And that's all there is to it. The reason people might refuse to "accept" it is because it's a pretty obvious truth and not limited to women. The only thing people argue with is the jargon and newspeak to make a staggeringly simple concept more complex than it is.

Take "AF/BB" for instance, a cornerstone of TRP ideology. There's so much disagreement even defining the terms "alpha" (Is it innate? Can it be learned? Is it purely physical? Is it behavioral? Is it just height? Is it just facial attractiveness?) and "beta" (Can a beta have alpha qualities? Does any type of attractiveness disqualify someone from being beta?), not to mention gray areas like "alpha bucks" and "high beta." The common denominator in all this TRP infighting is that women are attracted to attractive men. That's the only thing TRP can agree on. This is supposed to be controversial enough to cause a revolution among guys who apparently thought otherwise?

People will ask gotcha questions that only confirm women don't want to be with unattractive men and that's some kind of shocking revelation. A study will be published showing that women have no significant difference in their relationship preference with an attractive guy--provided they find him attractive--and people dispute it as if real life doesn't support it every day. People will fret over pop culture media where women fall for attractive sociopaths, attractive sensitive vampires, attractive knights in shining armor. The only through line being that women like thinking about attractive men. Is that really a "red pill?"

Where is the controversy? What are we supposed to be "questioning"? Is the red pill for men who thought women enjoy gutting their way through unsatisfying sex with parters they don't like? If there's some depth that makes the red pill more unpleasant or surprising than a very innocuous realization we make in early puberty, I'd like to know.