So I've been pouring through the meta-analysis study of the dualistic strategy theory that also does a bunch of "sexy son" analysis as well. And I've always felt the two camps needed a small bridge between the two of them, and that the analysis felt a little too... binary.

Well.. I think I've finally satisfied my desire to put to rest my feelings of unease in the theory, here are the only very small holes I've found so far.

  1. Muscularity does not seem to be as important as people want to believe here, and in fact, it seems to be very polarizing. This would point to the idea that your body should be functionally muscular. No more, no less. This is why tradesmen are universally seen as more physically attractive. Their form, is function.
  2. SMV is SELECTED AGAINST for long term relationships. Now this requires a caveat. I've made a post before, I still hold this to be true. Women see men as TWO SMV POINTS LOWER, than their actual SMV. So a woman sees a man two points above her as her equal. She sees a man 3 points above her as undesirable. This also explains why a lot of women are in relationships with men that are of objectively much lower SMV. Those specific examples are problem women that are more realistic or have lower self esteem, so they're matching with men they think are 1 SMV point lower, when in effect, they may actually be 2 or 3. This is a strong dispute against the idea around here that men want to increase their SMV to land the girl... bad news later with that. This supports an idea that in both AF and BB, the goal is control. Over the situation (AF) and the person (BB). For LTR, the primary way to control that is SMV disparity or pairing. Hence, the rejection of SMV for LTR (represented in the study as social presence and intrasexual competition).
  3. Being good at math is important, demonstrating intelligence is bad, but having smart kids is good? Okay how to do demonstrate your kids will be smart without showing you are smart, but demonstrating you know math doesn't mean you're intelligent? Women... man. My best interpretation of this and some other weird data is I think the red pill is missing a functional category. It's AF (Alpha Fucks), BB (Beta Bucks) and AF (Alpha Bucks, high SMV, high social status). My interpretation of this data is that AFBB is a sort of masterbatory dichotomy, and that from a functional breeding perspective, that a meta analysis is done of her AF and BB suitors, from that, a suitable father is chosen. Here is where things get a little tricky and in depth. I believe that they are looking for "short term" features, but "dad" traits. This may seem self evident, but I'm going to further dispute "cads vs dads" or chads vs billys.
  4. There is some dispute around here about BB being "warm and fuzzy." It turns out, that data supports that women don't even want that kind of guy for a long term mate either. I believe on concur with Mark Manson that what an LTR candidate best is, can be described as "not needy." This is also supported by "nurturing" being a positive for LTRs but actually not being negatively correlated with short terms. Then you might conflate that with "being a good dad." Turns out, according to data, that's not true either.
  5. So BB isn't warm and fuzzy or a good dad? Well what is he then? According to the data, an ATM (no surprise) but also someone who can be controlled. Limited options, faithful, and a list of things that she doesn't even find attractive. But SIGNAL that she can control you. This I think is bore out in some weird data indicating that moodiness is positively correlated in terms of long term relationship attraction. It contrasts with the idea of stoicness, but it absolutely aligns with the concept of BB as someone who can be controlled and manipulated.
  6. Dominance is very nuanced and polarizing. Suffice to say, AM and AA are probably as dominant as one should be getting (outside the bedroom). That would probably be way above and beyond what your mean male is capable of doing. Your frame should then be "paternal." Not domineering.
  7. AF BB then are "short term mating opportunities that can be controlled (the opportunity, not the actor) where signals of BB are limited or absent and AF signals are abundant" and "long term mating opportunities where signals of BB demonstrate resources and a controllable mate."
  8. There is I believe a third categorization, that might muddy what we believe is alpha fucks. There is high variability in the measurement of "future income potential" and "intelligence" as I listed above. As I said, I think AF and BB are masterbatory categories. They are when conception is not a goal, or being avoided. This also allows for certain intricacies of "fantasy roles" we common see women cycling through. For instance "the artist" or "the musician." SMV accounts for this, but the lack of attraction to the individual traits bears some analysis. And that outcome I think is that most opportunities in the post birth control world, are masterbatory. And that when time comes (the wall), that there is a third category. Probably not worth any discussion past this because the party line here is to spin plates. But I believe that AB is probably within the range of BB instead, and that no such thing as AB exists. That presumes some sort of stable long term MF arrangement. AB is IMO just SMV10. And you can still be SMV10 and be BB or AF. So it's not a 3rd category. That third, I think is the dad category. And it requires a small list of traits that seem to defy AF or BB categorization. AFBBDAD. So from that you have your accidental AF kids, single mothers. Your sub optimal BB single mothers. And then your DADS, which are absent of negative AF traits or BB traits and positive on rearing traits. But bizarrely, being good playing with kids is negative on both AF and BB. I believe, innately, women understand a man's role is to provide. So the idea of him being good with kids, is bad. The idea of him providing smart kids, or having money for those kids are good. This further supports men love women, women love children.

Take it how you'd like. I've been searching for a long time on data that could support my doubts.

Don't try for an LTR, they're not built for it. You're either rent a cock, an ATM or a controllable partner (to be discarded for a father or rent a cock), or a father.

Then the hierarchy follows Maslow's. Fathers are chucked for providers, etc. Government functions as providers, and BB acts are surrogate fathers, to go back to AF.

From these we derive optimal male strategy.

If you're BB, cheat with a girl who sees you as AF. Cheat with who ever, you mean nothing.

If you're AF, spin plates.

If you're dad, if you reject having kids, you're cycled out. If you have kids, afterwards subject to same AFBB. Again, consult Maslow here for branch prediction.