The universe created two types of men--alphas and betas--to serve the purposes of the species: Alphas to lead and impregnate and betas to follow and serve. Some science suggests that in ancient times only 1 out of every 16 men successfully reproduced. Although more betas than this reproduce in modern times due to social order and the institution of marriage, I nevertheless suspect that the 1-in-16 ratio is useful in illustrating a plausible proportion between the two male types today.
Assuming some degree of historical constancy with respect to the above dynamic I see two lessons to take from it: 1. If you're an alpha--sex with dozens of women is a likely predictor of this, if not a definition--you're probably in the slim minority (good job). And 2. If you're a beta, you may have your work cut out for you seeing as alphas are only the top 6 percent of men.
TRP can serve both groups by providing the information necessary for betas to mimic and perhaps eventually become alphas and for alphas to maximize and streamline their strengths to squeeze the most value out of the sexual marketplace.
As a rule it is the nature of women to use men for protection, resources, and, in the case of her interaction with alpha-males, reproduction. This is due in large part to their physical vulnerabilities. Manipulation is an imperfect word to use to describe this mechanism because it presupposes a degree of maliciousness or intentional deception but it's useful in that it reminds us of how tricky women instinctively are with respect to the value they advertise versus what they provide in an interaction pattern not deliberately calibrated by a more-manipulative, intelligent, and self-interested male. Arthur Schopenhauer described the innate modus operandi of women in these words:
With girls, Nature has had in view what is called in a dramatic sense a “striking effect,” for she endows them for a few years with a richness of beauty and a, fullness of charm at the expense of the rest of their lives; so that they may during these years ensnare the fantasy of a man to such a degree as to make him rush into taking the honorable care of them, in some kind of form, for a lifetime—a step which would not seem sufficiently justified if he only considered the matter.
Because women are more dependent on men for survival than visa versa, they have collectively developed a compensatory characteristic which allows them to extract value from beta males in ways that are not mutually beneficial. This is manifest in an automatic and brilliant instinct for interpersonal negotiation where she will constantly test the nature of the relationship in the hopes of extracting more value from a man while reducing the value she must provide to him. The classic example of this is the cheating housewife that—if we're all honest—don't blame once we see how beta the husband is (and because sexual strategy is amoral anyway). Women in this respect are instinctively significantly better at sexual strategy than men are. Therefore, we need our own compensatory characteristic: this subreddit.
Much chatter in the manosphere regarding the unpleasant nature of women is only accurate when describing the interaction patterns of women with men who haven't learned female nature and how to consciously manipulate it so as to tip the balance of power in his favor. To quote from a second and superior German philosopher:
The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.
Dangerous playthings require skills to enjoy without getting cut or burned. Let's discuss a couple of them here.
1. Develop and/or mimic a sex-satisfied, not a sex-desiring, mental disposition.
Women don't consciously agree with this but their psychological firmware nevertheless insists on being attracted to men who are already getting laid. This is a very primal form of pre-selection as her mind conducts this subconscious logical syllogism: "I don't know whether this man is fit for reproduction but the fact that there are signs that he may be already getting laid (he's not desperate, he's barely trying, he's already happy and cheerful) would suggest that other women have already made the assessment that he is."
There are two differing and mutually compatible ways of cultivating this sex-satisfied state (abundance mentality). One is to actually induce it by having sex with women regularly, going as low on the SMV totem pole as is needed to get laid. The other is to mimic it by artificially altering your behavior and demeanor to match the patterns of someone who is getting laid. There is no shame in this: Just avoid like the plague any behavior that she could identify as needy, desperate, or sexually frustrated. This requires you to constantly watch yourself, which is exhausting, so I don't recommend adopting this 2nd technique exclusively.
Heartiste illustrated this point well when he said (paraphrased) "When you don't know what to say to a woman, imagine that you're already lying in bed with two of them."
There is a lot to be gained by haggling your way down in the sexual marketplace just so you can be getting laid regularly. I am open to the idea that other male personality types might prefer to not have sex at all than to have sex with a low-SMV female but I would argue that that preference is born of low testosterone or an over-reliance on masturbation and pornography. There appear to be two camps in TRP. One says "fuck women" and the other says "fuck women." I am of the latter.
2. Treat her as if she was born to serve you.
The most attractive combination of psychological traits in a man are narcissism and happiness. The latter has some overlap with our discussion about sex-satiety but the former is separate.
Narcissism for our purposes here is delusional self-confidence and reckless self-interest. It's the characteristic of a man who has massive double-standards regarding himself versus the women he dates, and he knows it, and he laughs when he's called out on it.
Developing a specific, strategically deployable form of narcissism with respect to the opposite sex is tricky and every man will integrate this property into their existing social personality differently, but one trick I've found useful is to use a sort of affirmation or article of faith to undo and rewire the beta programming that the mind uses when interacting with women. An anonymous comment in the manosphere once described it this way: "Act like you are the star of the #1 reality show of all time: cameras following you around and millions watching it because you are so damn interesting."
In short, brainwash yourself into believing that you're a god. Eventually you may learn that this lie is actually true.
Learned-narcissism mirrors pre-selection closely. In pre-selection a woman doesn't have enough information to know whether you are fit for reproduction so she uses the judgments of other women to make that evaluation. With narcissism and delusional self-confidence, a woman doesn't have enough information to know whether you are fit for reproduction so she uses the judgment that you have made about yourself to make that evaluation. I assume it goes without saying that a woman isn't consciously considering you as a reproductive mate when she's discovering whether she wants to fuck you. This is all subconscious psychological phenomena that she herself has no direct awareness of. All she consciously experiences is a desire to fuck you.
While betas exist to serve women, women exist to serve alphas. Sometimes this dynamic is subtle; othertimes women will explicitly enjoy being or feeling used up by their alpha male partners. Treat her a little bit like she exists to serve you to establish the desired alpha-to-female relationship pattern.
3. Ignore anything and everything she says that you would have preferred she didn't say.
The most efficient and benevolent method of extracting the desired value out of the interactions you have with females is to punish and reward her by giving and withdrawing your attention. Counter-intuitively, ignoring a woman when she acts or speaks in an undesired way is more effective in disincentivizing than is confronting her verbally or even using physical violence. This is because ignoring a woman communicates a greater readiness to withdraw from her permanently. This demonstrates value and instills insecurity in her; whereas verbal confrontation communicates to her that she is his only option and that he's more inclined to try to control her than he is to merely gravitate away from negativity and undesired behavior and in the direction of other females from whom he knows he can procure a preferable relationship.
If a girl you're interacting with asks an unwanted question or makes an unwanted statement, flatly ignore it. I'm not suggesting that you fold your arms like a frustrated kid and give her the silent treatment. I am suggesting that you literally act exactly as if she had not said it at all. This is frame-reaffirmation. It's the most effective and efficient way of dealing with her bullshit and is especially preferable to verbal confrontation if either of you are prone to the slippy slope of escalating negative emotions.
There is a recurring and compelling sentiment here that the sexual marketplace is a zero-sum game. I believe this is only the case when men fail to learn how to calibrate male-female interaction patterns to satisfy the self-interested nature of the male and the alpha-pleasing instincts of the female—instead of the self-interested nature of the female and the female-pleasing instincts of the male.