Of all the many perspectives on relationships discussed here, there is at least some amount of truth in each one of them. The biggest logical fallacy I see on here is the idea that one singular perspective accounts for the outcomes of every romantic relationship in the world, and that the other perspectives have little or no legitimacy. Clearly this is a complex and nuanced issue that necessitates thinking from multiple perspectives.

Furthermore, men and women are not monoliths, some think and feel in very different ways and may value or be attracted to certain attributes differently. I think of heterosexual attraction as whether the sum of all your (positive and negative) attributes meet a certain threshold for someone to become interested in a relationship. The main points of contention I see online are around how much these specific attributes are weighted, but I will assert that all attributes DO carry some weight, as I will explain below.

For the purpose of this discussion, I will discuss the various truths within the "pill" ideologies as I see them, within the context of male->female attraction, although many concepts will apply to the inverse as well.

​

The Black Pill:

Looks matter. A lot. Scientific studies conclude that outward appearance is one of the primary drivers of sexual attraction, which I don't think is news to anyone. And unfortunately for many, the physical traits that influence attraction the most are largely unchangeable, such as facial structure, height and shoulder width. In the book Don't Trust Your Gut by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, the author analyses survey data and concludes that a man who stands 5'6" would need to earn an additional $175,000 yearly to be seen as equally attractive as an otherwise identical man who stands 6'0. Books such as Don't Trust Your Gut and Dataclysm also detail how height and race influence romantic attraction, and spoiler- it's not good news for some. Furthermore, looks also matter in how your "personality" is perceived by others (and how others treat you in return), as both the "halo effect" and "horn affect" are well documented in the scientific literature. And in addition to that, they don't just affect how your personality is perceived, but also how your personality actually develops.

In Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, he details how elite hockey players are disproportionately born in the months of January, February and March. Being that birth months has literally zero effect on the game of hockey, you would be right to question how such a statistical anomaly would be possible. Until you realize that the children born in the early months of the year were slightly older than their peers, giving them a slight advantage, which when compounded over a lifetime, resulted in them disproportionately becoming elite athletes in sports such as hockey.

If such a thing as being born in the right month can make such a substantial difference over time, think about how much the halo/horn effects could influence a person's social development and mental state when compounded over a lifetime. And then on top of that, they have to deal with how those effects cause them to be treated in the present moment as well.

​

The Red Pill:

The red pill is based around the relatively-well scientifically established concept of female hypergamy. Basically doing anything to signal that you are superior to a woman and holding that "frame" (through whatever morally questionable means necessary) WILL increase her attraction to you. Whether that will lead you into a healthy long term relationship is a different discussion entirely, but to many who believe in the red pill, that is an irrelevant discussion.

Furthermore, "dark triad" personality traits (narcissism, psychopathy, low-inhibitions) have been proven to be inherently attractive to women as well. Evolutionary Psychologist Dr. David Buss has done decades of research that has led to the conclusions on this issue. As I mentioned earlier, not all women are the same, so not all be as attracted to these attributes as others. Generally, the consensus is that the women who are most attracted to dark triad traits are young/inexperienced, were raised with an absent father, or have some kind of trauma from their childhood/early adulthood. Acting "too nice" or blue-pilled to these women is a guaranteed one-way ticket to the friendzone. I have personally seen red pill/dark triad behavior backfire on occasion, causing the woman to leave, but not nearly as often as I've seen it work where the woman is frustrated yet helplessly infatuated and thus compliant.

It is also abundantly clear that women are attracted to status and wealth. The problem is, if you have status and wealth, they are attracted to IT, not to YOU. The women you gain access to through money/wealth will never be genuinely attracted to you, and you will likely not ever have an emotionally fulfilling relationship with them, which again is a non-issue if you're a red piller spinning plates.

​

The Blue Pill:

Confidence and social skills absolutely matter. Do they matter enough to get you past the threshold if you are severely lacking in other areas? In most cases no, unless you have some Olympic level rizz (see Stravros Halkias), your looks/money/status will have to do the heavy lifting, but your social skills will still be needed to close the deal. Body language is also an important factor in creating attraction and building social connections. Books like The Charisma Myth by Olivia Fox Cabane and The Like Switch by Jack Schafer detail how various kinds of body language and non-verbal signals matter in these situations.

One very controversial point within the blue pill that I see argued over constantly is having hobbies or "ambition". Do you need these things to be successful with women? Yes, absolutely. Do women actually care about these things? In my personal experience, most women do not give a single fuck what you do in your free time unless its taking expensive vacations on private jets. Most women don't even have hobbies themselves and will see your hobbies as dumb or a waste of the time/money you could be spending on her. Why you need hobbies/discipline/ambition is purely as the means to build your own confidence. Blue pillers love to say "just be confident bro", but never acknowledge the true monumental level of effort and difficulty required to develop authentic confidence. Being successful at something outside of social situations will help you have more confidence in social situations. It will also help your self-esteem and various other areas of mental health, which is also a priceless asset.

​

The Pink Pill:

Are men sex-crazed creeps and predators who just wanna get their rocks off without any concern for the woman's well being? No, certainly not all men. But a lot of men are, and a lot more would be if there were no consequences for their actions. As a man, I've seen this countless times with people I've known, men who were heavily influenced by porn from a young age see women as objects instead of human beings. And many will say or do anything (often successfully) to get their dick wet for just a night. And when everyone is consuming alcohol or other substances, the line between who is or isn't consenting to what gets real blurry. There are a lot of Brock Turners out there, and many of them get away with it.

If you are a woman, you really need to vet your potential partners very, very carefully, and make sure they have proper character and empathy. "Situationships" are a perfect way for you to get exploited and emotionally abused, so if you are wise, you should get some level of commitment before you give up the goods, unless of course you're okay with being just another plate or member of the harem.

Men are in fact biologically hardwired to desire a variety of sexual partners, and will often act on these impulses when they have the opportunity to do so. However, disciplined, empathetic men who are committed monogamously to their partners will not do this. And these men aren't all "blue pilled", they aren't all male feminists and don't have any label associated with them, likely the only thing they have in common is a strong sense of integrity.

​

MGTOW:

Can you be just as happy single as you would be in a healthy relationship? Science says no. Single men have worse health/career outcomes and some surveys show the net worth of married couples after 20 years of marriage is as much as 3x the net worth of similarly aged single people. Jonathan Haidt, author of The Happiness Hypothesis, and Scott Galloway, author of Happiness Algebra, both conclude that a romantic relationship is one of the biggest and most important contributors to lifelong happiness and fulfillment. So on that front, MGTOW is totally stupid and a cope. However, for some of you, it's the only option. If your appearance/social skills/personality/anything else about you is bad enough that it triggers the "disgust" response in women, for lack of a better phrase, "it's over." Sure, there are exceptions to every rule, but they aren't common. My sincerest condolences.

​

The Christ Pill:

Even if you aren't afraid of going to hell, the idea that you should remain a virgin until marriage actually isn't bad advice. A multitude of survey and scientific studies conclude that couples who have had either one or very few lifetime sexual partners reported lower rates of infidelity/divorce and higher rates of relationship satisfaction than those who had higher partner counts. One of the many mechanisms responsible for this effect is the process of chemical "pair bonding" in which the brain releases a rush of oxytocin and dopamine, at a level only rivaled by giving birth, that causes the couple to feel "bonded". Studies suggest this process becomes significantly inhibited by the time a woman has had 5 lifetime sexual partners. Studies also show a similar, although less pronounced effect in men. Further research on Pair Bonding has since been banned by most mainstream institutions on the basis that it's findings "oppress women" (which is quite frankly an insult to both women and science), thus leaving the initial findings unchallenged.

One additional piece of evidence supporting this is referred to by sociologists as "The Paradox of Choice". A series of experiments shows consistently, that the more choices a person is given (whether it be products, food items on a menu, romantic partners, etc.), the more difficulty they will have deciding on a single choice and the less likely they are to be happy/satisfied with the choice they made. This would suggest that the prevalence of dating apps, porn and hookup culture is severely damaging the general publics ability to form and maintain happy romantic relationships.

​

So how does it all fit together? Ultimately, it all comes down to a numbers game and how many times you roll the dice. You can improve your odds via the various factors discussed above, and even moreso if you understand the market you're trying to appeal to. As for what makes the largest difference, according to science, the blackpill is the most important. Looks, money, status is overwhelmingly what you will need to simply "get your foot in the door" with most women. After that, you'll need to either go red pill or blue pill (or some mix of both) to initiate an actual relationship (which pill is determined by your target market). Red pill alone is not enough. Blue pill alone is certainly not enough. Confidence alone is not enough (if you don't believe me, please see the youtube "IamSkippy").

If I didn't mention a point from your favorite pill, that is because it's either bs or has no science backing it.

Beyond this, I have no further understanding, and I would be skeptical on anyone else who claims to know more than this. Feel free to discuss in the comments, but before you write a butthurt reply about why something I said was wrong, do yourself and everyone else a favor and just do a quick google search of the SCIENCE that I referenced (or maybe even go as far as opening a book) before you write something dumb about how I'm wrong. If you have additional scientific evidence that would dispute any of my claims, you should probably reference that as well.