For the second time I can remember since making my way to MRP I have been accused of "refusing to swallow the red pill", and of "trying to change it rather than letting it change me."

In both cases the accusations arose after I called into question the standard assumptions surrounding the AF/BB model or schema.

They weren't GIANT changes in my estimation--they seemed reasonable enough, but to this particular poster (or perhaps it was more than one I really don't remember) it seemed from his reaction like the worst kind of blasphemy. Like I had dared to suggest to a Christian that Judas was actually the hero of the New Testament or something.

"Trying to change the red pill."

Quite an emotional charge.

I remember taking Econ 101 in college and learning about the supply/demand curve and seeing all the different ways we could use it to predict human behavior.

God, it was beautiful. It explained so much. It honestly made me warm and fuzzy. Like reading scripture. That beautiful concept just wove its way into my mind and heart and it seemed like it could explain the whole universe to me if I gave it the chance.

Then came the very first day of Econ 202 and the first words out of the mouth of my professor nearly shocked me to the core: "Models are helpful, but they are, by their very nature, woefully incomplete. They can help lay the foundation for understanding complicated concepts to the uninitiated, but when applied to the real world, other considerations must be made that often times render the original model totally useless. This is the case with the supply/demand curve. Today I'm going to show you how it is complete and utterly useless in coming to conclusions about all kinds of things in the real world."

That....really....bothered me. I really really really resisted that for the first few days of class. Who the fuck did that professor think he was--bashing the supply/demand curve like that? The supply/demand curve has been like a brother to him. The supply/demand curve was the answer to all the world's problems. It would cure cancer if we'd just fucking let it, goddammit!!!

Well, it turns out he was being a bit hyperbolic. I came to see that supply and demand were still very much in play in all the things I had thought before, and its presence within the equation was still foundational, but that I simply needed to include more variables in order to come to more accurate approximations for things that exist in the real world.

The supply/demand curve hadn't gone anyway. It hadn't been destroyed, the academic understanding of it simply matured over time. And that was fine.

Well, at the risk of comparing myself to a college professor in this particular case, let me just say to my friend who belongs to the Reddit Orthodox Church of AF/BB, that I know how you feel.

AF/BB has been, and will continue to be, a remarkably helpful model to help socially incompetent retards understand the basics of male/female dynamics. You're right. It's important to come to understand it. It's important to know what has been said about it. It's important to INGEST it and to let it change you.

But bro. You sound like you've spent a lot more time within the holy walls of a church than within the holy walls of academia. AF/BB did not come down from Sinai, and even if it did, that too was subject to revision with the New Testament.

It doesn't have to remain static an inviolate forevermore. Those with new ideas about it, with new perspectives on it, might very well be wrong, but if so, and your only response to that is name-calling, your precious religion is going to be in real danger.

Yes, I think the general understanding of AF/BB needs a slight revision. I think the obvious discrepancy that exists between the male and female libido as a result of testosterone should not simply be ignored (as even the great high priest Rollo Tomassi himself has admitted to this discrepancy).

The idea that the female libido could be equal to that of the male despite this vast discrepancy in hormone quantities is completely asinine to anyone with half a brain. Or better yet, has actually supplemented with testosterone personally (I know some of you could confirm this).

Ignoring this and simply saying "She craves sex as much as you do, she just craves it from alpha cock", while it might sound super tough when you write it to noobs on the main sub, I would think, on this sub anyway, it would be widely scoffed at by now.

How can someone crave sex as much as you when they have, according to the great high priest Rollo, "1/12 to 1/15" the amount of testosterone as you have?

Simple answer: they can't.

So, given this simple, obvious, demonstrable fact, what else can possibly explain the behavior that we see from women which demonstrates an almost inexhaustible willingness to fuck an alpha anytime anywhere as often as he wants?

Simple: It's not about the sex. It's about the alpha himself (or what she perceives as such). She's trying to get the alpha. And sex is the most powerful thing nature has given her in order to secure one.

Sex, for women, is a tool. I know that's confusing because when we're fucking them they really do seem to be enjoying themselves. "They orgasm and squirt and everything. Of course they like sex!"

Sure. Sex itself DOES feel good, to both men and women, yes. This is indisputable (I've even seen studies that suggest it's even MORE pleasurable, in the moment, for women).

So how can I say what I'm saying?

Well, we've already established that their libidos, regardless of how good sex actually feels to them in the moment, is almost invariably lower than ours, thanks to that MASSIVE discrepancy in testosterone.

So, giving my theory just a little benefit of the doubt, just a little space to breathe, how else might this be explained?

Simple: it can be explained by how men and women differ in the way they think about sex AFTER THE FACT.

And how is that?

Easy: Men feel like strikers, and women feel like goalies, biologically speaking.

Men view sex as an accomplishment (unless they're super religious) and, regardless of what happens next in the relationship with whatever girl they just had sex with, view the accomplishment of that "goal" as something to be proud of, maybe even something worth boasting about.

Women do not experience this at all (religious or not). They are almost universally ashamed of having "given it up." And, unless the sex results in the successful procurement of said alpha (assuming the guy they just fucked indeed proves to be an alpha), they will very rarely speak of it to anyone, let alone boast of it.

This reality about women, I would think, would seem elementary to most of you by now. It's practically axiomatic.

Or have you bought into the feminist notion that the shame women feel for sex is societally, rather than biologically driven?

Because you're fucking retarded if so. Our society has clearly mimicked biology on this matter, and not the other way around.

So, back to the point: if women are so fucking ashamed of "giving it up" to either someone who is not really an alpha, or to an alpha she will not be able to procure permanently, WHY DO THEY FUCK THEM SO GODDAMN MUCH???

Isn't it obvious?

Because acquiring an alpha is literally their prime directive.

The #1 instinct all living beings have is individual survival. And the #2 instinct is that of reproduction--which is really just more "survival."

So in walks this notion of AF/BB, absent, for whatever reason, the extremely important variable mentioned above concerning testosterone levels, and what do we hear?

"Women have a dual mating strategy. They want to reproduce with alphas (alpha fux) and have their offspring raised by nice, safe, betas (beta bux)."

Sorry guys, but that's bullshit.

Women don't want betas raising their kids. That's fucking retarded. Why would they? Cause they have money?

No. An alpha provides all the qualities a woman's DNA is seeking for, not only to reproduce, but to protect those children until they reach adulthood, whether he happens to have money or not.

The problem, my friends of the Reddit Orthodox Church of AF/BB, is found in the fact that there are simply way too few alphas.

There is no dual mating strategy.

There is Plan A, and then there is Plan B.

Plan A is to pump an alpha so full of oxytocin (via really hot sex) that he bonds with you, has children with you, and protects those children throughout adulthood, meanwhile providing you with all the juicy status you can handle to lord over other women. Yum yum yum yum yum.

Plan B is for when Plan A fails.

After a hot woman comes to the brutal realization that she can no longer procure a real alpha, although she could have when she was busy riding the cock carousel earlier in life, perpetually trying to trade up to an even truer alpha...she hits that infamous wall, and settles for motherfucking Plan B.

Again, it's about survival. Plan A is gone. But Plan B can offer her both survival/security (via his bank account, not his strength and confidence) and reproduction/children.

Better than nothing. But nowhere near ideal. Nowhere in the same universe as fucking ideal.

But her hand is forced, she senses that biological clock, she sees those wrinkles, and she goes through with marrying a beta. But she still holds out this really perverse hope that if she really works hard for the next little while, she can still convince an alpha to mate with her long-term.

So she keeps going to the gym and getting botox and doing everything in her power to maintain her youth as long as possible with the ever present hope that she can still convince an Alpha to love her and to give her the life of her dreams and fulfill her PRIME directive.

But the nature of the alpha has not changed. He's no more interested in settling down with someone like her now than he was when she was young, and her chances then were slim enough, given his options.

But he's more than happy to fuck her. And she's more than happy to let him, because she's still in denial, and believes that if she really gives it to him good (you guys wouldn't believe how much more vigor and effort post-wall women put into sex than the average college girl, it's hilarious) she'll get him to fall for her, to bond with her, and to fulfill that pesky prime directive.

But he never does. He's only interested in committing to the hottest young pussy, even if it is less experienced/talented/versed in the kama sutra.

And so we get the pump and dump. And our dejected heroin, upon realizing her failure, runs back to Beta Bob to have him pump her full of his own sperm just in case she's pregnant so she can avoid public humiliation and financial ruin.

Until she realizes, of course, that she won't be financially ruined....

Yeah you know the rest.

So look. We end up at basically the same place. Most of the terms remain the same. We've simply incorporated a fairly significant variable into the equation that brings greater continuity to the whole theory (if you ask me).

But if we end up at the same place then why should I go to all the trouble to try to correct the equation?

Well....because advice based on bad premises is usually bad advice.

Consider my post yesterday: "Men are horny. Women are bored."

If the standard advice of TRP and MRP is always "lift lift lift lift lift" how do we square the copious number of times we've seen NOT buff, NOT good looking guys land super hot, super young pussy, and even lock it down?

Why does that reality keep getting ignored?

I'll tell you: because that pesky reality does not square with the canonical doctrine of AF/BB that was brought down from Mount Sinai so many years ago and is now the veritable sword in the stone, or as one poster called it "the e=mc2 of TRP."

But when you stop thinking about alpha genetics/alpha SPERM and start thinking about alpha qualities/alpha BEHAVIORS, it makes perfect sense why we see super common looking dudes end up with super crazy hot girls. For life (I know you've heard it doesn't happen, but it does).

Because height is often something alpha's possess, but it's not what makes an alpha.

Because good looks and muscularity are often something alpha's possess, but they're not what makes an alpha.

Because money is often something alpha's possess, but it's not what makes an alpha.

Because game is often something alpha's possess, but it's not what makes an alpha.

Because aggressiveness and competitiveness are often things alpha's possess, but they're not what makes an alpha.

What's confusing here, is that hot women have been spotted fucking all of the guys above. Even those who are not alphas.

Why? Because they're shortcuts. Since those are things that alphas often possess, it makes sense for women to start there.

But a true alpha, I alluded to pretty heavily in my last couple of posts. A true alpha may or may not be one, or some, or all of the things I just mentioned above. But you know him when you see him and it's pretty unmistakeable (like porn!).

A true alpha is that man who possesses that special enlightened trinity of confidence, abundance, and pro-sociality. An alpha is an alpha in the mind, regardless of how tall, good looking, buff, competitive, or verbose/witty he might be. It's in how he sees himself and those around him. He's unflappable. He's above it. He's devoid of fear because he has no enemies. He's Jesus. He's Ghandi. He's Ferris Fucking Buhler. His frame is enormous and sturdy (whether his dick is or not). He has an energy about him that's irresistible. He's popular everywhere he goes. Humanity itself is his special domain. He knows everyone. Likes everyone. And so everyone likes him. He facilitates fun and is an inexhaustible source of positivity, hope, an unconditional acceptance. He's like a ball of fucking light.

That, my friends, is what we should be aiming for. "Lift, STFU, sidebar" is really good advice for noobs whose lives are just completely out of control, yes. They're the first three rungs of the latter for men who are so far away from achieving the above description that they need something highly tangible to hold on to.

It's damn good advice but don't let yourself drown in it. Don't get stuck in it. Don't worship it like a zealout worships a god. Always be open to the possibility that a model might need re-tweaking, because models usually do.

It's just Econ 101.