tl;dr - women's desires are paradoxical, thus they make sense and if you can understand the circumstances of their paradoxical desires, you can profit.

I saw a question posted on askTRP about the contradictory nature of women's desires. Wanted to shed some light on the subject.

There is a distinction between a paradox and a contradiction.

The law of non-contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot be true in the same sense at the same time.

A paradox is a contradiction that takes place with nuanced circumstances.

The question in the post was about how women want Chad one one hand but physical and financial safety, along with emotional support on the other hand.

This would be a contradiction if these desires were going on at the same time. This takes some honesty in your phenomenological observations, but at least in my experience, it seems that while it may seem like I have multiple thoughts or desires at once, they're really just coming it as such rapid fire succession that I'm mistaking multiple, independent flickers of thought/emotion as a larger body. These are called dhammas in the Abhidamma of the Pali Canon. Theory of Moments is another good way to put it.

Thus, we have taken away one necessary variable to call something a contradiction. It is enough to dispel the claim of contradiction, but we can continue also by refuting the claim that these desires are of the sense "sense," as well.

For this, I will clarify our definition of the law of non-contradiction. In Aristotle's writings, there were 3 separate definitions.

I will use the ontological definition, since the doxastic one is, as the name denotes, more about belief than desire. We are here treating desire as a thing, thus the use of the ontological definition.

"It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect" (Metaph IV 3 1005b19–20)

Interestingly there is a difference now between this new definition and the original one - there is a emphasis on belonging or relationships.

A thing cannot belong to one thing and not belong at the same time or in the same respect.

The earlier refutation of the temporal problem in non-contradiction still stands here, for those who suspect equivocation.

Now, to the "respect" condition of non-contradiction.

We need to define what a woman's desire for Chad or BetaBucks is related to.

This should seem self-evident. They are two completely different desires.

One desire is related to the offspring itself, i.e., Chad's sperm.

The other desire is related to the child's rearing and resources for said child, as well as for the woman herself, i.e., BB's money, attention, and protection.

Thus on both accounts, women's desire for strong sperm and emotional support are not contradictory, simply paradoxical, since they're all taking place within the same entity (the chick), but at different moment and related to different circumstances.

For those triggered by this, for whatever reason, we can bring it down to the formal level with Russell's paradox.

Russell's paradox is as follows.

Let the super-set R contain the set X, where X =/= X, then if R is an element of R, then R cannot be an element of R, and vice-versa, since it's a bi-conditional statement.

Formally, it is

Let R = {x | x (-E) x}, then R (E) R <---> R (-E) R

Russell himself solved this by a theory of types. He separated the sets that would contradict each other by putting them into a hierarchy. This could be done many different ways for our Female Desire Paradox. You could classify the woman's desire for Chad-Sperm as short-term, and the desire for BB as long-term, thus separating their types.

Or you could take the Zermelo-Frankel route, the Wittgenstein route, or even the Godel route and throw your hands in the air and say, "Yeah, it works, but it doesn't make sense" (i.e., it's consistent but not complete).

As long as you accept the behavior and desires of women with as little emotion as possible, the better you will be able to use it for your own ends. TRP is an amoral toolbox. Do as you see fit once you understand, but first you must understand.

Once you understand this fundamental desire of women, it can extend to lots of female behaviors

  • When women say one thing and do another

  • When women backwards rationalize

  • When women cheat on a Chad

Etc.

Moreover, you can change your definitions for increased complexity. I.e., what is a Chad? Is he always a fuckboy for every girl or is only a fuckboy for 7's and 8's, but as soon as he sleeps with 9's, he turns into BB or Alpha Bucks.

The derivations are infinite.

Yes, women are crazy, but there is a method to their madness. Understand it and profit.

Or don't.

For further reading on female contradiction.