~ archived since 2018 ~

If You Were The Opposite Sex, What Would Your "Sexual Strategy" Be?

March 30, 2014
2 upvotes

I expect a few responses along the lines of "exactly the same we're all equal gender roles what about gays" and the like. Of course, much - maybe most - of it would be the same. It pays to be attractive, interesting, and have a sense of humor, no matter if you're a woman or a man.

But if you were the opposite sex, what would be your "sexual strategy" - for a hookup, a partner, or a spouse - be?

I'm a man. If I were a woman I would use my beauty and sex appeal to try to get attention from attractive men and have them spend time with me. After getting to know them and what they are looking for, I'd choose the one I like the best and if it were a potential LTR, start doing nice things for him and showing him I could be a good life partner. When we both feel we're ready for sex, I'd fuck his brains out. I would try to meet his emotional and personal needs and if it were a LTR relationship, I'd keep doing it.

So what would yours be?

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title If You Were The Opposite Sex, What Would Your "Sexual Strategy" Be?
Author jacks1000
Upvotes 2
Comments 47
Date March 30, 2014 5:06 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/if-you-were-the-opposite-sex-what-would-your.286005
https://theredarchive.com/post/286005
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/21r9ia/if_you_were_the_opposite_sex_what_would_your/
Red Pill terms in post
Comments

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

I'm pretty sure it would be literally the same. I'd awkwardly flirt sometimes in the hopes that maybe they flirt back. Spend most of my life single because I'm an awkward loser. Finally find someone cool and change large parts of my personality in order to suit her. Do lots of things for her, buy her what she wants, take an interest in her hobbies. Ruin everything by being depressed and needy. Rinse and repeat.

I don't see why this would be any more or less successful as a man than it is as a woman.

[–]PenguinLovrPurple Pill Woman3 points4 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

If I were a man, I'd only try to date "high quality" women. I never understood the quantity vs quality mentality of men - how most men would date anyone that they could. No, only go for the girl you REALLY want. Be as picky as a woman

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

A big part of being a man is a very powerful sex drive. A lot of female bodybuilders report crazy libido when taking drugs. Many men get sex wherever they can get it and quality goes out the window. If you were dieing of thirst you wouldn't insist on Evian water.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

A big part of being a man is a very powerful sex drive.

I think it's literally impossible for some women to understand this. I saw this linked here before (maybe by you actually) and even I didn't really know how big of a difference testosterone can make with some people.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/220/testosterone?act=2#play

EDIT: WARNING: VIDEO WITH SOUND STARTS PLAYING IMMEDIATELY WHEN LINK OPENS.

[–]garybuseysawakeningIron Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Man, trying to explain sex drive vs. sexual desire is pretty fucking difficult. It's actually why a lot of men are so goddamn vanilla, because they're the active party so often, and as such, have no room for their own fetishes and desire to blossom until it dies down.

[–]PenguinLovrPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I think that while that might be true for some men its a matter of priorities and discipline. If you hate studying but want to be an engineer or something else which requires schooling you need to tough it out for the reward. Certainly you wont get your goal by ignoring schoolwork. I feel the same way about goals in terms of life partners. If your goal is marriage you wont get any closer to it by chasing the wrong women. I would occasionally sleep with low quality women if I were a man but wouldn't make it my MO. I think that finding one high quality women beats out low quality women since a high quality woman can give you sex AND various other things you desire in life such as love, companionship, a family, loyalty. I know RP types will say women are incapable of all of that, but then again feminists will say men are incapable of that stuff too. Its not a surprise that finding that is rare. But you wont find it if its not even on your radar.

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Im sorry but you dont get it. This isnt so much a red pill blue pill debate as much as the genders not understanding each others experiencs. First off you dont chase low quality women. They throw themselves at you and you agree to sleep with them. You can pursue high quality women at the same time. The key is not comitting to a low quality woman and using them for sex. There really is no cost to fucking low quality women. I can pursue high quality womem at my law school and hookup with ok cupid and tinder sluts at tbe same time with no repercussions. Such is the modern dating market. I dont have to tuck my dick between my legs like a sad beta bitch.

[–]PenguinLovrPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I thought one of the things rp claims is that women dont throw themselves at men, which is why men are disadvantaged in the marketplace and need to work harder to get laid. They say a woman could walk itno a bar and fuck anyone she wants, but a man needs to actually put in effort. You probably missed where I said, I probably would have sex with low quality women, but wouldn't make it my MO. The thing is unless a woman is throwing herself at me I dont see the need to put effort into bagging a low quality chick for a ONS, rather trying to get the chick who I hope is wife material.

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Desperate woman throw themselves at men. Fatties, Single Mothers, women with daddy issues, women with self esteem issues all throw themselves at high quality men. If you are a top tier man (like myself) you can easily get laid. The bottom 80% of men are severely disadvantaged. No one makes it their MO to fuck low quality women but sometimes you wanna have sex or want to use her bed as to not drink and drive. As for wife material those girls are few and far between. I know it when I see it and I peruse those women accordingly. However no girls night out Vegas spree girl is wife material, no matter what cosmo tells her.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]PenguinLovrPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

These are some really good points, thank you for sharing your experiences

[–]jacks1000[S] -2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I agree that's good advice for men, but it seems men tend towards polygamy the way women tend towards serial monogamy. As a guy, I completely understand the instinct towards quantity. But since I'm more than just my sex drive, putting that much effort into spinning plates doesn't seem worth it, nor does it seem particularly emotionally healthy.

But say I was in an LTR and it was "open" - and some other woman just happened to want a fling or whatever, sure I understand the appeal, no doubt.

[–]PenguinLovrPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

If i were a man I'd probably want a monagomous relationship because of the companionship and love, but thats not true for all men obv, but my SO has only ever been monagomous and has no desire to do the hookup thing so I know its possible for men to want that

[–]garybuseysawakeningIron Pill1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

but my SO has only ever been monagomous and has no desire to do the hookup thing so I know its possible for men to want that

People lie, dude. He probably has quite a bit of desire, but desire to act on it is a whole other thing.

[–]PenguinLovrPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

you could be right but either way he doesn't have a desire to act on it.

[–]garybuseysawakeningIron Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's kind of my point. One of the weirdest things I see on TRP is this notion that 'women cannot unconditionally love' as some kind of vice. It's not. Unconditional love is fucking retarded, because it strips the people involved of any responsibility for each others' happiness.

Apologies for getting all 'love guru-y', but acknowledging your partner has desires for other people is healthy and conducive to a good relationship, because it generally means that they desire you more.

[–]mikado126 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would milk the fuck out of betas - free drinks, gifts, everything. I'd be the most hypergamous cunt on the planet, and while internally understanding RP I'd still deny the fuck out of it in conversation.

I think I'd be pretty brutal.

[–]roe_Purple Pill Man1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If I were a woman, and wanted an LTR:

"I don't do casual."

Stated upfront. Scare the players and serial monogamists off.

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not really- Serial monogamy is also a side effect of the effort to have an LTR that fails (oops, you turned out to be boring/a jerk? byyyye!!!) and part of the challenge as a woman is that your possible pool of men includes a subset of those who don't care what you want and will try anyway.

Some of them will presume that you just want them to think that you're not that kind of girl, while others will actively lie (or rely on being as vague as possible) or figure that if the can change your mind. About the only screening process that you can use that's hard to game that way is literal time. And I don't mean arbitrary "three dates and you're in".

The flip side though is if you demand time, you have to boot out all the heavy and/or fast investors. You do not want the ones who will buy you stuff or go above and beyond the call of duty with favours- these people think they are buying you.

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"I don't do casual."

Just another shit test. The number of girls who said that to me hours before hooking up... LOL

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

About what I do now, but possibly with more time in gay bars as MisterPearl?

I mean I do both genders already, but possibly it would be nice to be less worried about the consequences of the male half of the pool getting the wrong idea- I mean right now the biggest challenge for me is that during the mutual auditions process the man half tends to invest and escalate on the commitment front faster than I find in our mutual interest. (Jeeze dude, you don't have time to know if I'm nuts or not yet.)

I tend to be fairly assertive and candid about my feelings, but also survive well from rejection.

[–]sh1vRed Pill Man1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm gonna go ahead and say its impossible to answer this one honestly. For either side. No one really knows how they would act with their brain chemistry/structure radically altered, all their social interactions different from an early age, exposed to all sorts of different training and messages throughout life.

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, I could look at someone like my brother as a contrasting example- we were raised with roughly similar backgrounds- he doesn't seem to have any challenge getting laid, but he also seems to understand women and men equally well. He and I use a fairly similar approach to "dating", although I'm kinky as a cheap garden hose and he seems to be more vanilla. We're not identical people, but both of us seem to approach the opposite sex with the idea that "these are my friends, but with fun extra bits!"

[–]shutayooface3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I hope I'm not too off topic but I had a thought and didn't want to start a whole thread over it. Men and women often have trouble empathizing with each other because they often inhabit different realities.

Think of sex as water...

Women (especially young women) live in a monsoon. Everywhere they go they are drenched. They are understandably sick of all the rain and puddles.

Men live in a desert. They have to walk miles and climb steep hills just to find a drink.

Women look at men scheming and planning to get a drink of water and they think "how gross and pathetic". I mean, water is everywhere, why are men so idiotic over something so inconsequential?

And on the other hand, men, with their perpetually parched throats, are unsympathetic to the complaints of soggy women.

[–]jacks1000[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I kind of part ways on TRP on this one. It's true, women tend to be able to get casual sex easier than men, but it's precisely because they want it less. Especially young men tend to have a much stronger and more immediate sex drive than women their age. So the desert/water analogy works for men, but for women, I'm guessing it's the quantifiable aspect that don't relate too, as if sex is a quantity, more water or less water. For them, it's more like the taste of the water, right?

This is why they are always bitching about "objectification" and our "entitlement to sex" because we talk about sex as fungible - we'll take it from here, or there. It's precisely when sex is abstracted, and made fungible, quantifiable, that women can't relate, cannot empathize, and in fact, feel insulted. They feel dehumanized, because in theory, at least, she thinks you are "reducing" her - and specifically, personally her - to another quantity of water you're going to drink.

You are writing sex with you, she is reading sex with her. Instead, you just give them a narrative, say, instead of a metaphor, try an allegory. Instead of, "sex is like water" make it "I was so thirsty and imagined this wonderful spring."

[–]mudra311Purple Pill Man1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

For them, it's more like the taste of the water, right?

That's kind of the point. Women are so bombarded with men trying to initiate sex, they're looking for the best of their selection. Whereas men are not consistently approached by women, so their "standards" may be a lot less.

Back to the water analogy, if you're dying of thirst in a desert, you don't care if the next puddle has shit in it - you'll drink it.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

And also where the analogy falls apart. If sex is water, you both want water, right? But she is getting offered more and you are getting offered less. Water is something you both need, and she's drowning and you're so desperate you're willing to drink water with shit in it. This is not a very sexy analogy is it? Plus sex=water is so one dimensional. Is this a gay analogy? Let's try something different.

How about you're on fire and she's the firegirl you want to put it out? She's got a bunch of fires burning around her and only so much water. She can use a little bit of water on each fire but won't put them out. Or she can use all her water putting out a big fire in vain. Or she can find a fire just big enough she knows her water can put it out. Of course, she's not going to do that, she's a hypergamous firefighter, the point isn't to actually put out fires, then the fun would end. The point is for her to pour all her water on that one unquenchable fire until it's almost gone, then throw her body on the coals to smother them, sacrificing herself.

An Unquenchable Fire, that's going to be my new bodice ripper.

(The economic argument, supply and demand, has been done a million times. It's better than the water/desert analogy. If we're trying to figure out why women can't empathize, an analogy they can't empathize with won't work.)

[–]mudra311Purple Pill Man0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Where does the fire analogy work in accordance to quality? Is a big fire a quality guy?

EDIT: Rereading it, I know what you mean now. So, I have to be a big fire AND be burning something important = an orphanage or Children's Hospital. It can still work with the water analogy.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, no, no. If you want to talk about supply and demand like sex is a fungible commodity, just make the economic argument.

But we're talking about women here. Screw arguments, tell a story. How about a tall, handsome fungible commodity broker, brooding in his Manhattan apartment, visions of failed relationships in his past. One day a sexy firelady knocks on the door. "Sir," she says, "we have a report of smoke coming from this apartment." "Oh, come right in," you say. She walks through the door past you, then turns her head back and gazes fleetingly at you, fluttering her eyelashes.

"You know what they say" she says, removing her firefighter's helmet, loosening her long brunette locks, "where there's smoke, there's fire."

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So, I have to be a big fire AND be burning something important = an orphanage or Children's Hospital. It can still work with the water analogy.

Yeah but the orphanage/children's hospital thing is way better, go with that one.

[–]shutayooface3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's difficult to say. If one changed sex, the change in hormones could very much affect how you feel and what you want. Each of us is looking at the question through a haze of estrogen or testosterone that colors our vision.

[–]jacks1000[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's difficult to say. If one changed sex, the change in hormones could very much affect how you feel and what you want. Each of us is looking at the question through a haze of estrogen or testosterone that colors our vision.

Very true, but that's why it's an interesting question.

[–]zenmushroom0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

If I were a man I would focus on building myself up, pumping steel at the gym, excelling at the things I'm good at like music and conversation. I'd meet women through mutual interests, such as friends group/spirituality/or the gym. I would NOT meet a woman at a bar or club, cuz they might be too much into the party lifestyle.

I'd also NEVER EVER date a selfish woman. In this day and age, a selfish woman has so much power to ruin a man's life. Perhaps as a woman myself, I understand this power more than most men do. A selfish woman can divorce you simply because she's bored and then take half of your paycheck for the rest of her life.

I also would NOT play the field! Too much of a risk in terms of knocking up the wrong person, false rape accusation and so on.

So, I'd make sure to find a woman with a stable job and a big heart. I'd even be willing to let some things go in the looks department, and perhaps intelligence department (provided she can still hold a somewhat decent conversation). My priority would be compassion, humor, creativity, intellect and then looks in that order.

Once in the relationship, I'd be sure to care about her needs and be nice, but not be a doormat at the same time. I'd also smack her on the ass and fuck her hard.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd also smack her on the ass and fuck her hard.

Well that's just common sense.

[–]IIHotelYorbatreats objects like women0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I actually think about this a lot. I'm starting to become comfortable with the idea that heavy amounts of socializing and self actualization would still be a good route to go. Once you start eliminating your own insecurities, you'd be more and more able to see genuinely good traits in other people. I'd make eliminating neediness a priority.

That and the no-brainer of the gym, clothes, hair, etc.

[–]Fancypantser92Non-Red Pill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm a woman and I use the strategy you described above. If I was a man I'd use the same strategy, only substituting "beauty" with a broader sense of attractive attributes, as women tend to have broader views of things that add to a mans initial "sex appeal" (ambition, humour, skills, compatible interests/subculture/values and general success in addition to looks).

However, in both genders success depends/would depend on whether the person has enough beauty or attractive attributes to create adequate sex appeal to attract somebody. If you're dealt a bad hand in life (ugly, lacking charisma, socially anxious, unpopular interests etc), then this "strategy" means nothing.

Sure you can work out/wear makeup/dress up/strive for success/generally self-improve, but a lot of the most attractive attributes are innate and difficult to mimic. Effectively this boils down to "be attractive/don't be unattractive", just taking a narrow sense of what "attractive" to means to men (beautiful) and a broader sense of what "attractive" means to women.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If I was a man I'd use the same strategy, only substituting "beauty" with a broader sense of attractive attributes, as women tend to have broader views of things that add to a mans initial "sex appeal" (ambition, humour, skills, compatible interests/subculture/values and general success in addition to looks).

That really does seem to be the case.

[–]kittenpantzen0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Tough call, since if I were a man there would have been major differences in how I was socialized and in my life experience.

But, if I were to just wake up tomorrow with XY chromosomes instead?

I am pretty germaphobic (MrPantzen holds the distinction of being the only person I have ever been so into that I could make out with them w/o getting at least partially grossed out by the bodily functions behind it), so I would prefer to just go home and jerk it than pick someone up for a one night thing. I don't have any inherent issue with someone who has slept around a lot, but I want to be in the position where I am comfortable talking about testing (and either know them well enough to believe what I am told or not feel like an asshole asking to see their results) before I am in the position of potentially contracting anything.

I would probably stick to meeting new women through mutual friends or through interest/activity-related events (church, dog obedience training, dog rescue, meetups, etc.). Based on my experience as a woman, with women friends, the "friendzone" is only a thing if she isn't into you. Most of the women (a large majority, in fact) that I have known who are the type of women with whom I would want to be involved have no qualms about getting sexually involved with guys who are their friends, and many of them prefer it. So, not only would I be making friends with whom I share common interests (a reward in itself), I would be increasing my chances of developing the kind of relationships (sexual and otherwise) that I want to have.

As for moving to that next level, I would hang out on a one-to-one basis with the woman/women in whom I was interested and feel out what level of chemistry was present. If I thought the odds were decent and we hadn't already ended up making out one evening, I would ask if she would like to go on a date to something that fits within the overlap on the Venn diagram of our shared interests but either evenly matched or slightly more on her side of the line than mine. If applicable, I would go for something adventurous, physical, or pegged to a more niche interest that we share.

As for making myself attractive, I would work on being reasonably fit/healthy (w/in an acceptable bf%, at least able to carry the women I would want to date across a room, no smoking or excessive greasy-faced drinking, pay at least some attention to what I put in my body). I would dress neatly in clothing that flattered my body/skin tone. I would be reasonably clean (no stinky balls here, ladies) and stick to unscented antiperspirants and no cologne. I would work to maintain a stable job making enough money to support myself and save for emergencies/retirement, but beyond that, I would not prioritize income over life balance.

I know I am leaving a lot out, but I am on my phone and scrolling is a bitch.

I actually think it would be freeing in a lot of ways, because while I would still have to worry about people taking my non-advances as advances, accidentally leading a woman on has never put me in the situation where I was afraid for my safety.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Great response.

Most of the women (a large majority, in fact) that I have known who are the type of women with whom I would want to be involved have no qualms about getting sexually involved with guys who are their friends, and many of them prefer it.

Yes, that seems to be the case with women I know as well. Plenty of regular friendships develop into romance. The "friend zone" thing really is a complaint from men that reveals more about themselves than women. I've never been in the "friend zone" because I don't pine away for women who aren't into me. Oh, sure I've had crushes on friends that weren't into me, but I never blamed them for "manipulating" me or anything like that.

at least able to carry the women I would want to date across a room,

LOL :)

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

I can't answer this question because I'm not a woman, so I don't have the same urges, hormones, and programming they would.

[–]spongegloss00Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Realistically, I would hope that I was tall (lol) and I would make sure I looked good and had at least a decent job. Assuming I was myself except male, I'd want a wife and a family...so I'd probably avoid the bar scene except for fun nights with friends. I'd try to meet girls through friends, at gatherings and through mutual hobbies. Maybe even online dating, although that seems to be a shitstorm for men. I would try not to get overly attached to girls or be clingy/wimpy, I would attempt to give off a playfully cocky vibe without being a jerk, and I would play my fair share of subtle and harmless "games" to grab the interest of women I liked (women do it too, anyway). I would choose a girl with the best combo of outward/inward traits (so I'd probably try to compromise between beauty and personality...I wouldn't date a 5 just because she was nice or a 9 just because she was hot) and at that point, provided I was already good looking and decently successful, getting married would be relatively simple. Men have an easier time with that.

Once we were married I wouldn't "give up", I would stay hot, masculine and I would also have weeded out women with bitchy or self-centered tendencies to avoid the miraculous "he lost his job and now SUDDENLY there's no attraction anymore! Bye, I'm taking half your money now!"

My answer is kind of lame though, because if I were a man, my main goal probably wouldn't be marriage, but I don't even know what I'd do if I wanted casual sex because I find that so gross.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Great comment. I don't even think there's a need to make a compromise between beauty and personality. Beauty, intelligence, and a good personality tend to go together, in women and men, from what I can tell. Good genes I guess.

[–]spongegloss00Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

thanks! well, some good looking women have been pampered so they become entitled and selfish having never worked for anything (read: SOME) but otherwise, yes!

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Kids now, career later.

You know honestly I think so many of the arguments, about virgins vs. sluts, hypergamy, "the wall," careers, etc., often boil down to a conflict over the age of family formation.

[–]still_very_alive-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Given that the basis of red pill theory is that women and men are biologically different, and those differences lead to different worldviews and perspectives, and ways of thinking, I'm not sure it's actually possible for us redpillers to answer this question. If we were women, we would be considerably different from who we are now in ways beyond the purely physical.

[–]GridReXXit be like that-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would do a lot of research on the female body and what it finds pleasurable.

Honestly I would emulate my guy friends. They're all funny/witty kind of corny dudes who dress well and have in shape (not meathead) bodies. And they all treat women like regular dudes. And they all are all never seeking casual hookups or girlfriends. Always plentiful.

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

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter