“The Red Piller’s Guide to Women”

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” –Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Glossary

  • A Foreword

  • Chapter 1: The Mindset of Women

  • Chapter 2: The Perceptions of Women

  • Chapter 3: “Local Sexy Single Women” Fallacy i.e. The Over-Validation of Women Online

  • Summation

A Foreword

I’ve completely re-written the “Local Sexy Single Women” chapter of this post. I felt that as the term and subject matter becomes more and more prevalent, a proper explanation of the fallacy should be readily available.

Chapter 1: The Mindset of Women

There is little logic required to influence the thoughts of women. Women base their thought processes solely on 2 factors: how they feel about something (emotions) and how they feel about something right there and then (perception).

Mental Activity

The emotional and short-term perceptional basis of a woman’s thought process often contradict one another in seemingly irrational ways:

Brenda loves the taste and smell of vanilla ice cream (logic), but because Jenny from accounting called her a fat cow last Wednesday while she at vanilla ice cream during her lunch break, she may associate her negative FEELINGS towards Jenny to her overall PERCEPTION of vanilla ice cream. This’ll lead to her blaming the consumption of vanilla ice cream to Jenny’s comment, not her lack of calorie moderation.

Now until something positively influences her perception of vanilla ice cream, she will continue to feel negatively towards ice cream as the cause of her weight gain and the cause of Jenny’s remark.

This is the framework behind “hamstering”.

Feelings

Women don’t get caught up in the why behind something that makes them happy, more-so the access to the feeling itself i.e. the what, when, how much and how often.

Women are lost in the constant pursuit of “feel-good” emotions due to their short-term, ever-changing thought processes: happiness, security, curiosity, lust, intrigue, complacency, etc.

This "pursuit of happiness" also succumbs to the ever-changing nature of a woman's perspective and beliefs.

Brenda's vanilla ice cream may have made her happy earlier today, but because of Jenny’s rude comment on her second chin, she’ll hate vanilla ice cream tomorrow.

This causes her to constantly feel the need to seek out multiple “feel-good” stimuli and keep close secondary fail-safe “feel-good” stimuli as a countermeasure.

Women don’t plan out long-term supplies of these feel-good emotions like men would due to their “in-the-moment”, constantly-shifting perspectives, and as such, are always looking for the next best thing in case one of her current “feel-good” stimuli fails.

This is the framework behind “hypergamy”.

Perception

As I’ve explained above, women don’t plan for long-term “feel-good” stimuli due to the risks of being left with no stimuli in the short-term and the chance that the long-term stimuli will disappear before reaching its full potential.

Because of this, women do not care about a “potential” or "likely" benefit to them nor do they care about stimuli operating outside of their personal perspective (i.e. grasp).

They only care about things and people that will provide them “feel-good stimuli in the short-term which operate within a close proximity to them (i.e. ease of access).

This is also the framework behind hypergamy.

This is why women don’t care about your job as a Senior Technical Engineer in and of itself because the literal actions you take while working that job do not provide them with any sort of feel-good stimulus. It’s the RESULTS from working your job –the security of a house, the happiness brought on by items bought using your paycheck- that truly provides these feelings for them.

This is also why women cannot “love” unconditionally; while a man can love a woman for what she does, a woman loves a man for what he provides in the short-term. The phrase “I love you” coming from a woman honestly translates into “I love how you make me feel at this particular point in time through the "feel-good stimuli you are providing me”.

That’s not to say she isn't impressed by your ability to work that job. But because she has little to no understanding of the complexity of that job and learning about said complexity does not provide her with the “feel-good” sensation she requires, she deems it as unimportant. It exists outside of her perspective.

Relationships with Men

The desire for relationships from the mindset of women stem from her recognition of a man as an established provision of multiple long-term “feel-good” stimuli (not on the potential for said provision as women don’t care about potentiality).

NOTE: This mindset explains why lesbian relationships can effectively exist; the woman is being provided multiple "feel-good" stimuli from one person over a long-period of time and her sexually-based stimuli are effectively being taken care of to the degree required by her individual necessity.

In short, women are drawn to men (or other women) that make them feel good in the moment AND men they've determined can make them feel good for a long time. This goes for plate-spinners, natural alphas, RP alphas and betas alike, with the only difference being the stimuli each provides.

An alpha’s determined provision is sex, passion, intrigue and lust (visceral, reptilian). The beta’s determined provision is security, comfort, and validation (support).

From this perceptive, a woman's “unicorn” is a man who can provide all stimuli they require at once (provide sex and intrigue and provide security and validation) all while providing said stimuli at the same level, consistently, over a long period of time.

It’s their belief in this “Prince Charming” and their limited foresight when obtaining “feel-good” stimuli that leads many women to marry once-Alpha men with the belief that she’s “feel” this way for him forever or why women pursue “bad boys” with the intention of “fixing them up”.

Women are constantly trying to build their unicorns; they like how they feel in the moment with these men and they want that FEELING to last forever.

This is the framework behind monogamy and marriage.

Ever hear a woman utter the phrase "I want this moment to last forever" in a RomCom? This is the moment they’re referring to.

The problem with the woman's understanding of her Prince Charming lies the limitation of having just one provision.

Having only one “feel-good” stimuli, no matter how powerful a stimuli it is, runs counter to the very nature of women (requiring “feel-good” at any moment and requiring multiple “feel-goods” as insurance).

Insurance

Let’s assume Prince Charming exists. He’s everything a woman could ever ask for: handsome, smart, funny, validating, comforting, reassuring, the whole nine yards.

She will cheat or be tempted to cheat.

Why?

Reason 1: "He’s too good for her."

Her need for a “feel-good” back-up plan still exists. Because Prince Charming and products deriving from Prince Charming (i.e. things connected to his paycheck or his social influence) are her only source of “feel-good” stimuli, she’ll undoubtedly acquire a fallback or “fail-safe” guy (preferably in a similar albeit lower position than Prince Charming, otherwise she'd leave Prince Charming) to rely on should Prince Charming find himself a better suited woman.

Why does she do this?

Because she can.

With a vast supply of men to choose from, it’s easy for her to pick out not only the best male she possibly can but also his runner-ups as well.

NOTE: These runner-ups are not necessarily beta. A second-tier alpha is simply a man she’s determined to have her required characteristics for an good alpha, but an alpha she’s determined to be lower-tier compared to the alpha she’s currently with.

Reason 2: "There’s only one of him."

As great as Prince Charming is, he’s still only one guy with his own life, goals and destinations. He can only be around her but for so long and his influences only reach but so far. On top of this, her needs and desires for a "feel-good" stimuli are in the moment and must be considered at all times.

Let’s say she visits a foreign land for 2 weeks and becomes horny. Let’s also say she encounters a handsome Foreign Prince who meets all of her qualifications for being an alpha. Because her focus is limited to the moment and the "good feeling" that moment is providing her, she’s likely to succumb to said feelings.

This is commonly why women explain their infidelity with “I needed you but you weren't there!”

She’s right to a degree; she cheated because her mind required that specific “feel-good” stimuli (sex, intrigue, lust) and due to the limitation of the man’s presence, influence or due to a lack in the over-all CURRENT quality of the stimuli, she went to seek it out elsewhere.

Because of how their minds are constructed, women don’t see sex with another man as infidelity. If they did, they’d also see going to X restaurant instead of Y restaurant due to Y restaurant distance or rundown state as an act of infidelity as well.

Women only see long-term utilization of another man's "feel-good" stimuli as cheating. That is why women weigh emotional infidelity higher than sexual infidelity in general.

Think of it like a cellphone tower. The signal that tower gives off are only beneficial to you so long as your cellphone gets reception. Anywhere outside of that range, you’ll require another means of communication to connect with your friends. In this instance, you may “cheat” on your cellphone tower by using someone else’s phone out of the necessity of your current situation. Yet when you've returned home and you’re back within range of your tower, you continue with your phone as if it never happened. This is the mindset of a woman regarding infidelity.

Note: This also explains the "guilt" a woman feels after infidelity; she doesn't feel bad about what she's done, she's mourning the sudden lost of multiple "feel-good" stimuli she'd once been given by her bf/husband. She also feels anger towards the bf/husband as he is the one who has separated her from said stimuli (remember, she sees no fault in infidelity, only the repercussions of being caught).

This in turn alters her perception of him from wonderful alpha/beta to "the horrible person who made her feel bad and separated her from happiness", regardless of whatever they've had in the past.

Reason 3: "He was mean to her last Tuesday."

As described by the vanilla ice cream example, a woman’s perspective is constantly changing and updating. Although Prince Charming himself hasn't changed, her feelings and beliefs about him have.

Because a woman is always “in the moment”, her perception of Prince Charming will solely be based upon her feelings towards him the last time she saw him and NOT a collective summary of all their times together, as this would be a very logically-based conclusion.

As such, let’s suppose Prince Charming and this woman get into a heated argument that made her feel terrible. Then, her Prince Charming leaves for a 2-week vacation to cool off without rectifying her negative emotions. Now she is left alone and in desperate need of some –if not all- her “feel-good” stimuli requirements met, yet all of her resources have walked out the door with Prince Charming.

As specified, all women have a back-up plan, and hers is Prince Savy. Remember that a woman’s beliefs stem from her perceptive and not logical facts, so regardless of all that Prince Charming has provided her in the past, at this very moment she feels hatred and disgust at the thought of him, believing him to be a terrible man for making her feel this way.

She was left with needs to be met and Prince Savy happily obliges.

Real World Example

Here is a good example of a woman's perception of someone being altered (received this morning/afternoon).

Let's review what her actions, her text messages and her time of texting have to say about her current perceptions and determine how they can be manipulated for benefit.

Context

Last night I met up with this woman I'd met on OKC whom we'll refer to as Q.

Pre-sex, I asked Q if she had to rate her sex drive between 1 and 10, what would it be? She happily replied "10". Post-sex, Q admitted that my sex drive was more likely a 10 and hers was more of an 8. She confessed that 10-level sex drives were rare and that she was having trouble keeping up.

I replied with, "I know a lot of people with 10-level sex drives."

What She Thought

It's obvious from Q's text message that she believed me to imply, "I know a lot of attractive women with 10-level sex drives and you're not one of them" and her perception of me has changed from ordinary alpha to "player" (this was also hinted at from her reaction when I told her she wasn't the first woman I'd met up with off dating sites).

Truth is, I was actually referring to some friends of mine when I made the comment, focusing on the "rarity of 10-level sex drives" she'd mentioned.

But I won't be correcting her just yet.

What She's Thinking Now

By not responding, she feels as though she's correct in her assessment and as such feels replaced. She has been told that her once-secured resource of sexual "feel-good" stimuli could be lost to another, better woman. Although her anger is caused by her lower sex drive when compared to her perceived competition, she has perceived me to be the root cause of her "bad feelings" and ultimate the bad guy of this scenario.

What She Will Think

She may seek out other men for short-term fixes to fill in the void I've left as her "feel-good" stimuli resource. I couldn't care less about that.

Because she perceives me as a high-SMV male and possibly the only high-SMV male within her current perception (range/access), she will soon realize the men she's supplementing my absence with cannot provide her the same level of stimuli (or she's just find a better/equal alpha). She'll then reach out and try to rectify the situation; not because she's admitting fault, but because she requires the level of stimuli I provide.

This is how Alpha Widows are born.

I'll then reveal the miscommunication, she'll laugh it off and we'll resume having sex like nothing happened. She'll put forth additional effort on her part during sex to help alleviate her fears of losing me as a stimuli resource. I'll reap the reward of said efforts.

Real Life Example Addendum

As predicted, Q reached out after a radio silence of 12 hours. She has now shifted her perspective of me from the a manipulative "player" only out to hurt her back to one of me as a strong "feel-good" stimuli.

Note that she now specifies that she "enjoyed my company" and that the "irrelevant BS" is a separate entity from me. Because she doesn't want to lose me as a stimuli resource, she's concluded that the offensive statement I made was the cause of her "bad feelings" and not me. This is a big step.

NOTE: If I had tried to explain prior to this point what I really intended, Q would have read such an act as one set on by guilt, similar to how a child rationalizes his bad decisions immediately after being caught.

I don't respond to this message for another 12 hours, telling her the real reason for my remark. Here's what follows.

Have you noticed how she continues as if the incident never happened? She's back within range of her cellphone tower because she enjoys the strong signal it gives.

And to the benefit of the cellphone tower, it can give its signal to multiple phones at once. Think of the relationship between men and women as symbiotic in that regard.

Chapter 2: The Perceptions of Women

A woman’s mindset is founded on 2 key characteristics: how she feels (emotion) and how she feels right now (perception).

A woman’s perception of attractiveness is founded on the same 2 characteristics: how she feels about herself (emotion) and how she feels about herself now and in comparison to others (perception).

The ”others” are the men pursuing her i.e. men who show her affection, validation, or interest, the men to whom she reciprocates interest and each man’s SMV in relation to her own.

In short, the men she chooses to keep "within range" is a strong determinant of what type of men she finds attractive, to what degree and to what end.

This “range of men” reveal her required prerequisites for any potential partner; an SMV range under which she’ll categorize all men as “alpha”, “beta”, “unattainable” or “unworthy”.

As we discussed in the “Mindset” portion, women gravitate towards the most potent “feel-good” stimuli resource within range.

Using the cellphone tower analogy, if we consider her ideals of attraction as her annual income, she’ll determine her range of attraction by first determining which cellphone towers she can afford, then pick the best option among them.

The SMV of men she’s prone to sleep with will determine her Alpha prerequisites, the men she’s likely to “befriend” or that she only “likes like a brother” will determine her beta prerequisites, the men she tends to scorn or ignore are determined “Unworthy” and below her beta SMV and the men she drools over yet can’t obtain are considered “Unattainable” and are above all of her SMV prerequisites.

This is referred to as “The Ladder Theory”.

The Ladder Theory

There’s an saying that goes,

“A woman can determine whether or not she will sleep with you within 5 minutes of meeting you”.

This is true. To an extent.

Every woman has a mental checklist of traits any man must meet in order to be placed on a particular ladder.

While the original Ladder Theory only addresses two ladders (“Friends” i.e. Betas and “Potential Partners” i.e. Alphas), we will be discussing our newly-revised 4 Ladder method: The Unworthy, The Beta, The Alpha, and The Unattainable.

To better illustrate how the ladder theory works, we will use archetypes Brenda, an attractive club-hopping blonde and Alex, a heavily tattooed painter.

The Beta

Brenda arrives at Skyy Bar with her friends. She quickly notices Alex across the bar and thinks he’s attractive, so she signals him with an IOI. Alex responds with a devilish smirk, brushes his hair back and begins to walk over to Brenda.

For the sake of argument, let’s attach numerical values to Brenda’s “SMV Range of Men” better understand Brenda’s prerequisites in general and for each ladder:

Brenda’s Attainable SMV Range: 4-25
Unworthy (<0-3) Beta (4-15) Alpha (15-25) Unattainable (>25)

Now, let’s attach a value to one of Alex’s characteristics i.e. his tattoos:

Alex’s Awesome Body Ink (+15)

Before actually speaking with Alex, his tattoos alone would have put him towards the bottom of the Alpha ladder (more on this later).

Brenda finds that large tattoos extremely attractive, so this would stand that Alex –whose covered head to toe in tattoos- is likely to end up on Brenda’s “Alpha” ladder.

That is, if physical attraction was all that mattered.

Brenda weighs each trait of Alex’s differently, some even negatively.

Brenda sits down and chats with Alex. Although she thinks he’s attractive, from their conversation, she also thinks Alex is a pushover, timid, she hated how he agreed with everything she said, dislikes that he’s worked at Kinko’s for 8 years and feels like he comes off as too sexually desperate.

In lieu of their conversation, Brenda’s “updated” evaluation of Alex becomes…

Alex’s Awesome Body Ink: (+15), Weak Frame(-2), Meekness (-2), Fear of Confrontation (-2), Unambitious (-2), Scarce Mentality (-2)

Therefore, in Brenda’s mind…

Alex, That Tattooed Guy from The Skyy Bar = 5 (Low-Ladder Beta)

Alex is baffled by this crash and burn. He’s confused by how such a “sure thing” could so quickly turn into “let’s just be friends” and “I don’t see you that way”.

Men don’t have multiple ladders. Men have one.

For the advancement of society, men had to possess the propensity to fuck any and every woman. Because of this, men only possess a “Potential Partners” ladder.

Also, the majority of all prerequisites for men on determining a woman’s placement on their Potential Partners ladder is based on physique or sensory determinants; unlike women, characteristics like intelligence, social status, personality, etc. are not inherently a factor.

Alex is distressed by the loss of a chance with Brenda. He follows her and her friends around the bar to try and rectify the situation. Every time Brenda separates from her friends to get a drink or use the restroom, there’s Alex trying to talk big. Brenda begins to get annoyed.

What Alex isn’t understanding is that once he was placed on Brenda’s “Beta” ladder, he cannot “jump” to the “Alpha” ladder to avoid climbing up the “Beta” ladder.

This concept is called “ladder-jumping” and it is impossible.

Brenda won’t wake up one day and think scarce mentality, meekness and a weak frame are suddenly attractive. AWALT prevents the feasibility of this.

While Alex can’t “jump” to the next ladder, he can certainly “drop” to a lower one.

This concept is called “ladder dropping” and it is very possible.

Even if Alex had portrayed multiple Alpha qualities (20), a few Beta mistakes would be all it took to “drop” him down to her “Beta” ladder.

Herein lies one of the key points to The Ladder Theory:

Once placed on a ladder, the only way to move onto “better” ladder is to climb up the ladder you were initially placed on past all the other men she’s placed above you. After accomplishing this, you must begin at the bottom of the “better” ladder, again below those she’s placed above you.

For Alex to even get a taste of sex with Brenda, he’ll have to make Brenda genuinely believe that he’s a better match than Clyde (7), James (9) and Jason (13). And that’s just to get on the bottom of the Alpha Ladder!

And imagine the kinky things Chad (25) must be doing to her!

The fundamentals of The Ladder Theory explain the key reasons The Red Pill community stresses good physique, interesting and successful lifestyle and having the ability to let go/ drop out:

  • A good physique and interesting lifestyle will guarantee a higher “ladder position” when meeting most if not all women. As such, the likelihood of being placed on her “Alpha” ladder is much higher.

  • The ability to drop out quickly reduces the amount of time lost. Some women will drop you down to the “Beta” ladder, as no man’s the Prefect Alpha™. It’s much simpler and less time consuming to move onto a woman whose likely to put you on their Alpha ladder within hours than to spend months attempting to work your way up her Beta ladder just to end up on the bottom of the Alpha one.

The Unworthy

After leaving Skyy Bar, Alex drunkenly confesses to Brenda that he’s fallen deeply in love with her over the course of one night in a bunch of page-long text messages.

Alex’s Desperate Pleas for Attention (-5)

This action results in Alex being dropped down to…

Alex That Creepy Stalker from Skyy Bar = 0 (Unworthy)

Alex is now below Brenda’s SMV range and on her highly-populated “Unworthy” ladder. Once here, it is almost impossible to climb out, leaving the Alpha ladder as nothing more than a pipe dream.

Alex has noticed Brenda’s not answering her phone like she used to. He continues to call until Brenda becomes annoyed enough to block his number entirely. Goodbye Alex.

Although Alex is still considered physically attractive by Brenda, his cons deftly outweigh his pros.

And while Alex was placed on the “Unworthy” ladder by Brenda, Bob is considered universally Unworthy.

Bob arrived at the Skyy Bar shortly after Brenda. He thought Brenda was more gorgeous than Athena herself and tried every trick of seduction he’d learned. Most of Bob’s advances were ignored, so he attempted the “asshole” approach he’d seen Chad use. Brenda swears at him and dumps her Redbull Vodka down his plump shoulders.

Bob’s lack of physique and persistence caused Brenda discomfort.

Bob’s Over-weight Appearance (-10)

Low-SMV men like Bob disgust Brenda.

To Brenda, Bob’s traits were valued at…

Bob’s Soft Spoken Tone (-2), Short Stature (-5)

And so Bob was considered…

WhatsHisName, that Fat Creepy Guy from Skyy Bar = -17 (Unworthy)

By showing his affection, the Bob is implying that they consider Brenda attainable. This consideration threatens Brenda’s perception of her own SMV (i.e. attaching ego to attraction) because if Bob and other low-SMV men consider her attainable, she may not be as beautiful as she once thought.

It basically boils down to:

  • If Brenda aims for Chad (25) and Chad reciprocates, it reinforces her perception that she’s attractive.

  • If Brenda ignores Bob (-17) yet Bob persists, it shatters her perception that she’s attractive.

As reference to the “Mindset” section, Brenda directed her anger, fear and frustration back towards the Bob because in her mind Bob was the root cause of her “bad feeling” by making her feel unattractive and the cause of her loss of the “feel-good” stimuli of her belief she was attractive.

In short, “Bob made me think, which made me feel, which felt bad, so Bob is to blame.”

Ignoring his wet clothes, Bob believes if he can get Brenda into intellectual conversation, he can convince her to sleep with him through his job, hobbies and ambitions.

Bob is attempting to use his assets and personality to leverage against his poor physique which could work in some cases. Bob has a decent understanding of that.

What Bob doesn’t understand is that physique is a prerequisite to physical attraction, physical attraction is non-negotiable, impressing her does not equal intriguing her, his potential means nothing to her with results aaand Brenda’s interest don’t extend beyond her perception.

Brenda, finally giving in to his persistence, decides to hear him out…

Bob’s engineering job that Brenda doesn’t understand (+0), Bob’s high income (+10), Bob/Brenda’s mutual love of wrestling (+4), Personality (+5), Bob’s Potential Raise in 2 Years (+0), Bob’s Rolex (+2)

Even though she sees Bob in a slightly better light…

Bob, That Fat Rich Guy from Skyy Bar = 4 (Bottom-Ladder Beta)

..she has places him at the bottom of the “Beta” ladder. She hasn’t forgotten all of Bob’s negative traits and will weight them all to reach her conclusion.

Unlike Alex, Bob will have a much harder climb considering his unattractive physique weighing him down (pun intended).

The Alpha/The Unattainable

A few months pass and Alex (13) has miraculously moved to the top of Brenda’s “Beta” ladder. He knows all of Brenda’s interests, movies, music choices, hangs out with her constantly, texts her daily and talks to her on the phone for hours at a time.

Alex and Brenda go on a date to Skyy Bar, the bar where they’d first met. Alex has planned to use this date to ask Brenda to be his girlfriend.

Chad (25) arrives shortly after Brenda and Alex and is greeted by the glances of many intrigued women around the bar. One of whom is Brenda, Alex notices and feels a wave of insecurity.

Chad’s opening appeal to Brenda, before she even notices his physique or personality or hobbies, is the pre-selection he’s immediately garnered from other women.

Pre-selection operates under the concept of groupthink; what’s appealing to the majority is perceived appealing to the individual, what’s unfavorable to the majority is perceived unfavorable to the individual.

Chad’s Popularity Among Women (+15)

Even if cellphone tower A provides a better signal than cellphone tower B, if tower B has twice as many users, tower B’s popularity alone will attract more users than tower A. This is considered the basis of good marketing and branding techniques (Tylenol and Generic Brand are the same, but the majority favors Tylenol, so there must be a reason, right?)

Chad walks by Brenda and Alex’s table and barely acknowledges Brenda; a short half-hearted grin then off to the bar. Brenda thinks Chad is gorgeous.

Chad’s Physique (+10)

Chad hits on Melody the WonderTits™ bartender first. She turns him down abruptly.

It’s not that Melody finds Chad physically unattractive nor that she’s left unimpressed by his garnered pre-selection.

Melody’s SMV range (20-45) is much higher than Brenda’s; the men who meet Melody’s “Alpha” prerequisites (35-45) are men Brenda would consider unattainable (>25).

For Melody, the best Chad (25) can hope for is to end up on her “Beta” ladder (20-35).

Brenda makes an excuse to leave Alex and rushes to the bar. She throws a flurry of not-so-subtle IOIs in Chad’s direction and he reciprocates.

Alex notices Chad whispering something briefly into Brenda’s ear. He can’t make out what they’re saying. She looks offended at first, Chad smirks, says something else, she giggles and they begin to walk out together. Alex tries to catch up to confront Brenda but loses them in the crowd.

A few moments later, with a bladder full of Gin, he distinctly hears Brenda’s moans echoing of the bathroom walls.

Unenlightened, Alex will forever wonder what magic words Chad whispered to Brenda to have her bent over a bar toilet within seconds, something he couldn’t accomplish after months of trying. Yet he again fails to see the bigger picture.

Alex was doomed from the start; even though he’d done well to jump from a 0 to a 13 in a matter of months, he was still a 13 and thus was still on Brenda’s “Beta” ladder.

Alex’s hard work does not equate towards the guarantee of sex. Just as attraction is non-negotiable, attraction is not something that can be “earned” through time and diligence.

Alex may have added +13 to his SMV, but he is still limited to Brenda’s perception of all his traits:

(+15)(-10)(-5)(+13)= 13

And what’s worse for Alex, the +13 increase to his SMV is specific TO BRENDA ONLY; unlike something universal like physique or gaining an interesting hobby, the +13 increase Alex has gained by getting to know Brenda will NOT “carry over” to other women.

Even if he hides his negative traits with the next woman, the highest he could hope for with a woman as attractive as Brenda is low-ladder Alpha (15). And that’s only if they admire tattoos as much as she did.

Several months wasted.

A woman's attraction is centered upon a "range" of SMVs she perceives she is operating within and the role of each man residing within said range determined by the values she places on certain positive/negative characteristics these men portray.

Chapter 3: “Local Sexy Single Women” Fallacy i.e. The Over-Validation of Women Online

Sites like Instagram, Tinder and Facebook always seem to show tons of “local sexy single women” living in your area.

These ”local single sexy women” (which will be referred to as LSSW for the remainder of this post) are rarely as attractive as they are in their profile pictures.

They’ll try to hide all of stretch marks, sudden obesity and the like all while shit-testing as if they were the WonderTits™ they pretend to be.

These LSSWs are knowingly and skillfully portraying a façade of former selves to garner validation, attention, admiration, reassurance, the list goes on.

So then why do these LSSW go through all the cropping and photoshopping and filtering and lens flares and brush touch ups to pretend to be an HB9 then ACT like an HB9 when meeting in-person when it’s so clear that, in reality, they’re unattractive? Because they can get away with it.

The Origin of The “LSSW” Fallacy

Simply put, the online LSSW mindset is synonymous to the “princess effect”.

When women were little girls, they were told they had intrinsic value just for being alive and female (i.e. “my pussy deserves to be on this pedestal because I’m different from everyone else because mommy, daddy and my beta buddy said so”).

Also, because of the woman-catering online landscape, these women are provided an endless supply of betas and alphas alike that’ll give up validation by the barrel-full jut for the slim chance she might open her Pearly Gates™.

Online Orbiter: “I’ll keep chatting until she agrees to a date”

LSSW: “I must be so incredibly attractive and valuable to society, all these guys are chatting me up all day!”

It gets to the point where the woman becomes unreceptive to all real or obvious outside negative stimuli that may have previously caused her to change or better herself

LSSW: “What do I care what OmLaLa thinks about my obesity? I have 55 messages from guys on Tinder that tell me I’m beautiful this way. Big is beautiful.”

The key factors that we will cover to explain the basis and continuation of the “LSSW fallacy” are female abundance mentality (the limitless online validation condition), female perceived SMV vs. her actual SMV, the abundance of online BP scarce mentality, and online anonymity.

We will first need to build character archetypes to better illustrate the average LSSW and her rationale behind her decisions or lack thereof.

So then, let’s start with Brenda, a Post-Wall LSSW who, on her dating site profile, neglects to mention her all of her faults.

The Definition of a “Local Sexy Single Woman”

Brenda was once an attractive woman. In her prime, she was roughly an HB8 and she garnered tons of validation and reassurances due to her high SMV.

She had several male orbiters who would buy her food, pay for her gas, with one of the poor suckers even buying her a car.

What she had –and what a lot of high SMV people have- was minor social influence.

Social influence runs parallel to the concepts behind the “halo effect”; the more attractive you’re perceived to be by others the more people will want to follow you, the more trustworthy you’ll seem to them, the more interesting you’ll seem, the better you’ll smell, regardless of whether or not you’ve actually changed at all.

It’s not that attractive people ARE smarter, funnier, more interesting, or smell better; they are simply PERCEIVED that way.

In Brenda’s case, this social influence she controlled would be considered minor because she only influenced a small amount of men within a much larger society.

Keep this in mind, we’ll address this later.

Unfortunately, Brenda hit the wall at an early age and at the top of her prime.

Almost overnight, her SMV plummeted. Her beta orbiters, not yet ripe and ready for “picking” ran off to orbit the next HB and left her stranded and de-valued.

Normally, a post-wall woman in her condition would normally scoop up the first frumpy, bottom-of-the-bargain-bin-in-Walmart beta she could find and settle down.

But no. Not Brenda.

A common phrase you’ll hear on TRP is “past value does not guarantee future benefits”.

Brenda was fully aware of her recent decline in appearance.

But what kept Brenda from settling down –despite being post-wall- was a source of HB9-level validation that required little to no work on her part. Online dating sites and Social Media.

Brenda manipulates her current displayed SMV by using her past SMV as a façade (using old pictures to represent her “online SMV”) in order to capitalize on future benefits (male attention/validation based on false online SMV).

She will then rationalize all of this new-found attention as deserved as the pictures are still pictures/representations of her.

And so, Brenda creates a Tinder profile using her outdated HB8 pictures to attract a collection of helpless and desperate betas.

This is result of combining mass online scarce mentality and the betas’/LSSWs’ anonymity leads to a delusion of SMV on Brenda’s end.

Let’s move on to Kevin, the “nice guy” who attempts to hook-up with the random LSSWs on Tinder/PoF/OKCupid, but always seems to get stuck in meaningless conversations about work, world news, weight and the weather.

The “Nice Guy” Over-Populace

For Kevin, dating sites were a god-send.

Kevin wasted hours upon hours in chats and messages with multiple LSSWs, giving them extensive details about his life goals, careers, ambitions, dreams, opinions, beliefs and motivations.

He’d soaked in all of the LSSWs’ woes, problems and opinions, giving them step-by-step advice on how to fix themselves.

Kevin’s over-persistence in the online landscape compared to his persistence in the real-world results from the combination of scarce mentality and online anonymity within the online landscape. The absence of the fear of rejection makes Kevin’s attempts more bold and frequent.

He can also optimize how many women they can converse with at one time thanks to the internet’s ease of access.

The Effects of Mass False-Validation

What you get from a multitude of “Kevins” all taking the same approach online is

  • a mass of undeserved validation for the LSSW, the amount to which she’d never have received previously.

  • major social influence for the LSSW over a beta populace, as opposed to the minor social influence Brenda had in just her local area.

  • the delusion of the LSSW that her actual SMV is as high as her online SMV.

Both the betas and LSSWs feel benefited from this exchange, but the benefits for the LSSWs are much greater. It becomes a societal-based parasitic relationship.

This is the key issue behind the LSSW Fallacy; less attractive women are being overly-validated by a mass of beta males to the point they believe they’re worth it. They will then pedestal their own pussies to unrealistic levels because of their newfound abundance mentality. And on the online landscape, the unattractive woman’s SMV means little to nothing because it can be manipulated.

Summation

To combat and succeed against women, first you must understand that the thoughts, mindsets, beliefs and rationalization behind their actions are based upon values very different from ours, an oversight many of us tend to make. A woman’s understanding of the world is thoroughly subjective as it is purely based around her own focal point: her interactions within the world, experiences in the moment and her interpretation/internalization of the information the world puts in front of her.

-OmLaLa the Machiavellian