OK so I've managed to narrow down 'what women want in a man' (in general, i.e. what is most reproductively valuable) to this list. Obviously people of PPD should feel free to correct me and add to if necessary. I am making this thread because u/belletaco believed this list to be a poor opinion and one coming from a socially inept person. This is drawn from several resources, not all of which have been listed, most rooted in the broader PUA community not just the red pill. I have deliberately tried to frame this in a way which blue pill can relate to, or if they cannot, can challenge without viscerally negative emotional reactions.

  1. Lust/Tingles

This is the Alpha. Excitement. Fun. Laughter. Arousal. Good sex. Nowhere in this are you required to be manipulative, controlling or a genuine jerk! However, Cocky+Funny and shit tests responses such as 'agree+amplify' or 'pressure flip' done in a jokey, light-hearted way are great. Comedians provide examples of handling shit tests regularly; e.g. I saw Michael McIntyre tonight, and he got away with entire sketches where he impersonated his wife sounding like Roz from Monsters Inc. when drunk. (A+ show btw)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtWBlDC2-ss

  1. Health/fitness/looks

Including best ability to adapt to environmental stress and lowest mortality rate. Generates lust/tingles as side effect. Diet, fitness, fashion, grooming and stress management all fall into this.

  1. Security

Material and emotional, incl. of offspring. These are the necessary 'beta comfort traits' revered by relationships counsellors and soft-blue pillars; communication, compromise, empathy, trust, good listener.

However, most unplugging have these in abundance and lack 'Alpha'. Such a situation inevitably results more often than not in becoming the friendzoned 'shoulder to cry on', or beta orbiter. See The Desire Dynamic and 6 Harsh Truths below

  1. Dominance

Benevolent leadership, not abuse/control. This would include assertiveness, setting and acting on boundaries. A skilled Captain/First mate dynamic would look like this, few anger phasers spinning plates do.

edit: It has been suggested that more egalitarian women want competence, with the vulnerability/self-assurance to let her lead as and when necessary. I am currently considering whether this would lead to covert or even unconscious resentment of and loss of attraction towards her partner every time she has to lead, given my studies on women's physiological arousal being largely pre-cognitive… (see 'What Do Women Want?' at bottom)

  1. Pro-activity/Vitality

This includes shit like 'ambition' and crosses over with dominance en route to security. Self-actualisation is part of this. This is a major reason active depressives are not sexy to women, lack of demonstrated provider potential. I believe that women may be rationalising when they say that "ambition is not about money, status or power". It is, literally, about the manifestation of the dominant, empowered mindset required to attain wealth, status and power-i.e. security.

  1. Status/power

Indicative of the above. Social skills are particularly relevant to this, and popularity. This may be a major reason most women dislike un-socialised aspies and 'creeps'. In EP terms, this is likely due to DHV through pre-selection. Outcome independence is therefore indicative of status, as is abundance mentality.

A note on wealth: As we may all know, money is a symbolic currency, it has no value bar what the market determines it at. It's valuable and powerful only insofar as it represents access to financial (thus emotional) security; opportunities; perhaps status and self-actualisation (assuming self-made). To be clear, money is the most shallow and useless thing a man could focus on to get laid. However, plot twist, financial security is an imperative to getting and succeeding in an LTR (refer back to 2) )

  1. Infatuation with her-BUT not Oneitis. Infatuation, despite explicit or implied options

Indicative of commitment. Also satisfies her narcissistic element of arousal (see section on Models). Studies show most women dislike casual sex, so they have higher return on investment from LTRs than ONS. Hence why a man must be higher SMV to be plate spinner/casual hookup Alpha Fucks than Beta Bux for an LTR. However, as described, this is only generally valuable insofar as other traits have been guaranteed i.e. the man is proven to be high status, able to next her should she reject/disrespect you (outcome independent) and no superior mates are available. Therefore, one-itis is simply pedestalisation. Women dislike this because it is 'dehumanising' as they understand it.

There are a fuck ton of resources I check out other than PPD-in fact I'm planning to scale back on PPD because it's become a hindrance to me-however the most useful could be condensed into what's laid out below.

Redpill "you cannot negotiate desire" is just the flip side of the blue pill's "being nice is not enough".

http://therationalmale.com/2011/08/25/the-desire-dynamic/

You cannot negotiate Desire.

This is a very simple principle that most Men and the vast majority of women are willfully ignorant of. One the most common personal problems I’ve been asked advice for in the past 10 years is some variation of “how do I get her back?” Usually this breaks down into men seeking some methodology to return his relationship to an earlier state where a previously passionate woman couldn’t keep her hands off of him. Six months into a comfortable familiarity and the thrill is gone, but in truth it’s the genuine desire that is gone.

It’s often at this stage that a man will resort to negotiation. Sometimes this can be as subtle as him progressively doing things for her in the hopes that she’ll reciprocate with the same sexual fervor they used to have. Other times a married couple may go to marriage counseling to “resolve their sex issues” and negotiate terms for her sexual compliance. He’ll promise to do the dishes and a load of laundry more often in exchange for her feigned sexual interest in him. Yet, no matter what terms are offered, no matter how great an external effort he makes so deserving of reward, the genuine desire is not there for her. In fact, she feels worse for not having the desire after such efforts were made for her compliance.

Negotiated desire only ever leads to obligated compliance. This is why her post-negotiation sexual response is often so lackluster and the source of even further frustration on his part. She may be more sexually available to him, but the half-hearted experience is never the same as when they first met when there was no negotiation, just spontaneous desire for each other.

From a male perspective, and particularly that of an uninitiated beta male, negotiation of desire seems a rational solution to the problem. Men tend to innately rely on deductive reasoning; otherwise known as an “if then” logic stream. The code is often something like this:

I need sex + women have the sex I want + query women about their conditions for sex + meet prerequisites for sex = the sex I want.

Makes sense right? It’s simple economics, but built on a foundation that relies on a woman’s accurate self-evaluations. The genuine desire they used to experience at the outset of their relationship was predicated upon a completely unknown set of variables. Overtly communicating a desire for reciprocal desire creates obligation, and sometimes even ultimatums. Genuine desire is something a person must come to – or be led to – on their own volition. You can force a woman by threat to comply with behaving in a desired manner, but you cannot make her want to behave that way. A prostitute will fuck you for an exchange, it doesn’t mean she wants to.

Whether LTR or a one night stand (ONS) strive for genuine desire in your relationships. Half of the battle is knowing you want to be with a woman who wants to please you, not one who feels obligated to. You will never draw this genuine desire from her by overt means, but you can covertly lead her to this genuine desire. The trick in provoking real desire is in keeping her ignorant of your inent to provoke it. Real desire is created by her thinking it’s something she wants, not something she has to do.

This entire post is just a fancy, convoluted, borderline autistic way of saying "being nice is not enough to be sexy, you've got to be fun and exciting too." Where red pill does get insightful is explaining how the interest in "nice" versus "sexy" is so often determined by her ovulation cycle (see Schedules of Mating side-bar post)

However, anyone could find the basic gist of what is being said to the recovering Nice Guy in David Wong's '6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You a Better Person'

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/

  1. The world only cares about what it can get from you. How fucking red pill is that?

  2. The hippies were wrong [coffee's for closers]. Link relevant scene from Glengarry Ross. Again, relevant. Bear in mind however, GGR is an example of how not to overtly manage.

  3. What You Produce Does Not Have to Make Money, But It Does Have to Benefit People

See how my list above fits into this? Game is about value. Money is but one, tired way of creating value.

  1. You Hate Yourself Because You Don't Do Anything

Should really take my own advice hah…but it's true. People-men in particular-need activity and purpose to thrive. This is because of hormesis; without necessity to adapt to survive, the body and mind degenerate, wither and eventually die prematurely.

http://gettingstronger.org/hormesis/

  1. What You Are Inside Only Matters Because of What It Makes You Do

Ex. why I made the thread on what bluepillers are doing to help men. Some of them have proven themselves to be altruists.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3urh6u/feminists_and_bluepillers_what_have_you_done/

u/Ofspock/ said that she didn't believe that a lot of redpillers were actually ever truly kind guys, but straight-up "Nice Guys"-this indicated by the snarky responses to the thread. Had they ever supported charities? Inb4 outliers, I respect there were exceptions.

  1. Everything Inside You Will Fight Improvement

So true; and in fact, this is the major complaint for the Just Be Yourself fallacy. Interestingly, it's one of the very few points on which blue and red agree; 'you' and "yourself" are fluid concepts, always able to evolve and devolve dependent on goals, motivations, mindsets, experiences and efforts. It follows that striving to improve oneself is a good thing.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/15/just_be_yourself_is_cruel_fraudulent_advice_to_give_young_people/

http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/01/just-be-yourself/

http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/13/just-be-yourself/

On a final note, I still feel that it's a crying shame TRP would reject Mark Manson's Models. Mark points out how to

  • satisfy hypergamy in practice; the tightrope between demonstrating high value (DHV) to satisfy her lust, and satisfying her semi-narcissistic arousal when a mate signals ability to commit

  • identifying how status is more attractive to women than looks, but self-investment-including health, fashion, fitness and grooming-reflect status. A bit confusing but it's the difference between being fit and being insecure about being an Adonis Chad cough

  • Frame in practice: higher self-investment than investment in others. Low need for validation from others. Outcome independence really, and abundance mentality. I.e. the old adage 'stop caring what others think of you so much'

  • The Three Fundamentals: creating a rich, active and attractive life without getting anal about SMV and self-improvement for the sake of it; handling approach anxiety; and communicating your intentions and desires with confidence in an attractive manner

  • improving your dating life's efficiency through a form of 'assortative mating' called demographics and polarisation; filter women out through compatible hobbies, values and aspirations…what should be really common sense, but somehow becomes not when infatuated with a tight ass or having serious Oneitis

  • identifying manipulative women and nexting them by setting boundaries early on (as opposed to TRP's AWALT)

  • the difference between being 'open' or vulnerable and emotional vomit, which is what a lot of those unplugging think is the way forward. (as opposed to 'you can never open up to her unless your mom dies or something else dramatic')

http://markmanson.net/books/models

http://markmanson.net/manipulative-relationships

http://markmanson.net/vulnerability

http://markmanson.net/power-in-vulnerability

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?_r=0

I put forward that this model covers the bases of attracting women without need for excessive pseudo-science, generalisations or hyperbole about the vindictiveness of women. I am not the first person to attempt this, nor will I be the last.

CMV