneys, mathematicians, or strategic thinkers. You have "Chad." We have "Tyrone/Clarence/Daquan." As a general confirmation of Jake213_0's statement...I direct you to the nearest black community and the resulting fallout.

I regularly quote these numbers to my kids and ENSURE their understanding so my daughters do not become part of the problem. I tell my son that his "sperm" is a precious asset worth thousands of dollars, and if the wrong woman/women get unauthorized access it results in at least 21 disastrous years and frustration on his part.

[–]Jake213_01 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Finally someone willing to accept facts.

[–]jaimewarlock 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

When a black woman goes after a white guy, she starts to make herself more attractive. I see a lot of articles in newspapers and magazines in Kenya coaching black women on how to get a mzungu husband. Wouldn't this be an example of K-selection? And if so, wouldn't this mean that their decision whether to go K or r depends on local factors?

[–]Jake213_00 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Those are K-selective black women. A mere 25% of the black female population. However a vast majority have no interest in finding a long term mate.

I'm willing to bet most of the black girls who are K-selective don't really care about white men for their personality or looks, but merely for the fact that they believe all white men have money and hence want access to it.

[–]steakhause1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

I wish more people knew about the r&k selection hypothesis.

[–]1empatheticapathetic1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Where can I read about this?

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Try the internet: http://bfy.tw/CzFW

[–]ShakaLeonidas0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Black Women

1.They heavily rely on the goverment to subsidize the K attributes of men. The police are protection. The state offers them jobs and educational incentives Their medical insurance is subsidized. Their food and housing can be, but is not exclusively subsidized by the goverment. They practice "hen house" economics. Bartering skills and services from reach other due to mutually percieved " Black woman struggle"

  1. They out source K attributes. They part time prositute, strip, erotic model. "Gigging" They predominantly engage in secret affairs with white and arab males who pay them a fee. "Placage" never ended.

  2. They only select for R attributes that will increase their status by association or provide emotional instability aka excitement.

White and Asian Women select predominately k-types openly But always maintain discreet relationships with predominantly R-types. Doesnt matter what race of man. Women are ALWAYS for species, not culture.

They all want three same shit. Just different methods about going about it.

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Go to archive.is and put the URL in there. Post archive link then

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

TLDR women are biologically programmed to turn chads into beta dads

See Steakhause's post above about "The Stages of Manipulation"

[–]electricspresident20 points21 points  (28 children) | Copy

I didn't know about the confrontative part I thought guys who go about starting shitt are looked at as weak or insecure...like imagine a casual joke getting under your skin at every bar it's for certain you're gonna be looked at as weak right?

[–]0signal09 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy

It's weakness indeed. Judging from my experience, the guys looking for trouble either have nothing to lose (because they lead shitty lives) or they are insecure to the point they'd risk their life for the sake of proving their masculinity in front of strangers.

[–]THEnimble_mongoose43 points44 points  (23 children) | Copy

I thought guys who go about starting shitt are looked at as weak or insecure.

that's a socially engineered smear against those guys. Really this kind of behavior makes girls wet. How many times on TV or movies does the muscly guy punch the nerd, then the girlfriend ditches the muscly guy to hook up with the nerd?

It's BS. Disney hoo ha.

It's exactly the same as all those commercials and shows with the dumbass fat dad and the smart, hot pretty wife.

Social engineering.

[–]electricspresident9 points10 points  (21 children) | Copy

Sure that is true

But what about instinctively ... the calm centered guy is looked at as more confident tho? Like so many times on TRP it's been advised to 'hold frame' stand your ground and be chill ... yes some women do go for the arrogant shit starting douches but I find most go for good looking relaxed guys ...these guys do have a sense of don't fuck with me look but :$ ...I still think status counts a lot in this equation...

Imagine a low value guy getting all confrontational and shitt ..I bet people are gonna be like wat a creep and all, know wat I mean

[–]blackedoutfast15 points16 points  (5 children) | Copy

Like so many times on TRP it's been advised to 'hold frame' stand your ground and be chill

a lot of guys on TRP don't really understand what "frame" really means and focus on one particular frame- the calm, confident, stoic guy. but there is an infinite number of different frames and the best one to use will vary depending on the particular situation and the other people involved.

you can just as easily hold a frame where you are a confrontational shit-stirrer. and frequently that will be the ideal frame to use.

the important thing is that you are the one creating the frame, and the frames you make are beneficial to you. what you want to avoid is falling into frames constructed by others or holding bad frames that hurt you.

[–]AwakenedSovereign8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is called state control. Always maneuver in such a way as to leave the most options available.

But also, you cannot control other people's actions. Being absolutely nonreactive and only engaging with the world on your terms is a pipedream. You can, however, have the confidence and skills necessary to react to any random shit correctly and still have a solid frame.

In fact I would argue the most difficult and most important times to hold frame are precisely when spontaneous forces leap out of nowhere at you. You often have zero time to think or analyze, and yet how our handle these situations undoubtedly has tremendous impact on your life.

[–]Helmet_Icicle0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

But optimal frame is predicated upon summoning true and real self-confidence. If you have achieved that level of surety about yourself, why would you waste energy humoring someone's fallacies? When you can only sustain damage by accepting it in the first place, how is it worth addressing? Not even considering the low value of physical altercation, in what context would this be applied?

[–]blackedoutfast1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

again, confidence helps you to establish a frame and get others to fall into it, but "super confident guy" is just one possible frame.

the frame is how other people intrepret a particular situation and the characters in it. by distorting their interpretation of a situation you are effectively distorting reality. there are always frames, normally they happen unconsciously and accidentally. but if you are aware of this process and you can actively create frames that distort reality to a much greater degree than normal.

framing a situation so people see you as a calm, confident, stoic alpha male works for a lot of situations, especially one-on-one with girls and in LTRs. and it's relatively easy to create that frame by having confidence and seeing yourself as a calm, confident, stoic, alpha male. and that frame is appealing to a lot of trad-con leaning guys on TRP because the quiet, stoic guy is a common alpha male archetype in a lot of western culture.

but there are other situations where different frames may be more effective. if you are in a loud bar/club with a lot of buzzed, high-energy people, sometimes trying to be the quiet stoic guy is a bad idea. i know a lot of dudes imagine themselves as a quiet, lone wolf, James Bond type dude sitting in the corner getting all the girls because they seem "mysterious" - but in the real world in a lot of those situations no one even notices those guys. there's so much noise and chaos and stimulation that a quiet stoic disappears into the background. it's the guy who is loud and talkative and confrontational who stands out and gets attention and owns the room.

[–]Helmet_Icicle0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That doesn't really address the question. In that sort of context, some buzzed, high energy individual looking for confrontation is going to be lesser value for taking something someone else says seriously.

[–]electricspresident-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well why don't u go one step further and say how to construct ur own frame for a particular situation

[–]grandaddychimp8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

Being confrontational doesn't necessarily mean you're breaking frame and not being stoic or chill though. There's a difference between, say, starting an argument with someone and trying to get someone to fight you.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

You can start shit and not get in a fight or altercation, human interactions are considerably more complex than beating the fuck out of each other. Start shit with her, be cocky, confrontational when it's warranted or useful, and confrontational doesn't only mean getting I some guys face and thriving down.

What are you guys, fucking 12? Ever lived in the adult world? Yeah people fight and kill in the adult world, but nothing like when you're kids.

[–]THEnimble_mongoose8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy

there's a fine line sometimes between holding a stoic frame and being a passive bitch allowing himself to get walked on.

Imagine a low value guy getting all confrontational and shitt ..I bet people are gonna be like wat a creep and all, know wat I mean

Women instinctively have a better understanding of this line and when it is crossed than we ourselves do.

We are still apes and our society is not so different from theirs.

You can learn a lot about the human sexual marketplace by studying chimp and gorilla society.

[–]RedOnArrival4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

the "fine line" is whether you are taking action or being reactionary. frame is making your narrative everyone else's reality, and if you're reacting then you're naturally giving into another person's frame. starting shit can be good because it shows your status over another's, but only if it's done on your terms.

[–]fdylan236 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

I watched a short video of how men act similarly to apes in terms of alpha and beta, the alpha men did not back down from confrontation, they hit it head on and won arguments, but I think shit starter is the wrong word. If there was a problem they fixed it, I'd someone disagreed they convinced them to agree, they sure as hell weren't looking to fight everyone though.

[–]electricspresident1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Exactly that's called stand your ground

[–]dk5runner1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy

:$

Hey buddy, I am not trying to be a dick, just advice from one RP dude to another, stop doing emojis and elipses (...) My instinct was to assume you were a woman. Its an emotional way of communicating.

Not trying to rag just something I wish someone told me sooner back in the day. Its all a journey.

[–]electricspresident0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

Lol the emoji was a typo, but I didn't know bout the elipses thing I'm actually solid on is texting so I'm suprised about this thing, I do chat a lot but had no idea '...' is emotional , I use it to say 'yadi yadi ya so on or so forth'

[–]dk5runner0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

Lol the emoji was a typo, but I didn't know bout the eclipses and 1 thing I'm actually solid on is texting so I'm suprised about this thing

Elipses shows uncertainty. That is what they mean and the point of them.

I do chat a lot but who told u of this

I dont know what you mean. Who told me that is what elipses mean? Just nature of understanding through experience.

[–]electricspresident0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

Ahh see I've been using them to say 'yadi yadi ya moving on'

[–]dk5runner1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Right but it still shows hesitation. It is subtle.

Its sort of like taking "I" out of your speech. Little tricks to make your language more powerful and dominant.

[–]electricspresident0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

So saying "I " is less dominant in this context?

[–]Hector_Castillo0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

the calm centered guy is looked at as more confident tho?

Only if the calm, centered guy has the capacity to rip the the loud, obnoxious guy apart, physically or socially. Being quiet and ignoring the assholes sometimes works...sometimes it doesn't.

If he can put them down socially or physically, the shit-starting mongoloid wins the dominance battle.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

If the "nerd" stood his ground then all that disappears. It's not social engineering. It's circumstantial.

[–]deathtokings6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

I guess it a difference between guys who start shit for no reason and those that have a short fuse and don't put up with shit

[–]WolfofAnarchy33 points34 points  (14 children) | Copy

WTF that's amazing. Finally some science to unplug my friend, who is a Beta but ready to change.

What also blows my mind is that confrontativeness is nearly double as attractive as muscularity? Maybe I'm reading it wrong but that's insane.

[–]EddieJonesRFU21 points22 points  (0 children) | Copy

Someone needs to do a post on confrontation lol

[–]Satou412 points13 points  (8 children) | Copy

I'm really skeptical of confrontativeness. I've seen PUA videos where the confrontative guy ends up looking like a total douche, party pooper, while the aloof fun assertive guy style wins. This is because the confrontative guy is seen as having fewer options than the aloof guy, so the aloof guy indirectly wins points for social proof. He is seen as having more options.

Edit: maybe confrontation is good unless it is overshadowed by "don't take my girl" assertiveness.

[–]MaxwellGaine5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy

In that case the confrontativeness is diminishing social respect, canceling out attraction.

Now suppose the guy is confrontative to a threat to the perceived "tribe" or group, which causes him to gain social respective - massive multiplicative attraction spike.

Makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.

[–]Satou42 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

Hm, could we take this further, then, and say that confrontativeness, while probably more attractive (according to this study), is actually a secondary trait to social respect?

The study says it controlled for each variable to study that variable's attractiveness. But if confrontativeness is contextually either good or bad, then it can't be primary. It needs to be split into separate types of confrontativeness.

In the case of defending the tribe, confronting the monster threatening them, I would call it bravery. In the case of asserting dominance when another man comes to take his girl, I would call that, at its essence, fear. Sure, there are ways to keep the girl around and maybe its a good thing to assert yourself to keep her in some cases. But in the bigger picture, isn't it better to shrug it off, knowing that you can attract another girl with little effort?

This probably relates to defending an investment and the sunk cost fallacy. The guy thinks he's entitled to the girl he attracted, because he spent time and effort attracting her. That may be true to an extent, but getting confrontational when another dude comes up to try to take her from him is anything but alpha. A confident man would probably just find it amusing.

There might be more theory to develop here, is why I'm commenting. Of course, over theorizing never helped anyone.

[–]MaxwellGaine1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Confrontation doesn't have to be overt, in a butthurt or physical way, which is where it usually would be unattractive (in most parts of today's society).

Dominance through top-notch social game over a guy coming to get your girl is extremely confrontational, but very attractive.

[–]Satou40 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I see. So in this case, the good side of confrontation is knowing the game and playing the game in such a way as to keep the girl. That's a subtle art. It's the difference between appearing to be a silent pushover and someone who gets what he wants effortlessly.

It's more like winning a debate than standing there waving your dick and puffing out your chest, though.

[–]MaxwellGaine0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Guess so.

According to the study its still more attractive to be a dick waver than a pushover, so I guess the take away is: - get your cocks out - and practice intelligently AMOGing as well when you can.

Exactly what lifting makes you want to do, ding ding ding.

[–]mypasswordismud2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

When a man breaks another man's frame, a confrontation has occurred and the man who won that confrontation looks sexy af. Biologically at least, from the woman's point of view, it doesn't really matter who wins.

[–]Satou41 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Enlightening perspective. My views of confrontation need updating.

[–]throwaway_pua182-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

Right, so the dude who loses his cool very quickly and frequently (Donald Trump, drunk dudes at the bar) are actually BETA to the Alpha's that remain unreactive. Most people don't see this.

You tell people on TRP "Yeah Confrontation is an attraction multiplier" and they start picking fights with every wimpy dude to appear "dominant". This is highly highly insecure behavior. I fucking hate dudes who are HIGHLY DISAGREEABLE or HIGHLY CONFRONTATIONAL because they think it's "Alpha" or masculine.

It's not. Being unreactive AND assertive is the way to go. Don't hide your views, but don't go around having to assert yourself 150% because that screams insecurity.

This comes with age and maturity.

We don't need more "paper alphas" going around acting like idiots because they read one article.

[–]knifpearty2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Maybe disagreeableness would be a more fitting term.

[–]LibertyIsNotFree1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Why is that surprising?

It's frame over substance. Women are emotion over logic.

[–]hawkeaglejesus0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

What also blows my mind is that confrontativeness is nearly double as attractive as muscularity? Maybe I'm reading it wrong but that's insane.

Ever see a tall ripped dude who acts like a pussy all the time?

Tony's friend is taller, more muscular, and more physically attractive. Yet Tony's aggressiveness is what makes him the more attractive alpha.

[–]NihilistMonkey[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Because women care more about who we are on the inside. I know that's counter intuitive to what we preach here but it's true. It's the reason why frame is such an important aspect to TRP.

Paper alphas will interpret confrontativeness as being a hard ass who starts shit, but I believe what it's referencing is something closer to assertiveness. Women want a man who isn't afraid to be confrontative when the need arises, not someone who is so insecure they have to wave their dick around to show everyone how manly they are. Muscularity isn't very useful to them if the man is too limp wristed to stand up for himself and his woman.

[–]fuxdpus137 points138 points  (66 children) | Copy

This is that whole "girls like assholes", "nice guys finish last" thing. Some people (read: women and "blue pill" types) get angry when you say it. They say you're whining. Nope. I'm just stating my observations.

This is why there are so many single mothers, and so many women in abusive relationships.

It is also probably why a lot of people are against alternative sexual outlets like porn, fapping, and prostitutes. Women want both alpha sperm (especially when they're young and fertile) and beta resources (especially when they're infertile, old, or single-mothery). But when the girls deny pussy to the betas, the betas naturally just find alternatives, get porn, jerk off, bang hookers, travel to Thailand, etc.

But remember, women have the dual mating strategy. Arrogant Alpha Douchebrag is unfaithful and will abandon them with baggage. Then they want to go back and find Beta Bob for a stable relationship. The problem is, Beta Bob doesn't even need her now-loose used up diseased pussy anymore. He's spent all those years jerking his dick to porn, fucking hookers, and maybe banging foreign 3rd world chicks. He's already solved his sexual needs problem.

So you have these women trying to trick, shame, and bully Beta Bobs into putting down the porn so they'll be horny enough to be lured into long boring sexless relationships with her and Chad or Tyrone's bastard children. Enter the anti-porn and no fap movement. Enter anti-prostitution campaigns. Enter attacks on sex tourism.

[–]grandaddychimp49 points50 points  (2 children) | Copy

I'm pretty sure that no fap is started by guys who are trying to quit watching porn so they can enjoy sex more

[–]failingtheturingtest8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy

From any post I've read about no fap I would suggest it was started by guys who are trying to become superheros with super-alpha-confidence.
Now he has the courage to hold eye contact with that pretty girl on the bus. Might even say hi next time, but he knows she totally wants him now because he's got over 9000 testosterones.

[–]grandaddychimp9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't think anyone over there expects it to be a catch-all solution, but not jerking off for a long time definitely has a lot of mental and physical benefits.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon8 points9 points  (5 children) | Copy

and so many women in abusive relationships

Don't believe the narrative

[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy

Abusive = "not female primary oriented"

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Exactly.

And even then it's a lie - they pretend everything is abusive even when it panders to them. "That nice guy abused me by being TOO NICE".

[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Don't you mean smothering? Or maybe a reasonable request that's controlling?

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Nope - they want to phrase everything as abuse so that they are the victims and get victim attention from white knights.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]chim_city14 points15 points  (4 children) | Copy

You're saying is the higher the number count for women, the lower they are Happy/satisfied?

Edit: can you link the recent study

[–]Layback6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

He meant success rate. Each additional partner a woman has increases the chance of divorce.

[–]PM_UR_FactorioLayout7 points8 points  (6 children) | Copy

Do you have any studies showing porn is bad for your brain? I've looked but all I can find are studies saying it's healthy

[–]manslutalt8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy

It's shameful and you know it. You feel like shit afterwards.

It's not and I don't. It's a convenient release when a girl is not available and it feels great. Your feelings of shame are of no concern to me.

[–]fuxdpus13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't see anything wrong with porn. Attractive women aren't always available. I guess porn makes me less willing to settle for some ugly middle aged woman I'm not attracted to. But that's not a bad thing. All women come with high price tags and I'd rather save my resources for the best women I can get, instead of blowing my load on something subpar.

If a man gets caught up in a sexless dead bedroom relationship with one of Chad or Tyrone's aging throwaways, he's going to end up jacking off to porn anyway. Because his wife will have a "headache" every night.

Now if I have young beautiful women available sexually available to me, then I don't watch porn or jerk off at all (except on their stomachs/tits/asses/faces/mouths/etc.).

[–]Charmingaxelotl13 points14 points  (6 children) | Copy

I think any addiction is bad, but logging online and fapping for 10 minutes to bust a nut isn't a bad thing.

[–]Canedude089 points10 points  (5 children) | Copy

A lot of people don't understand that anything you do in moderation is usually fine. Don't be the person who jerks off 8 times a day, and doesn't bother to build a social life. That said, there is nothing wrong with occasionally handling your own business, when you are in a bit of a dry spell. Frankly, I've had some of my best success out on the town, when I've spanked it before I left the house. It's the "Loaded Gun" theory.

[–]VaginalFury0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

Can you go a bit into detail about the loaded gun theory? Never heard about it

[–]Canedude082 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

The idea that when you haven't had an orgasm, and go out into public, that's the top thing on your mind. Women pick up on that, and that limits your effectiveness. It's similar to when you are in a relationship, women pick up on that, and are much more likely to hit on you, compared to when you are single.

[–]VaginalFury0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

But the chaser-effect is strong after an orgasm. When i go out after i cum im fine for like 20-30 min but then the chaser makes me even hornier than before

[–]Canedude080 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

For some people, it's different. I do my thing, I'm still able to go, but I can function. Then again, my game has always been about filling up the hopper, and then pulling them out at a later date. So, when I go out at night, it's rarely about one night stands(The "I gotta hook up tonight, or it's a failure" mindset), it's about having fun with the crew, and making those contacts and the like.

[–]BoulangerMontrealais0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Don't go to a grocery store when you are hungry. You're likely to look at everything with increased envy, no?

[–]_MysticFox2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

Virgins aren't unicorns. The virgins I know have kissed and blowed dozens of guys, less than the non-virgins even, as an outlet.

There have also been plenty of virgins who become dissatisfied and say that they would have liked to "explore," so they fuck things up in the marriage.

Any virgin girl past the age of high school is probably not mentally well. You have to expect to get with a chick who's been through LTRs her whole life, even if multiple. That would mean at least 3-4 dudes. That isn't too bad for LTR status honestly, especially if she's only done those things in a relationship.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Hector_Castillo0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

If that's your definition of a virgin, then holy fuck the world is lost. I've met some pretty devout Christian girls who put up the hardest LMR I've ever experienced but would jerk me off and let me cum on their tits or let me eat them out.

Only one, ONE, wouldn't even let someone finger her. And I grew up in an environment with one of the highest concentration of conservative, Christian girls you can find in America.

You need to go to Eastern Europe if you want girls who haven't done "anything." Even 19 year old girls with daddy issues here in EE (I live here now) are pretty conservative with who they fuck with.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy

It's shameful and you know it. You feel like shit afterwards.

It's great and makes me feel fucking great.

Marriage isn't dead either. But it is ALL about partner count.

Marriage is dead and partner count means shit. It changes nothing to the fact that marriage is -EV. The contract that marriage constitutes is no longer fair but leans heavily towards one side.

A woman can cheat on her husband, initiate divorce and can still end up with half of his shit or more and even if she doesn't, the social security net will catch her and make her land softly.

There is absolutely zero risk involved for her, while as a man you are taking all the risk.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Marriage isn't dead, but then again, neither is doing heroin. great for the dealer, not so much the end user.

One of your best lines here Stoney. +1

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours3 points4 points  (13 children) | Copy

You're as deluded as the no fap guys. Marriage isn't dead and you only need find a girl with a low count? Holy fuck that's some Disney princess bullshit. Let me introduce you to my ex, who was a virgin until 21, raised in a good family, submissive, intelligent, educated, and only sucked and fucked my cock for 8 years. Why is she an ex wife? Because Awalt, no fucking exceptions. She went stupid and cheated with a poser, a wannabe, a loser who does stolen valor type bullshit like wearing fake dog tags and claiming to have been in the military when he wasn't. You meet this guy and the very last thing you'd ever think it's alpha male. Experienced girls saw through his bullshit easily, but she fell for it and fucked up her life. The most desperate fuck I've met. It's hilarious how badly she fucked up.

And you're thinking a virgin is the key. Fuck kid, you don't know shit about fuck.

Porn is bad for you? Since when? Oh since you tacked shame on it like some religious nut. Know Why kids like you have a problem with porn? Because religious fucks seem to think what you do with your dick is their business, so they instill you with mountains of guilt. Fucking religion is vastly worse for you than fucking porn our jerking off.

Fucking kids these days with their Disney princess bullshit.

[–]good_guy_submitter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

I did not advocate getting married. I have repeated many times the opposite of that unless your goal is to raise high quality children. See my comment history for clarification.

I linked to you actual data. Do you have any data?

Or is a slew of misunderstanding, opinion, anecdotes, and insults the way we do things here?

[–]Future_Alpha0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy

Partner count does in fact have much to do with marriage success.

You do realize that unless you move to some christian community, you will not find partners with a low-ncount? Here's a fun little paradox for you, the sluttier the women the more educated they are (university/college campuses are like bordello's) and the less educated a woman is the more slutty she is. This means that women all across the socioeconomic spectrum are slutty as fuck. That includes rich girls and girls of powerful men (like Obama's daughters - did you see the video of his oldest daughter slutting it up at some party, snorting coke and twerking? look it up).

And the problem is, I am not sure of those ultra-conservative mormon daughters either.

[–]good_guy_submitter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

Oh I know. It's not an easy find nowadays.

I managed to find a religious girl who had zero male partner count but interestingly had one light lesbian experience, she was in an all-girl school. I was very religious as well at the time.

I am going on 15 years of marriage, mostly satisfied in the bedroom, of course we have young children so balancing that makes it harder. But I am here because I want more in the bedroom, not per se quantity but quality, and currently I initiate 20 times for every 1 time she does and I'd like that to be closer to a 5 to 1 ratio. I know the problem is me, and the only one preventing me from getting exactly what I want is me, so I'm really here to work on me and have the occasional anti-feminist rant because it is destroying something I love: Western Civilization

But never forgot AWALT. I keep my wife away from other men, when we were dating she had 3 orbiters and I quickly asked her if she would remove them from her life and not keep in touch with men she knew before me, she complied without question. I protect her from shit like Cosmopolitan or other feminist bullshit. Not by being totalitarian, just by calling it out for what it is and making her think for herself to figure out how stupid feminism and groupthink is. The first few years of marriage I made her work a job, a new one in an office full of women near my house, and she knows exactly how full of shit feminists are.

After reading TRP about 4 years ago I got paranoid and I secretly installed software on her phone to track everything she does, location/text/websites/pictures/emails - everything - and I can say there is no question or even hint of worry of infidelity. Costs me $200 a year and that's a frivolous price for peace of mind. Got the kids DNA tested as well, all mine. So I think the statistics are very true.

[–]Future_Alpha0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy

I managed to find a religious girl who had zero male partner count but interestingly had one light lesbian experience

That would be an instant big red flag for me. I'd never LTR such a girl. Doesn't matter if she's a virgin. Girls who engage even in 'light' lesbian activity do so for attention - ergo becoming attention whores.

20 times for every 1 time she does and I'd like that to be closer to a 5 to 1 ratio.

I am not as knowledgable as some of the other posters on here, but that is bad news bears and may indicate that your relationship is not as good as you think it is. She should (ideally) be giving herself up willingly.

me and have the occasional anti-feminist rant because it is destroying something I love: Western Civilization But never forgot AWALT. I keep my wife away from other men, when we were dating she had 3 orbiters and I quickly asked her if she would remove them from her life and not keep in touch with men she knew before me, she complied without question.

She probably liked you then, thought you had high smv.

I protect her from shit like Cosmopolitan or other feminist bullshit. Not by being totalitarian, just by calling it out for what it is and making her think for herself to figure out how stupid feminism and groupthink is.

If I were you I'd make her read Red Pill Women, show her some Lauren Southern (though I think the chick is a whore who co-opted the mens movement) and use propaganda methods developed by Goebbels to brainwash her to my line of thinking (though I am not sure that would help knowing how well women hamster things).

After reading TRP about 4 years ago I got paranoid and I secretly installed software on her phone to track everything she does, location/text/websites/pictures/emails - everything - and I can say there is no question or even hint of worry of infidelity.

If you are worried about infedility, then your gut feeling is telling you, you are doing something wrong. Even if she cheats now, I doubt you'll serve her with divorce papers, given that you have 15 years with her, seem to like her too much and that you'd be shooting yourself in the foot financially.

Plus why would you ever want to get married? That is one of the big three worst financial decisions a man can do in his life. They are:

  1. Get married
  2. Have a kid
  3. Buy a house

[–]good_guy_submitter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

Well you have just proven you are not someone to take advice from. I will stick with Endorsed Contributors.

As for your last question:

You'll have to note I said 15 years. TRP wasn't around 15 years ago to give out advice about not getting legally married. If I were to do it again I would have not got the government license involved, but I still would have had a private marriage because it's not about romance, it's about kids. I repeat, Long Term Committed Monogamy is the single best way to raise high quality children. Children need a father and a mother and if you want to disagree with that you are a plain lunatic. If you want to argue that the quality of your children doesn't matter there is a huge library you can access via Google of "K-selection VS. R-selection" you can look at, my choice is quality children because I live on principals and don't feel like just taking and taking and taking like some pirate.

Yes I have children, several, and I may have another. If you want to advise people to biologically fail at being a human by not passing on your genes, you are very misguided. One of the greatest pleasures in life is being a father and seeing your children succeed and sharing memories with them. Besides being a great joy in my life, they are my immortality. I don't believe in religion, and passing on your genes is the only way to pass yourself into the future.

There is nothing wrong with buying a house if you are financially able to afford it. I recommend purchasing several duplex and renting them out in addition. Yes it would be "safer" to not have a wife that could take half of it away from me, but everything is a risk and it's too late to change that. However I don't need to change it.

And now I regret opening up personal information to you because you obviously don't know what you are talking about here in TRP.

[–]Future_Alpha0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

You'll have to note I said 15 years. TRP wasn't around 15 years ago to give out advice about not getting legally married. If I were to do it again I would have not got the government license involved, but I still would have had a private marriage because it's not about romance, it's about kids. I repeat, Long Term Committed Monogamy is the single best way to raise high quality children. Children need a father and a mother and if you want to disagree with that you are a plain lunatic. If you want to argue that the quality of your children doesn't matter there is a huge library you can access via Google of "K-selection VS. R-selection" you can look at, my choice is quality children because I live on principals and don't feel like just taking and taking and taking like some pirate.

I am not an idiot. Obviously having a mother and father is better for a child. Hell, probably having their grandparents living with you and helping raise your children would be even better (like in some places in Europe).

My point was, in the current environment of America having children (if you remove emotion and sentimentality out of it) is a raw deal for men - absolutely not worth it. Especially if you, as a dude, have career aspirations.

Yes I have children, several, and I may have another. If you want to advise people to biologically fail at being a human by not passing on your genes, you are very misguided. One of the greatest pleasures in life is being a father and seeing your children succeed and sharing memories with them. Besides being a great joy in my life, they are my immortality. I don't believe in religion, and passing on your genes is the only way to pass yourself into the future.

Biologically failing - maybe. But then there is a matter of practicality. Even animals (like deer or rabbits) will not have offspring under unfavorable environmental conditons. Does that make them be biological failurs as deer or rabbits? It is simply an adaptation to promote optimal survival. Same principle here. If he government feels like it needs to fuck me over, I am going to give it as big of a middle finger as I can. That includes trying to minimize the amount of taxes I pay (through offshore accounts if possible), not buying a house and paying a mortgage (my parents have signed off to pay a mortgage for 25 years because my mom wanted a house - sounds like slavery to me, why the fuck would I want to be a slave?), fucking as many sluts as I can and trying to fuck over the government in as many ways as I possibly can (that includes petty ways as well) get away with.

Sure children can be ONE of the pleasures of life. But there are many pleasures in life (like studying the deeds of men of history for example). If you really want to teach someone, become a mentor for a younger man that is struggling through life. It will be of much more benefit to him (so he can fuck the government too) than a child (that will likely not have enough money for retirmenet/no social security in old age anyway as the demographics of the country shifts).

There is nothing wrong with buying a house if you are financially able to afford it.

Define 'financially able to afford it'. Wallstreetplaboys (and I agree with them on this) say that unless you can pay for the entire house with what is in your bank account, you don't buy it. The entire concept of having a house is a giant fucking scam. Especially to someone coming from Europe (my mom being a typical woman got caught in the 'keeping up with the Joneses'). Not only do you spend fuck tons of money on buying the house, you don't even own the land (you pay property tax - wtf?), you also have to spend money repairing and spending alot of time weekly maintaining it. It is simply a drain on resources that is not worth it. I think Europeans (and the Chinese) have the right idea when they live in flats in high rises. It is affordable, easy to take care of and is big enough to fit an entire family.

[–]good_guy_submitter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

Sure children can be ONE of the pleasures of life. But there are many pleasures in life (like studying the deeds of men of history for example). If you really want to teach someone, become a mentor for a younger man that is struggling through life. It will be of much more benefit to him (so he can fuck the government too) than a child (that will likely not have enough money for retirmenet/no social security in old age anyway as the demographics of the country shifts).

What you are prescribing is borderline cuckoldry. Teaching another man's spawn instead of your own... who gives a fuck about social security? Communists? I don't pay into it and I won't be getting any out of it.

Your paragraph about giving the government the middle finger sounds like teenager nonsense. If you want to be a rebel that is never part of something bigger than yourself, go for it, but don't expect to gather respect for it. You could become great and lead the world, or you can just "enjoy the decline" while claiming everything you do is "amoral." Sorry to say, amorality doesn't exist.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Have you ever went into detail about this girl on this subreddit?

[–]trpthrowaway20030 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Granted you still need to police what kind of media she watches and listens to and keep her away from slutty friends because AWALT and are easily corrupted.

Not wanting each other to have bad influences in their lives in the form of shit friends I get. But how do you plan to control an adult human and what type of entertainment they consume?

[–]dk5runner1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

If you're doing it right, it isn't control, it's following.

[–]tallguyjp 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

So say you do find a virgin, has a good relationship with her father, isn't addicted to social media/validation and obviously is attractive. What do you do? How do you handle that? Will she be the same as the rest of women? Explain.

[–]WolfofAnarchy12 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy

NoFap is extremely RP, IMO. Maybe not the sub browsers but barely anyone on Reddit is alpha, even on this sub.

[–]1empatheticapathetic2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Nofap is about discipline. End of. Learning to control your use of porn and fapping if it is out of control (which mine was). If you take the anti porn and anti fapping dogma to heart and want to complain about something that has nothing to do with you, you have no frame and can go Fuck yourself as far as I care.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]fischbrot1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Berlin around 50 euro 30 min from what I heard.

[–]russe1lwestbrook18 points19 points  (16 children) | Copy

Women go for good genes when they're ovulating and beta resources the rest of the month. Same with short term versus long term relationships

Question about this statement. Are you saying that the interpretation of that experiment is that arrogant confrontational douchebags have a smaller window of attraction during the month? and that betas are preferred the rest of the month? If attractiveness is controlled.

If I'm understanding this correctly, short term mating is preferred for arrogant males but only for a short period of time, while timid traits are unkown to be preferred when or if at all yet.

Ovulation is monthly, so to interpret this as "fertile vs nonfertile" or young women versus older women looking for beta providers would be wrong, according to this experiment.

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor13 points14 points  (13 children) | Copy

They are preferred but only for use as utilities and cash dispensing machines, not for sex.

[–]russe1lwestbrook11 points12 points  (11 children) | Copy

That makes sense, I'm just stuck on the point where people are making their own conclusion from this experiment saying "well that means girls prefer assholes hahaha we are right" which may very well be true, but coming from a researcher standpoint, and if people here even bothered to read the article instead of reading OP's conclusion (I do journal reviews daily at my job), the only conclusion you can get from this experiment is that women PREFER more dominant traits just prior to ovulation. Nothing else can be extrapolated from this experiment. The paper even says they don't mean beta traits are preferred outside of that window either, because this experiment did not test that. Just being highly critical here for discussion sake.

But if going by that logic we can form a a question and a hypothesis: How much less do women prefer alpha traits OUTSIDE that fertility window? Do betas have an equal chance, a slightly less chance, or even a better chance? Hypothesis would be: Women prefer beta male provider traits outside of fertility window.

Many people are jumping to too many conclusions early.

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor9 points10 points  (10 children) | Copy

Again you are using the word "prefer" to mean something other than what men think it means. Women "prefer" Alpha males to fuck. They do NOT prefer Beta males TO FUCK. They "prefer" Beta males to use for comfort, to sleep with naked, and to act horribly insulted and surprised that the Beta (who they "prefer") doesn't just want to "cuddle." The mean Beta just wanted me for sex.

They are using the word "prefer" in TWO DIFFERENT WAYS- one to say women "prefer" sex with Alpha men, especially at the time of Ovulation and another to say women "prefer" to be with Beta men (because they are largely safe from being pestered for sex) and for validation, goodies, and stuff.

[–]russe1lwestbrook0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy

Good point, I didn't think of the differing meanings.

Would it be a good idea to play the beta male who gets with an alpha widow(not marriage, but temporary)? You know what I mean, the scenarios where you see a pretty hot female gets dumped and she ends up dating a beta male for rebound/comfort, and posting on FB and IG about how he's so nice and understanding, but it doesn't last that long? Hey man, dude still gets obligatory sex. :)

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]russe1lwestbrook3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Warn me before you be linking that LOL, shit took me unexpectedly, I was being sarcastic in my question lmfao.

Seriously thanks for the read. Never been even close to that situation myself but reading that made me feel for the guy. That would be one of the deadliest hits to your masculinity, to watch your wife get gangbanged and screaming shes a little whore, after years of not even giving you a BJ and lying to you about it. I'd feel like a worthless shit of a man.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Oooof

That is a better teacher than most posts on this sub, and I don't mean that in a demeaning way. There is no better way to Red Pill someone than stuff like this happening to them or seeing it happen to another man. A ballcrusher if I ever saw one.

[–]Rimmer1120 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

The thing I learn from this story is to never act emotionally. If this guy didn't confront her about this and kept it secret, he would have had a chance to salvage the situation.

Seriously, I don't see any reason at all to confront her about it, nothing good can come from it. Retarded move.

[–]3whatsthisgarg-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

Visceral response to that. By far the most chilling thing I've read on here. If I had read that when I was a lad, I would have been completely paranoid.

On the other side, I'm still friends with women I have fucked, women I made do the raunchiest shit. I know their husbands, and I know these slobs aren't getting their best. When I see them in public, the women and I share a knowing smile.

Should I feel bad for that? nah!

[–]manslutalt0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah there's no point worrying that some other guy has done something with your girl that you haven't as long as you're happy with what she does for you. That guy wasn't but he married her anyway, hoping it would improve over time. That's not how it works..

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Good description of Beta game. Unfortunately in Beta game what they thought was great sex was just an experienced whore giving them the treatment. Once she gets commitment he no longer gets the treatment.

Beta Game + Marriage = Dead Bedrooms

[–]jackandjill220 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That must such a terrible fate.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

NO. Your assumption was the previous hypothesis which has been replaced with the "dualistic" hypothesis. Which is basically women try to apply both. Not alternate, one or the other, both.

So now you're thinking "wow, that says some pretty horrendous things about women... that can't be true."

Which is basically what happened at a scientific level. But they're past that, and now that's the accepted hypothesis.

[–]Sotokun300031 points32 points  (8 children) | Copy

The more I read the more I observe a similarity in men's and women's ideal version of partner.

Men would want a 9-10, intelligent, loyal , honest, ambitious and fun woman.

Women would want a 185cm, 9 inch viking entrepreneur who is a faithful, arrogant, devoted and fun to be around husband.

Within both ideal scenarios, the traits are mutually exclusive, they can't coexist in the same person.

Both men and women are literally chasing a ghost whose traits are amplified by each new positive attribute they observe on every new partner

[–]hawkeaglejesus8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

Women want a gay football coach

[–]Sotokun30003 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

That was the best thing I've seen in a while

[–]LibertyIsNotFree1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

I mean the unicorns will exist, law of probability... But they'll be with the other unicorns, if even they can find one single other unicorn.

[–]Sotokun30004 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

But that probability would be even closer to 0 since you have to multiply the individual probabilities. No different than ghost hunting

[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

What men want isn't really complex. They want loyal partners who put out that they find physically attractive. And passing the boner test isn't difficult.

Keeping women attracted is hard, but keeping women loyal is why this sub even exists.

[–]10334252 points53 points  (13 children) | Copy

And thus the arrogant confrontational douchebag wins the girl while the warm faithful beta stays home and faps into his sock

No one "wins" the girl. The beta male ALSO gets sex, he gets it in different conditions from the alpha, but beta males still fuck inside of a relationship.

Alphas will fuck easily but only very damaged girls will even attempt to lock down or be in a relationship with an unstable alpha. You can clearly see this if you know alpha dudes, they get the biggest psychos on their back, obssessed with them.

Beta males aren't losers in the sense that TRP likes to think of them. What a lot of people here think of as beta is actually somehthing closer to an "omega" or semthing like that. Because beta males can also be alpha in another context, think Elon Musk for example, beta in the sexual world but overall an alpha, it is even hard to call a guy like that a beta male, but given context it fits him fine.

There is nothing wrong with exchanging money/resources/emotional availability for sex/companionship. This is how societies are built, this is arguably what every single on of us does in a relationship, this is actually the very definition of a male-female relationship.

You won't see that type of alpha inside of a relationship that isn't fucked-up in every sense of the word. Because guys like that are built for short-term, as you say it yourself. If you live in a jungle, in the sense of not having defined rules for relationship, as we live right now. You won't see anyone "winning" the girl, not the alpha or the beta, both of them will get half of a complete slut, I still think the alpha is "winning" as most of us probably think, but he doesn't win the girl, he might win easy sex, but never the girl.

[–]fuxdpus25 points26 points  (3 children) | Copy

There is nothing wrong with exchanging money/resources/emotional availability for sex/companionship. This is how societies are built, this is arguably what every single on of us does in a relationship, this is actually the very definition of a male-female relationship.

I agree. But I find it strange that it seems to be okay to spend all your money on some post-wall middle aged western woman. But spending less money on a cute 18+ 3rd world girl is worse than the Holocaust. If you do that you are LITERALLY the DEVIL.

[–]10334223 points24 points  (2 children) | Copy

The answer is easy. You just have to think: Who is complaining?

The ones complaining are the ones who have something to lose, western women. They are trying to sell something less valuable for a higher price. They simply can't compete at this point (although I honestly think that going for a 3rd world girl is a terrible idea) so they complain, or try to make it socially unacceptable.

[–]manslutalt3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

although I honestly think that going for a 3rd world girl is a terrible idea

I agree. You should definitely go for more than one..

[–]anonlymouse15 points16 points  (6 children) | Copy

The beta male ALSO gets sex, he gets it in different conditions from the alpha, but beta males still fuck inside of a relationship.

Maybe twice a year. Two one night stands in a year isn't bad if you're not putting effort into getting laid and come across it, but having sex twice a year while you're in a committed relationship is fucking terrible. With the amount of shit you need to put up with, you're better of single and jerking.

[–]zayelion3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

Remember that alpha beta are behaviors, not dogs in a pack. If you have no skill in managing that womans emotional ups and down with a good dose of confidence arrogance and moral dread then you shouldnt be in a relationship.

My understanding is they look for a man that's masculine traits flow with her own.

[–]3whatsthisgarg4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Remember that alpha beta are behaviors, not dogs in a pack. If you have no skill in managing that womans emotional ups and down with a good dose of confidence arrogance and moral dread then you shouldnt be in a relationship.

Yes. I question the premise of this whole post. What women are attracted to doesn't really change much over time.

You want to fuck a woman you've never fucked before? Make yourself the hot dude she wants to fuck.

You want to fuck a women you've fucked 1,000 times before? Make yourself the hot dude she wants to fuck.

[–]zayelion4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Christ. Yes if you want to fuck her then 1.) be attractive. Missing the follow up of 2.) Dont be not attractive. Which means the other 2 weeks out the month having actual social skills.

Im not saying dont lift, dont hone your game, dont build your self esteem. I am saying DO ALL THOSE THINGS IN ADDITION TO, have your finances in order, have your home in order, manage your kids so they show you respect, manage your social life, manage everything about yourself to the point shes an accessory.

You want to fuck her 3-4 weeks out the month and she only fuck you, not once a month after you find her in a bar or tinder, or what ever.

What I got out of the OP is more reason to track her cycle and when its up go full in to my hearts content, then toss in some dread and go back to managing my shit.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

You need to make some friends man. That is not the usual. Just like the serial killer rapist is an outlier, the twice a year guy is too. Most guys are having a decent amount of sex if they're not complete retards when they have a girlfriend. Between that there's droughts though. Because after that they're searching for a commodity that's not being sold.

Having a short term orientation is currently preferential, not just for the obvious reasons, but because you're trying to sell a commodity they don't want.

[–]anonlymouse0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That is not the usual. Just like the serial killer rapist is an outlier, the twice a year guy is too.

It's the outliers who tend to come here for advice.

[–]grandaddychimp1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think when he said "wins the girl" he just meant the douchebag is the one who fucks the girl. I don't think he literally meant the girl becomes "his". Because that would imply women are capable of being loyal, which they aren't because they would all either cheat or branch swing with the right guy under the right circumstances.

[–]SelfTaughtPiano0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

There is nothing wrong with exchanging money/resources/emotional availability for sex/companionship.

I absolutely hate this though. It grates me to no end.

Its as if sex from me isn't worth as much. Women say they enjoy it but it comes with all these requirements and additional price from my part.

It just feels so fucking sleazy and whorish to exchange money for a woman to give you sex. Even effort should be two way. She should work for me just as much as me for her.

[–]NeoreactionSafe37 points38 points  (6 children) | Copy

 

  • Women are psychopaths and desire most the male psychopaths.

  • Beta males love to be rigid, literal and honest and seek unicorns who they hope will also think that way.

 

It is the default condition to seek in the opposite sex our sameness.

Gender polarity tells us that the optimal mate is your opposite.

 

  • Masculinity + Femininity = Attraction

 

Androgyny and equality is a lie because sameness is not attractive.

All attraction is based on opposites.

 

[–]LibertyIsNotFree3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy

You even see this in homosexual relationships. One is the man, one is the woman. Doesn't matter whether they have an innie or an outie between their legs.

[–]manslutalt1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

When I was young and clueless I hoped I would find a woman I could admire and look up to. Brave, sexy and competent like a movie heroine. It took me a while to realize how unrealistic that dream was. Maybe one day we'll get sex robots like that but until then I'll settle for easily replaced sexy submissive sluts.

[–]1OneRedYear6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Anyone you look up to has the ability to shit down on you. Look up to yourself and maybe God if you believe in him. The rest are just men and women made of the same shit. Some are better at somethings than others but none are worth more to me than me. I am worth the most. You should think that way about yourself.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

everyone knows about the butch/femme dynamic, whats the equivalent for gay couples?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I've heard it referred to as 'the bitch and the butch' but I think the more PC term now is top and bottom

[–]reddttt66 points67 points  (7 children) | Copy

stop spreading misogynistic fake information you shitlord, women need a true faithful man who will defend her honour at every moment and who will clean the dishes and work all day to provide for her and support her to be a liberated sexual woman and release her excessive energy with the neighbor

/s

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]reddttt39 points40 points  (1 child) | Copy

for her, the kids and her male yoga instructor john

[–]fuxdpus12 points13 points  (3 children) | Copy

Or work hard to make extra money for a trip to a 3rd world country full of sexy women. For yourself. To bang tons of young hotties at discount rates.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]MisterOrigon6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

Why is it that we always hear about this shit from the UK? English chicks must be fucking insane.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

something about English/British culture. This insanity is everywhere in Australia, India, Britain, and especially here in Canada

[–]wisty8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

confrontativeness: 3.13 arrogance: 2.64 muscularity: 1.85 faithfulness: -2.27

So women would rather fuck a rude, arrogant, unfaithful fat guy than a polite, humble, monogamous guy with abs.

Good to know.

[–]3trplurker2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Multiple people have been saying this while people try to bullshit they only need to lift.

[–]wisty3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Lifting is a good idea, but for other reasons.

IMO, this sub has turned into a self-help sub, because a lot of the regulars are in long term relationships (or getting into short term relationships with sufficient frequency that they no longer need to up their game) and are now focused on other stuff.

[–]6h0zt14 points15 points  (1 child) | Copy

I'm probably a bit late to the discussion here, but here goes nothing.

A bit of backstory: I've been 5'9", 145, soaking wet, since high school. The first girl I ever asked out was about 2 years ago. That being said, I'd been in committed relationships for about 10 years prior. (2 with one girl, 7+/- with the other.) They always just asked me out first. I turned 30 about a week ago. I've been single a little over 18 months, give or take.

I always had a nagging thought in my mind that I was either too fat or too shy or too fucking whatever to make a move on people I thought were attractive.

I went to a friend's bar right after my most recent (long distance) relationship ended. I saw a girl I had flirted with before, always innocently (or so I thought) and just asked her straight up "Why haven't we fucked yet?"

Given, I was 3 sheets to the wind, noncommittal, honestly didn't care of the response. She closed her tab and we went home together.

Within a month, I moved my number from 4 women to 15. It was liberating, but not necessarily fulfilling.

If you just want to hook up, this method works great. Don't expect to find your princess by being an asshole, though.

[–]1OneRedYear7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Without reading another line but the headline, ask yourself, who seems like they could fuck a bitch better? A guy with some muscle and aggressive behavior or a guy who is the opposite of that? That's about all the thinking that goes into that equation and look at all the fucking writing, over analyzing and hamstring in this thread. I haven't even read the thread, I just scrolled down and I know 90% of you overthought this shit which tells me you still got pills to swallow.

[–]pabbseven4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Probably just deep rooted dna stuff from the warrior days. Strong successful alpha fighter=good bet for future generations.

[–]hawkeaglejesus4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

There's a reason women creamed their panties for Khal Drogo

[–]simagule9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy

Society tends to kill these type of people off. So anyone who has this attitude and manages to survive has then proven them self as being strong in the eyes of the woman.

[–]fuxdpus7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Where I live they tend to talk shit, but they're not violent. So they don't usually get arrested or killed. In some other more violent cultures, young men assert masculine dominance in more "hands on" ways. They stab and shoot each other. It works in terms of reproductive success, cause they get young fertile females to breed with them. But they tend to end up dead or in prison.

[–]PreOrgasmGroanLness3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

And thus the arrogant confrontational douchebag wins the girl while the warm faithful beta stays home and faps into his sock

... For a short term relationship.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

I can tell when a girl is ovulating, they flirt, look at me with that fuck me look, and generally are easier to fuck. Most ofmy encounters have been ons or very short term, I'm not much of a keeper to most girls, but I'm a fun animal fuck.

[–]Kisstafer12 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

The only thing that never ceases to amaze me, is that women read this scientific evidence and actually DENY it, and continue with the charade that they want a nice guy.

[–]Hiimusog2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

This will be common knowledge to those who are already interacting with women in the DGAF attitude. But from personal experience its no way to secure a LTR, all my relationships based on arrogant/cocky/confident attitude have been thoroughly satisfying however end quite abruptly.

The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long...or something similar.

[–]TheodoreRPelite1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The trick is to be in state and to be able to collaborate based on the girl and your mission with her...

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]jm513 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

fwir, the pill cons her body into thinking that she is one month pregnant. A pregnant woman tends to prefer beta traits in a man. According to a doc on fatherhood, expectant fathers produce much more estrogen than normal.

If they decide to start a family, once the pill is out of her system, it's quite possible that she is no longer attracted to her beta traits partner.

[–]1SeemedGood1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

News Flash: Science discovers that children love candy!

[–]MeetCake1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Short tempered, quick answer= short relationship, makes sense!

[–]jm511 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

ime, women care more about Outcome Independence in a man than most of the other stuff put together.

With OI, a man will find his true nature. To Thine Own Self Be True, it gets women wet.

If a man is obviously Outcome Dependent, then he might as well weigh 400lbs, she'll never see him as worth a fuck.

[–]INTJokes0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Chad for short term, rich beta for long term. What if he's a rich Chad? 24/7 sex slave?

[–]3trplurker2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

What if he's a rich Chad? 24/7 sex slave?

Pretty much, though you gotta have rock solid frame because he's gonna test that shit real quick.

[–]Satou40 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

/u/grandaddychimp can you explain what ts and ps mean (t and p)? It looks like you have social respect as more important than the study thinks it is.

The way I see it, t is the importance, and p is the margin of error?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Been thinking about this all day since I read it

[–]rrealnigga0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You should include a link to the full paper instead of those screenshots.

[–]ImNotJustinBieber0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This is formally called the "Sexy Son Hypothesis" in evolutionary psychology

[–]Zchavago0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Chad for the ass. Brad for the cash.

[–]PM_ME_YOUR_LOUD0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Friend sent me this bc apparently I only get laid because I'm a confrontative asshole (I really am)

[–]AphroditesPride0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Well, then I must be a fluke of nature. But that is irrelevant to this bad of little boys whose feelings and ego´s need stroking.....

[–]Snazzy_Serval0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

So how does a beta man get laid?

Lift yes, and then?

[–]tolerantman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I love science, there should be more posts like this here

[–]fromthecrypt80 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Women can in many ways be viewed as robots, slaves to their software.

[–]Cairnsian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That's quite an accurate statement. Not sure why downvoted.

[–]omega_dawg930 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

TIL that all women are NOT like that.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Not like what? The study is basically red pill 101.

[–]xn28the-pos-2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy

A p-value of .81? So, no reasonable statistician could accept this as even close to being true.

[–]corsega3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy

You're looking at the P-value for one trait, all P-values overall were < .041, within the acceptable limit.

[–]xn28the-pos2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

OP stated the most significant characteristic was social respect (p=0.81). Is that incorrect?

[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

No, all forms of symmetry are the strongest. Basically be in shape. But wrapped up in that is basically indications that diet is extremely important. Attraction it turns out is almost entirely smell based.

Under that, a partner being taller than them is the most important.

What was interesting is that being good at math was important for both short and long term relationships. Can't really understand that in terms of ST vs LT. I suppose it should really be considered a universal trait then.

[–]xn28the-pos1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

And if you look at table 5 in the .PDF, the difference for long term vs short term are negligible for these traits.

[–]chambertlo-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's no wonder so many women are single. They choose the bottom of the barrel instead of having higher standards.



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter