EDIT: in this thread: I'm LARPing as a scientist, and 90% of red pill readers think I'm proposing serious science and critiquing my post as such. Assburgers coming out of the woodwork saying this is "Spergy." You guys are idiots.

 

The science is all mine, 100% original; these are actual empirical findings.

 

Introducing Garg's Law of Relationships

 

This describes the interactions between three variables:

 

1). Sex, S, measured in simple quantity of events, but also includes enthusiasm, pleasure-giving, sandwich-making, and willingness to engage in what would otherwise be considered degrading practices with genuine enjoyment.

 

2). Commitment, C, measured in a minimally nominal pledge of a degree of exclusivity, but also includes time, energy, attention, services, etc. Many observers consider cash or gifts to be part of this.

 

3). The male's sexual market value, SMV, measured by the intersubjective scale of hawtness for the male in the particular social environment, which varies considerably from context; includes facial appearance and fixed genetic features, but much more importantly, other aspects which are under the subject's control to change, such as physical fitness, style, status, competence, etc. Importantly, in this analysis does NOT include a monetary aspect (although this is a somewhat controversial premise).

 

Initial conditions of the three variables.

 

At the outset of their career, all males will have a sex quotient of zero, by definition.

Their commitment level will vary widely, depending on the magnitude of orbiter faggotry they have been duped into supplying.

And their value will almost certainly be quite low; estimates have been made that 80% or more of males are judged to be below average, and this statistic has been found to persist throughout their entire lives for most males.

 

The three variables correspond to three modalities of exiting the initial conditions.

 

Scenario A:

Across all demographic groups in the West, it is common for a low SMV male to eventually increase sex S from zero to a single digit number via massive, hard commitment C.

It is possible that this initial increase in S via more C will also increase SMV, mostly due to feelings of subjective well-being, pride, and confidence. However, this condition is NOT durable, as has been borne out in many reports.

 

Scenario B:

The advent of sex S could also be a random event. The variations are many, including second cousins, babysitters, retarded girls, rohypnol, but also legitimate potential pairings such as classmates or preacher's daughters.

In this scenario, SMV tends to increase, at least modestly; this is true of self reports as well as peer evaluations. However, an increase in commitment C, if it occurs, measured in almost any way, is eventually followed by a decrease in S.

 

Scenario C:

An independent increase in SMV is not invariably followed by an increase in sex S, but it happens in a preponderance of cases of lifting, and self reports of well-being show it to be the most satisfying, at least in the short term.

However, the general paradigm of relationships in the West are that, in this scenario, commitment C will rise. This is presumably caused by the assumption completely unsupported by evidence that an increase in C will result in the continued increase in S.

 

In intermediate to advanced relationships the results are similar.

 

In advanced relationships of many years, sex S is, in the great majority of cases, found to diminish. Typically this is met with an attempt to increase S by increasing commitment C, via services and non-sexual attention. Not only is this found to be fruitless, in most instances it results in a further decrease of S.

In many intermediate relationships of just a year or several years, the same decrease in S is commonly found. A similar investment of C is usually attempted, which also results in the decrease of S found in advanced relationships.

Interestingly, in these cases, the increase in commitment also results in a decrease of SMV. This is so universal and unaccompanied by other variables that it is considered to be causative.

 

However, in some beginning and a few rare intermediate relationships, the decrease in S is met with the agency of the male partner's refusal to increase C. If this doesn't nuke the relationship altogether, this drop in commitment is followed by an increase in both SMV and sex.

 

Conclusion: There is an inverse relation between the pressure of commitment and the volume of sex, when the degree of SMV is held constant.

We can express this relation mathematically:

 

S = SMV / C

 

The astonishing (to most of the world) results are:

  1. An increase in commitment results in a decrease in SMV and consequently a decrease in sex.

  2. A decrease in commitment results in higher SMV and consequently an increase in sex.

  3. An increase of SMV by itself results in an increase of sex, but if accompanied shortly thereafter by an increase in commitment, both SMV and sex are reduced.

  4. Commitment held constant, a decrease in SMV unsurprisingly results in a decrease of sex.

  5. A constant level of sex with just one female partner can hold SMV and commitment at relatively stable levels. This is something of a Goldilocks condition, where the woman meets the man's needs and the man meets the woman's needs; it is exceedingly rare.

  6. A mixed, high level of sex with many female partners will push SMV higher and allow commitment to sink.

 

tldr: From the man's perspective, exchanging commitment for sex is what scientists call a SHIT DEAL. Jack your SMV as high as you can and you can get MORE sex with LESS commitment. You can manipulate the two variables you have control over to control the third.

 

(Surely, with all the STEM nerds in here, somebody will be able to identify the law this is based on.)