Why do beta men still exist? evolutionarily speaking, why didn't they die out years ago?

[–]basebool13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]GermanEgo 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillDetox2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Okay, so, there are these guys and they are beta, and they are about 80% of male population. And they don't get laid, according to TRP. Only alfas do because females are evolutionary hardwired or some shit like that.

And then someone makes a pertinent question about the evolutionary logic: If only alfas get laid where the fuck do all the betas come from?

And all of the sudden the narrative changes and now betas get laid. It's just that... it's not really "raw sexual attraction". Only alfas get that "raw sexual attraction" because they are good looking. Good grief!

So beta guys actually get laid. And so do good looking guys.

So this leaves us with the question...

Who the fuck cares if it's "raw sexual attraction" or not? As long as i'm sticking it in a cool attractive woman anything else is not important except for an "ego stroke". I like pussy better than my "man pride", if you ask me (at least if it's something as arbitrary, ridiculous and obvious all at the same time like "she would be more wet if you were good looking" cry).

If being alfa is about "having good looks" that elicits "raw sexual attraction" why the fuck does TRP exist? You can't do much about your looks except going to the gym. If you came into an online community to come under the great conclusion that going to the gym helps people getting laid then that's objective proof that your IQ falls below 70. Most important of all, if you can be "beta" and still get sex and a satisfying relationship with a woman who's "above your SMV" that shit just has to be great news. But not for all the TRP chumps. Because reasons.

[–]artietx 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillDetox0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]artietx 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillDetox0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Well, yeah, if you simply approach this from a cold perspective, then monogamy is a deal of sexual exclusiveness. But she won't mind you sleep with others AS LONG AS she can sleep with other people too. Hence in real monogamy you're both paying a "commitment toll", where none of you can fuck others so that you're mutually exclusive. No unfairness there.

Ofcourse that with a casual sex partner she may tolerate that he fucks other girls but she's free to fuck other guys too. Again, no unfairness there.

Now, you can complain that she can reject you for an open relationship or something more casual. There may be some unfairness there, because she may be open to casual relationships with other guys while not being open with you. Again, this only makes sense if you view sex as the ONLY benefit of being in a relationship, and not things like connection, intimacy, sharing stuff together, etc. But even then, every relationship starts as casual (assuming you haven't commited before starting a relationship, which is what happens with most people), you're always free to decline a monogamous relationship anyway and, frankly, one can't complain either because you'd probably have sex with certain girls but not commit with them, meaning that would be sort of a double standard too.

Any fool can have casual sex as well, with a woman who wants sex but not necessairly commit, frankly. And you always have the option of "pump and dump" a girl before commiting with her wether she views you as an alpha or husband material if that makes you feel so much better about yourself and how much of a man you are. Whatever.

Point is, a lot of guys approach commitment as if it is some kind of drag: "If i want to have sex, i have to commit while others can fuck for free". This isn't 100% true. Anyone can have casual sex, although not as much as a guy who's much more attractive (well, duh...). Anyone can "pump and dump" a girl, including your girlfriend, if your relationship started as casual. If you commited was because you wanted in the first place.

[–]artietx 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

There's unfairness in your first scenario. She didn't mind other guys fucking on the side, but won't be okay with you doing the same things if she wants her bb. She didn't require that from them, but requires it from you. Also, sheer difference in numbers, if she slept with 50 guys and you slept with 5, why wouldn't she want that number to become equal? :) But no, people will come up with some bs that past is past.

And yes, you say it yourself in the next paragraph. That's the thing- she was open for that with others, but not with you. That makes you inferior to them, as they had this option and you don't. You need to work for what others got for free. It's not the ONLY benefit in relationship, no. But are you saying that they aren't more honest and intimate with casual partners? I wouldn't jump to conclusions like that. I mean, it's kinda well known that they are more likely to say the truth about their sexual history to casual dudes. Fuck no she won't tell her bf that she got fucked by 5 dudes at the same time - but yeah, that is one of the events that shows what kind of person she is. Not to mention that some sexual acts are available for exes, but not to her bf because she doesn't want him to see her as a slut (like what kind of nonsense is that?).

No, not everyone can have casual sex. Lots of us tried and couldn't. But could get a relationship. Sometimes with the same girl - who'd say she's not like that and wants to take it slow etc. That last sentence is arguable. Sometimes you "want" to commit because you have never seen it work without it.

[–]RedPillDetox0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

So many messed up beliefs in this i don't even know where to start.

So she fucked 50 dudes (spoiler alert: very few women have this number in real life, anyway) but now she won't allow you to have sex with as many girls because she's in a commited relationship. Like i said, unless she forced you into commitment before sex, you could have just "pumped and dumped" her like everyone else. Or even if she forced you into commitment you could just fuck her and break up with her after, hence fucking her and leaving her like a Chad. Or you could just cheat on her, if your "morally dodgy". Doesn't matter, the point is this: You have all the freedom in the world to fuck her and go chase other girls if you want to, just like any other "chad" who fucked her before you did. The only person being restrictive here is yourself. Not her. It's you.

And why do you restrict yourself?

It's simple. Because you're trapped in a sore loser mentality.

You really want to have sex.

You secrelty think the only way for you to have sex is to commit.

You feel this way because you secretly think you're not attractive.

How much of a loser does one have to be to have this kind of mentality? This is super beta mentality. Completly powerless and needy. Everything the TRP despises.

And because your major reason to be with her is sex (say, 90% of the reason to be with her is sex) you feel cheated that you're paying the "commitment toll" for what other guys had for free. And basically, it's substantial proof that you're an unattractive loser while other guys are not.

You feel like you're stuck with a slut because you got no option. Because it's either "submiting" to the "drag" of being in a relationship to have sex or be celibate.

But that's lame. Because if you're in a relationship, you are there because you're in love. Not to (just) have sex. If you're in a relationship with a cool girl and you get along well together, then it doesn't matter if some guy took a night to fuck her while it took you 3 dates or anything like that. That's a complete validation trap. What matter is your own sense of subjective wellbeing, and not how much a guy can "afford" to have had sex with her without commitment. After all, YOU'RE NOT in the relationship just for the sex, but because of being in love and sharing a life together.

But even if all that matters to you is sex then you might as well stick to masturbation than get in a relationship for the sex. It's probably a recipe for disaster to "tolerate" someone in exchange for the pussy. And let's be brutally honest here. All set aside, if you're unattractive you need to make yourself attractive to have sex. Other guys who are more attractive than you will have an easier time finding mates. Point is, you're not entitled to pussy. Women don't have to have sex with you just because you want. If you want it you gotta "earn" it by also being attractive to the opposite party. And in this regard, as much as it troubles me to say it, there are guys who can and will "afford" to have sex for free, while you kind of don't. Nonetheless, its nobody else's fault but your own. Want pussy? Be attractive. Do something about it. You're not entitled to it. It's important to realize that.

[–]artietx 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The only person being restrictive here is yourself. Not her. It's you.

Absolutely, yet you want to do it without having to lie or dump her.

Because if you're in a relationship, you are there because you're in love.

Yeah and you can be in love and then stop being in love when some issuer arise. People stop being in love all the time.

Yeah you're in a relationship cause you're in love and all that. No you are not entitled to pussy. Yet, you are entitled to choose a partner however you want. That includes being seen as the hottest guy - whether it means lowering standards, or not pursuing anything while you're improving yourself, or staying alone to avoid not being seen that way.

Everyone here understands that you need to be attractive to get something duh (which sounds like the definition of putting it on the pedestal the way you said it lol). More like, if you're attractive it will follow.

[–]RedPillDetox0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Why do you want to be seen as "the hottest guy"?

First thing first, your girl probably already views you as "the hottest" guy or something closer to that. There is a lot of research that states that people idealize the shit out of their partners when they are in a happy relationship. Simply put, they view you as way hotter than you objectively are and every person seems to be convinced that their partners are at least "above average" in just about everything. So, never understimate the power of idealization. Likewise, people also tend to view their past lovers as worse than they are, because when people split they quickly rationalize things into why rejection happent (Wether it is to convince themselves of how much of a good decison it was to leave someone or to convince themselves that someone who dumped them was actually a piece of shit anyway and they never wanted a relationship with them in the first place, even if it isn't really true). Never understimate the power of rationalization that people have when shit hits the fan.

So you don't have to worry with being the hottest. Your girl already convinces herself you are the hottest while other guys are not when she's in love.

I actually am kind of "immune" to this because i don't find my girlfriend to be "the hottest" girl. She's hot, ofcourse. But not the hottest. Bar Rafaelli would be the hottest. I've dated girls who are probably hotter. Who the fuck cares, though? There are more important things than looks and i'm in a decent relationship, so i won't risk it for the chance of finding some other place where the grass is greener. I'm sure many girls feel that way too.

And even IF you wanted to see this in the most shallow and misanthropic way possible, if she finds some other dude hotter than you that doesn't mean she will switch you because that dude may not commit to her like you do, so in the end, even from a cynical way it doesn't make much sense to want to be "the hottest" guy, that's just extreme (and frankly unfounded imo) insecurity.

[–]artietx1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedPillDetox1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

All the scary stories that people discuss on TRP should be viewed as exceptions, as opposed to the rule. If i'm walking on the street and i trip on something and fall on the floor, i don't automatically conclude that for no one every time i take a step i'll fall again. Likewise, if my last relationship was a clusterfuck, i don't conclude that most girls are going to fuck me over or so in the future just because i happen to come across some bitch.

Also, all the horror stories may happen for reasons that are not related to the interpretation that TRPers give. For example, If a girl cheats, it doesn't necessarly mean it was because "you're not alpha enough" but for some other reason. It helps to listen what the girl has to say, but TRP pre-empitevly invalidates every criticism: every reason she points towards cheating is a rationalization and every reason someone else says that is not in line with TRP is probably from a beta who wants to keep being blue pill. When opposite thinking is handled like that it becomes preety hard to refute arguments...

If she doesnt' want to try something new when she did it in the past it may be because she's an hypocrite or simply because she didn't like it, eitherway we'll never know for sure and there's no point in being mad at it because you'll never know. It's an ungrateful situation, i guess, but one has to surrender because one can't do nothing about it. Besides, a large chunck of this "she did something with X but not with me" has a lot to do with ego and validation. I thought TRP was against ego and validation.

[–]artietx1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillDetox2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Things are not nearly as straight forward as you're saying they are. My dissertation was about evolutionary psychology, and i can safely say that almost anything that goes arround TRP is largely over-stated and in some cases just outrageous lies.

First things first, the effect of "attitude" as in dominant behavior only has a .19 correlation on attractiveness for short term sex, and it's moderated by a lot of variables, so no, attitude doesn't matter "immensely". If i'm not mistaken, the most important factor in sexyness for one time hook ups is having a good looking body, which has a moderate effect in short term attractiveness.

Even then, who cares? Any fool can have short term sex independently of being good looking or having an attitude, he just has to be moderately attractive. Sometimes, not even that.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Things are not nearly as straight forward as you're saying they are. My dissertation was about evolutionary psychology, and i can safely say that almost anything that goes arround TRP is largely over-stated and in some cases just outrageous lies.

I don't use evopsych for what women find attractive in real life, evopsych is useful for understanding women's instincts and preferred thought processes more than much else.

First things first, the effect of "attitude" as in dominant behavior only has a .19 correlation on attractiveness for short term sex, and it's moderated by a lot of variables, so no, attitude doesn't matter "immensely". If i'm not mistaken, the most important factor in sexyness for one time hook ups is having a good looking body, which has a moderate effect in short term attractiveness.

I don't honestly care about statistics regarding mate selection, how the fuck would you actually measure this?

Frame is the biggest thing, which attitude is the biggest part of frame.

Simply in my experience as well as a plethora of men on TRP, changing my frame(especially adherence to our frame) and/or attitude generated massively different reactions and results with women.

Such a difference it's both shocking, and stupid, but understandable.

Having a good body is sexy, having a good body but bad frame/attitude is repulsive, having a good body and good frame/attitude is panty dropping.

By good frame, I mean strong, dominant, unbreakable, stoic, etc.

I watch the BP idea that having a good body is enough to get you laid fail over and over irl. It's sad in a way as these men so desperately cling to BP ideals they refuse to see reality even when they fail to close over and over given ample opportunity.

Even then, who cares? Any fool can have short term sex independently of being good looking or having an attitude, he just has to be moderately attractive. Sometimes, not even that.

Tell that to incels. Granted, you probably mean if you drop your standards low enough.

[–]RedPillDetox1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd actually say a guy who is good looking + nice guy gets laid more and with higher quality women.

A study from last year showed that men who are good looking and altruistic get laid more than goodlookig + selfish.

Also, i'm gonna be very straightforward here. Call me jealous, call me cuck, call me whatever. But i was deep into TRP for about 2-3 years, even organized international conventions and met dozens of PUAs and TRP guys, and i can safely say: Most of you don't get laid regarding of what you're trying to convey online. I know this because i actually got out of the house, i used to approach women on bars and meet guys from the forums. Very few TRP dudes get laid and i'm very skeptic towards this "TRPers hate how much TRP work" comments. Seriously, TRP is a scam at large and any dude who's been there knows it.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd actually say a guy who is good looking + nice guy gets laid more and with higher quality women.

Good looking and kind is the prototypical player. But they're still playful assholes.

A study from last year showed that men who are good looking and altruistic get laid more than goodlookig + selfish.

I could believe that. Don't remember where I read it, but today I did read about altruism being a signal for being a good provider. You can only be altruistic if you have excess to give which implies competence in getting needed resources.

Also, i'm gonna be very straightforward here. Call me jealous, call me cuck, call me whatever. But i was deep into TRP for about 2-3 years, even organized international conventions and met dozens of PUAs and TRP guys, and i can safely say: Most of you don't get laid regarding of what you're trying to convey online. I know this because i actually got out of the house, i used to approach women on bars and meet guys from the forums. Very few TRP dudes get laid and i'm very skeptic towards this "TRPers hate how much TRP work" comments. Seriously, TRP is a scam at large and any dude who's been there knows it.

Hmm, I don't know what to tell you aside from, TRP explains every player I have ever met, and has drastically increased the sex in my relationship, how women react to me, and my ability to predict and understand female behavior, plus more.

Do you know of a better philosophy of gender theory?

I value truth, I have no allegiance.

[–]basebool0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillDetox1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]basebool-2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillDetox5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Beta men are not turn offs for women,

Beta males are the natural pussyblockers of the world. Their mere existence prevents women from being around and having sex with chads 24/7. In an ideal world every woman would have 2 chads. A recreational chad to take drugs with and to swim naked in the pacific ocean while news eve year is being played, and a marriage chad.

A chad to make babies with, to make beautiful babies that will become the leaders of the nation.

Women will put up with betas because betas are still useful somewhat. Betas provide women with attention, validation, gifts, and protection. I've seen guys protect girls they were just friends with and risking getting beaten up. You'll notice that most women are really nice to non-chads. They do it because they know a man's weakness is a vulnerable woman. We want to protect them and we'll do it if the need arises.

they're turn offs for raw sexual attraction

Bro, that's the only attraction that matters. Primal, relentless, uncontrollable sexual desire for the Chad.

She wants you so much that she has just met you, and she's going home with you. She has no idea who you are. If you hate cats or if you are part of the salvation Army. She sees you and she is intoxicated by how stunningly gorgeous you are.

Only a handful of men on this world will ever know and experience the extent of the Male Absolute Power. Power like the Kings and gods had.

Women are only sexually attracted to Chads. Men who are so beautiful and physical perfect that you look at them and felt the temptation to say, ''Hey Achilles, what you doing out of Troy?''

n. Women will happily have babies with betas for their stability, family orientation and being an income for them

Haha. beta bux. The greatest insult a woman can ever give to a man. I've been called a lot of names in my life. That didn't phase me. What pissed me off, what annoys me to no end, is when girls see me as boyfriend material. It shows a complete lack of respect for my person and its a declaration to the world that they aren't sexually attracted to me.

I'm not good enough for casual sex but I'm bad enough for a romantic, committed relationship? How about ya go ahead and just insult my cooking instead?

That in itself is an attraction, just not the attraction alphas get.

Nope. Its not. Women have as much sexual attraction to beta males as the bank has sexual attraction for the men and women that gives it money.

[–]LewisCross 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its how you determine if a woman is attracted to you or if she sees you as her meal ticket. The speed at which she has sex with you without commitment being on the table. When women tell me that they can get laid easily so casual sex doesn't mean anything to them I wonder to myself how can they think that's attractive to men. To have it rubbed on my face that I'm not good enough for casual sex. That she is not attracted enough to me to give all the best a woman has to offer to a man: casual sex.

Being told by a woman that the easy sex she gave to a man meant nothing to her and that I'm the special one out of the two because I'm the one who has to invest in her, commit to her, and satisfy her ''emotional'' needs before she fucks me?

That's like asking the bank to tell me it loves me after it asks me to put money there or GTFO..

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The test for whether a man is worth getting involved with is whether he will offer some investment.

I can agree with that. Depends on what you mean by "involved with" and "some investment". Lots of women will have sex (involve themselves with) a man after a couple of hours and some drinks (which is "some investment).

You can't just completely ignore what women want in this equation.

Well, what she wants isn't important to me. It's her job to hold out for what she wants. It's my job to push for what I want, and to go elsewhere if I can't get it from her within the time parameters I set. What the woman wants in this equation is her problem.

If I don't sex up a man without any investment whatsoever it's not necessarily because I'm not sexually attracted to him,

Not speaking of you specifically, but, yes it is. If a woman won't fuck a guy with no investment, it's because she isn't attracted to him. Plain and simple. I"ve known plenty of women who've given up sex after a couple of hours, which is tantamount to no investment at all.

it's because I have things I want to, and I'm not going to do that with a man I'm even sexually attracted to without him showing it's going to go somewhere more meaningful.

You can want those things, and it's your job to get them and hold out for them. And most of the time you'll get them, because the woman is the sex gatekeeper, the relationship gatekeeper, the pretty much everything gatekeeper now. So since women are the gatekeepers, there's little else for men to do other than storm the gates.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, what she wants isn't important to me. It's her job to hold out for what she wants. It's my job to push for what I want, and to go elsewhere if I can't get it from her within the time parameters I set. What the woman wants in this equation is her problem.

I agree with that but that's not my point. My point is you cannot remove women's sexual imperative altogether and act as if it has zero effect whatsoever. My sexual imperative doesn't just fly out the window because I'm sexually attracted to a man.

Not speaking of you specifically, but, yes it is. If a woman won't fuck a guy with no investment, it's because she isn't attracted to him. Plain and simple. I"ve known plenty of women who've given up sex after a couple of hours, which is tantamount to no investment at all.

I would argue a lot of those women had a similar sexual imperative as man's, aka the desire for casual sex -- not LTR'ing. I'm separating the two. Some women truly want casual sex, others like me don't at all. We are different in that respect and it obviously shows when it comes to our sex lives.

I'm actually writing a post about this -- would you be interested in contributing a rebuttal? Would sort of be a cool post, I haven't seen any where the OP contains two opposing arguments.

You can want those things, and it's your job to get them and hold out for them.

Right, I agree. That's still not my point.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with that. I cannot imagine having sex with a man I met a few hours ago who bought me a drink. I have a difficult time imagining a woman who thinks that counts as an investment but clearly they do exist. It actually is not that hard to figure out, the guys who do not call after pressuring for sex were either just wanting sex or found something in that woman a turn off. I see no problem with that. The guy who keeps investing time and effort also wants sex but he might also want a relationship. He also might not you cannot really control what other people want.The other easy thing is lots of men will tell a woman they do not want a reliationship/are not ready for one blah blah. Women who ignore that and then get upset over the pump and dump need to get their shit together and see reality.

[–]artietx 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

The old "I love you but am not in love with you" line comes out about 7 to 10 years into the marriage after two kids and when she is bored and/or unhappy

Haha. Oh, that line. Being told by a woman that she loves me is the same as getting punched in the face by Mohammed Ali in his prime. She's going for that beta comfort bullshit. Raw, pure, undivided sexaul desire felt by the woman for him is all the man should seek after. Endless fucking. Unless the woman is fucking you 3 times a day and sucking your dick while you are trying to see a movie in the cinema but she keeps sucking and gently biting while Brad Pitt comes into the scene and you wonder if this is gay: she is not attracted to you.

Even guys just keeping their noses clean and doing their jobs get this sometimes.

Haha. Reminds me of this AMA I was reading. Some dude was doing an AMA about his slut of a girlfriend who at the age of 14 was already sucking dick like she was a 30 year old pornstar(that is barely legal, of course!)and she was doing it in the backseat of her parents car while her father was driving hahaha.

One of the posters there said, '' I work hard and provide and I am lucky to get it once a month '' or something to that effect. It made me chuckle and at the same time it made me feel bad for the guy.

Difference between this 30-something married man and that 14 year old boy was that the kid already had chad looks at that age, and the married men was never a chad to begin with. His wife was never attracted to him in the first place. Betas are for work, work and to become an emotional tampon. Chads are for fucking and for having fun and for a woman to spend her youth and beauty with.

I wonder how many women would return to the carousel if they could.

All of them. The women who can go back to the CC do so. The ones who don't do it are only not doing it because they lack for the means aka the SMV and youth to be fucked senseless jackhammer style by 20 year old College diamond Atheletes because they can't get it.

Or if they retained their youth, how many would even marry...

One day women will be able to retain their youth and beauty without ending. The beauty industry will seek and find and hunt and fight for the secret of eternal youth. Beta males will die out and women will partake in an orgy of sensory full-body orgasms and phsyical adoration for https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ea/d6/4b/ead64baf5bd7c4fcfd09f13e3049a8cc.jpg

until the skies darken and the seas dry up.

[–][deleted] points points points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Can't blame her.

Do you expect a lion to not eat a man if its hungry? No. Men project their romantic fantasies onto women and want to believe that women are the graceful sex, the loving sex. They are not. Women love men who are on top. As soon as that man loses his place in the world she is going to replace him with the next upstart Alpha that climbed the social ladder.

Men are disposable. Women are not. Even Chad can be replaced lol.

The man is largely in charge, she is guided by her current emotional state.

Yes, the man must be the one to guide her and to protect her and take care of her and her needs. That is the only way she'll remain loyal to him - until a better Alpha comes along and wants to commit to her, if none come she'll stay with her fading star Alpha until something better truly wants her.

e, she is guided by her current emotional state.

Which is why a man can't expect a woman to be his forever. She's not. He will be eventually replaced if he is not at the top of his game. There is no rest. A man must always self-improve or he will be left behind. Men's value is momentary, a woman's value is with her forever.

If she is acting a certain way, it's because the guy was useful, but unable to influence those emotional states. Women will be as shitty as you let them be. that statement is about more than boundaries

Yes, so be the best alpha she's ever been with and she will treat the guy pleasantly and without trying to control him and the relationship. She will submit, she will become submissive and she will love him for it.

[–][deleted] points points points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're on a 100% different wavelength brother. you're projecting, but with an oppositte fantasy.

None of what you said it wrong, but you put it together in a way that is completely irrelevant.

Emotional well being != provision. Ironwood already explained one of the core TRP tennants is removing provision as the means of establishing dominance in a relationship. They have the vote, and careers now, it ain't happening.

Guidance isn't going to work. "you cant tell me what to do" is a mantra. Leadership works today like a "follow, or get left behind" if you're red, or how you describe in a TFA, mark manson, or other purple way.

The rest is taking great concepts, improvement (means to an end, not dancing for quarters for women) OI, abundance, and turning them into some kind of victim rant. It's fucking pathetic, and tells me you haven't learned anything yet.

Get back on the sidebar. I'd strongly suggest Book of Pook, and Practical Female Psychology (been big on this lately). and you'll see how your mental model is fucked up, and needs a realignment

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

frothing neckbeard

wut

You're on a 100% different wavelength brother. you're projecting, but with an oppositte fantasy. None of what you said it wrong, but you put it together in a way that is completely irrelevant. Emotional well being != provision. Ironwood already explained one of the core TRP tennants is removing provision as the means of establishing dominance in a relationship. They have the vote, and careers now, it ain't happening. Guidance isn't going to work. "you cant tell me what to do" is a mantra. Leadership works today like a "follow, or get left behind" if you're red, or how you describe in a TFA, mark manson, or other purple way, it's like guiding a woman. The rest is taking great concepts, improvement (means to an end, not dancing for quarters for women) OI, abundance, and turning them into some kind of victim rant. It's fucking pathetic, and tells me you haven't learned anything yet. Get back on the sidebar. I'd strongly suggest Book of Pook, and Practical Female Psychology (been big on this lately). and you'll see how your mental model is fucked up, and needs a realignmen

This is how much I care about what red pillers think about what I say

http://slideplayer.com/1/269613/big_thumb.jpg

[–][deleted] points points points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NikoMyshkin0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] points points points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

you're thinking strictly high sex drive women. There is low sex drive women, who tend to want less children, but manage them better.

Every woman has a high sex when the man she can have is a Chad. That sex drive of her's will go into hyperdrive faster than the millenium falcon running away from the Empire. A woman has a low sex drive, ''headaches'' aha when she's with a beta male. She is not sexually attracted to betas no matter how high her sex drive might be, if all she can do at the moment is a beta she will lose interest in sex - with him.

R/K selection is a common term for it. It's why not all girls are sluts, but AWALT

Yeah, the physical disparity between the sexes and ultimately between men, which leads to some, the chads, to being selected over the other men.

It's why not all girls are sluts, but AWALT

Every woman in the world is a slut. A woman can have an N count of 1 but she's still a slut, the amount of kinky shit she'll do with chad thundercocks is eye-opening to the true nature of female sexuality. Either way, just assume that all women have high N counts in the orders of dozens upon dozens and see them as all being AWTALT and you will never have your heart broken. You will never know the darkness that having a seeping heart brings.

[–][deleted] points points points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yusrasyedahmed[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]basebool1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheLongerCon19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]jonknownothing1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]GermanEgo 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]jonknownothing-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GroovyEFS 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pay attention.

The post doesn't say there no such thing as alpha and beta.

It says there are no such thing as alpha and beta men.

The difference is that you're not born an alpha or beta. It is a role you have in a social group.

It changes depending on who you're with. When you're with your father and his friends there is no way they'll let you lead them around. When you're with your kid brother and his friends they'll follow your lead.

Your chance of being the alpha male of the group increases depending on your behavior. If you act like the alpha male of the group, and no one else wants to be the alpha male of the group, then you become the alpha male of the group. That might change an hour later, or never.

"I'm alpha as fuck" is the stupidest shit in the world, I agree. But alphas and betas exist in any social interaction.

[–]OncleJulian -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MoustacheMauve 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

A beautiful woman by your side gives you social status amongst men that is unheard of. You can become an Alpha in the social hierarchy by being married to a woman whose beauty puts every other woman to shame, by far.

When men see you with a beautiful woman, with someone every other girl is envious of because she is like the sun that blinds your eyes from mind and out of sight when men and women look at her.

Those women are not only enriching to the senses. They are emotional paintings. I look at them and I grow calmer. I feel at peace. All of my sadness and all of the pain that I never stop feeling ceases to be because of how mesmerized I am by the woman's beauty and feminity.

Beautiful women are the moveable feast of vivid emotion. They don't even try. They are hyper feminine with their fashion sense, make-up, smiles and charm. They exude endless waves of charm that can disarm any man. I feel masculine with them. I feel like I have a place on this world because I can make them smile.

They deserve someone who can give them the lifestyle that they deserve, all of the best the world has to offer. All its comforts and safety and luxury. I can't do that. I'm just a punk. But one day I will be able to.

If a man is to marry he oughta marry someone who can give him what really matters in life. Beautiful sons that are going to grow up to live blessed lives.

And you can only get that if you marry well.

http://eskipaper.com/images/blonde-4.jpg

https://b6c18f286245704fe3e9-05e2055f4cd9122af02914269431c9f6.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/8877090_beautiful-redheads-to-start-your-week-38_t6750cf2e.jpg

Those girls are well worth the money to be spent on them. The rest of the women? lol, no. Not even worth $5 bucks.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, you put a whole lot of words into that answer and I appreciate your effort

Its okay. I'm a little bit emotional(ladies ;D I love you all )and I get carried away when the subject at hand(heh) is beauty, remarkably so when the topic is womanly beauty and grace. My complete adoration for beauty is the reason I was banned from visiting art museums. I kinda tend to stand there for hours absorbing all of the feels the paintings give me and you know, people got places to be! meals to prepare for their families!

What use would a woman have for you if you were attractive beyond sex?

She would love me. She would admire me and respect me. She would submit to me and let me dominate her. She would unleash all that is hiding underneath me. A woman who was attracted to me as young women are attracted to a chad would make me worth something. I'm nothing more than white trash with a hint of potential to me.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I think you are putting the carriage before the horse. A woman cannot love someone if he needs her love to become fully realized.

Of course she would. Men are born to desire women. Women are born to be desired by men. Men are made to blossom like a flower in the dawn with a woman's love, that's how he becomes fulfilled. And the only way to live that destiny is to become so much better than all of the other men that she falls for you.

First he must be someone worth respecting and admiring (and it helps to be attractive), and then her love will follow.

And for that to happen looks are paramount. Women have always admired good-for-nothing artists lol, because many if not most of the artists are chads. Lord Byron, Shelley, John Keats. They were all gorgeous. That's why they were admired and respected by women.

Truthfully, they were very gifted artists. But there were artists who were very gifted

http://www.wallcoo.net/paint/sargent_john_singer_01/images/%5Bwallcoo%5D_Sargent_Elizabeth_Winthrop_Chanler.jpg

But weren't loved and desired and lusted after, not in the way the Chad is. Not even close. Looks is absolution. Beauty is redemption. Chad aesthetics can save a man from damnation.

Its the only thing that truly matters to attract women.

Looks are key to the savage garden that a woman's love is. You need it to find your way into her heart, to lock your fingers around it and to keep it for yourself.

The extension of that is even if you don't find a woman, at least you are still respected and admired by your peers, which is not a bad place to be either way.

I don't really give a fuck what other men think of me. I'm pretty much hated by every guy IRL other than my friends and that couldn't please me more even if I tried. I want the respect of Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise and daniel day lewis and Gary Oldman. I want women. I crave women. One cannot live without the sun.

Other than that, meh.

which is not a bad place to be either way.

You know, their respect and admiration won't get my dick sucked right? I kinda like getting my dick sucked. By women!

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Of course she would. Men are born to desire women. Women are born to be desired by men. Men are born to blossom like a flower in the dawn with a woman's love, that's how he becomes fulfilled. And the only way to live that destiny is to become so much better than all of the other men that she falls for you.

You kinda contradicted yourself there. "Become so much better than all the other men that she falls for you" means first becoming realized then her love follows. Perhaps that can help make the man even better, but unless he is "self made" to a point without her she won't have interest in him. Perhaps that is why women are drawn to men that are already married (built into preselection), those men already have good women to bring them up to the next level.

And for that to happen looks are paramount. Women have always admired good-for-nothing artists lol, because many if not most of the artists are chads. Lord Byron, Shelley, John Keats. They were all gorgeous. That's why they were admired and respected by women.

Truthfully, they were very gifted artists. But there were artists who were very gifted

http://www.wallcoo.net/paint/sargent_john_singer_01/images/%5Bwallcoo%5D_Sargent_Elizabeth_Winthrop_Chanler.jpg

But weren't loved and desired and lusted after, not in the way the Chad is. Not even close. Looks is absolution. Beauty is redemption. Chad aesthetics can save a man from damnation.

Its the only thing that truly matters to attract women.

Looks are key to the savage garden that a woman's love is. You need it to find your way into your heart, to lock your fingers around it and to keep it for yourself.

I agree that looks are key to attraction, but personality/success is the glue that holds relationships together. Even the most beautiful man in the world, if he was a non committal d bag, would have a hard time finding a woman worth her salt. Those women who's pictures you've posted, who've you've spoken so poetically for, who can have Chads every night for dinner, will only settle for a Chad that is also useful to her, even if it is just for sex. Otherwise you have short passionate but explosive relationships. Usually that end with single motherhood. High value women do not participate in such relationships.

Which kinda of brings me back to my original question. Even if you did have Chad's looks, what value would you bring into her life that she couldn't fuck out of another man?

I don't really give a fuck what other men think of me. I'm pretty much hated by every guy IRL other than my friends and that couldn't please me more even if I tried. I want the respect of Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise and daniel day lewis and Gary Oldman.

You know, their respect and admiration won't get my dick sucked right? I kinda like getting my dick sucked. By women!

I think it matters in terms of preselection (yes men can do that too). When a man is shown deference from other men, women pay attention. And it's a good kind of attention. It's just another way to get alpha points.

[–]littleeggwyf2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You kinda contradicted yourself there. "Become so much better than all the other men that she falls for you" means first becoming realized then her love follows.

Her love is the natural reaction to the Alpha. Chad earns it instantly, without working for it. He has the genetic markers that signal human perfection. The other men have to earn it with power and wealth and by being ruthless. Women have always been attracted to power and danger and blood.

The most beautiful women seek out men who hold dominion over other men and the most beautiful women are also the most powerful of women. Naturally they are going to only be attracted to men who are vastly superior to other men, either that be because of the men's chad looks or for his physical and economical power:

We don't think only men can be powerful and strong. Behind the heads of the Mafia, the leaders of culture, there are always very strong women. European culture is a matriarchy, especially in the south. The women have a lot of power.

Women don't care how you make your money as long as you make it and make loads of it. They will admire you and admiration from a woman is one of the stepping stones that leads her to love you.

“There’s no such thing as good money or bad money.There’s just money. ~ Lucky Luciano

They want you to crush your opponents and your competition that's interested in her. Defeat him, obliterate the man who is with her, or the men who are interested in her and then take her for your own.

“It’s better to live on day as a lion than a hundred years as a lamb” ~ John Gotti

Have you ever heard of a powerful man that wasn't loved? No. There is no such a man. For a powerful man has the courage to die today to get what he wants.

Perhaps that can help make the man even better, but unless he is "self made" to a point without her she won't have interest in him.

Self-made? What do you mean? Like she can only love him if he builts himself from the core up? She can't fall in love with him if he has had all of the advantages already?

. His brown, hardening body lived naturally through the half-fierce, half-lazy work of the bracing days. He knew women early, and since they spoiled him he became contemptuous of them, of young virgins because they were ignorant, of the others because they were hysterical about things which in his overwhelming self-absorbtion he took for granted.

James Gatz was born with all of the qualities that later shaped him into Jay Gatsby, the most charismatic mobster to ever live. He was loved despite being a low-status male. He was a 17 year old boy working as a fisherman and banging hot married women and hot young girls. He wasn't selfmade at the time he did it. He was in a rough state of coming together.

But he still was loved, desired and lusted after because of his chads looks.

One can argue that his chad looks weren't enough to get Daisy but that's because he was a complete fucking beta when it came to that girl haha. I can relate.

Perhaps that is why women are drawn to men that are already married (built into preselection), those men already have good women to bring them up to the next level.

No. Women are drawn to married men because women want what other women have or want. Natural pre-selection. Its why being seen with a hot woman next to you is going to draw attention and interest from other hot, young women. The best wingman in the world is not a fucking PUA artist that wears twink head pieces and calls himself Mysthery like he's a cheap whore, putting eyeliner on his eyes.

The best wingman in the world is a beautiful woman.

but personality/success is the glue that holds relationships together.

Nah. A woman will go to hell and back for a man she is crazy about. She won't care about anything other than how he makes her feel. The gina tingles control a woman's life. That's why they'll date men who are dangerous to society. Hitler brought forth a regime of terror. He also received thousands of love letters a WEEK from women. Not only from women but hot, much younger women.

There was a Nazi movie director, actress, professional dancer, one of the first women in the world to enter the movie industry that met Adolf Hitler in a party and she said after she met him that he was the most masculine man she has ever met in her entire life(and she met a ton of movie stars and dashing young war heroes). She couldn't take her eyes off him.

She was 28 years old and she was smitten with a 50+ year old man, lol.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3ObgWb4gO3gNoCnrmvdggd1OW8iYc8UdccV-OMJpOpikpBLlN

She was beautiful. And in her eyes he was the most Alpha of all the men in the world, thus she fell in love with him and stayed loyal to his memory until she died. She could have had her pick of any 10/10 chad and she wanted him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl

Even the most beautiful man in the world, if he was a non committal d bag, would have a hard time finding a woman worth her salt.

Eh, chads are not only the most beautiful men in the world. They also have the charm to back it up. Its not reasonable to assume the guy has no moral compass just because of how attractive he is. Brad Pitt committed himself to a total slut haha <3 in Angelina Jolie. He adopted children and had children with her. Why? He could have spent his entire life just banging chicks.

Chads also fall in love.

hose women who's pictures you've posted, who've you've spoken so poetically for, who can have Chads every night for dinner, will only settle for a Chad that is also useful to her, even if it is just for sex.

So? What's wrong with that? Women and men need and use each other. People use each other. For attention. Validation. Sex. Love. Money. Friendship. Drugs. Doesn't really matter. Its how you make the people in your live and how they make you feel what really matters by the end of your day.

Chad that is also useful to her, even if it is just for sex.

Well, yes. The guy has to be worth something, his looks is what gets him the sex. Why would she want a guy if he wasn't chad? How is she using him? for being attracted to him? Guys pick women they are attracted to, not just whatever. Aren't men also using them?

Otherwise you have short passionate but explosive relationships.

Anything wrong with that? :p A supernova, a sun going deaf beyond earth's orbit with an explosion of light and color that can be witnessed from the far off universe. Relationships are boring, man. They take a lot of work. They're only worth it if you can't stop yourself from daydreaming about sunshine and golden fields of wheat when you look at her, when you listen to her voice and when she giggles at something stupid you said that made her blush.

Usually that end with single motherhood.

The pill, condoms, Adoption. Why does it have to end with single motherhood?

Speaking of which I'm reminded of this English movie made, that takes place in flowerly Cornwall, based on a movie. Its called Summer in February and it depicts the story of two chads who are in a love triangle with a 10/10 ginger painter. One of the chads is a world-class painter, and the other chad is a Lt. in the army.

The book/movie is based on real events. The girl, Florence Munnings, was considered a Beauty like no other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Carter-Wood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_in_February

its funny how art mimics life. What's hilarious is that the chad she married wasn't the beta provider but the rper alpha male haha, and the man she was truly in love with was the sensitive chad that took care of her needs first instead of being an hyper alpha male like the rpers love to say women adore.

That sure as fuck amazed me.

The thing is that he was shy, so emotional(huh...) that he lost his chance and the other guy got ahead of him and asked her to marry him. She died at the age of 25 of a broken heart.. suicide by poisoning because she couldn't get the Chad Beta that she wanted more than life.

See, this is what makes life worth living. Women want to have fun. Women want to get scared, and pursued, and fought for, and indecisive and insecure, and admired and praised. STEM lords are boring. They will never be able to have this effect on women even if they had chad looks.

High value women do not participate in such relationships.

hahaha. They don't? Thanks fo letting me know!

Even if you did have Chad's looks, what value would you bring into her life that she couldn't fuck out of another man?

What does a woman desire the most out of everything in the world?

To be the Alpha queen. To stand at the throne of the female hierarchy. With acquired power and wealth a man can do that. He can make her known to the world. Millions, billions will worship her. If he's alpha enough. If he's good enough for her.

I think it matters in terms of preselection (yes men can do that too). When a man is shown deference from other men, women pay attention. And it's a good kind of attention. It's just another way to get alpha points.

Women only give a damn when the other men who show deference to a particular men are Chads/Alphas. A man could be a chad in the middle of fucking neckbeards in buttfuck, ohio, but women will not care. At least women of quality. Now, if you are the Chad amongst chads women will suck your life's force through your dick. You'll see yourself growing smaller and thinner and she sucks that dick with moonsoon gusto ;D

[–]OncleJulian 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Because there's no such thing as beta men or alpha men

Yes, there is. Alpha male is the social title given to the Chad.

The Chad is the man with 10/10 aesthetics. Or he comes very close to being a flawless 10/10. He's the guy who not only nearly never gets rejected when he approaches women for casual sex, but women actively approach these guys, hit on them, and throw themselves without the guy ever making much of a effort.

He's the guy who is very likely to be chilling at home and to be texted pictures of naked girls, girls who got the dude's number through friends and doesn't even know him other than she saw him in a party somwhere. From there to getting the lay is like frow preparing a line of cocaine and snorting it.

Beta males are men who aren't worthy of casual sex nor FWBS. Beta males are boyfriends and husbands, but never a girl's drunk ONS rebound after she finds out the boyfriend she thought was going to marry her in Tokyo was cheating on her with her own former porn star mother.

If weak men acted like alphas in the past, they'd probably get their teeth kicked in.

Haha.

No. They'd be killed outright by the Alphas for not falling in line. Its what happened thousands of years ago. If an Ancient Roman unit routed, the men in that unit would be ritually murdered(one of them was to be picked and would be beaten to death by his comrades)

Nowadays there's very little conquense to being an incredible cocky and assertive male,

Being accused of sexual harrasment or whatever or a woman is nothing of consequence? lol. When a chad is assertive and incredibly cocky he's seen as romantic and the girl flies to his lap sooner than Amy Schumer can say she loves cock, but if a beta does it he gets the cops called on him. Saw it happen many times how both types of men had different results, vastly difference consequences because of the difference in their SMV.

beta programming from most violent days that activates whenever they feel insecure and blocks them from acting this way.

Or maybe the betas are just insecure because they see the chad do whatever he wants and says whatever he wants and still get the girl? That makes any guy insecure. So much effort and time wasted on girls only to see chad go up to a girl and say ''hiiiii wanna bang?'' but I guess a hot personality is very important to women when it comes to ONS so all of us non-chads can still get laid ;) ;) ;)

[–]648262Red Pill3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You answered yourself in the second sentence. Alpha is a title, it is not a man.

Alpha is a title that is acquired by men by fucking lots of girls. His title gains a solid ground to stand on by the quality of the girls he casually fucks. A man can be a total fuckup, no job, drug addict, shitty human being, but if he can get laid easily and if he can bang hot girls he's an Alpha. He's important. He's admired. He's loved.

Now lets look at the Dalai Lama. He's worshipped by his followers. He's still an utter beta cuck, omega because he's a virgin.

There's no alpha-gene/-blood or whatever.

Oh, yes there is. Alpha/chad is the accumulation of superior genetic attributes(height,face, muscles, hair, dick size etc) that over time are built to the point of physical perfection.

They become this

(slightly NSFW)

http://img196.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=521693636_achilles_123_419lo.jpg

http://img288.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=521812313_achilles2_123_94lo.jpg

Alpha is the man who can get laid easily, instantly, without thought or art or time given to the act of seducting a girl.

This what an Alpha looks like:

http://68.media.tumblr.com/1433d65f7813a5c170566351bdc00485/tumblr_nglhg5UyGe1s2jcilo1_1280.jpg

No title and no by-birth societal position no matter how high and powerful it might be can ever put a man on his level. Alpha, chad, that is all genetic and blood-related. Chads create other chads. They bring forth more of these men, the only men women are capable of ever falling in love with and being sexually attracted to.

It's a cultural construct, a social role - a title.

Nah. The Crown Prince of England has status and a role that no man alive will ever have. He sleeps with so many 10/10 girls and yet he's still a beta. Because he has beta looks.

[–]648262Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That is a very childish way to look at it.

Dreams are built by children and still hundreds of years after people are still reading The Grimm Brothers fairytales. What gives?

The crown prince of England is an alpha with beta behavior.

He's not an Alpha. He's a fake alpha. His social status was handed to him because he was born from the right pair of balls and pussy. He would have never have become an alpha without the luck of being born into the Royal family, as the Crown Prince.

with beta behavior.

Sloots gonna sloot, betas gonna beta. Just goes to show that you can give a man a throne but you can't stop him from being beta because his genes come from a beta man. Come on, look at his Dad. The fool could have had any woman in the world - he was married to Princess Diana! - and he was obsessed with that trans called Camille, ewwwwwwww.

That is not what an Alpha does.

The crown prince was handed power, so there was no need to have the behavior needed to get that power.

A man can lose his fortune. The richest man in the world can lose everything in the right conditions like every other rich man who lived through the Great Depression. A throne is gift that might be given to someone but there is no guarantee he'll keep it.

I don't know. He might fuck up everything and lead the UK to leave the monarchy behind lol.

You and me on the other hand, we are just some chumps who have to struggle to get power.

Yes, and chads and women don't understand where we come from. They don't understand the endless, bloody struggle that we have to go through to get to where we want to be, to get what we want to have. Or they don't care. Doesn't matter.

Our looks, intelligence, social dynamics are tools we use to get power. This power is attractive to women, and they'll fuck you silly if you have enough of it.

Yes, a woman is not in love with the man. A woman is not sexually attracted to the man. But to what he is to her. A chad, a drug dealer, a general, a musician that rocks 10000s worldwide stadiums.

She sees the man as she wants to see him, and if he plays his cards right he'll be treated like a King by her and she'll fuck him into an early death. What better way to die can a man aspire to.

Sure - our genetics plays into our ability to get power, but you can have all the potential in the world, but if you don't use it you'll not achieve shit.

Yeah, you can have everything handed to you but if you don't feel confident with yourself and if you don't pursue what you want you won't get it.

[–]tugsmugs 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] points points points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] points points points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sunkindonut149Blue Pill Mouse-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChadZackary2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]StaySkepticYT 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]StaySkepticYT 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Evolution is a bit more complex than TRP wants you to believe. A society full of alpha males would quickly collapse,

Hence why Civilization was created. To prevent the downfall of Mankind due to the Alpha male's warring nature. Beta males were allowed to live. They were divided amongst the Alpha males and given lands to live, that later turned into empires, and were allowed to reproduce with women to produce more and more beta males as a means to keep the Alpha males in power and to make sure their power, wealth and everlasting fame survived into eternity.

Ya'll notice how in the Illiad only the Apex Alpha males are mentioned? Or at least mentioned strongly? And don't forget about the men in their armies lol. They have no face. They have no name, no family to speak of and no children to sire. To us those faceless men are alphas but tho Achilles and Hector and Diomedes they were nothing but betas haha.

women have evolved to desire different types of men (although some traits are universially desireable).

No. They are not. Women do not desire different types of men. Every woman on this planet is only sexually attracted to Chads, Alpha males. Men whos physical attributes put them on an Olympian level and who also hold within themselves the beautification traits that gave us the most gorgeous men to ever live. Alexander The Great, Achilles, Diomedes and Hector.

Women are not sexually attracted to betas. A beta, a non-chad dries out a pussy faster than a hot girl can drive a man into abysmal financial ruin.

[–]tugsmugs 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tugsmugs 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tugsmugs 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChadZackary0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChadZackary1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChadZackary0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChadZackary0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChadZackary2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChadZackary1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChadZackary1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChadZackary1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AReditAccount points points points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChadZackary0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkinnySweaty points points points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkinnySweaty 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yusrasyedahmed[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkinnySweaty 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]yusrasyedahmed[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Then you have essentially answered your own question. Modern men do not suffer the ills our ancestors have. Weak men died and stronger ones survived. Infanticide was pretty common back in the day (thousands of years ago) so the population was always kept from growing beyond its means.

However, today (and for a while now) we have laws that prevent people from killing others without consequence. Or at least there is a more official method than basic revenge or vendetta, even though these are still practiced today. Modern life filled with technology, medicine and a culture increasingly tolerant of weakness has made it easier for average men to live longer. These men, whose population was usually thinned out by war, disease or good ole fashioned predators, now have a greater chance at life than ever before.

Imagine, if you will, a world where men ruled by force. Weaker men followed the rules (made by the powerful men) or else. Those who were not able to survive by their own means were left behind. No government assistance. No family helping out. If you were disabled, you were screwed. So it would be common for stronger men to have harems or greater interest from women. The fact that more women than men procreated successfully tells us that few men had their pick from a lot of women.

Now, the problem is that men are all born with the same sex drive. They all want to bust their nuts in as many women as possible, with as little investment as possible. But since we don't have to worry too much about procreating for survival and can do so with fewer consequences, it has made it easier for humans to be as promiscuous as possible without needing to commit. However, we are still driven by certain biological needs. Women still desire commitment (at least for a while) from men and would prefer men spend their time and resources on them for protection when they are at their most vulnerable. They need men to stick around.

Now, biological needs include things like being social or at least getting some human interaction going. It is not impossible, then, for cultures to develop among small nomadic tribes where they get to decide how they will deal with procreation and whether they need to limit the number of people in the tribe. Agriculture and people settling made it easier to justify bigger families as resources provided. Having more men around meant extra protection and more hands to complete hard work, such as heavy lifting. Communities meant rules, politics and an economy could exist. I have seen it mentioned here before that marriage was far more pragmatic before it became a way for people to reach some lifetime achievement in a bid to reach self fulfillment.

Now, think about what happened when a chunk of men are killed, mostly betas and some alphas, such as during world war 1 and 2. This made it harder for women but many were forced to accept marriage to a man they otherwise would not have given a second look due to scarcity. You could say the fit ones were killed off and the unfit were allowed to reproduce thus spreading inferior genes, but that is a different theory altogether. I think, though, that without a healthy dose of pain or fear, kids grow up having to never really struggle even if they are poorer than most.

They develop poor attitudes, feel entitled to whatever they want and are not willing to work very hard for anything since it was handed to them. Add to that a culture that shits on masculinity and it has become easier for men to be lazy, overweight and less masculine. There is little to build character or to develop emotional maturity as people don't really have to be challenged anymore. There is no healthy fear of failure so no need to be ambitious.

Without population control or nature killing off weaker men, the betas are able to thrive. They serve a very important function in that that they produce for society in exchange for acceptance and for many men doing this meant having a wife and a family. Remember, a beta is leveraging his ability to provide for her and the kids (improving their chances of survival) which will score him sex. In the long run, kids mean there is someone to inherit the results of his hard work and to leave a legacy. It also means more people for the tribe who can produce and protect. Now that modern life has allowed women control over providing their own resources and using other men for protection (government) they need men less for protection and provision. They can therefore focus on what gives them the tingles and chase self fulfillment in other ways.

Therefore being a beta is not as viable a strategy as before. You now have to outearn or match her. Others have given up while some are attempting to emulate alpha males. If less attractive men had weaker sex drives you'd see a lot of problems disappear but even unattractive men want to have sex as much (if not more so due to no one showing interest) as their more attractive counterparts. Enter the modern SMP and all its issues.

[–]LewisCross 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Weaker men followed the rules (made by the powerful men) or else. Those who were not able to survive by their own means were left behind. No government assistance. No family helping out. If you were disabled, you were screwed.

Weaker men were either killed for not following rules, or they died. Weaker men who were disabled and not able to contribute to the tribe in some way, died. Literally died.

It was common for families to have as many kids as possible (at least 5, more if possible) because they expected at least one or two of those kids not to make it to age 16.

Then, it was common for people to actually see someone die. It was common to see someone die of exposure or starvation or disease or injury or war, or just old age (because Grandma and Grandpa lived in the house with you a la the Waltons; or they lived really close by). It was common for men to see their friends stabbed to death, dismembered, decapitated, shot, or blown to bits in war. Nowadays, the only time people see others die is in a movie when they get shot and bleed out, and they die in dramatic fashion; or die with eyes closed as if they appear to be asleep. Most people have never actually seen someone die, either of old age or from injuries or otherwise.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right. I think we are perpetuating a myth that violence is not the norm for humanity. That somehow at our core we are nice, sweet, innocent creatures corrupted by bad programming or socialization. Actually, we have built in fight or flight responses as part of who we are. Violence is necessary at times and yet people are afraid of it. We are also very much anti pain. But some of the most humble, well rounded individuals are the ones who understand that actions have consequences. That means understanding that pain and violence can happen from poor decisions. And yet we allow our kids to avoid responsibility so when they are at university, we have adults crying for safe spaces, crying because their candidate lost (all those medals for participating do not make you a winner nor does it mean you are entitled to win) or just crying.

They then make poor decisions like getting drunk around strangers, choosing useless degrees or dropping out altogether and never have to face true difficulties. They are spoiled and want everything their way. Learning to cope with disappointment, learning resilience, and knowing how to protect yourself are essential tools we are afraid to teach our kids lest they get hurt. I hope we are better parents or our kids will know better.

[–]LittleWindowpane 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkinnySweaty 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FairlyNaiveRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rsvrdoge9270 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]czerdec0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Only creatures that exist in a state of nature are subject to evolutionary pressure.

Poodles, for example, exist. All poodles are descended from grey wolves. But put any poodle in a pack with real grey wolves, in the wolf's natural habitat, and that poodle will certainly be dead in a month.

In the wild, the men we call "beta" actually can bring something to the table. Even if he's a total weakling compared to the alpha, he's still twice as physically strong as every female in his tribe. This means he can hunt better than any woman he knows.

In a prehistoric context, that is enough to get you laid.

Now, people only hunt as a hobby or sport. The meat is mostly irrelevant. The modern life, in which a single woman can easily feed herself without the help of any specific man (though she does of course depend entirely on an agricultural system that is certainly more than 95% male) barely existed in 1950.

That's not enough time to eliminate betas from the gene pool entirely, though if it continues for some more centuries beta heritable traits may start to be wiped out.

[–]GeekyFeministDork 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]czerdec0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GeekyFeministDork 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]czerdec0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]speltspelt0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Christian_Kong80% Natural Red0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sardonis70 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm going to come out of left field here with a theory of mine that I've seen discussed around the 'sphere in the past. I and many others call it the "sneaky fucker" strategy.

It goes something like this:

In times when we lived in tribes of hunter/gatherers, the "hunters" tended to be out in the field a lot hunting, while some "beta" men stayed behind to tend to other work. While doing so, they were also presented with mating opportunities, which meant on occasion such 'betas' managed to procreate.

Now where I start to get into theory here is: I think who the "sneaky fucker" is depends largely on the current environment. When things are relatively safe, "beta" men by and large seem to try and 'corner the market' by "locking down" a mate (marriage) and raising a family. In this situation, the "alpha" becomes the "sneaky fucker" because his goal is to get that "locked down" woman pregnant so another man can be stuck raising it.

I think that right now the West is so damn safe that we've done a complete flip of who the sneaky fuckers are. So, the existence of 'betas' is natural, and I think its a feature of humanity to create a creature that can survive AS A SPECIES in differing environments. How that affects the individual humans involved is irrelevant. We have more betas now because we've been 'safe' for a relatively long time. I suspect if that safety were to crumble, the "sneaky fucker" would flip back soon enough.

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]yusrasyedahmed[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]yusrasyedahmed[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cristoff130 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cristoff130 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Since most men are going to be beta, by definition. Beta = average man, Alpha = exceptional man.

But I think what you mean is, why aren't all men super tall, mesomorphic, well proportioned face, extroverted.

That's a good question. The main reason would be because all these factors are determined by multiple complex interracting genes. The only way to get all these factors to breed true generation after generation would be to go to a very highly restricted genepool, like some pedigree dogs. Which wouldn't be good.

And in human society you can't have most of the men excluded from sex and reproduction. Without at least the prospect of sex and children, its hard to get young men motivated to be productive within society.

An additional reason why men aren't all tall and mesomorphic is because this is the body type which consumes the most energy. In societies where food is limited, or with periodic famines, this body type is going to be selected against.

[–]GuitarsAreGettingOld 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]misogthrowRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]yusrasyedahmed[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]misogthrowRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Their beta traits are from their mothers, because beta traits aren't weeded out of women.

The Ancient Spartans were aware of this much sooner than everyone else.

As part of a Spartan girl's education, she would have been permitted to exercise outdoors, unclothed, like the Spartan boys, which was impossible in the rest of the Greek world. Not only would men and women not have been naked in public together, but a proper Greek woman would not usually set foot out of doors, other than to perhaps collect water from the cistern! Yet Spartan women not only exercised, they also participated in athletics, competing in events like footraces.

The allowance of exercise and athletics for Spartan women, though highly looked down upon by the rest of the Greek world (particularly Athens), was not seen as a freedom per se by the Spartans. It was seen as a guarantee that the strong and fit Spartan women would reproduce, and when they had babies, those babies would be strong warriors in the making. For even though Spartan women were allowed to mingle amongst the Spartan men, they were still seen as little more than baby-makers. Their methods and motives were just slightly different than the rest of the Greeks.

But if the physical health of a Spartan woman was seen as vital to her ability to produce strong Spartan boys, then her mental and intellectual might have been seen as just as important.

We do know that Spartan women were known for their natural beauty, and that they were forbidden from wearing any kind of makeup or enhancements.

and that they were forbidden from wearing any kind of makeup or enhancements

http://www.ancient.eu/article/123/

Rest in peace genetic 5/10 women, no chad for ya hahaha.

[–]UA_Hammer -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]UA_Hammer 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yusrasyedahmed[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bones_and_love0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UA_Hammer -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UA_Hammer 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Who do you think is likely to volunteer for the trenches?

This guy!

http://www.thefashionisto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Shia-LaBeouf-Shirtless-Interview-Photo-Shoot-November-2014-002.jpg

tooth to tail ratio. For every guy slinging lead, driving a tank, or flying a plane there are guys overseeing factory production, driving fuel trucks, manning radar and doing weather forecast stuff.

That's all easy stuff when it comes to physical exertion and resilence, there would be no point into sending Alpha males to do betas jobs. Waste of manpower.

http://science.dodlive.mil/files/2011/11/SC180791.jpg

Look how genetically inferior he is compared to

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0f/e2/bb/0fe2bb79bf7e95192e0de89302de29fc.jpg

guy #1 doesn't need to be powerfully built to operate a radio, they could even get a woman to do it.

[–]OncleJulian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Betas are so prevalent now because a lot of the alphas died in WW1, WW2, korea, vietnam. People talk about the rise of betas with disney propaganda this romcoms that blah blah. It's basic dysgenics.

I feel like wars, especially the first world war and the second world war were devised by beta males as to kill as many Chads and Alpha males as possible to make sure they had access to women and as many options with women as they could possibly get because the men women truly wanted, the chads, were either far away in the front line or dead.

This is what women want:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1e/39/45/1e39451a6bc86b3d4fd68b3ee9448b5b.jpg

Warriors. Conquerors. Soldiers with perfect bodies and facial aesthetics and height to rival the gods themselves. Now look at the majority of the male population in the western world. Do they come close to this? No. Women are not sexually attracted to them. We should prevent the betas from making babies and allowing only the chads to reproduce.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Why do beta men still exist? evolutionarily speaking, why didn't they die out years ago?
Author	yusrasyedahmed
Upvotes	9
Comments	188
Date	January 4, 2017 6:28 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/5lxk7h/why_do_beta_men_still_exist_evolutionarily/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/why-do-beta-men-still-exist-evolutionarily.270837 https://theredarchive.com/post/270837

Comments