Where to begin... This will be long. Possibly interesting though, I'm a decent writer. Sorry in advance.

Red Pill talks about status and hypergamy and I have had many people tell me that relationships are purely transactional.

That is so far outside my personal life experience with women I don't know how to begin to relate to it.

I can point to some isolated examples. People like Melania Trump. Total materialist, that's her as a person and life really let her run with it, moreso than most attractive women ever do. I know that among the rich (which I am not a part of) it's a much bigger part of life but that's a small and isolated segment of the population I have no desire to rub shoulders with. I'm thoroughly middle class American though and down here where most of us are working hourly...

Everyone I know with a stay at home mom, the choice was simple. She had a bunch of child care experience cause life just throws that at women from young ages. He had none. And childcare was more than she was making. Or where she didn't stop working until the second kid came. At the same time the workforce is full of working moms. Two income households dominate America still. It's necessary in this economy.

Lmao I just realized every one of my plugs is a girl who has a bf or husband with a steady job. So there's also that.

​

Fuck each and every one of you in a legal state btw. Double for recreational.

Yall talk about transactional relationships but that's not what I see around me. That is not what I see on /r/relationship where I haunt pretty frequently, or anywhere else on the internet I go looking for people who can't afford or haven't thought to go see a therapist and post their woes online.

That's not what professionals are seeing in relationship counseling sessions around the world. I'm a therapist in training, 3 years from my masters and a license. I've been involved in, volunteered with, and have been studying the psychiatric community and all it's facets for years. PTSD and family/relationship are my two areas of focus.

The transactional, relationship marketplace idea of dating and relationships is not how anything actually works. I've volunteered with Vow Marriage Counseling in Texas, where you get your license free if you go to a marriage prep class that's basically a crash course in relationship communication and empathy. Anywhere you look it is there to see what relationships are actually like, day to day. You can see this stuff all over, all for free if you want. You just have to go read.

The idea that 80% of the women want 20% of the men is an idea based in how teenagers think about love and sex and dating. It is assuming all women to be as emotionally immature as a girl in high school looking to a popular boy.

Let me tell you, life is not like high school. Work can be. Depends on who you work with but sometimes it really does feel like high school some places. I find new jobs when that happens.

No one I know has "status" that means much outside of their social circle and social circles in adulthood often don't include people you don't want to be around. And status isn't really like something you can hold over anyone. It's just who tends to take the lead most, really. The friend who always hosts is popular lol.

In the world I see around me there's not so much status to even go around that it's a high priority for anyone.

What is is a guy who's respectful, a guy who's intelligent and at least a little well spoken even if it's infrequent. A guy with some kind of passion and conviction in his life, especially if it benefits more than himself. A guy who's good in bed. That's pretty frequently high up the list.

Like I'm LGBT. I date LGBT girls and trans people. I know my dating life and the women I date are just like outside yalls collective dating arena. But most of my friends are straight people. None of their relationships ever work like yall describe.

Intelligence now... that and charisma you could make a case for being sought after in a pretty greedy fashion.

Sapiosexuals (ugh) exist after all. Snowflakes that needed a new special snowflake label, but it serves to illustrate that it's enough of a trend for them to feel the need to appropriate lgbt language to validate their identity.

Hell, the other shitty one, Demisexuals, is about needing an intimate connection before they feel sexually attracted to someone. Both of those snowflake labels exist in direct contradiction to the idea that relationships are purely transactional or that women's attraction to men is primarily hypergamous.

P.S. What demisexuality really means in my experience is "My anxiety/introversion is such that my mind requires the safety of intimacy before it can relax enough to feel sexual around anyone" and it's TOTAL horseshit that they tried to make an orientation or identity around it in imitation of lgbt language conventions. Sapiosexuality at least is an actual aspect of desire and attraction and sapiosexuality is at least a made up word with some inherent meaning. Demisexual just means "half sexual" it's a complete nonsense word that they had to imbue with meaning.

Like vegans only without the health benefits of veganism.

TLDR: The world I see everywhere does not reflect any of red pill's hypergamy theories in even the most generalized way and the type of people yall talk about are such an actually limited portion of the cishet female population that I cannot honestly understand where you get your ideas that this is what all women are like.

Feel free to source me I'll try to read it. No promises but I'll try. I will debate your sources though so be ready for that.