Red Pill Science: UCLA researchers compile evidence women's dualistic mating strategy

Reddit View
January 16, 2016

tl;dr: alpha fucks beta bux is only the nickname for a scientifically proven phenomenon, women's dualistic mating strategy. This thread highlights the conclusion of a UCLA meta review on the topic.


If you've hung around TRP for a while, you've probably already seen this study. For those who don't have, here it is in all its glory:

Women's Sexual Strategies: The Evolution of Long-Term Bonds and Extrapair Sex

Notice the URL: this is from UCLA's own site. If you, God forbid, end up debating this shit with feminists, ask them if UCLA is a misogynist organization and then dump this on their heads.

Who are the authors?

Elizabeth Pillsworth is an Assistant Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at UCLA.

Martie G. Haselton is a Professor at the UCLA Department of Psychology.

They are both white female academics working in a liberal university of a liberal American state. Fewer people could be less suspect of being biased against women or holding misogynistic views. Let's see what they conclude.

I'll break down their conclusions and attach the relevant TRP lingo where appropriate:

  • Across all cultures, women deploy a dualistic sexual strategy: Coupling (beta bux) and Dual Mating (alpha fucks)

  • Coupling (beta bux), meaning the formation of a long-term 'monogamous' relationship with a provider, is necessitated by human infants requiring long years of high resource expenditure before they are independent.

  • Evidence indicates that for the purpose of Coupling (beta bux), women seek out men that display characteristics like ability to provide (bux), kindness and reliability. When selection is constrained, women will prioritize the ability to provide (bux).

  • Women will display Commitment Skepticism (shit testing and comfort testing) with their Coupling partner (beta bux), requesting a variety of displays on his part (failed shit tests) to gaurantee he'll be willing to commit once they have coupled (and she's likely pregnant). This is because a wrong investment on the woman's part would prove disastrous for her, leaving her without her Coupling mate's resources (beta bux).

  • Dual Mating (alpha fucks) is a strategy in which women seek to reproduce with men offering better genes (alpha) than their Coupling partner (beta), while retaining the commitment (bux) of the Coupling partner

  • Women are specifically drawn to Dual Matin during the fertile phase of the ovulatory cycle, and women in long-term relationships display a larger attraction to Dual Mating than otherwise

  • For dual mating, women prefer men with the following (alpha) characteristics: body and facil symmetry, facial masculinity (large jaw, prominent brow), dominance, deeper voice, physical size (in relation to their partner)

  • Evidence of Dual Mating is the adaptation to sperm competition (the relatively large-sized testes in men follow the pattern in other primates of larger testes = more sperm competition), the commonality of extrapair mating (cheating, with around 20% of women admitting to at least one lifetime instance), and the development of jealousy (which is not ubiquitous among primates) in males, including to the point of violence


  • alpha fucks, beta bucks is evolutionarily ingrained in human females and guarantees their best reproductive success

  • the scientific evidence for it is multi-dimensional and overwhelming

  • alpha and beta characteristics are hardwired, not cultural; cultural and social context can add something on top but can never replace or overcome instinctual behaviour

  • LIFT, become assertive and learn to speak with a proper voice

Post Information
Title Red Pill Science: UCLA researchers compile evidence women's dualistic mating strategy
Author thiasus
Upvotes 759
Comments 244
Date 16 January 2016 02:29 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Original Link
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:

[–]The_Red_Paw106 points107 points  (24 children) | Copy

Funny thing is this is hardly news. I'm 48 now, and my journey to the Redpill started a loooong time ago. It must be twenty years ago I saw a program that studied women in bars and concluded the ones shaking their asses the hardest and showing the most skin were married women, ovulating. Their conclusion then was identical. Alpha fucks, beta bucks.

At the time I was in deep, bitter bluepill territory (after a vicious, textbook case of AWALT divorce rape to a woman I never even married), and the show blew my little mind. It was the beginning of my journey to the Redpill, before the internet was even a big thing.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (21 children) | Copy

I am genuinely curious about how your experienced divorce rape from a woman you weren't married to. Was this a legally enforced thing, or more social situation?

[–]The_Red_Paw111 points112 points  (20 children) | Copy

In some states, (like Washington, where I live) if you live with a woman, fuck her and mix your money (say by opening a business or buying a house), the state considers it a 'meretricious marriage'.

If you break up the courts don't want to hear your problems. It's a binary decision. Married or not. Saying 'I do' isn't what counts.

I was living with her, I was fucking her, and I bought the house we were renting. Literally THE NEXT DAY she broke up with me and demanded well over 1/2 my money.

Many, many other sordid and eye-popping fuckovers later she got it.

Fighting it was the dumbest mistake of all, the entire family law system is stacked so hard that it's like trying to reason on r feminism. You will be penalized HARD for the facts.

I could write a book about it, but people wouldn't believe it and they'ed sell it as fiction/horror.

EDIT: And frankly I'm embarrassed I was ever that stupid.

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (1 child) | Copy

Whew, that fills my rage quota for the day. That's the kinda stuff that would have me on a rampage shooting spree if it happened to me.

[–]The_Red_Paw30 points31 points  (0 children) | Copy

Heh. If I told you the rest of the story, you'd use C-4 and ricin.

(now I'm gunna be on a list at the NSA for using both those words in a sentence)

[–]Duliticolaparadoxa15 points16 points  (3 children) | Copy

You weren't stupid. You were approaching an illogical situation with logic, which put you at a disadvantage. You have to learn the rules of the game to play effectively, and you went into the game assuming it was based on the rules of reality,so you never had a chance.

Don't be mad, you lost a round in the game and it hurt and it set you back but you learned from it and now you are a stronger player for it. Anything you walk away from that affords you a lesson is a gift.

[–]The_Red_Paw12 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy

It's the gift that keeps on giving. I had to refinance the house I just bought to pay her off, meaning I've been making extra payments for 20 years.

[–]LyricBaritone4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Damn, that's savage. I never would've thought something like that could happen.

[–]anonymoustrper3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I could write a book about it, but people wouldn't believe it and they'ed sell it as fiction/horror.

Probably you should try selling it. At the least, you'll get over it at best, you'll make more than the money you lost.

[–]bur_ner_5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Oh my!! It would sell as horror because that is exactly what it is.

[–]All_In1231 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Wait so how did you mix money? I thought you bought the house.

[–]The_Red_Paw0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

If you are married, the state automatically assumes any money the couple have is a 50/50 split. Yes, I paid for the house, and the state awarded her nearly all the equity I just paid for, not just half.

[–]thenarrrowpath0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You should a detailed post on this.

[–]Taikal0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

I could write a book about it, but people wouldn't believe it and they'ed sell it as fiction/horror.

Why don't you write it?

EDIT: And frankly I'm embarrassed I was ever that stupid.

You weren't stupid. You were naive.

[–]The_Red_Paw0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I don't write it because

A) I'm not going to be that whiny 'look at me, I'm a victim' guy.

B) Nobody has offered me a cash advance. Writing a book is a lot of work and I have a short attention span.

C) I don't particularly want to relive every moment of the thing. What I've described here is a tiny fraction of the fucked upedness, the sliver that was germane to this discussion.

D) Really, if I wrote the whole story out, nobody would believe me,

E) I don't want to be lightning rod for the entire misandryst, false accusation culture. Those bitches already ruined my life once.

F) I now embody the concept of wu wei. Doing something by doing nothing. I don't do business with women or women owned or helmed companies (like Yahoo). I'm retired now but I never hired a woman when I still owned a business (which was easy as bitches don't apply to do hard work), and even though it's illegal I habitually charged more to women as they are simply harder to work with. The only time I argue with women is when I'm feeling frisky and want to make them cry.

Women cannot win this war they have started, the outcome is ordained by biology.

I can live out my remaining years insulated from the decline, knowing the experiment called 'democracy' has failed. By definition, 1/2 the people are below average intelligence, but they still get to vote.

I have no kids, so in another 25 years (or, realistically, less) I won't care if the sun goes supernova. Nothing of me or mine will be here.

[–]Taikal0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You attitude is selfish, because you could spare lots of grief to other naive men. They don't need a whole book from you: a few pages would do. Maybe you will reconsider this issue a few years from now. Being selfish is entirely within your rights, of course, so please don't take mine as an insult. I wish you awesome luck for the remainder of your life.

[–]Swiss_Cheese97970 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Any way you could find that again?

[–]10xdada31 points32 points  (0 children) | Copy

One of these evo-psych summaries, if not this one, should be on the sidebar.

[–]CRITICAL960 points61 points  (2 children) | Copy

This should be included in the sidebar, scientific evidence like this will be very helpful to newcomer s who are still on the fence.

[–]neuschwaben 168 points168 points [recovered] | Copy

Social psychologists and PR guys at the turn of the century figured this out, and have spent the last 100 years exploiting women's nature to sell more toasters at the cost of western civilization.

EDIT: Bernays (Freud's nephew), is the man behind fluoridated water, feminists smoking, bacon and eggs, banana republics, and maybe best of all, he Rebranded propaganda as Public Relations. oh, and he was *Kosher.

[–]Steve_Wiener32 points33 points  (41 children) | Copy

I'm gonna need you to explain that comment.

[–]xiaojimi17 points18 points  (2 children) | Copy

There's a seminal documentary, Century of the Self, explaining in detail the work of Bernays and how he moulded mass media to become subtle, manipulating and very political.

[–]baraka297 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

The Century of the Self

It's in 3 parts, they are all on Vimeo. All of Adam Curtis' documentaries (The Power of Nightmares, The Trap, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Graces) are must watch

[–]WakandaDrama5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

That documentary gave me nightmares. About as bad as researching the JFK assassination. Knowing events are fabricated for money and power of a rich oligarchy was overwhelming, every conspiracy theory I joked about was damn true, if not worse!

[–]2IVIaskerade27 points28 points  (1 child) | Copy

Bernays pretty much invented the field of Public Relations in its current form.

All of the things listed are regarded as great successes of PR.

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (33 children) | Copy

Jews are behind most of this shit. I know how that sounds, and I know you think I'm automatically a nazi for thinking this, but it's true. Seriously, look into it for yourself. I used to be in denial about it, then I actually did some research and found that pretty much everyone in Psychology, critical theory, feminism and marxism is jewish. It's just an undeniable fact at this point.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil27 points28 points  (8 children) | Copy

Plot Twist: 1/3 to 1/5 of TRP Senior Endorsed are Jews.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (3 children) | Copy

TRP is a plot by Jews to undermine the very backbone of Western civilization... feminism.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

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

What kind of Americans have you been hanging out with? Our humor is very frequently sarcastic. Maybe you thought I was slavic because I was drunk when I wrote that comment?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Shalom, and when i get Sr. EC, the ratio rises.

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

Not saying that all jews are bad or anti-men or anything like that. I'm just pointing that the jewish intellectual scene has created a disproportionate amount of the Anti-male, anti-tradition and anti-capitalist movements, particularly after ww2.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

If you were part of a culture that prized intellectualism in a sea of people obsessed with bread and circus eventually you would be tempted to start taking advantage.

Who do you think is going to grow up to be more intelligent, A kid who spends time with his fat father watching football or a kid that has to learn a right to left language with no vowels?

[–]chaseemall21 points22 points  (11 children) | Copy

Well, Jews are disproportionately represented in academia in general. It takes a certain mix of intelligence, arrogance and obliviousness to propagate much of this stuff so I wouldn't be surprised that the group comprising 0.2% of the world population but 20% of all Nobel Prize Winners would be involved in this.

[–]nutty_bi0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy

They've also stuffed the Nobel prize committee and as such hook up their fellow Jews.

[–]chaseemall24 points25 points  (8 children) | Copy

Because Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman and co. didn't deserve their Nobels. /s

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]my_sfw_alias6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

Plus baldness, tay-sachs and a hooked ass beak.

[–]nutty_bi1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

As well as Crohn's disease, shortness, and mental illness.

[–]nutty_bi0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

Yeah, pick the two smartest Jews to represent all of Nobel prize winners. Good argument trick.

[–]1nzgs0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Think you're in the wrong sub if you're into anti-semite conspiracy theories.

It's always amusing how (usually whites) are so quick to label certain races as less intelligent, yet also so quick to dismiss certain ethnicities of having superior intelligence. It's always some conspiracy at play. The main reason Jews have received so much persecution anywhere they go is because they tend to be intelligent, and there's nothing socialists/collectivists hate more than bright opportunistic enterprising successful people. All the jews did to be the victims of genocide in Germany, was to put the native Germans out of business.

(I am white by the way).

[–]nutty_bi0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Jews are behind Communism. Sure, they're smart. But that feeds into their nation wrecking ways. When's the last time you saw a dumb villain?

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

This is a good point, but I don't think explains the huge domination of jews in the feminist and marxist academic communities.

It's way more than 20%, it's like 90%.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (3 children) | Copy

I highly recommend The Culture of Critique if you want to go down the rabbit hole. The Js impact on modern moral and social decay is staggering. It's easy for someone to throw an ad hominem at you, but it's your duty as a man to think critically.

[–]redestofthereds11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy

I started it this week and I'm still not done with the 20 something page preface.

This excerpt of an Amazon review sums it up:

Don't expect an easy read, sentences such as "Evolutionary conceptualizations of ethnocentrism emphasize the utility of ethnocentrism in group competition" (p.xxiv) or how about "The dynamic contextualist perspective conceptualizes development as a dialectical interaction between organism and environment"(p.40)!!!!!!!!That kind of writing had me reaching for the whiskey to numb the pain.

Imagine speaking this way to somebody. I would've been like "uh- huh, uh-huh. Evolutionary conceptualization, yeah sure. Gotcha!".

No wonder this book is unknown.

[–]EdgarAIIanPwn6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

And it in no way needs to be that convoluted, all that to say it's a combination of nature AND nurture. I hate when self-importance gets slipped into writings.

[–]redestofthereds5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

And Hollywood. Don't forget Hollywood. They're super over represented in the media. I mean look at Game of Thrones:Both of the of the producers are Jewish and even the book that inspired George RR Martin was written by a French Jew.

Or JJ Abrams. He once said that he wanted people of different backgrounds just for the sake of having a mix of people.

[–]1nzgs0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

And then you look at the fields of Anarchism, Austrian Economics, Libertarianism, and see that they are also dominated by Jews. Because academia in general is dominated by Jews, on all sides.

You're seeing what you want to see. It would be really sad if TRP turned into yet another anti-semite circle jerk like so many other subs. Anti-semitism is the bastion of the dumb collectivist, which is why so many SJWs are anti-semites.

[–]JayViceroy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. Jews are at the top of so many different areas of society because they are also on average the smartest people on the planet. And no I'm not Jewish, but have a lot of friends that excel in so many different sectors it's pretty obvious.

[–]cariboo_j0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

watch the BBC documentary Century of the Self.

Pretty good history of Bernays' ideas and how they were implemented by marketing firms, and more worryingly in election campaigns in America and the UK.

(Hint: appeal to the most base and irrational desires of the masses and the lowest common denominator)

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (5 children) | Copy

I watched that documentary. It was one of the most life changing things I have ever seen. It completely changed my views on religion, government, and humans as a whole. Humans are not as complex as we believe we are.

[–]Agu0014 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy

Which documentary please?

Poster you responded to has deleted his comment.

[–]baraka294 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

The Century of the Self

It's in 3 parts, they are all on Vimeo. All of Adam Curtis' documentaries (The Power of Nightmares, The Trap, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Graces) are must watch

[–]aroploen913 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Blowing stoopidhigh's mind must be a daunting task

[–]1KyfhoMyoba3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Bernays' book is probably on google. Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent is pretty good, but IIRC mostly deals with beating the war drums.

[–]TRPMaidenSlayer2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Getting offtopic, but if anyone is interested in PR, check out the book Trust Me, I'm Lying. Not going to say there's any RP examples in there or whatever. It's just a current state of things, and will help explain how so many people get shit information online from supposedly "reputable" sources - especially feminists.

[–]Kathulos5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy

Research Edward Barnays who is regarded by many as the father of public relations.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Kathulos0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Haven't read any of them. Just knew that was the starting point for the answer to your above question.

[–]Veqq0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Read Bernay's books, google.

[–]freefm4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

But how exactly did Bernays use this particular female dual mating/coupling strategy to sell stuff?

[–]freefm2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

This is a super interesting idea, but can you expand on it, or link to more information please!?

[–]Five_Decades82 points83 points  (7 children) | Copy

I made a post on TRP and it got deleted, but it was about shit testing in frogs. The female frog would 'accidentally' nudge the male frog. If the male frog held his ground, the female frog would stick with him. If the male frog got scared or ran off the female abandoned the male because a male frog like that couldn't guard her or her offspring.

So shit testing transcends humans, other species do it too. Women are trying to test if the man they are with is reliable, strong and stable.

[–]Kathulos11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

Sounds like an interesting read. Perhaps it was the auto mod that deleted your post. Accumulate some upvotes and try again. I would be interested in reading it. Here is an upvote to help you with the cause.

[–]1RPAlternate4214 points15 points  (3 children) | Copy

Remember, she isn't just looking for you to pass shit tests, she's looking for you to fail them too.

If she sees you as an Alpha, at first site, and shit tests you, and you pass, then you have convinced her that you are truly that alpha she saw. If you fail that test, and other tests, she will see you as a Beta who presents as an Alpha; for her this is ideal because she may get the genetic winnings of an Alpha and the provisioning of a Beta.

If you are presenting to her as a Beta at first site she will still shit test you if she hasn't already written you off as a "creep." If you pass, she may be more inclined to believe you are actually not a beta. If you pass her plethora of tests, whatever they are, she may see you as an alpha, though you may not physically present as an alpha, superficially.

Passing tests up front is key because if she gets used to you being a beta and suddenly start acting like an alpha, (like when RP is discovered or a DB marriage becomes intolerable) she will rebel but stay because her dualistic strategy tells her that she may have the alpha she desires who has proven his provisioning capability, already.

She doesn't always test you for strength... she also tests you for weakness because, either way, she wins.

[–]netherlanddwarf7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

The test is, "are you good enough for my eggs".

[–]1RPAlternate426 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

The test is simultaneously: Are you good enough for my eggs AND/OR are you good enough for my babies.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

My GMAT prep book had a reading section on female birds that would shack up with males outside their species and produce hybrids to gain access to resources. They would often also cuck the beta bird.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c34 points35 points  (0 children) | Copy

Those two have published a slew of related scientific articles on the subject of women's mating strategy, many of them highly cited (hundreds of citations), and many of them supporting TRP theory.

Google Scholar link

[–]Endorsed ContributorAFPJ15 points16 points  (3 children) | Copy

Tbh the hidden conclusion from this post that people need to understand(not "know", this is important) is:

A woman's interest in you (and therefore loyalty to you and willingness to be with you) will fluctuate daily & it doesn't take into account your personal history together - only what's in it for her now, in both relative and absolute terms.

You want to "understand" women? Whenever you're with one, just pretend you've only known each other for a week, and reset this counter every day, for the rest of your life and all their actions suddenly make sense.

[–]Vuking2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Very interesting...

Would you mind eloborating and even giving real-world practical examples/situation?

[–]slerpaderp0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Very underrated comment right here.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (92 children) | Copy

I'm curious on what's the other side of the coin, what male's mating strategy looks like. Because from what i've read men are supposed to want to fuck as many women as they can, but at the same time there are the ones settling for relationships.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (4 children) | Copy

The reason guys settle for relationships is because otherwise they wouldn't get any sex at all. In a free sexual market (before civilization), only 1 in 17 males got to have sex.

When the population exploded due to agriculture, this became unfeasible because you need 100% of men working to make agriculture work, and a man who doesn't get any sex doesn't feel like sacrificing his life for the good of civilization. So around the time agriculture booms, so does institutionalized religion as a method of keeping men from lazing around and women from concentrating on only the top 5% of alphas.

In this new world, women are guaranteed resources and men are guaranteed sex. This worked for thousands of years until feminism came around. This led to the belief that sex shouldn't be law enforced but resources should be, even after divorce. Men of course opt out of this marital slavery contract as evidenced by 70% of males aged 20-34 not marrying.

What is essentially happening is a reversal to pre-civilization gender dynamics, except that men who let themselves get shamed into getting married ("a real man gets marries and has kids", "you should grow up", "buy a house instead of renting that bachelor pad") live in perpetual slavery. Think about it, they literally have to work at gunpoint. Miss a payment and gang of heavily armed government agents will kick down your door and lock you up in gail. Where have all the good men gone?

Maybe the pendulum will swing back. Maybe women themselves will come to see that monogamy may be a social construct but at least it had a function. But don't hope on it because it might now happen soon. In the meantime just keep working on becoming Chad and becoming part of the class of males that gets access to sex. Think about that when you need to hit that last rep: sex or slavery

[–]reigorius4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

For one male, seventeen females reproduced. Stating 1:17 had sex is catchy, but nog what the article writes about. The hypothesis in your linked article (thnx) suggests something cultural like power-wealth combo that made males take it all. But nothing conclusive. Current number is 1:4 to 5.

Anyways, lift. As usual.

[–]Money_Bags973 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

That CNSNews article was good but...

“perpetual adolescence” "Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,”

Could you be anymore insulting to half the population?

“And that means the girls have to live by the guys’ demands. And that means less romance.

No, that means less free drinks, dinners, movies, and shopping sprees sweetheart

One of the comments from the article...

30 year old single man chiming in and loving it. No bitterness here. Just pure escasty as I clear 130k per year. Go on trips to Asia at least twice per year for a full on f-fest of young, beautiful, feminine women. Drive a brand new BMW, live in a beach community and eat steak every other day. No way in heck would I ever put that up to chance on a modern, selfish, brat American woman.

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

Goes to show how BP media is

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (25 children) | Copy

men's strategy is to fuck as many girls as possible. there are reasons that guys don't, but i would say it's probably most likely that they don't because of social incentives (peer pressure, consequences of divorce) and effort (don't know how to, don't want to put in the energy). getting laid is just a matter of showing up for girls, guys have to put in work.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRed_August6 points7 points  (16 children) | Copy

Many of the 'social incentives' are often very much the fabrication of women who rule the social game with their power of shaming. Many men abandon their very own primal directive to participate in an LTR -- in direct conflict with their own strategy -- because they are lulled into it by the siren songs and the promises of the female. It should be remarked however that men will fall on a spectrum here with some easily taken in and others steadfastly refusing (alpha).

Women need men to survive and will go to great lengths to work whatever system is at hand to achieve this. If we weren't the same specie, it would be labelled a parasitic relationship. Sometimes the parasite needs to provide some benefit in return.

It never ceases to amaze me how quick men are to abandon their pursuit of chasing and mating with many women by accepting monogamy for nearly nothing in return. That's the power of women.

[–]reigorius4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy

The promise of companionship, the availability of sex on a regular base without much effort, the shared experiences, are all concepts guys float on when entering a long term relationship.

Except, we keep forgetting that companionship should be sought-after among our male friends, which covers the shared experiences and the regular sex can be had with plates.

Although it does take more effort initially. But the hunt in itself fuels our masculinity.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRed_August3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Precisely, and shared memories with male friends will likely be shared again for life. Every LTR is like pressing the reset button.

Men now need to reinvent a social structure post marriage 2.0.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

companionship should be sought-after among our male friends

you can not be as affectionate with men as you can with women though and that makes a big difference, at least to me, on how fulfilling the companionship can be.

[–]reigorius0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

If you mean physical, than yes. If you mean emotional, maybe. If you mean brotherly love, then no. I hug my buddy when I see him. I don't need to hold his hands or kiss his face to strengthen the bond. We do that by being together and doing stuff. Bitches come and go, male friends stay.

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

I think friendship (brotherly love) can happen the same regardless of gender, it just becomes so much more complicated with women because of all the ulterior interests at stake, similar to combining work and friends and how it can cause conflict; but like a double edged sword it involves more risk but the reward is also more satisfying. Whether with a guy you won't be seeking sex or commitment or resources (well maybe) so it's easier to be genuine with each other, but still, you are usually bound to how much entertainment and you provide to each other, so i think it is as rare to find a bro that you can trust to talk about your problems and have them genuinely care, the difference is that with men the motives for friendship are usually very clear.

[–]vitringur0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy

You can just as easily say that "fucking as many girls as possible" is also parasitic, in the terms of having loads of women raise your children without providing them with resources and protection to do so.

Women bear the costs of having children and raising them, thus enabling men to continue their gene pool. Of course they are going to try to get something in return.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]vitringur0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

Well, we already have contraceptions. Nothing drastic will change with another one.

We are still evolved around sex leading to children. Knowing that there is no pregnancy doesn't change the emotional roller coaster that follows an active sex life.

Just like knowing there are no monsters doesn't stop people from being afraid of the dark, etc.

[–]ImHereAtLast 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

What distinguishes Vasalgel from other forms of contraception is that it's entirely covert; women will have no idea who does and does not have it. It'll also be the first male-specific contraception that will enable men to have unprotected sex without the fear of subsequent impregnation, a privilege that women have enjoyed for half a century.

I'm not saying Vasalgel will have any effect on the emotions attached to sex. I'm saying it will be damn good insurance against baby-hungry women who conveniently "forget" to take their pill for three months.

And much to the dismay of feminists, Vasalgel would ultimately endow men with the power to control when conception occurs; Feminists hate it so much because it really is a discreet, undetectable mechanism through which men will be able to appropriate the power of fertility away from women en masse. I'm not saying this is how it should be used, but this certainly will have an effect on society if it passes FDA standards and is released.

[–]vitringur0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Why do you say feminists hate it?

[–]ImHereAtLast 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

In all fairness, I've met self-identified feminists who say they wouldn't have a problem with it. However, the National Organization for Women has, I believe on more than one occasion, publicly opposed the development of male contraception.

I would speculate that feminists will hate male contraception because they'd perceive it as a threat to the monopoly women have on fertility; feminists consistently oppose programs, laws, and changes to culture that draw power away from women. For the feminists who have power in our culture, maintaining that power is more important to them then working towards equality.

[–]vitringur0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Then just say that the National Organization for Women thinks such and such.

There are loads of different private organizations and groups all around the world that in one way or another claim to be feminists. They have widely different views on different subjects.

The rest of your answer is, like you say, speculation. Based on unsupported preconceptions.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRed_August1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

The point that was being made here is that the typical man today is getting a raw deal. In fact, the entire culture places the man in a disadvantageous starting position, a position he doesn't even question.

[–]vitringur-2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy

There are quite a few problems with a statement like that. First of all, you are just guessing. Everyone has their own idea of the "typical man" and many would disagree with what you are claiming.

People often generalise when they are in fact talking about them selves.

Do you feel that you had a disadvantage at birth compared to women? Compared to other people? Compared to the average man? Were you not skeptical about your social scenario? Were you not the type to question things? Are you gullible?

It's a shame so many Red Pillers feel the need to victimise themselves, claim the world is unfair and feel sorry for themselves. That's the type of shit they bash the feminists for doing.

In ordinary biology, It is the male rather than the female that acts as a parasite. He is the one that injects his semen into the woman which starts to draw nutrients from her and causing problems with mobility and health.

The woman in return tries to get something from the man. Or just anybody else if that fails.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRed_August1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Am I guessing? Are you guessing? Feminist would disagree with what I claim.

What's your point? Do you have any information to add? Educate me, elucidate me. All I'm reading is "you're just guessing".

Where's the victimisation in this thread? I'm suggesting that men should negotiate a better deal. Focus. I know that some men victimise themselves on TRP but you're reading that meme into everything you see on TRP like a one-trick pony. Why don't you add some value? Add content, reasoned information -- add something rather than just make a blanket useless statement.

Do you genuinely think that women have it harder than men in today's western world as far as sexual politics are concerned? Have you read TRP at all? Next, do you think men would stand to gain in better negotiating their arrangement when coupling? Yes or no? But I digress. Personally, this era suits me fantastically well but it clearly doesn't work for most men, even many here on TRP. Again, what is your point? What are you claiming? You haven't advanced any information.

You've added absolutely no value to this thread. The parasitism was a euphemism and the zygote is the parasite, not the man. You're doing the female hypo-agency thing again.

[–]vitringur0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I was pointing out that you were not adding any information in the first place. You just put forward your own personal feelings on the issue with no indication of them being true at all.

You didn't even define the premise. In what way are men at an disadvantage from the start? What start? All men?

What deal is it that men should negotiate better?

The original point was that the relationship between a man and a woman could be described as a parasitic one, where the woman sucks out the man's energy and resources. I just pointed out that originally that was something men traded for their children sucking the energy and resources from the mother.

TRP philosophy is highly based on evolutional arguments, and I just put it back in evolutionary context. Women bear all the costs of raising children. The optimal strategy for men is to impregnate loads of different women without spending any resources on them. That is the parasitic nature of man that women are trying to protect themselves against.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (6 children) | Copy

What about men who can get to fuck a lot of women but given the option they'd rather have a solid LTR? Isn't that against their instincts? Even though it's kind of an instinct itself.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (1 child) | Copy

people aren't 'rational actors' meaning that people don't strictly do things that are in their "best" interest. it's what makes predictive models of human behavior (e.g. economics) so difficult and flawed. you can always say "this person should do this thing in this scenario to get the greatest benefit" but that doesn't mean they will.

his reason for being strictly monogamous doesn't make sense as a sexual strategy for procreation, but he still is. that doesn't mean the instinct for multiple partners isn't there, it is, but he isn't acting on it. it's impossible to conceive every reason he made this decision and even if we asked him and he gave us a legit sounding reason he might not even know.

we know AWALT AF/BB and yet NAWALT because while the instinct IS AWALT, the result can be NAWALT. we can turn it around and say AMALT, every guy DOES have the instinct to fuck as many 10's as is humanly possible, and yet NAMALT in actions.

i'm not a slave to instinct, neither are you, nor she, nor he.

imagine you know two girl who are equivalent in all ways except two: physical beauty and their interest in you over time. girl A is a 10, but only interested in you after you achieve success. girl B is a 7, but interested in you regardless of success. assuming 0 success at the beginning of your timeline, and then 100 at the end, should girl A approach you once you get to a success level of 90, you might tell her to fuck off and stick with girl B because you resent her. that's not the best sexual strategy, but you still did it. an ape wouldn't.

this is why it's so important to be observant with any potential LTRs and really take your time and screen like a motherfucker. AWALT, but are her actions NAWALT?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think you vastly underestimate the number of married dudes who have side pieces. Indeed the quality male without a side piece seems to be the minority throughout history. Its the truly mediocre males who have to spend their whole time/energy/resources retaining one female (who is probably some other males sidepiece) that are actualy monogamous.

[–]alphbux5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Isn't that against their instincts?

In evolution men have two strategies to ensure their genes get out there. One is the shotgun approach where they hit anything that moves. Most men will fuck sluts, but their instincts tell them never to LTR them. This strategy can mean they will scatter offspring around the place.

However a good quality female mate will produce that mans best genetic offspring, so in that instance it might be worth his time to put in some parental investment to ensure the best of his best will have the best chance possible.

So it's a mix of two strategies for a male.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Probably because we still have maternal instincts to look after our offspring. Dudes can still get baby crazy, and (I'm assuming these Men are settling into a LTR AFTER fucking a bunch of Women) it just gets easier to settle into a relationship afterwards and have a family.

[–]KinTraumaJide0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Speak for yourself, I make them work their asses off for it.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy

There seems to be a sort of r mating strategy time period to males and a K mating strategy time period to men.

Most guys when they are young they have high T levels and want to smash anything 5+. This is the time men are most likely to accrue bastards. The equivalent to this would be young/juvenile members of a tribe being warriors, running around raping and pillaging neighboring tribes etc.

As they get older, T levels drop, and they decide to pursue a K mating strategy with one or two females. This would be the equivalent of being a hunter gatherer or farmer later in history. Maybe they pursue r type on the side, but K type dominates their day to day.

If you smash random girls all the time there is no point in investing in their offspring because the chances it is yours is probably fairly poor. In return they are unlikely to invest anything in you when you are old and feeble.

If you smash the same girl/girls daily any offspring she has are likely yours and worthy of time/investment so they can provide for you in later life.

[–]singeblanc0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

OK, so T is testosterone, but WTF is r and K?

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

r and K are mating strategies in the natural world.

r is high volume low investment breeding. A frog would be an example of r breeding. They lay a bunch of eggs and peace out.

K parenting is low volume high investment breeding. An elephant would be an example. They are pregnant for like a year+ and their infants need support for years.

A man who is an r breeder would be pumping and dumping girls all the time with bastards in multiple states or countries. A man who is a K breeder would be married with one or two kids, a fat college fund for them, goes to all their hockey games, gets them braces, pays for lessons/tutors, etc.

Females by design are basically biologically incapable of r type. Some do it (they get knocked up every year and have welfare pay for them) but generally and historically speaking r mating is beyond the capability of female humans.

[–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

[–]The_Red_Paw6 points7 points  (50 children) | Copy

The ones that settle for relationships are the betas who cannot mash who they want.

The Alphas banging these wives may be married too, but they are not settled down.

[–]FreeRadical516 points17 points  (20 children) | Copy

I recently got in a relationship with a girl who was fucking me for months exclusively while she knew I was fucking other girls. At any time I had at least 3 plates for over a year. Yet it started to feel very meaningless to fuck other girls because I just had a better time hanging out with that one girl. Every single time.

The breaking point came when I scored a new 8.5/10 plate and fucked her on the very first time I met her. With my dick inside her, all I felt inside was general apathy.

So I LTRed my favorite plate and so far have been nothing but happy. Part of the decision to go exclusive definitely was to secure the commitment of this girl, but a bigger part was just a vacation from the boring chore that constantly hunting for new plates became and the little pleasure it provided. I might get to a point where I miss it, I might negotiate non-exclusivity again.

[–]reigorius5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

I thought I was the only one. The feeling of apathy when you spear another pussy. I view dating more or less as work. Going on countless dates to hone my skills. And be ready in the rare event I catch a goody.

Good luck with the LTR

[–]Natural_RP8 points9 points  (18 children) | Copy

Are you new here? Is your plan to marry up and get divorce raped? I can't possibly see what you stand to gain from exclusivity.

You should always demand monogamy from your plates but not for yourself. If you have high enough SMV your plates will accept this.

Regardless why would you even enter into an exclusive agreement? What if you suddenly have the chance to easily bang a 10 that you really just want to bang, even if it's just once? It makes virtually zero sense. I mean if it's making your happy just to bang one girl that do that, but don't promise her you'll never fuck anyone else.

[–]FreeRadical514 points15 points  (17 children) | Copy

I've been a regular here over 2 years, this is a throwaway account.

No of course I won't marry her, that is out of the question. I honestly didn't see myself getting in a relationship for a good 2 years while I was regularly spinning plates. And yes most of my plates did agree to being exclusive and ok with me seeing other girls including this one.

I surprised both myself and this girl when I wanted to start a exclusive relationship with her. Scoring new girls and fucking them till they eventually moved on in a few months just wasn't doing it for me anymore. As much fun as it is, I started craving something deeper. I felt the time spent with most plates was very scripted, shallow, lacking in sentiment and just wasted. While it is nice to be praised for being the hot guy she just wants to use as a dildo... there are 0 real feelings involved by either party. I started to crave someone caring about me more deeply.

It got to a point that a simple walk down the street with her started to feel more fun than taking the anal cherry of a new plate. To top it off, I could tell she was really holding back on becoming completely vulnerable due the inherent instability of our arrangement. I also felt I could enjoy her a lot more if I'd just be willing to give her a real chance.

So I decided to take a risk and give it a go, against all rational thought. I haven't felt this much peace in a long time. It feels absolutely incredible and liberating. I know she's still a girl that is capable of cheating and all manners of degenerate behavior in the right circumstance. But aren't we all? I took a risk and I'm enjoying the rewards. So far I love being in love... didn't think I'd feel that again. (Don't worry...Haven't told her that yet)

I should note however that this isn't just any girl. I've been with ~30 girls and not one of them was ANYTHING like her. She's so generous that I have to constantly stop her from over spending on me. She is confident and competent in life yet so submissive that I can slap her across the face and she will not challenge me (not that I do). So caring that she'd rather take the hit herself than let it harm me. I have never seen anything like it, but then again I am wearing rose colored glasses right now.

[–]Natural_RP18 points19 points  (9 children) | Copy

You have oneitis my friend. As I stated above, I don't agree with it but it's your life obviously you should do what makes you happy.

However that said remember the RP rules: Never marry, Never cohabitate, never have children an never put yourself at risk. If you can force yourself to follow those rules, have at it.

[–]FreeRadical52 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Agreed. Just shared my story to say that sometimes a relationship is a conscious choice despite having all the knowledge and options. I can force myself to keep her as a plate and continue my previous lifestyle but honestly I am just enjoying life much more now. Of course this too may be a phase.

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]FreeRadical56 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy

It probably is, but what is the harm in that? I am under no illusion that she is different from other girls. I know this sweet little angle of mine will become a cold apathetic cunt if a much higher SMV guy starts to look like a real option over me. However if indulging in this infatuation for now is bringing me happiness, why not? I know this might get my heart broken eventually but it seems a price worth paying to experience this.

I have accepted her nature and love as being conditional on my SMV and tingle producing ability. It isn't much different than my love for her being dependent on her SMV. It sounds horrible but if she puts on 50lb, it wouldn't be long till I am feeling trapped rather than lucky.

[–]kinklianekoff2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

great perspectives man. Something that complements this way of thinking; it may feel like you're taking a risk here, but honestly, as long as your resources stay yours, all you are really risking is getting your feelings hurt down the line. Boo friggin hoo.

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

all you are really risking is getting your feelings hurt down the line. Boo friggin hoo.

Honestly it can be a huge risk depending on how invested you are, the issue is that after certain point it becomes extremely hard to control how much you invest because the more you invest the more emotionally rewarding the relationship feels.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Do you think there's a point where if you find someone of high enough SMV you wouldn't care if you were to find someone else of higher SMV because the difference becomes negligible? Where you would risk more by leaving behind the depth of your relationship to try your luck on someone new? At least I feel this way but I seem to be alone.

The weakspot to this is that if their SMV lowers then you (or them) won't feel this way anymore.

[–]FreeRadical51 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Their smv certainly plays a huge role. Personally if the girl is lower than an 8 I highly doubt I'd be able to settle for that. Above that level, other hot girls on the street start to lose their impact on me. But more importantly ones you develop a deep enough connection it does offer significant protection against wanting other hot girls. Time spent with that person becomes so enjoyable that a minor improvement in smv just doesn't tempt me anymore.

[–]Morpheus-Man-3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Like i said before, bluepill is genetic, no matter how long one practices redpill theory the blue will eventually surface

[–]WakandaDrama7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Chasing pussy can get tiresome. The OG Ben Franklin said "Women and wine make the wealth small and the want great." Putting your dick in a hot chick and feeling apathy is a horrid feeling. All that work for another hole, another star fish, another "what have you done for me lately" type.

Chicks who dig you and actually invested just get wetter. Being around a chick who wont shit test you can be a relief.

That being said, I trust no one, not even my own mother. Watch that chick, and choke her during sex every now and then

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

And yes most of my plates did agree to being exclusive and ok with me seeing other girls including this one.

How do you negotiate this with your plates? How do you put it into words to them?

[–]FreeRadical50 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

For most of them I didn't really care. For the girls that I liked enough to care, it was offered long before I requested it. All I did is casually mention "you should never assume exclusivity unless it's explicitly stated" from the beginning. That puts the ball in their court to negotiate for it if they want. And they often don't even try.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Oh! I misread it, i understand now. I thought you said that they agreed on being exclusive to you while you were not exclusive to them.

[–]FreeRadical50 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

You didn't misread. That's what I said. The girls usually just offer exclusivity after that. If you don't offer it in return, most will still stay and now you have that deal.

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

Oh I would have thought they wouldn't be keeping a deal like that once you turn them down.

[–]no_horse_girls0 points1 point  (26 children) | Copy

Is this true? Do men not form families? I'm speaking about throughout history, not just today.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (4 children) | Copy

Historically Alphas were the resource holders.

They were Alpha Bucks.

Alphas do not do any one thing over another, they do as the like and anyone who prescribes to you what an Alpha should or shouldn't be doing has a ways to go yet. There are a lot of "Alpha" men who are loving fathers and caring Husbands.

[–]Senior Contributoradam-l7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy

Alpha – Socially dominant. Somebody who displays high value, or traits that are sexually attractive to women. Alpha can refer to a man who exhibits alpha behaviors (more alpha tendencies than beta), but usually used to describe individual behaviors themselves.

Beta – Traits of provision: either providing resources or validation to others, women (and perhaps men). Beta traits display low value to women if they are are put on too strong or too early in meeting- giving without equity. Beta can be used to describe individual behaviors, as well as people who have an overwhelming amount of beta properties (opposed to alpha).

I think there is a good reason that the TRP terminology focuses on "alpha" and "beta" behaviors rather than personalities. I understand the need for a codified terminology, but discussing in way of "Alpha" does this and "beta" does that is too schematic, in my opinion, and could cover up the gender dynamics.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

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

Betas are also more engaged. When hypergamy is kept in check Betas have skin in the game. An alpha with five plates isn't necessarily more productive. Where as life long virgin Betas will be much less productive and you get rampant mgtow movements since what is the point of success, buying a house, or being a good consumer if you are living alone with your cats. The machine is starved and society suffers. That's where we are now.

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

Stability for society required women to be unable to provision for themselves without a man.

This is waaay too much of an assumption

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

Historically, tribal times, early agriculture, early civilization, etc. you basically got as many females as you could afford/attract.

It was kind of like Mormonism is today; if you could afford 1 wife +kids, thats how many you got. If you could afford 6 wives + children, thats how many you got.

The market restrictions we see today (the idea of one man one woman monogamy) are relatively recent inventions. Really monogamy is the best way to keep everyone just barely satisfied most of the time.

With the rise of feminism and the welfare state paying for all their bastards, harems are making a comeback.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

It was kind of like Mormonism is today; if you could afford 1 wife +kids, thats how many you got. If you could afford 6 wives + children, thats how many you got.

How great would it be that the social norm were that women have to be monogamous but men don't, and having women get shamed if they did otherwise.

[–]JimmyJiangh2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'd guess harems for high status men also occurred.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

if 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex, then your genes want to know if you are part of the 20% or part of the 80%. If you are part of the 20%, then your genes tell you to be a total sexual predator and maximize on your quantity of sex as much as possible. I think this is determined by how many sexual partners you get between 12 years old and 18 years old. On the other hand, if you are a virgin at age 18, your genes go "I must be part of the 80%", so your genes make you into a nice guy who wants monogamy, because if you can get a girl, you better keep her.

[–]bigrock458 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy

I think the problem is repressed sexuality and self actualization. If like myself you grew up with a mom who was narcisstic and told you men were bad. You grew up being ashamed of wanting to hit on girls and thought it made you worse than you already were, as well as dissapointing people. Thats what makes people beta, not genes

[–]alphbux1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

I've read similar about this elsewhere in evo psych. That males that are lower value are more susceptible to committing rape in order to pass their genes on.

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

Also more likely to commit school shootings boop

[–]Stalgrim23 points24 points  (0 children) | Copy

While that system is fairly obvious. I mean it developed over a series of millennia I think we can all see it for what it is. What I'm interested in is the modern system that's developed in the last few decades that allows for funneling of beta dollars into a divorced woman's bank account while her former partner works his ass off to just continue living and out of jail. Meanwhile this divorcee woman can go off with whichever partner she prefers, with her former partners resources.

[–]1nzgs12 points13 points  (3 children) | Copy

This ties into research that shows how a woman's partner criteria changes during the month according to her cycle - when ovulating she favours AF traits and when not ovulating she favours BB traits.

Guys spend so much time arguing about whether women are attracted to money or muscles or what, when the truth is they want both, at different times and for different reasons. Very very few men can provide both adequately, so women defer to this dualistic mating strategy instead.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRed_August5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

I would nuance that a little bit. Women have always and always will be looking for the top shelf sperm. She's more inclined to mate when she is fertile. She thus is seemingly looking to mate with alphas when she is fertile. The thing is, if she had a choice, she would only mate with alphas, regardless of cycle.

A women doesn't 'mate' with a beta-provider. What she's really doing is 'trading' and that's the difference. She's trading sex for security and shelter because women cannot live without men. When we lived in bands 200,000 years ago, there were no beta-providers as we know them today. They didn't need to exist because a woman could find all her security needs met by the the whole band (tribe) -- shelter, protection, help with children, etc.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think the issue with BB is that although it does get you to spend time with a woman, it doesn't get her desire to fuck you. She will fuck you as much as necessary, and she might legitimately enjoy it, but you'll never feel that primal urge of a woman longing for your seed.

[–]stunningandbrave0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

They want Dr. Sixpack Monstercock.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy

A note for intrinsically beta males: The thing is that beta orbiting works as a sexual strategy, very often. Not speaking for myself, but i've met a lot of beta orbiters that were simply persistent whilst his target woman could never find an alpha to stick around. It's not a very fun life being a woman's second place fall-back guy but if you're a short, stumpy looking man with a 5/10 face and average paycheck you don't have much choice about it really.

I'm just saying this because a lot of guys simply cannot be alpha - it's impossible. You have to be honest with yourselves and if you're going to be a beta male, then learn to play the game as a beta male. Make sure it is known that you're looking for sex, and then just be persistent. Be that available guy that sticks around until the woman gives up.

This friend of mine named Andy does this. He's 5'4" and a round stoutly looking guy with a short ugly haircut, and a boring round face with soft features. He's very average and a very 'nice guy'. His gaming tactic is to do what I said above and it works for him. He gets women that are higher SMV than him by going on a lot of "friends only" dates, but with the clear intentions that he's a sexual being that wants to fuck. It takes him probabaly 15x the effort of an alpha male to get his dick wet but eventually it works. He stays right in their minds by texting often and asking these women out constantly. He envelopes them with his presence and just keeps cracking at that eggshell till he strikes gold.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

This sounds like a sad pitiful life to me. But hey, who am I to judge? He probably gets laid more than me at the moment...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

He does pretty well considering. The women are always really into him in his relationships as well. He's happy with life.

[–]Money_Bags970 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Fuck that. I refuse to settle being a "nice guy". I may be disadvantaged at the moment, and have to work harder, but I'll be damned if I sink back into nice guyness after discovering this place.

[–]foldpak11111 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

You just can't make this shit up.

[–]filthyass119 points120 points  (28 children) | Copy

I often wonder whether it's even necessary to include the RP terminology when writing stuff like this. This is legitimate science, couldn't you just allow us to draw our own conclusions based on the facts? I mean, I'm a smart guy. I don't need to have my hand held through an article about mating strategy.

I removed all of the RP terms and re-posted below. Thoughts?

Women's Sexual Strategies: The Evolution of Long-Term Bonds and Extrapair Sex

Who are the authors?

Elizabeth Pillsworth is an Assistant Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at UCLA.

Martie G. Haselton is a Professor at the UCLA Department of Psychology.

I'll break down their conclusions:

  • Across all cultures, women deploy a dualistic sexual strategy: Coupling and Dual Mating

  • Coupling, meaning the formation of a long-term 'monogamous' relationship with a provider, is necessitated by human infants requiring long years of high resource expenditure before they are independent.

  • Evidence indicates that for the purpose of Coupling, women seek out men that display characteristics like ability to provide, kindness and reliability. When selection is constrained, women will prioritize the ability to provide.

  • Women will display Commitment Skepticism with their Coupling partner, requesting a variety of displays on his part to guarantee he'll be willing to commit once they have coupled (and she's likely pregnant). This is because a wrong investment on the woman's part would prove disastrous for her, leaving her without her Coupling mate's resources.

  • Dual Mating is a strategy in which women seek to reproduce with men offering better genes than their Coupling partner, while retaining the commitment of the Coupling partner

  • Women are specifically drawn to Dual Mating during the fertile phase of the ovulatory cycle, and women in long-term relationships display a larger attraction to Dual Mating than otherwise

  • For dual mating, women prefer men with the following characteristics: body and facial symmetry, facial masculinity (large jaw, prominent brow), dominance, deeper voice, physical size (in relation to their partner)

  • Evidence of Dual Mating is the adaptation to sperm competition (the relatively large-sized testes in men follow the pattern in other primates of larger testes = more sperm competition), the commonality of extrapair mating (cheating, with around 20% of women admitting to at least one lifetime instance), and the development of jealousy (which is not ubiquitous among primates) in males, including to the point of violence

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy

I find that when you make it sound sciencey and put it in terms of animals people will agree with you and say it makes sense. However, as soon as you says its between men and women people act as though the idea is absurd. Usually you'll here something to the effect of "but humans are rational thinkers! We've overcome all that!"

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (1 child) | Copy

I often wonder whether it's even necessary to include the RP terminology when writing stuff like this. This is legitimate science, couldn't you just allow us to draw our own conclusions based on the facts? I mean, I'm a smart guy. I don't need to have my hand held through an article about mating strategy.

Because if you don't include the TRP connection then all he's doing is copying and pasting. There's something legitimate about a poster adding his own work or interpretation.

[–]foldpak1114 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

I do like both versions, though.

[–]1thiasus[S] 79 points80 points  (5 children) | Copy

couldn't you just allow us to draw our own conclusions based on the facts?

First, I'm not allowing you to draw your own conclusions either way. I'm condensing the article based on my own understanding and reading on it, which means what you are reading are my conclusions from their work. If you want to draw your own, you need to read the article, and that goes for anything that is posted here or elsewhere.

Second, the intended audience includes you, who evidently already understands the lingo, and the many guys who are new to TRP, not really clear on the lingo and most certainly not really convinced that this stuff is even legitimate. Showing explicitly what legitimate science says that exactly mirrors our own modeling is intended for them.

[–]PoorlyTimedPun4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

I appreciate it. Am new to all this...found myself here after a wierd year in my relationship that I'm sort of stuck in (we have a kid), with a woman that I do love but am struggling to regain the power in my relationship. The things I've learned in TRP have been by far the most helpful, and being new I really appreciate stuff like this making the connections easier to understand and relate to.

[–]EightyJay22 points23 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yea, OP puts in the work and some one w no effort provides criticism. I use to put a lot of work into helping less informed folks in other forums (investing, real estate, entrepreneurship). Then you get these lazy responses offer how you could have offered a better post (vs just taking / accepting or appreciating the value of the submission) and I quickly loose interest.

[–]obama_loves_nsa1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I appreciate your commentary interspersed in the article you pasted.

Keep doing that. Intelligent primates can read the original around your comments pretty easily. Not sure why there's a complaint

[–]d1sun 18 points18 points [recovered] | Copy

I agree. There was no need to overdo the AB/BB lingo.

[–]perkam5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy


Though I will be honest in admitting that the language in OP's post troubled me because I would more likely to fall into the beta bux category. Sometimes its difficult to tell when you're being taken advantage of when you assume you're in a decent relationship.

[–]systemshock869 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy

You haven't read much here, have you? Welcome to the suck

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

The "pure text" would be a good argument when engaged with a NAWALT enthusiast.

The annotated text is another example to the RP inductee that yes indeed this shit is verifiable reality.

Both are useful.

[–]10xdada4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Totally for TRP language on this. They could have taken their hypothesis' directly from this sub.

[–]1mr_nate_4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy

It makes it easier to read and more relate-able for us.

[–]magus6786 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think in this case the science can stand on its own. Repackaging dilutes the message

[–]Fuck_shadow_bans4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

That actually made it significantly less clear in a TRP context, which is where we are.

[–]TheReformist94-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

i honestly dont see why TRP doesnt advocate infidelity in todays climate where monogamy is not enforced. this biology is here, right in TRP's face that a women's sexual strategy is INHERENTLY DISHONEST, and HER CHEATING IS KEY AND CORE TO HER AF:BB STRATEGY. knowingly making a man raise another man's child is on the same moral plane as a man raping a women. you rape a woman's sex, she rape's your time and committment. they are hardwired to do this shit, what do you owe to her going out with her to keep sex on tap and not spin plates in the background? they do it all the time

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

nothing. this is what's weird about everything to me: we are concerned with what is their best strategy for reproduction and ignore our own - spreading our seed.

[–]Natural_RP5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

women. you rape a woman's sex, she rape's your time and committment. they are hardwired to do this shit, what do you owe to her going out with her to keep sex on tap and not spin plates in the background? they do it all the time

Who isn't advocating infidelity, or any tip, trick or scam you can use to get laid and further your own agenda? You should use every resource available to you.

Women these days are worthless and think they deserve everything (perfect alpha) simply because they are pretty skinny. Bullshit.

TL;DR All in fair in love and war, and make no mistake gentlemen this is a war.

[–]Lurker_IV0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

I often wonder whether it's even necessary to include the RP terminology when writing stuff like this.

Its very necessary. TRP promotes a fairly respectful and, dare I say, moral culture for individuals to succeed in life and fuck a lot of women of course. The scientific study information can be interpreted in some very bad, non-TRP, ways. Such as it justifies betas being suspicious, controlling, manipulative, and constantly jealous because science "proves" their women will cheat on them. That could create a lot of very abusive relationships. And on the flip side women could use this to justify cheating and lieing to their partners also. "Science told me to do it."

Look at u/TheReformist94 below. It only took two hours for these guys start using this study to justify infidelity and cuckolding as many men as they can. Did these idiots forget how easy paternity testing is? Their comments allready justify the abusive relationships I just mentioned.

I'm not disagreeing with the science. I think its good also that TRP philosophy has some science backing it also. But we cannot replace ethics and morality with "scientific justifications." Can you imagine the headlines, "TRP openly advocates infidelity and getting other men's wives pregnant! Use 'science' as justification." It would bring unimaginable backlash and vilification against TRP.

[–]TheReformist940 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I didnt justify cuckolding men.I justify and encourage cheating on your LTR with single women if you have to. Cuckoldry is the optimum sexual strategy for any woman who is in the bottom 85% who cant lock down an alpha.if you know a woman is gonna branch swing on your ass at the drop of a hat,go ahead and be loyal,but dont expect your loyalty to pay off when someone better than you comes along. By remaining fsithful to a woman who cudnt give two fucks about you all you are doing is maximising her serial monogamy whilst you surrender your polygamy.women are inherently dishonest so you owe nothing to be.all is fair is love and war.I will fuck over a woman but wont knowingly fuck over a married man.

[–]Lurker_IV0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Despite all the logical and scientific reasoning and the bleak picture you paint with it actual rates of men raising someone else's children are less than 5% almost everywhere. Last I read its around 3% in the US and less in many places. Our ethics and culture overcome the biological drive almost entirely and make it a rare occurrence.

This is why using the study to justify things is a bad idea.

[–]surgeon_general5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy

OP says "cheating, with around 20% of women admitting to at least one lifetime instance." That stat has to be way off, right?

[–]Kathulos11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

Women never lie when making rape or domestic violence allegations. Why would you think they might lie on a survey? I think you are just threatened by strong independent women. /s

[–]rztzz2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I believe it's closer to 50% for both genders

[–]waldo8884 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

It is interesting to note that if the woman is single/ has less orbiters more beta qualities should be shown to her. Once she has her beta options, no more betaness required from new mate.
I also found it interesting that failing shit tests is necessary to maintain commitment. And passing them to maintain attraction. Now how to balance this in your relationships is the hard part.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I am genuinely curious for an example. This is a very interesting theory on relationship dynamics.

[–]ajm22473 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

The key is to be the alpha and the beta, pretty simple outlook on life.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy


  • LIFT, become assertive and learn to speak with a proper voice.

Or if you're the beta/The Blue Pill, keep orbiting. She'll choose you to raise Chad's kid when she's done with Chad when he's done with her.

Obvious edit.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Orbiting IS the only tactic for beta males though. You've got to stop feeding the ugly, short men of low incomes with this deluded fantasy that they can be the alpha male lol. It literally never happens.

[–]faded_jester5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

All humans want to have their cake and eat it too. Any men here who wouldn't like a great wife to raise your kids and a smoking hot mistress to have fun with on the weekend?

The biggest difference is men are willing to admit it...women just pretend they are angels and get "offended" lol.

[–]I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVE2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

One possibility in presenting this evolutionary analysis of mating adaptations is that women may come to better understand the logic of their desires and perhaps make more informed decisions about whether to follow them.

This is what a voice of reason looks like.

[–]palaceposy67062 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Evidence indicates that for the purpose of Coupling (beta bux), women seek out men that display characteristics like ability to provide (bux), kindness and reliability. When selection is constrained, women will prioritize the ability to provide (bux).

Interesting point, particularly the last point, when you consider western civilisation's transition from small agrarian communities to heavily populated urban environments, with the rise of social media and Tinder. Where once there wasn't much selection and women had to make do with whatever dudes were in the community, now they can find all the AF they want with only a few swipes of a finger.

[–]Benny7572 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is a really important post. It provides evidence of what is actually going down. It's not like a conspiracy, mind you, but a realization and awakening (as is always said on this sub), that your chances of a happy beta relationship surviving is a poor one, and you, as the beta bux male, will pay for. Seen it just this morning.... ugh.

[–]augizzz9997 points8 points  (9 children) | Copy

TRP should use this post as armor against feminist logic. Sticky it.

[–]Squeezymypenisy38 points39 points  (7 children) | Copy

There is no feminist logic and you can't use science against them.

[–]augizzz99910 points11 points  (6 children) | Copy

You can't use logic against feminists, but you can try to reason with the swarm people that come after the noise they create.

[–]Squeezymypenisy2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

I agree you can. You see a reason though?

[–]augizzz9991 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Just to keep fat bitches screaming.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Fedora_Tipper_0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

He means that even if you show hard logic, like stats, history, and behavior patterns they still deny it saying it's been skewed or just plain out say you're wrong by shouting louder than you.

[–]Squeezymypenisy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Are you responding to the right guy? I was the one who said it was useless to argue with them. And then I asked why he was bothering talking to people about these things in the first place.

[–]1RPAlternate422 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

"feminist logic"


[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (9 children) | Copy

How come the concept of a marriage survived as long as it did? Because of the social stigma of cheating/adultery?

[–]Five_Decades30 points31 points  (4 children) | Copy

One reason is that marriage helps keep social stability. The environment we have now, where the top 5-20% of males monopolize all the women means that 80-95% of men are locked out of the mating market. Men who are locked out of the mating market and who do not have children can become unstable as they get older, which will result in violent revolt. Some of the mass shootings that have occurred are due to beta males who feel locked out of mating and out of society. In history, these males would team up and overthrow the government.

Mating after the sexual revolution

[–]10xdada5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy

To keep them in line, give them bread and circuses...and wives.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

Video games and porn for the millennium generation. I honestly don't think betas would mind this lifestyle that much if women would just plainly state what they want.

[–]Five_Decades1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

And religion. Religion, wives and entertainment.

[–]10xdada12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy

Thought religion was part of circuses.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon14 points15 points  (1 child) | Copy

Women needed the security in the olden days.


  • Raising 5+ children was necessary and huge amount of work (less schooling, food harder to prepare, clothes expensive, etc)
  • No social support from Daddy Taxpayer
  • No hope of remarrying or picking up a carrier past age 35

For their part, men said "If I have to marry, I'm going to marry a hot/good one.". So it was in women's best interests to marry, and divorce wasn't granted on a whim. Alimony was to enforce the male end of the bargain.

The female side of the bargain (sex, support of the man) was never enforced, and this side often sucked for many men - dead bedrooms abounded in the olden days too.

[–]eddiae5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

because marriage is about alpha kings throwing one female per beta to make them shut the fuck up and work for them, while kings and the alpha nobility enjoy a harem and infinite ressources. betas instinctively feel like they owe him one since otherwise they would end up with no kids and destroyed in a fight with an alpha as such they are happy with monogamy.

[–]JohnCashMoney1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Much the same conclusions came out in studies of primates. This is evolutionary psychology 101 and it is deeply ingrained in the psyche since our distant ancestors millions of years ago.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

My theory: Looking back thousands of years ago this was the same thing. You could visibly see a provider by his body and only the ones that could work together to hunter could survive. You could only provide if you were a fit kind of guy that could be a good hunter. Though this drifted apart when we became settled and wealthy. There's still need for a provider but the sexual arousal remained as it was (because one is dependent on the environment: being a provider; the other is a hard-wired emotion that is not).

[–]Pastelitomaracucho1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Im late to the discussion. But dont we men do roughly the same? All those stories of men enjoying the stability of a marriage with the advantages it had whilst enjoying sneaking out to have affairs with younger women? This is a classic story...

[–]whydoievenreply0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Men have different priorities since their investment in passing on their genes is very low compared to women (9 month child bearing and then raising kids). So it doesn't make sense for men to look for a woman who will provide for him and his offspring. That's why men don't care about resources.

Men's strategy is also dualistic the first strategy would be to have as many offspring with different women as possible, increasing the chances of survival for some of his offspring even though some of them will die.

The other strategy is reproduce with one woman and make sure the offspring survives by providing resources. The draw back of this is the possibility of being cuckolded into raising another man's kid with would reduce chances of successfully passing genes.

Men can use these strategies in separate or at the same time.

[–]mensafloyd1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy


Excellent write up! Keep up the good work!

[–]improvingme630 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This is a damn good AWALT post. I'm gonna read the report when I get home, but I enjoyed the break-down. Thanks!

[–]Moonshineraider0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That journal paper is a really good read

[–]strat_op0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Great article which also proofs that the optimal mating strategy is Alpha Bux:

"[...] women with relatively symmetrical partners actually showed an increase in attraction to their own longterm mates at midcycle. [...] the women who rated their partners highest on sexual attractiveness showed no evidence of an increase in extrapair desires near ovulation."

[–]Redasshole0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

alpha and beta characteristics are hardwired

don't understand this one right here. Do you mean men are born alpha or beta or that women have already categorized characteristics in two ways which are alpha and beta...?

[–]lumberjackinla0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

does any one have access to her thesis. It would be interesting to read. Please post if you can upload it from ucla network

[–]Eugenics20150 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This is why i say that TRP and the manosphere is legitimate science.

The minds and logic of red pill men are just as good as anything that comes out of a research university. Good find.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Pretty funny how human males have the largest relative penis size among all species. Our women are literally such whores that being able to scrape out the cum of the guy before you was an evolutionary advantage.

[–]reigorius0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Doesn't surprise me as I see how much girls intensely enjoy being fucked. I honestly believe girls feel more and better than us men.

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]1thiasus[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

If you cherry pick the article

Go ahead, show I did that. My conclusions are condensed from their "Discussion" chapter and from the one immediately preceding it which illustrates and details the two sexual strategies. Show what you think I left out that changes their conclusions.

[–]verdantsound1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

My experience with good, but no chemistry relationships? Completely stable women with loving families that adored me. I couldn't leave fast enough.

Wait, you don't like women with loving families?

[–]yGTWgtNrco-2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy

They are both white female academics working in a liberal university of a liberal American state.

So what? Academics are hired to do research. I would say these two are displaying academics at its best. Their nature would predispose them to want to conclude otherwise, yet they still let the facts lead their conclusions and not the other way around, which is what I've seen most academics do. Drs. Pillsworth and Haselton, you exemplify how all academics should conduct their research in all fields.

What's the fact that they're white have to do with anything? Or that they are female? Or that California is liberal -- it's not, except compared to the rest of the country.

[–]EdgarAIIanPwn0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

You missed the point and simultaneously hit the point on the head at the same time. Including that bio of the researchers helps validate that this research is (presumably) clear of any personal bias.

[–]yGTWgtNrco0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

No, I disagreed with the original commenters premise that simply because the two researchers are women and work at a liberal institution in a liberal part of the country does not necessitate that they will draw the conclusions that trp seems to want to rail against.

[–]sterlinghtsmi-2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy

The study doesn't mention the ability of men or women who actually live their lives based on character, integrity or loyalty. There are men and women who conduct themselves with a moral compass and can exercise self-control and not just fuck based on evolutionary instincts. There are good girls out there...don't write them all off yet. Just be Alpha enough to land them.

[–]whydoievenreply0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although... only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love.

[–]sterlinghtsmi-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

Live your life like a movie you script, don't live your life based on a scripted movie.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter