290,247 posts


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

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 significant and the one that was most significant was 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, however, 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.

Still not enough to convince you?

Scientific proof that feminine women are attracted to men who are "threatening, volatile, controlling, manipulative, coercive, selfish, dominant, impulsive." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513801000666

Buckle in cause this is a long read.

Previous studies on womens attraction to masculinity have had confounding results. Some found women were attracted to masculine men while others found the opposite. I'm sure you've seen the dailymail articles claiming feminine men win in the dating game...right next to the one that says women are attracted to biological markers of high testosterone. So in an attempt to put that to rest study separated women into two groups based on femininity; High bem-M and low bem-M. The high bem-M group was masculine and the low bem-M was feminine and presumably more attractive since a womans attractiveness increases linearly with femininity http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8251-hormone-levels-predict-attractiveness-of-women.html This study found that for both groups their attraction to a man for a long term relationships was correlated with his rating on the "friend" factor which was loaded with the following positive attributes: helpful, cooperative, trustworthy, good father, wealthy, and intelligent.

The preference did not change for high bem-M women when it came to short term relationships but there was no correlation between the friend factor and attraction for short term relationships for low bem-M women. In fact the only factor that predicted low bem-M womens attraction to a man for a short term relationship was their score on the "enemy" factor which is, in order of importance, "threatening, volatile, controlling, manipulative, coercive, selfish, dominant, impulsive".

Remember the low bem-M women are the attractive feminine ones.

There was also no drop off point where increasing masculinization was less attractive like there was for long term relationships. Literally the higher the guy scored on those traits the more sexually attractive he was for a short term relationship. Combine this with the study that says low bem-M women are more likely to cheat on their long term partner during their fertile period http://www.ts-si.org/files/KristinaDuranteoestradiolandmating.pdf and the implications are, to say the least, worrying.

The whole thing can be downloaded here http://depositfiles.com/files/pwr18l7r4

So once again, alpha male Chad busts a nut across your oneitis' face while Billy Beta uses his tears as lube while he silently beats his meat into his favorite crusty sock.

TL:DR : Women overwhelmingly prefer domineering smug assholes that have musculature for short term sexual relationships. The nicer and more faithful you are to an attractive feminine girl the less sexually attracted she will be to you. Be bold, be cocky, be in charge, be aloof.

Edit: Shout out to daffy_duck233 for clearing up some confusion I had about the significance of social respect, which has very little significance in both ST and LT relationships.

[–]1dondraper 1 points1 points [recovered]

Lift. Get a badass haircut. Tease them. Laugh at them. Play with their emotions. Push and pull. Withdraw your attention. Dominate your interactions. Stop giving fucks.

What scares me is how the large, large majority of men are still nice guys. Most of us were at some point, but from the other side everything is so pathetic.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 128 points129 points  (56 children)

Most Men were raised by single women or a loser beta father. It's been instilled into them from an early age to just "be nice" and to just "be yourself". Couple that with 50 years of pussy-drying feminist ideology which turns men into sexless providers for women and it's a no-brainer why so many men are suicidal and lash out after watching men get laid consistently for being arrogant assholes. Ironically, most men are raised by single moms BECAUSE women prefer to sleep with douchebags.

Some single mommies choose to have kids with deadbeat dads who don't even bother raising the children they have with other women. This is how you end up passing on the genes of men like this dipshit.

Also, convicts have more children than average, and with more women too source: http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(14)00077-4/fulltext

Not to mention that many women nowadays choose to have children with men without obtaining commitment first. Yet a boy who grows up in a single parent household has a has a higher likelihood of committing rape or ending up in prison.

In other words, women sexually select for assholes and weed "nice guys" out of the gene pool.

You’ve seen this study:


"Younger adolescents lower in ‘Honesty-Humility’ may therefore strategically manipulate others in a variety of ways to obtain more sexual partners... Our findings indirectly suggest that exploitative adolescents may have more sexual partners if they are able to strategically use exploitative behaviour like bullying to target weaker individuals."

It's the brutal truth, women want to fuck men that can control and dominate other people.

Edit: On a tangential note, did you know that Women also send thousands of love letters to serial killers, school shooters, and domestic terrorists. It even has its own word: hybristophilia.



Imagine the thermonuclear explosion that would occur in a feminist's head if they realized that the Matriarchy breeds and sexually selects for the "toxic masculinity" they claim to be opposed to.

[–]S-Blaze 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Yeah problem with ''be nice''/''be yourself'' is that they aren't really themselves, they often act like thirsty bitches and pleasers because they want something (validation, to be liked, items) or the girls. People pick that up easily. When you meet someone who doesn't give a fuck and really stay himself you kind of get instant respect for that person.

[–]michaelkc03 54 points55 points  (6 children)

At least with a beta Dad you get that unconditional love you never got from a woman. I’d say my father is beta (definitely a pleaser when it comes to women), but he is a consistent/reliable man, respect.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 16 points17 points  (1 child)

That's IF you're lucky enough to live with your Dad after your Mom gets bored and branch swings/divorce rapes him, but I agree. However, this isn't a "love strategy" sub and the benefits of being loving, intelligent, consistent, and reliable should be reserved for TBP ideology imo because it's simply not consistent with what women find sexually attractive, which is what TRP focuses on.

I think we've all received plenty of brainwashing on how to be loving, consistent, and kind to women and I'm simply here to elucidate on why that is a losing sexual strategy.

[–]cornylamygilbert 1 point2 points  (0 children)

incredible post with sourcing

your last paragraph should become a mantra imo

[–]truedemocracy3 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Women DO give unconditional love, but only from Mother to child. Not mother to husband.

[–]characterulio 12 points13 points  (4 children)

Good post btw but it is not only single moms. It is every Mom. Every mother will tell their son to be a good guy and thats how he will get girls. Which is a blatant lie because they themselves are women and know women love the type of men you described in this thread.

[–]truedemocracy3 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They dont know it's a lie though. In their lizard brain they dont understand why they were attracted to those guys in the past.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Good point. Unfortunately without a strong Father figure there's no counterbalance to allow him to reach manhood and the nuance needed to be an effective Leader of the Household.

[–]untonyto 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A big part of it is how they have to force fit their own life narrative into the "good mother" role and believe their own hype so it calls for telling the juniors to be (with) someone "good" like mommy was/did.

[–]Meisner1 5 points6 points  (32 children)

Im confused, so is monogamy a good thing or bad thing? (Serious question) what if the dad is a dominant guy but still want a monogamous relationship. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

My point is, in order to fix the issues with beta dads, wouldnt the resolution be more red pilled men supporting a monogamous relationship?

[–]Unrealenting[S] 20 points21 points  (27 children)

The problem is that being red pilled won't necessarily lead to monogamy because women are hypergamous by nature, and if it does, that monogamy will eventually become sexless and full of friction if you aren't 100% rock solid 24/7. The moment she starts getting bored she'll branch swing or suck all the masculinity out of you until she no longer finds you sexually attractive, at which point an alpha male will jump ship anyway because pussy is cheap and abundant. Monogamy can be achieved, but it will be a constant uphill battle of her trying to tear down everything about you that made you sexually attractive to her in the first place as you get closer and open up to her to reveal you're just a human being rather than the untouchable patriarch she imagined you as in her mind, cue the divorce rape.

[–]Meisner1 12 points13 points  (26 children)

If this is 100% true, does love actually exist in your opinion? Cause I've been wanting to one day be a dominant, compassionate, leader, and kind husband. A watchful protector, that sort.

It is so because i myself believe that i have the power to never cheat on a future gf or wife.

Thanks for the reply anyways.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 37 points38 points  (16 children)

Honestly, no. You can love a woman but she can never truly love you back, eventually you'll show tiny chinks in your armor and it will always boil down to a contractual obligation to stay together, I.e. Marriage, "For the kids", She can't support herself financially, etc. eventually, even if it takes a few years. The only way to ideally find love is to consistently maintain the perfect illusion of the masculine ideal for her, but she'll get bored of that too eventually and look for a different type of masculine ideal, so it will always be a bait-reel-release game that most men simply don't have the energy to keep up after a certain period of time. You can "love" a woman for decades and one day she can suddenly just start acting like a completely different person and scorch the entire relationship overnight because she wants to "find herself".

Men love women, Women love children, and Children love puppies.

[–]Meisner1 11 points12 points  (11 children)

God, reading this makes me sad. Thanks for the reply.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 17 points18 points  (9 children)

The tiny sadness you feel now is nothing compared to how you'll feel after a woman shatters the relationship you've built with her over decades because she's bored or how you'll feel in the dead bedroom of a sexless marriage after the honeymoon phase wears off or how you'll feel when she takes half your shit and your kids while using the child support she gets from you every month to buy fancy clothes and surgeries to meet her next unwitting victim.

Consider yourself blessed to have paid such a small price as temporary sadness to become wise to how the game works so you can play it successfully.

[–]avocado0286 1 points1 points [recovered]

I get everything you are saying here, because these are all things almost completely out of your control. Except for the dead bedroom. I made it clear to my wife from the start that if we ever even come close to anything like a dead bedroom, I am out the door, fucking someone else, no matter what. Sometimes she tries to test me on that but I just laugh at her. It has worked very well so far.

[–]Meisner1 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Can you explain more about this 'dead bedroom'? And the possible such relationships can lead there?

[–]ReformingBeta 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Been there. You will feel like total shit. Like you fell into a deep dark hole and can’t get out. She wasn’t happy after decades of marriage. Took half my money (she didn’t believe in saving). Iceberg bedroom, so cold I could have got frostbite. Just had a girlfriend of a couple of years break up with me. I was going beta on her, a failing strategy for sure. The hole isn’t so deep this time, very small price to pay. Some memories. No money involved. Took it stoically. Oddly, after I handled things and got back in touch with my inner asshole, she’s trying to win me back.

Totally agree with the bait-reel-release analogy. But what’s the option? Monk mode? Celebrate celibacy? There are times I wish it was easier, just peace and quiet with a devoted woman. The reality. It never ends. I am always performing. There is never any rest. Never let my guard down when it comes to women.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Spin plates. It's all you can do if you don't want to end up in a relationship devoid of sexual intimacy.

[–]truedemocracy3 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The thing about The Red Pill is that MOST of us wish this shit wasnt true, but we have learned to accept it and eventually use it to our advantage

[–]fatboy-slim 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So true! And inspirational! Thanks dude!

[–]truedemocracy3 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yep. But that doesnt necessarily mean DONT get married. If you are a man and want to pass your genes on then be VERY careful in selecting your mate, just realize that once married she still isnt yours and similar to going to the gym - rent is due every day

[–]Unrealenting[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Exactly this. I don't want to discourage men from relationships and marriage, I just want them to understand the game they're playing so they don't get blindsided, ghosted, cheated on, or divorce raped by their oneitis without understanding why.

[–]Kingofdeadbedroom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And I'll add dead bedroomed to that list - that is the marriage equivalent of being friend-zoned.

Just remember that as long as you keep yourself attractive and maintain other potential partners, then your wife cannot keep you from having sex, even if she refuses to have sex with you. When getting married you never promised to give up sex. The traditional vows contain a promise to continue having sex with each other. Those promises are not legally binding, but she breaks them by continually refusing sex. You should feel absolutely no guilt or shame in having sex with other women after you have been neglected by your own partner.

[–]Kingofdeadbedroom 4 points5 points  (7 children)

I'm married and can confirm that it's all true. Get married if you wish but first of all make sure that you've thoroughly internalised the content of the married redpill sub, particularly the following:

1) At the very outset of the relationship make it abundantly clear that that you'll still continue to have sex, even if she stops having sex with you... 2) Keep yourself fit, happy and attractive - always putting your interests and happiness before her's 3) You cannot give a shit about her feelings, emotions anger, tears, judgements, etc. or she'll be able to control aspects of you with those. Fully internalise NNMNG and WISNIFG.
4) Maintain your own social healthy life, and continue to be sexual guy with other attractive women, even if you choose not to bang them. That way you maintain your abundance mentality, your sexual confidence and your partner will see that other women are interested in you. Having that pre-selection from other women and alternatives available to you will keep your wife interested in having sex and she will appreciate you.

Do not make my mistake and have eyes only for your woman. If that is the case, then even good ones will get bored with you, take you for granted and turn off the sex. She will then try to guilt and shame you for having an interest in sex and just demand that you work to make her comfortable. It can be turned around but it is best avoided in the first place by being well prepared and being clear and absolutely resolute about your needs and ensuring that they are met all along. I would recommend that before marrying you ensure that you have fully internalised WISNIFG, and that you are ready willing and able to get sex quickly elsewhere if your partner continues to deny you. You must understand that you are your own judge and that you will allow nobody to shame you (make you feel bad about yourself) about 'cheating' on a partner that denies you adequate sex / intimacy. For example, my wife's behaviour lead me to fully internalise all the above. She then found me twice during one day chatting with two different women from dating sites. She asked me "Are you flirting with those women"; my response was "yes". No shame, guilt or embarrassment felt.

The wife understands my needs and knows what she needs to do to be a proper wife. In any event, after what she has put me through, and irrespective of whether she ever becomes an amazing lover; I'll never entertain the possibility of being monogamous with her again. Women cannot be trusted with that 'power'.

[–]Meisner1 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Thanks for the tips but can you expand more on NNMNG and WISNIFG, i do not know what they are. Also in regards to the first tip, i don't want to have sex, before marriage or at least without the knowledge that our relationship is already a commitment for the rest of our lives. Any suggestions on this in particular

Do you in a way still feel an attachment with her though? Like love?

[–]fhs886 0 points1 point  (3 children)

She then found me twice during one day chatting with two different women from dating sites. She asked me "Are you flirting with those women"; my response was "yes". No shame, guilt or embarrassment felt.

...And what if she files for divorce? Then what? You do not hold leverage over her because of the laws in divorce.

[–]Kingofdeadbedroom 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I'm living in a country where a wife was successfully awarded damages during divorce because her husband didn't have sex with her.

She is unlikely to initiate a divorce. Its not toxic be she has a real problem with intimacy.

[–]fhs886 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Then it would be a good idea to mention which country you're in. The advice given doesn't work in many western countries where divorce means financial ruin for the man.

[–]Kingofdeadbedroom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't really matter much. The wife's behaviour is imoving steadily. She was sweet again this weekend and sex was good.

She is mostly contented. Better boundaries, and having expectations of her helps. She had been an àbsentee wife, but massively inlved mother and employee.

I think she never had much sex drive combined with being really pride and conservative.

[–]Pulse_and_Spiral 4 points5 points  (0 children)

i want an opinion on this too.

[–]1AuspexAO 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Monogamy is a social construct and having life time pair bonds helps to stabilize our civilization. I think, ultimately, things will settle back into those stable LTRs once men learn how to start being attractive again. The ball is in our court.

[–]truedemocracy3 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Look at a picture of a man from today compared to a man from the greatest generation. Going out to get a drink or bite to eat? In the past - shirt and tie. Now? Sloppy t-shirt. Then? everyone is fit and handy. Now? Bunch of fat asses and soy boys.

[–]1AuspexAO 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Affluence leads to comfort and comfort leads to decay. It's a story as old as time. The wolves need to be bred back into the dogs, my friend. In this case the "wolf DNA" is the aggression and masculinity of the very thugs and criminals mentioned in this article. The key is to adopt those traits without destroying the edge we already have (resource producing talents, reason and worldliness). I don't want to BE a serial killer or a convict, but obviously the allure they have to the opposite sex needs to be adopted into our culture. I want to take a hammer to those "soy boys" (I love that btw) and forge them back into men.

[–]1AuspexAO 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The cure for society will be the adoption of philosophies like TRP. Right now the scumbags of the world are out breeding the people of real value. However, once enough men learn to overthrow the beta values that have been programmed into us by the outright fairy tales society tells us, we will see men of real strength that are also productive members of society and strong leaders and role-models for future children.

We are the vanguard of the new male. I know that sounds dramatic and, frankly, ridiculous, but that's the truth of things. Feminism gave rise to hypergamy. The yang to that yin is TRP. It is a counter motion to that motion. Despite what anyone tells you, balance is important between women and men. Hypergamy has destroyed that balance and to regain it we need to become better men. More aggressive and sure of ourselves, more selfish and in control. It's just nature, baby.

[–]abdout77 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My father wasn't a beta but I was still a nice guy because of the fact that i grew up with 4 women. Each time he was home ( he was often busy at work) he would kick my ass if I showed beta behavior. I always thought he was just mean and a bad dad but I didn't realise what he did for me only a few months before he passed away.

[–]iLoveReddit32 0 points1 point  (0 children)

woah, thats insane. Thanks for compiling the website links in one place.

[–]whoismikejoneswho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This. I didn't realize how fucked up I was until later in life and I traced it to being raised by a single mother. Not her fault, she can't help to teach what she knows / who she is. Maybe highschool would have been more fun if I was raised by my POS alpha chad dad haha

[–]yumyumgivemesome 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Ironically, most men are raised by single dads BECAUSE women prefer to sleep with douchebags.

Are you missing a word because I don't see how these two things are connected?

[–]Unrealenting[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Typo, meant single moms. I'll edit.

[–]redisthetruth 34 points35 points  (19 children)

Nice concise reminders.

It really is insane to see how 90% (or more) of Western men are completely feminized. Even the good-looking ones who might be working on themselves at the gym -- most of them lack that masculine "killer" feel.

I was at Marshall's today and I saw this super fat chick and this tiny skinny Indian guy walking out the store. The girl was leading and the guy was following. It reminded me how backwards some relationships are nowadays.

I've honed my inner killer and predator in various ways over the years. It's made game so much less stressful and hard. Of course, I still get rejected a bunch but there's a certain way most girls look at strong men, which is a mixture of excitement/fear/desire/submission, that conveys "please, I'd be really happy if you came and said hi and made me feel like a little girl." Western women are DYING to feel like women. They crave it more than anything.

This girl I was recently with said, "You're a predator." I said, "And you love it." She just blushed and smiled. Women love to be with a predator, the man who can kill other men if he wanted to, the man who can kill HER if he wanted to.

[–]IndividualSplit 2 points3 points  (18 children)

How do I cultivate my predator instincts? It doesnt come naturally to me.

[–]redisthetruth 4 points5 points  (10 children)

Do something that makes you fight and compete. Do something that makes you feel like a hunter, a predator looking for its kill.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (9 children)

Thanks for the information you are a good teller and we have the same vision. What makes you feel like a hunter or predator?

[–]redisthetruth 3 points4 points  (8 children)

Approaching attractive women. Grinding out fast cash. Dominating social scenes. Going after whatever it is I'm going after. Making a series of quick decisions.

[–]LeavingHumanityBehin 1 points1 points [recovered]

How do you "grind out fast cash" elaborate.

[–]redisthetruth -3 points-2 points  (6 children)

I'd rather not say what I do, but let's just say very few are able to do what I do.

[–]LeavingHumanityBehin 1 points1 points [recovered]

Yeah, right, because you are using anonymous account to boost your ego and larp your dark triad brownie points. Yeah, we can all do carding, been there, done that. That's not an achievement. God, I really can't understand the rationale of guys who brag or pretend on TRP. There literally is no point. It's not like chicks will read your TRP messages and think how cool you are.

I never lie online, because I just don't see the point.

[–]redisthetruth -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

haha, you have no idea who i am or what i do. larping? carding? what are you talking about.

[–]LeavingHumanityBehin 1 points1 points [recovered]

If it doesn't come naturally to you, then you are BETA AT HEART, stop faking it. Women hate fakers and tryhards. Not everyone can be a winner. It's all about the genes.

[–]redisthetruth 3 points4 points  (4 children)

dude, what? anybody can train their killer instincts with enough work and dedication.

[–]LeavingHumanityBehin 1 points1 points [recovered]

This is extreme cope. If you have that "beta face" you can't train shit. Women choose the alpha and men respect the alpha who looks masculine and dominant. Wide faced men with thick necks and low gonial angles do look that way. Maybe with HGH you can achieve that look if you were not born, but don't try to fake it. You will just be beta with muscles.

[–]redisthetruth 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Well, I'm lucky because I felt like I was born a killer.

But it's probably better to have muscles than not, regardless of whether you are "beta" or "alpha."

Look at the recent transformation of that 40-some year old guy. Of course, he's taking testosterone, but he went from chubby beta to complete beast. If it's possible for him, it's possible for anyone.

[–]LeavingHumanityBehin 1 points1 points [recovered]

Nice LARP. Have you killed anyone? Nope? Let me tell you something boyo. Those who are "born killers" don't even know what reddit or TRP is. If you are writing long posts here, all of that is nice LARPing in your brain to get those "dark triad" points. If you felt "like a real killer" you wouldn't brag about it online and would never mention it. This is how I know you are fake. Because real "killers" don't talk about it. They do shit.

[–]redisthetruth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sounds like you take what other people do really seriously. i write to get thoughts down on paper. you seem to write to drag other people down. i feel sorry for ya.

[–]truedemocracy3 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Bullshit. Beta's are raised, not born. No one is beyond saving.

[–]Raikkonen716 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Play with their emotions.

I think the biggest issue is here. Going to the gym, improving looks, not giving attention, these are all things guys understand. But knowing how to play with emotions... it's hard. We are men, logical creatures. If one doesn't have emotional intelligence, this is the hardest part of all of those.

[–]redisthetruth -1 points0 points  (0 children)

this is the way i see it. I'm the prize and they want the challenge of trying to hook the prize. if you make it too easy for them, the value of the prize diminishes in their eyes. If you make it too hard for them, some girls give up because the prize seems unreachable. The key is to make them work for it. Push/pull. Give them a little validation after a bit, and then pull it back and make her feel a little beneath you. It's this constant anxiety they are in that keeps them wanting to please you. But even if they please you once, you have to keep them on their toes. Their job is to please you because you have many girls waiting to please you. Once you have this mindset down pat, the world is your oyster.

[–]bobaisdope 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Actually I want the most majority of men to stay "nice", so that means more girls for me!

[–]characterulio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I found it being a nice guy with other men is alright but for anything sexual especially with the opposite sex. Playing mister nice guy is just plain stupid. Women WILL say they want mister nice guy but when they see a Nice guy they will try to find any fault in him to go for typical alpha. So it is better to be typical alpha type toward women.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

After all the progress I've made I still feel like the "nice guy" inside me is the hardest part to kill. Last summer I met a girl and fucked her a day after we met. I was able to because I was flippant with her BS, I pulled away when I had to, and escalated very quickly. I was basically just acting out TRP script and it worked. She had to go back to her home country but when I think back to that time I still feel like I did something wrong, even though she texts me all the time, saying how much she wants to see me again (and is coming back soon actually).

It's like a deep cognitive dissonance inside me. This mode of being that: gets results, women enjoy, is deified in our culture (think Mad Men)... Is something I have a deep sense of guilt for? It leaves me in awe of how little I really know about myself.

[–]redisthetruth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

as long as you're aware of your thought processes and feelings, you're on the right path. we're not perfect creatures. we're complex. we have divergent desires struggling to best one another within the mind.

keep it up, friend.

[–]truedemocracy3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I still feel the same. Women are no longer a mystery. If I want to get laid I can easily. Just go to a bar or whip out a dating app, and turn on the negging douche persona. Trying to play the nice non-escalating non-dangerous 'nice' guy every now and then never works

It's incredibly sad.

[–]truedemocracy3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because most men dont see research like this. They never confront those ideas. They either are too scared to, or dont have the information.

[–]Reven311 52 points53 points  (32 children)

Well the issue is women can be grouped into two essentially separate groups based on their exposure to relatively higher or lower levels of prenatal testosterone in the womb. This does not imply precisely that the women with the higher T exposure in the womb are more manly at all in terms of their appearance or attractiveness, it simply affects the way the brain develops, which in turn affects things like how open or closed one is to monogamy vs polygamy in general (among other personality traits too).

So the feminine women by general appearance that had higher than average testosterone exposure will generally have a ring finger that is longer than the index, known formally as the 2D:4D ratio. These are the really slutty chicks who love chads and such. They're programmed for polygamous and primitive lifestyles and reproductive strategies that are inherently short term. They have a more male-like sexual drive and preference for frequency and diversity of sexual partners in general.

The reverse of course is exactly the opposite, and these two groups of women are nearly equal in terms of their overall proportion of the female population. The women with longer index fingers are less interested in one night stands and more interested in long term relationships. And when they do have sex it's typically with the intent of it evolving into something like a real relationship.

This same dynamic is true for men too, but the men with the long index finger actually are more feminine in appearance than longer ring finger counterparts. The normal distributions of course are shifted for men in general, but these normal distributions follow a bimodal distribution overall due to the overlapping curves. So the beta males tend to have long index fingers essentially.

Human biodiversity is constructed in a roughly equivalent r/K reproductive complex, such that any environment may favor r (low investment in offspring, high reproduction rate) vs K (high investment in offspring, low reproduction rate). So for most of Western civilization with strict rules on sex and monogamy, our culture essentially forced a K-lifestyle on half the population that is really more favorable to r-lifestyles.

But prior to civilization r-lifestyles no doubt dominated or at least competed equally, one or the other may have dominated for various environmental reasons, but not completely and not at all times, otherwise humans would have never selected for larger brain capacity compared to other primates. Human women are unlike chimps in that they are choosy even when ovulating. A female chimp may get dominated by the alpha when she goes into heat, but she's not particularly choosy about who fucks her, so the alpha chases away the competition. This is not precisely how humans work, we're far more complex than most people realize.

It's interesting that muscles have a lower correlation than one would expect compared to social cues of dominance, which implies the hierarchy of males via social competition are the primary sieve for fitness, and the guy with the largest muscles isn't necessarily the top alpha always, because it requires a lot of brains to be a good leader so that lesser males wish to follow him. This implies some serious social skills on his part that is a form of intellectual capacity. And if he doesn't share the pussy he isn't going to be well liked at all.

[–]redisthetruth 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Interesting insight.

I've witnessed what you mention in your last paragraph several times in various social circles. It's not primarily about the physical when it comes to rising in most dominance hierarchies (unless the hierarchy is based on physical feats). It's frame. It's psychological and social dominance. Although, obviously, being physically fit generally leads to more solid frame, I've seen somewhat athletic/big guys who suffer from pretty weak, needy frame, and also some leaner/skinnier guys with rock-solid frame.

A small example is mafia/gang hierarchies. The guys at the top are usually not the brawniest, physically fit guys who would win in a hand-to-hand altercations. They're the guys who command and control. They're the guys who direct the movements of men and money and women from point A to B. Power, essentially.

[–]SlothOnRoids 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree 100%. The most powerful men are the ones who can lead and control other men.

[–]AkorTheKing 2 points3 points  (2 children)

This was very interesting but do you have any source?

[–]irishphilosopher 4 points5 points  (0 children)


Another point worth considering is how modern dictators/leaders tend to be smaller men. "Small man syndrome"

As the world develops/modernises less and less emphasis is placed on brute force and aggressiveness when it comes to power and control in society.

[–]Reven311 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

There are lots of sources, I just don't have time to link all of the relevant ones.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 7 points8 points  (26 children)

and the guy with the largest muscles isn't necessarily the top alpha always, because it requires a lot of brains to be a good leader so that lesser males wish to follow him.

The problem with that assumption is it assumes that the big alpha is asking the opinion of the lesser males and doesn't kill a few to keep the rest in fear (how it works in chimp tribes and many smaller male groups).

[–]chrisname 21 points22 points  (1 child)

Chad may be able to beat up Brad, and he may be able to beat up Thad, but Chad probably can't beat up Brad and Thad at the same time. Once you throw in Chet and Brett, it's clear that Chad needs to be someone the others actually want to follow in order to lead the tribe.

In chimpanzees troops, the alpha achieves this by sharing the pussy around.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Exactly this. It's the same reason people create companies, to insulate themselves from threats and make decision making and execution more efficient. You also have to keep in mind that chimps will form groups of similarly sized chimps, so everyone in the tribe is roughly the same musculature, so the fight will likely go to the bravest and most menacing chimp rather than simply the strongest. Chimps don't exactly go to the gym and work out and there isn't much genetic variance in a tribe that would lead to relatively swole chimps.

Also, keep in mind that almost every man is bigger than any woman on average and that women estimate muscularity on relative terms to which males are in the group rather than against some musculature ideal. So if there's no men in the room you're automatically the biggest and most physically dominant person there, and if there are other men in the room, unless they're part of the TINY percentage of people that regularly work out, they are likely going to be of similar strength to you, so the same logic applies wherein the bravest and most menacing person is likely going to dominate any physical threats.

However, I would give the relative musculature more credence than the idea of group dynamics playing a part because musculature places above status when it comes to short term sexual strategies for women according to this research.

[–]Reven311 2 points3 points  (17 children)

An oppressive alpha is more likely to be killed by the 3 men closest to his position, especially as he gets older. A wise alpha recognizes this and ensures the men most likely to take his spot are happy with their relative position. Chimps can't conspire against the alpha in darkness and silence via language. Humans are the greatest threat to other humans, "loyal friends" most of all.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (16 children)

The alpha shares the pussy with a few men close to him and they in turn oppress all the rest of the males who dont get a share.

[–]Reven311 0 points1 point  (15 children)

Sometimes, yes, but that is the nature of the universe.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (14 children)

Not sometimes. Most of the time. That is how any hierarchy is constructed.

[–]Reven311 0 points1 point  (13 children)

If that was true western civilization would have never enforced monogamy.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (12 children)

It enforced monogamy because of christianity. True Western Civilization created by the Greeks did not enforce monogamy.

[–]Reven311 1 point2 points  (10 children)

Correct, but we didn't develop much science until we had monogamy enforced. The Roman Empire needed Christianity to unite Western civilization. Once the dark ages ended it was monogamy that enabled the enlightenment era to begin. Beta males will not invest intellectual energy into a society that doesn't reward their efforts with pussy. That's what we finally figured out as a society, but have forgotten it apparently.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (9 children)

we didn't develop much science until we had monogamy enforced.

Absolutely false. Science was developing in leaps in bounds during the classical era. Hence, how the Greeks managed to build at least three of the seven wonders of the Ancient World and were able to calculate the diameter of the Earth to four decimal places - something that could only be repeated in the 1960's.

After 'monogamy got enforced', Europe entered the dark ages where nothing of import was created for one thousand years...until the works of the (non-monogamous) Greeks and Romans were rediscovered - launching the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

[–]zyqkvx 6 points7 points  (1 child)

There's a difference between a guy that wants to be liked by anyone so he feels liked, and an alpha wanting to be liked because it's good business.

[–]Reven311 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are they really mutually exclusive? I don't think so necessarily.

[–]adam_varg 1 points1 points [recovered]

Your assumption of assumption assume that smaller males dont gang up behind smart leader and dont lynch physically dominant male.

That being said i am still inclined that bigger ape fucks, smart smaller ape sucks as general rule.

[–]A5M 7 points8 points  (2 children)

I think there is a misconception that big muscular physically dominant apes are also stupid. The majority of CEO's are 6 foot + and quite likely athletic. Some monstrous people are also incredibly smart.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

See Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dolph Lundgren who both have genius level IQs.

[–]Reven311 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's because a CEO hierarchy is a strong selector for intelligence and education. But we're talking more basic here, how humans organized themselves when they were hunter-gatherers (which is most of our genetic history). Muscles were no doubt important, but social hierarchy is much more-so. The alpha must make decisions daily that affect the lives of his tribe, whether to migrate or stay and defend your hunting grounds against encroaching tribes.

[–]DareyFathom 88 points89 points  (14 children)

The best part about this is you could show all the irrefutable research in the world to western women and they'll still claim it's not true whilst complaining about not being able to find any nice guys.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 134 points135 points  (4 children)

Rule #1: Don't listen to what women say, look at women DO. Women will NEVER admit that they like assholes, they will simply continue to fuck them when no one else is watching.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (2 children)

There was a pretty hilarious post in one of the main subs about a prison riot in South Carolina earlier today. People started talking about their experiences working in prisons and how it's common for female guards (and even nurses, psychiatrists, and such) to fuck the prisoners. Here's one comment thread, but there were others too.

As a bonus, you can see some white knighting as Le Reddit Army frames the female guards as manipulated victims, because obviously women can't be held accountable for their own actions.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Women also send thousands of love letters to serial killers, school shooters, and domestic terrorists. It even has its own word: hybristophilia.



Imagine the thermonuclear explosion that would occur in a feminist's head if they realized that the Matriarchy breeds and sexually selects for the "toxic masculinity" they claim to be opposed to.

[–]characterulio 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This shows that even women in a position of power want someone they think is wild/dangerous. Hence why the guards are fucking inmates even if it means their career is over.

[–]sadshark 24 points25 points  (0 children)

The most direct example of this happened to me a while back. There was a group of 4 girls, all friends, and I was gaming one of them in front of the rest. A few days go by and I meet with the girl in question. She told me that all her friends told her that I'm such an asshole and she should stay away from me. A few hours later she's petting my one-eyed snake.

[–]Jyontaitaa 49 points50 points  (4 children)

But it’s true; women can’t find a nice guy “when they need them” as in when they have hit that wall.

This is strong rule in Asia and men there will not take on commitment to contemporary women after the age 30; why would you when you can easily date a woman in her mid 20’s.

Buyer beware; If she is single at thirty, there is a reason.

[–]DareyFathom 18 points19 points  (0 children)

The only reason for a LTR is for children. And post-wall women can't provide that without elevated risk compared to women in their 20s so there is no purpose in them. Modern feminism teaches women to devalue themselves and the women willingly abide.

[–]masteryimain34 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Actually I think they simply want “more” nice guys to leech from. Nice beta guys will believe anything a woman says because “emotional comfort” they cant get from themselves. So what do ya know

[–]zyqkvx 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Right, I always interpreted 'where are all the nice guys?' as 'where did all the free meal tickets go?'

[–]askmrcia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is strong rule in Asia and men there will not take on commitment to contemporary women after the age 30;

In China its like 26. And India I believe it's 27. Indian girl from grad school told me that women not married by 27 is frowned upon.

She was 26 and freaking out at the time.

[–]Lambdal7 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Well, they are looking for provider traits 75% of the time and alpha traits 25% of the time. Why do you think that they prioritise alphas over providers?

[–]DareyFathom 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Biology. Women's lizard brains take priority over reason.

[–]Lambdal7 0 points1 point  (1 child)

But why, the study says otherwise, they look for providers 75% and for alphas only 25% of the time.

[–]chaosmech 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Because attraction, SEXUAL attraction, isn't moderated by the prefrontal cortex. It's not something you can influence with logic; it's something that is moderated by the amygdala.

So while yes, a woman may "prefer" a man with provider traits during 3/4 of her monthly cycle, her engine still revs for a man that triggers her sexual attraction, the one who stimulates her amygdala. The muscular, confident, asshole. She's just more likely to act on it during the 1/4 of the month where she's fertile and increasingly susceptible to that part of her brain.

[–]plascra 20 points21 points  (16 children)

There is this Chinese saying "男人不坏,女人不爱". Even the Chinese knows about Chad.

[–]420KUSHBUSH 32 points33 points  (10 children)

Ah yes, the saying of "男人不坏,女人不爱" has been passed down in my family to every man throughout each generation

[–]3whatsthisgarg 31 points32 points  (5 children)


Man is not bad, woman does not love

I translated that just based on how the characters look. See the first one, clearly looks like a man, and the one after the comma clearly looks female. Character after each of those is the same, probably the existential verb "to be." Third character is also the same, the fourth looks like a real badass holding some dangerous object, the last one looks like a woman hugging herself, not loving the man who is not the badass.

Chinese is easy.

[–]Stron2g 18 points19 points  (1 child)

Chinese is easy until you see traditional characters or realize the same exact word can be said 4 different ways with 4 entirely different definitions

[–]zyqkvx 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Will you translate that for us?

[–]420KUSHBUSH 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh I was just kidding, no clue what it means

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

The men who are not bad, the women will not love (them).

[–]zyqkvx 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Will you translate that for us?

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The men who are not bad, the women will not love (them).

[–]602A_7363_304F_3093 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was sure I heard that before, and yes, it was in this song (lyrics).

As for people asking for translations, I'm not a native speaker, but from my understanding it literally means "If a man is not bad, women will not love him", thus meaning women loves bad boys.

[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 2 points3 points  (0 children)


Google translate says...

Man is not bad, woman does not love

[–]daffy_duck233 15 points16 points  (6 children)

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 = 0.081). confrontativeness: 3.13 arrogance: 2.64 muscularity: 1.85 faithfulness: -2.27 Basically, women love shit starting cunts.

p = 0.081 indicates statistical non-significance at the standard critical alpha of 0.05. Maybe you skimmed the article too fast. The authors found that Social Respect did not differ between short-term and long-term mating preference.

[–]Unrealenting 1 points1 points [recovered]

You have it backwards, a test value about the critical alpha indicates a null hypothesis acceptance/possibility.

Also, the p-value was higher for social respect rather than the other traits, which were around p = 0.041.

[–]daffy_duck233 1 points1 points [recovered]

Seriously bro, i hope you pass your next Stat exam.

[–]Unrealenting 1 points1 points [recovered]

Do I seriously need to pull out a source?

"A small p-value (typically ≤ 0.05) indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, so you reject the null hypothesis. A large p-value (> 0.05) indicates weak evidence against the null hypothesis, so you fail to reject the null hypothesis."


[–]daffy_duck233 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Let me ask you: what is the null hypothesis here regarding Social Respect? It is Preference for a man's Social Respect does not differ between long-term and short-term mating context.

Now the corresponding t-test results in a p-value = 0.081 (p > .05), meaning the difference in preference for Social Respect between LTM and STM is non-significant, meaning you cannot reject the above null hypothesis. This is contrary to what you stated:

the traits in this study were still significance and the one that was most significant was social respect (p = 0.081)

What??? Note that the assumption you are making here is that LTM = betabux and STM = alphafucks.

I also quote from the Discussion section of the paper:

Indeed, nearly every perceived trait we examined was more preferred in one context or the other. Only social respect was not preferred in one mating context versus the other.

[–]tibikush2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

shhh don't confuse him with facts

[–]the_real_lunch_box 12 points13 points  (0 children)

So once again, alpha male Chad busts a nut across your oneitis' face while Billy Beta uses his tears as lube while he silently beats his meat into his favorite crusty sock.

this is the best line I have read on here in at least a few weeks. But sadly it's True. TRP principles confirmed all across this post.

[–]Iwannachokekatie 11 points12 points  (10 children)

So can I be her AF if I got an ugly, unmasculine mug or no?

[–]Unrealenting[S] 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Yes, if you grow a beard and maximize your masculinity by dressing well, working out, and being in control of the interaction you could easily bump your SMV up enough to bed decent to hot girls on a fairly regular basis.

[–]Reven311 20 points21 points  (1 child)

Women are really not that smart in general, so they can easily be fooled by game and other physical mechanics of men maximizing their individual masculinity and demonstrating dominance and exhibiting an abundance mentality. Subsequently, the social display is merely a proxy of actual prior reproductive success, not evidence itself (which can not always be known). But this is typically sufficient for women close to median IQ.

The distribution curve for female intelligence is actually taller/skinnier than males, meaning women are more clustered at the median of overall human intelligence, and men's curve is wider with more at both tails. Their propensity towards emotions overwhelming reason is a feature of their reproductive system as well, that rewards men for their ingenuity in social manipulation. It would seem men are nature's experiment, therefore there are more idiots and geniuses, and women are the safe bet with two X chromosomes.

[–]openoids 6 points7 points  (0 children)

men are nature's experiment....true...the spaghetti that gets thrown at the wall to see what sticks.

[–]3whatsthisgarg 6 points7 points  (6 children)

So can I be her AF if I got an ugly, unmasculine mug or no?

Bro, I gotta tell you, I like you, I know you want to fuck them in the stairwells, or in a stranger's van parked on a public street, piledriver over the seatbacks.

Look up Richard Boone, actor in many westerns, and a distant cousin of mine. This guy is fucking ugly. And yet, not.

This was the thing I was talking about in my post about women on the road. PRESENCE. It's not about generic male features and stuff.

I look like that guy. Women adore me. It's not about my face. It's about my masculine presence.

[–]zyqkvx 4 points5 points  (1 child)

It dumbfounds me that masculinity isn't included on the list of SMV traits (looks, money, status, etc). I'm sure some would argue that's because it's a subjective trait. Technically, yes, but not really. Pretty much everyone can identify who has it when they see it. Masculinity is on the top of the SMV list as far as I'm concerned.

[–]chaosmech 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Masculinity is a vague concept/trait that can be indicated by a number of different traits. Obviously there's height/muscle mass/shape, which correlate strongly to high testosterone. Then there's some secondary non-physical characteristics of a "masculine" man that aren't as easily apparent: stoicism, focus on things rather than people, emphasis on facts over emotions. These can combine to essentially form a man who's grounded in reality and who doesn't fall for womens' bullshit.

The final bit, about teasing a woman, push-pull, ignoring then attending, doesn't have so much to do with masculinity precisely; it's simply a way of demonstrating that your SMV is higher than yours. This is less to do with you being a man and more to do with her being a woman; women mate across and up the dominance hierachy/SMV scale, ergo, if you demonstrate behaviors that tell her you're above her (even if you really aren't), it fools her lizard brain into increasing attraction to you.

[–]Iwannachokekatie 0 points1 point  (2 children)

But I'm autistic and this isn't something easily quantifiable.

I could've railed Katie if I had the logistics. Hell, if I had my gym keys I could've bang her by the squat rack. Not particularly hot, but my type. The disheartening part is that there's no way I could socially AMOG some random chick like that. Long story short, I was out with a group of people 50/50 men/women, seemingly paired with one. At one point she and her brother ended up by our table. She stroked my cheek as I can stared up at her, I scolded her for touching me. She apologized and left. Later my friend got involved with her mean mug brother. I was ready to fight cause I got balls of steel when tipsy. No fight happened though. Later, her friend opened me after the chick I was seemingly paired with wasn't able to give any info on me. I was cocky funny. She officially intruduced me to Kate, who was convenietly sitting right behind me, presumably the whole time. She said I must do sports, cause I'm well built. I told her I compete in jacking off. Chit chatted for a minute in that spirit, I broke a moment of silence by kissing her for over an hour. All that while her brother was watching us.

I know a guy who I want to be like. Dad bod plumber who got an IG hottie as his willing, second, secret LTR, until his official LTR found out and he broke it off with the IG chick. He's still in his official LTR. Ex meth addict, was in prison. Very confident and down to earth. He also looks like me if I was masculine faced neanderthal. Compared to him I look pre-pubertal.

Maybe I'll get there one day and fuck a babe at the mall changing room.

[–]3whatsthisgarg 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Long story short, I was out with a group of people

I had some very similar experiences in HS, and I thought "this is great, I'm going to be with these chicks in no time" and then I flailed for another two years with sporadic success. Seriously the amount of energy I put into chasing tail was ridiculous for the results I got. Then I relaxed and it all came together.

Don't know how old you are, but my face and body/posture and outward demeanor changed a lot between 18 and 22-23

Maybe I'll get there one day and fuck a babe at the mall changing room.

You'll get there, you will definitely get there.

[–]Iwannachokekatie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When that happened, I wasn't interested in getting ass. She was pretty, danced great, I checked her out, but I didn't think about her. I'm sure that wasn't a coincidence.

I'm 20, but I have over a year of experience of shoving needles in my ass and lats. Might mature mentally at best.

You'll get there, you will definitely get there.

I hope people won't get more careful with their vans in the meantime.

[–]uebermacht 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Good post, /u/Unrealenting!
Rollo has presented a very interesting two hours lecture based on the scientific papers you mention about womens Ovulatory Cycle and Mating at the 21 Convention recently which has been recorded and uploaded on YouTube.
„The Rational Male - Hypergamy: Micro to Macro“
Highly recommend!

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 5 points6 points  (5 children)

The science is pretty clear. Women go for good genes when they're ovulating and beta resources the rest of the month.

Critically their mate preferences change but also their activity preferences change too. She wants to be railed by Chad.... but when it is the turn of Billy Beta, she wants romance and cuddles. Billy does not get the same sexual access that Chad gets. Her mate preferences change, but she doesn't suddenly want sex from Billy.

their attraction to a man for a long term relationships was correlated with his rating on the "friend" factor which was loaded with the following positive attributes: helpful, cooperative, trustworthy, good father, wealthy, and intelligent.

It's important to realise that this isn't a win for Billy. He has to provide complete commitment and most of his resources in order to have a little duty sex, and when it's her ovulation cycle she starts an argument with him and behaves badly to avoid sex.

[–]macmeyer 0 points1 point  (4 children)

It's important to realise that this isn't a win for Billy. He has to provide complete commitment and most of his resources in order to have a little duty sex, and when it's her ovulation cycle she starts an argument with him and behaves badly to avoid sex.

Am I blue pill if I actually enjoy this sense of complete commitment feeling as though it gives me a sense of fulfillment?

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

yes, very much so

[–]doodo477 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I think that this feeling is more universal with men. To a point before I had the same feelings and commitment of wanting to build a family and build something with another person. Although this is before the red-pill and also a larger part of Rational Male, and also reading most of what has to offer on this forum and side bar.

One thing I will say is that before considering commitment with another person is to truly ask yourself are you wanting to commit to another person or are you committing to the feeling of commitment? For me I was looking to mask the dire need for love and affection.

If you're trying to fill that void by seeking that within another person you will never find it. If you don't address it directly and make changes to your life for the better don't expect your significant partner to do it. Instead what does happen is your partner will use it against you and black mail you and consider your weak for having such need for love and affection (as a male).

[–]macmeyer 0 points1 point  (1 child)

are you wanting to commit to another person or are you committing to the feeling of commitment?

Isn't the desire for love and affection innately part of being a human being and therefore one of the keys to living a fulfilled life? I think you can try to be rational about it and think of red pill theory all you want but the desire will surely not fade so why not pursue the fulfillment of it? What I cannot wrap my head around is how having multiple short term partners is supposed to be Superior to having one long term partner who you still have to game and apply red pill theory to. How do I gain the same fulfillment from that? Is it even possible?

If you're trying to fill that void by seeking that within another person you will never find it.

How am I supposed to find fulfillment in myself?

[–]doodo477 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have to go to sleep, its getting late here but will make a quick rely.

Yes desire for love and affection is innate with being human. Although you need to consider the risk's you're exposing yourself too in today modern world of marriage and love. I can only contest that I have been to court 15 times over DVO (Domestic Violence Charges). I've been kicked out of my own house that I've paid for myself. I've had to sleep in the car with the kids because the partner is by-polar and needs to seek help but wont. Becomes very violent.... eg... smashing head against the wall, knife throwing kind.

Divorce proceedings are currently occurring and I can attest to I have half my salary and have to pay out the women to regain access to my house.

To answer your last question, yes find fulfillment in yourself because you're never going to find it in another person. They should complement your life, but you should be confident in your ability to walk away and seek what you want if it doesn't suite you.

Maybe you will find love but you will be the one sleeping in the car because the police will be sexiest against you and protect the women and child even though you called them for help.

[–]WestyWorld 36 points37 points  (7 children)

To each their own.

I’d label myself a Mr. Nice guy.

True I suck ass at pulling girls in a club. I’m not even close to interesting enough in that environment.

However I do well with day game. I’ve met some really hot 7-8/10 girls this way. I always find myself in LTRs with them though (maybe they label me as beta?) and usually don’t sleep with them until the 3rd or 4th date.

But. I find this strategy way more appealing. Yes there is initial investment. But I’ve been with my current girl for 2 years and we’ve probably had sex over 300 times. No way you could pull that much sex from one night stands in two years.

It hasn’t gotten boring either. If anything, time has improved the sex because we are both more comfortable and connected. Which also means we get to do crazy kinky stuff.

[–]ProMathlete 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you for posting this different perspective. I wouldn't mind this as well with the girl I'm seeing. Totally agree with the investment/time part of it in relation to quality of sex.

I really want a family, I want to pass on my genes and make sure they're successful up to 18. There should be more of me in the world. Not about to drop a load in 14 women and dodge the courts tho.

I'm not a nice guy, I confront people to fuck with them. I withhold validation. Then again I also respect women's sexual boundaries, I don't find it appealing to keep trying after I get a (semi?) hard no.

[–]1OneRedSock 4 points5 points  (0 children)

While I have no interest in being labeled a nice guy or believing I am a fundamentally nice person, I feel you on this angle.

I'm finding the sex with my current LTR (6 months) who is 21 much more enjoyable than the shit that can be pulled in the club or on a ONS. She's also young enough for me to "groom"; not necessarily manipulate, but I find her much easier to deal with than older women who have their mind made up. I positively reinforce good behavior -- keeping my house clean, being on time, making food for/with me -- and negatively reinforce bad behavior.

Now that I read your post I'm computing that I've had sex probably around or just under 100 times over the course of these 6 months. And it's enjoyable, passionate sex that she can't get enough of. She wants to put my dick in her mouth and I want to fuck the shit out of her; easy. When that changes, the relationship is done. And these things always change at some point, so I don't allow myself to get attached or irrevocably intertwine my life with hers.

I enjoy clicking with someone who has a high libido, but I'm not above thinking she'll be with me forever. At some point it'll disappear for one reason or another, and I'll just move on to another woman who puts out consistently and who respects me.

[–]wyyit 1 points1 points [recovered]

I'm with you. This research was posted before and was why I first found TRP, I personally hate the feeling of one night stands so I've used my understanding of evolutionary psychology to just run nice guy game and lock myself down stress free monogamous setups.

[–]Narcissist456 6 points7 points  (2 children)

What the fuck is nice guy game?

[–]Unrealenting[S] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Making yourself appealing to an LTR as a provider/BB.

[–]MisterRoid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree it's a better strategy to go for relationships if you want alot of sex. Not necessarily a monogamous relationship, but even a bad monogamous relationship is likely better than only having one night stands, in terms of how much sex you can get out of it.

I have had sex with my girl about 200 times since I met her a year ago. I'm no longer monogamous, though. I have fucked another girl 10-12 times. It made my girl more attracted to me, so now I get sex whenever I want and the quality of it has improved. I'm tempted to get a third girl for more variety, but I don't use condoms and think it would be stupid to risk losing two good girls and the pre-selection benefits by catching a STD.

[–]3d_truth 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Part of me wants to be a nice person. When I'm around my friends I like to be nice and loving, not some aggressive, cocky cunt who has to be in charge the whole time. But then I have to change when I'm around girls, it doesn't feel right.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed, but now you know why.

[–]2Dmva100 39 points40 points  (20 children)

The SMV criteria is as follows:

  • Facial Aesthetics
  • Body (includes height and dick)
  • Game
  • Money
  • Status

1 and 2 get you in the door, and without game, your money and status will be manipulated from you as a beta bucks because you simply dont know any better. A man that is a complete broke drunk who says everything socially unacceptable but still has top tier looks and cock can still be considered a 10/10 (Chad), whereas a man who only possess game, status, and/or money cannot be a 10 by default for merely existing.

Status is ranked below money because in todays metoo age, any status can be destroyed in an instant over false allegations whereas a financial empire cannot unless you're a retard (i.e. marriage).

Everything else is hamstering.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 43 points44 points  (12 children)

The order, based on the research I provided, for what women find sexually attractive is:

  1. Game
  2. Looks
  3. Status
  4. Money

Money doesn't get a woman wet, it just makes her see you as a possible exploitable financial resource and actually LOWERS her willingness to sleep with you on the first date because she wants to try and turn you into a Beta Bux. Try bringing a girl back to a mansion vs. a shitty apartment and see how insanely different the LMR is.

Status can also be a hinderence when it comes to getting laid and can lead to her leeching off your status for personal gain, I.e. To meet your more experienced and muscular friends or to tote you around like a fashion accessory, rather than to try and sleep with you, unless your status is based on the fact that you're good in bed.

Looks are easily the easiest way to open women, but keep in mind that 70% of sexual attractiveness for looks is based on physical strength and can thus always be improved https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321778915_Cues_of_upper_body_strength_account_for_most_of_the_variance_in_men's_bodily_attractiveness, but without game she will quickly lose interest because she still expects you to lead, overcome LMR, etc. Ask any tall guy or swole guy who's socially awkward how often they get laid, don't be surprised when you find out that's it's never.

Game, however, is NON-NEGOTIABLE and can greatly improve or even compensate for your looks, status, and money in ways looks, status, and money can never ever replace Game when it comes to fucking women.

An average looking dude who dresses well, works out, respects himself, and has game will easily be able to approach and fuck a different girl every single week if he wants to. You'd be surprised how much you can boost your looks just by working out and dressing well, your face only accounts for 30% of your overall physical attractiveness.

[–]chrisname 7 points8 points  (2 children)

money can never ever replace Game when it comes to fucking women.

Sure it can, if you have enough of it you can fuck some of the hottest women on the planet.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Sure, but at that point you're literally just buying escorts, which anyone can obviously do. This is to showcase the fact that for an average girl who isn't a prostitute, you don't need money to have sex with them if you have other traits.

This is really important in my opinion because so many guys get brainwashed by schools, media, and corporate culture into thinking they need to be rich and feed the capitalist behemoth with their blood and sweat in order to get tossed some easy pussy, which simply isn't true barring prostitution. Money will only ever improve your value as a provider/BB to a woman, it cannot ever magically make you sexually attractive in ways you can't achieve for a very low budget or for free.

[–]chrisname 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yep, escorts are exactly who I was referring to. I get what you meant though, was just being pedantic.

[–]Iwannachokekatie 7 points8 points  (6 children)

Strenght is 70% of bodily attractiveness, ie., if you exclude the face, it's 70% of your attractiveness.

In both setsof photographs, the subjects’ faces were obscured

Quoted from the study.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Unfortunately it's really hard to find scientific studies that focus on the male face exclusively without incorporating their musculature. I'm obviously assuming the unaccounted 20-30% is the one thing not shown in the study, the face, but I'll see if I can find a study that cross-references musculature to facial symmetry and anatomy to see which is more important.

I highly doubt facial aesthetics are weighed very heavily however, otherwise you'd expect the population to only have chiseled jawed males after hundreds of thousands of years of sexual selection and that obviously isn't the case.

[–]splunx 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Very naive. Face, Height and frame, ethnicity, and robustness are weighed HEAVILY in short term mating.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Face and Height are preferred but aren't everything. People tend to mate within their ethnicity. Frame however is paramount.

[–]splunx 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Frame, I agree, is vital.

But, especially in western countries, women, even in their own race, substantially prefer white men (Especially considering asian or dark skinned indian men).

What's more important however, is that the more physical features you lack, the more aggressive you have to be.

Women also have a threshold of men they will fuck. If your below that threshold they will not fuck you, no matter how aggressive your pick up is.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

True. Which is why we lift and dress well.

Half-True. Women fuck based moreso on sexually availability rather than just sexual attraction. I've opened sets an hour later after bombing them and it's like talking to a completely different girl. Persistence and rock solid game can get you laid pretty consistently.

[–]splunx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

-Stats prove you correct. However, you see the clear advantage of white men (+33), and clear disadvantage of asian men (-29). Here's a tinder study showing women overly preferring white men in terms of response rate: https://www.inverse.com/article/36379-tinder-black-women-asian-men-racism.

I also might add that dating and hookup are different. OK cupid is a dating app, and women would face a stronger societal pressure to date within their race, than merely hooking up.

-Yes, but you could have passed their sexual threshold, but didn't have enough game on your first go.

[–]LeavingHumanityBehin 1 points1 points [recovered]

You'd be surprised how much you can boost your looks just by working out and dressing well, your face only accounts for 30% of your overall physical attractiveness.


How can you manage to cope this much? Seriously, how is this much cope even possible? Male hamster?

[–]Unrealenting[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The only one male hamstering is you, I provided the research and backed up my claim.

[–]Meisner1 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Hey, can you please put a context on status? What does it mean to have a status?

[–]Htowngetdown 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Anything that sets you higher than your peers. Are you a rock star? Or maybe you just have a lot of friends at the party. Or you’re the dj for the party. Something like that which enhances “social value”

[–]Oldworldking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everything is hamstering. You, sir, are hamstering. I am hamstering while typing this.

[–]ben1324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would kill someone for a bigger cock

[–]truedemocracy3 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Basically proves the concept of dread game and its importance in LTRs

[–]ScumbagPotato 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One of the most interesting/comprehensive things I've read in the last 3 years. Again, more of what we already knew, but illustrated and explained in such depth - thanks for posting.

[–]MegaBBY88 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Except that’s bullshit.

“Facial Dimorphism does not show a significant influence on any of the attractiveness measurements. In contrast, previous studies usually performed using measurements of attractiveness and femininity as evaluated by a third party”

“Our meta-analytic test involving 58 independent reports (13 unpublished, 45 published) was largely nonsupportive. Specifically, fertile women did not especially desire sex in short-term relationships with men purported to be of high genetic quality (i.e., high testosterone, masculinity, dominance, symmetry). The few significant preference shifts appeared to be research artifacts.”




[–]PaulAJK 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yeah. I was about to dig those out, but you saved me the effort.

[–]MegaBBY88 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't get it twisted, women like confident men. There's just no evidence to suggest women prefer any sort of man relative to another during ovulation, in fact why does the dichotomy exist in the first place? Testosterone does not cause aggression, and being able to provide as a care taker is not mutually exclusive to social dominance (which is caused by high T). By my own educated inferences, it seems concealed ovulation is more likely an adaptation brought on by a selection for less male competition.

[–]ProMathlete 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Being a nice guy is when I externalize my validation and self worth.

My question now is what's the good balance between short and long term attractiveness? Or is it to transition from short term attractive traits to long term ones (to maintain long term feelz)

[–]ben1324 1 point2 points  (1 child)

So is there a balance, if one wants a family with children, as well as staying attractive?

[–]Unrealenting[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, but it will be constant work.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

attraction is tied to power, you don't have to write a 3 pages post to prove that

[–]Unrealenting[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Obviously I do when every other post is holding up money, strength, or game as the singular Holy Grail of Sexual Strategy. The fact is that they have an order of priority and preference for women, this post is here to flesh out those pantomimes and combine them all into a science-backed system that actually works instead of simply putting men on a daily lifting and meditation routine that yields no tangible results when it comes to actually putting it all together and getting laid.

[–]1Entropy-7 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Keep in mind the first study looked at "high conception risk" which is maybe 1-in-4 women at any given time, and do you really want to be fucking one who is at high risk?

[–]Kingofdeadbedroom 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It means that they're close to ovulation, and therefore horny and it means fun sex, as long as you're attractive.

[–]1Entropy-7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get it, I am just saying that playing to that crowd cuts your market by 75% or more.

[–]LeavingHumanityBehin 1 points1 points [recovered]

This is funny, you think it is about being a douchebag and having douchebag behavior, when it is in reality all about face.

Male with wider faces have more T and appear more threatening, stronger, etc...all that "enemy" shit.

Men with long faces appear more "intelligent", "friendly" and "beta". Has nothing to do with your behaviour, and all to do with your face.

You still won't admit it though, because male hamster won't let you lol.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

This is a blind-study about women's preferences. Your facial aesthetic simply isn't as important as your behavior and words. If it were, only chiseled-jawed Chads would be around after what has now amounted to hundreds of thousands of years of homosapien sexual selection.

[–]kittykelly69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about what guys go for lol

[–]Wobblewobblegobble 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I never had to be an asshole to get women's attention so far in my life. I'm still in highschool so idk if that has anything to do with it. But I'm very good at convos and flirting with no problems of getting women. This idea of being an ass is partly true and everyday I see that being nice will get you curved more than being successful.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Don't think about it as being an asshole, it's about being brave and defending your standards in the face of opposition, which will inevitably make you an asshole to those who do not agree with or benefit from your standards. It's not about being mean, it's about being assertive and willing to walk away when it doesn't benefit you.

[–]Wobblewobblegobble 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you mean. I'm very assertive with my opinions. I wear a hoodie that says "politically incorrect" I can see where having some opinions will turn off females. I've recently had to learn to control myself.

[–]LiteSoul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can someone clarify re. the pills? Most women today take contraceptive pills, so that changes anything? It's the same? It is as if they are always on the fertile phase? Or the infertile phase?

[–]moose3000 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I used to bang chads girlfriend , he was a bouncer , why did she want me ? I figured out the 3rd type of woman , the female pedo , I slept with one woman after beomg her dog walker , she was upset when she found of my real age , god she had a uge juicy bum though not fat juicy and she was mental great bone structure though , but she was too mental to continue to fuck , I sensed trouble and had to cut the ties , I will probably never have that again . Lool

[–]Unrealenting[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is a classic example of female hypergamy at work. No matter how rich, ripped, and powerful you are a woman will always be willing to test you and branch swing to something more exciting once she inevitably gets bored. She is never yours, it is just your turn.

[–]RedPill_Swinger 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well it doesn't always work.

Today I matched with a feminist (pretty good looking HB7.5) she teased me and I started to make fun of her, she identified as "pansexual" so I asked how does it feel to have sex with pancakes (Wtf is a pansexual anyway?).

She unmatched me after 3 lines.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bad game bro. Never game a chick over text, use it strictly for a meet-up.

[–]coppa000 1 points1 points [recovered]

SCIENCE!: fat dick & fat wallet

[–]TrappyMcFly69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you even the post, that comment holds absolutely no value whatsoever.

[–]1z1z2x2x3c3c4v4v -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I would like to see a similar study on Changes in Men's Mate Preferences Across the women's Ovulatory Cycle.

[–]Unrealenting[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's very difficult for Men to tell when Women are ovulating, which is why Women always have engorged breasts for instance, something very atypical of primates, which is thought to have been evolved so a Man can never be sure if the child is actually his and reduces infanticide. I think Men simply have a feminity and anatomy preference rather than a fertility preference.

[–]Wobblewobblegobble -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

I've noticed this as well some of the hottest women around my age (18) are all going for guys that everyone knows are shitty, cheating, assholes. Sadly I think it is a personality thing. I don't believe you have to be a manipulating asshole to get women but there's s demographic there if you are.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If its more of a personality thing, then it has to be located in some kind of massive trauma in my opinion. I think the amount of humans with a secure attachment style are in the minority. I feel like my attachment style is totally fucked since I'm both anxious and avoidant, but I have learned to use it to my advantage as motivation for my passions in life, so I've got my demons behind me rather than in front of me.