In one of my last posts, I mentioned this study regarding the "dual-sexual strategy."

The dual-sexual strategy hypothesis claims that women select different men for short- and long-term relationships. The short-term traits in question are genetic traits (sense of humor, masculine, good body, athletic, good voice, and good-looking) while the long-term traits are material traits (stays at home, considerate, patient, good income, high social status, successful career).

The study's goal was to research how sociosexuality (a measure of an individual's willingness to engage in casual, uncommitted sex) could serve as a predictor for the demonstration of the dual-sexual strategy. The study consisted of samples of American and Indian women. Women from the USA are recognized for having less restricted sociosexuality than Indian women.

The research found that many women did exhibit the dual-sexual strategy as genetic traits were favored for short-term relationships and material traits were favored for long-term relationships.

But here's the kicker: women with a more restricted sociosexuality preferred short-term mates who closely resembled their long-term preferences. Women from the USA overall demonstrated more distinctive preferences than women from India.

Now here's the conclusion I made on my last post. As this study proves, conservative women hold no concept of Alpha-Fucks Beta-Bucks. While liberal women compartmentalize men as hookup material (men who they sexualize but not romanticize) or husband material (men who they romanticize to an extent, but not sexualize), conservative women give the stable nice guy their full sexualization and romanticization, as evidenced by how more conservative women in the study chose the Betabux for both short-term and long-term relationships.

I'd like to hear more thoughts from everyone, but primarily Redpillers. For those of you who think AWALT principally invalidates my conclusion, why?