~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
whatwasthatcat
[removed]
[–]TheOneWhoKnoxs1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Read the sidebar. Women follow a dual mating strategy, it is evolutionary. The beta bux gets cucked and raises chad's kids unknowingly.
[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
I don't think you are aware that TRP theory 101 is that women have a dual sexual strategy that is not too dissimilar to your argument, in that they have sexual attraction to a type of men and a desire for relationships with another type of men. A main difference though is that you put social status in the same drawer as wealth for the relationships-desire side, to oppose against high-quality genetics alone for the sexual-attraction-side. Social status in our theory is a bit more complex than that and plays on both sides.
Women have a clear sexual attraction towards high-status males (NOT wealth, but high status, as in "being the top man of all men in the room"). Your young age and lack of socialization may have not made you aware of this, but it's pretty clear to any man - and particularly redpill-aware men - that when you're "the top man in the room", girls' attitude to you is clearly different than when you're just another face in the crowd. And how do we know they're sexually attracted and not in to exploit your status for their benefit? Because if they were only into you for the explicit purpose of gaining your status, they would withhold sex until you've shown them around at your arm, which is what they typically do with resources-providers. They would push for relationships, always. Except they don't when they pursue a man for his status. When a girl is attracted to me because I am her boss, because I am the party host, or because I am the one playing on stage, they don't seduce me then try to withhold sex. They don't necessarily want a relationship from me. They're not necessarily in to "lock me in" yet they want to fuck me. Sure they go for the high-status male for the potential gain in status, but they do so in an unconscious manner, through sexual attraction, because her attraction to the "top man in the room" has been built in her behavior through natural selection.
Watch any documentary on apes showing low paternal investment and see how our cousins organize in mini-societies with a dominant (alpha) male at the top. See how females submit to the alpha male to ensure their survival and that of their progeny. For our female ancestors, submitting to the top man in the hierarchy (or to whoever takes its place) was a behavior of vital importance. Is it so much of a stretch for you to imagine that such behavior of female's sexual attraction towards the top man in the hierarchy would not be positively selected? Sure maybe the top ape is also the strongest, aka the most genetically gifted, but why would females switch to an apparently more genetically gifted newcomer before he's proven himself by deposing the current alpha and taking its position? That being said, "cheating" also exist in those societies as females unconsciously attempt maximizing the genetic diversity of their offspring. Nothing can ensure a female's sexual exclusivity, not even their attraction to high-quality genetics, or high-status.
[–]whatwasthatcat[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't think you are aware that TRP theory 101 is that women have a dual sexual strategy that is not too dissimilar to your argument, in that they have sexual attraction to a type of men and a desire for relationships with another type of men.
I am aware of it, but I don't agree with it, for all of the reasons I wrote. I do not believe that a female using rational choice to settle down with a man she does not find physically attractive constitutes as evolutionary behaviour. Rather, I am claiming that it is a societal phenomenon.
There is no such thing as an evolutionary/natural "dual approach." Everything regarding evolution comes down to the loop of survival>reproduction>survival, etc...
It makes no evolutionary sense for females to be sexually attracted to some guys yet choose a guy they are not attracted to (beta) to "settle down" with. "Settling down" is a societal phenomenon, not a natural/evolutionary one. In nature, there are 9 months of pregnancy, then you raise the baby, then you make more babies, etc...
There is no "dual approach" in nature, rather, women made an overall assessment when choosing partners.
Forget what I said about rich guys. Focus on social status. For hundreds of thousands of years, social status has had a 1 to 1 ratio with physical attraction. This is also evident in your ape example: the apes who are at the top of "society" are the strongest ones, so it is all about physical attraction.
There is no way that a female is "evolutionarily hard-wired" to find the ugly host of a party more attractive than an "unknown" alpha who is at the party. The modern variant of social status does not necessarily have a 1 to 1 ratio with physical attraction, and this is precisely why it does not actually turn women on: if they chase social status in the modern world it is a rational decision that is made for goals/needs/wants that are irrelevant to attraction/the romantic relationship.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]TheOneWhoKnoxs1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]whatwasthatcat[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link