top 200 commentsshow all 262

[–]1runnerrun2 63 points64 points  (40 children)

Women have a 9 month investment in a child. A woman is sure the child hers, a man isn't. This makes our psychology that men are sexually attracted to most women while women are only sexually attracted to a select few men. These are the only causes of why it is the way it is, all the rest follows naturally.

[–]sp0radic 5 points6 points  (0 children)

[–][deleted]  (30 children)

[deleted]

    [–]moodymela 26 points27 points  (23 children)

    Alpha fucks/Beta Bucks. Women will get pregnant with the Alpha Fuck machine and then seek to lock down a Beta Bucks provider she knows will be loyal and provide for her and her kid. This is basic stuff here.

    [–]dbphreakdb 1 point2 points  (10 children)

    The problem with this, is that the Alpha Offspring, being a creature of his environment, will become Beta, thus fueling the machine of Hypergamy and the degradation of values within society

    [–]ziggypipes 22 points23 points  (1 child)

    AF/BB is the pure nature of women. You cant change that.

    [–]1GRRMkills 3 points4 points  (3 children)

    No, in the AF/BB theory we need betas for society to continue functioning normally. Suppose 60% of children are fathered by alphas, 40% by betas, but only 10% of the population is alpha. If those 60% of children with alpha fathers all turned into alphas themselves, society would change drastically.

    Whether or not it would be a good thing for there to be more alphas in society is questionable. I prefer to have enough to have some voting power and protect our rights/values, but not enough to where there's too many people competing for the small amount of room at the top

    [–]DarthRoach 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    You can't have a functioning society made wholly of leaders.

    [–]dbphreakdb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    The question at that point would be a question of scale.

    Are you a leader in your own home only? In your community? In your city? In your state? In your region? In your country?

    If society were all of a sudden to 'flip alpha', and retained the framework of a functioning civilization/society based upon the benefits it offers, I think it would function far more efficiently than any iteration of government we have now.

    [–]1exit_sandman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Reminds me of Cyprus in Brave New World.

    Heck, Aldous Huxley even called the alphas "alphas".

    [–]j-coordinate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Hypergamy does not care and does not account for the degradation of values of society. Values of society are not conducive to the female mating strategy. Hypergamy is intrinsically harmful to society, put optimum for the propagation of the human race.

    [–]bobbatosakosanose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I think this is a strictly Western issue. I really never see Asians, hispanics, Indians or Arabs take on single mothers or be dumb enough to raise children that arent theirs. Sure it may happen. But not to the degree or with the overtness that it does to Westerners. I mean "having dinner with an ex" is usually unheard of in those cultures. Anyway we have paternity testing now. So that is one thing that helps men.

    [–]1runnerrun2 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    No, this is called the 'sexy sons' hypothesis. Women prefer to have a kid with a sexy man over all else. Note that these are their primary reactions which manifest in many direct cognitive ways, direct as in no planning required, immediate impulses. Choosing the provider over the sexy man requires a woman to plan, which means it is evaluated by her neocortex. That's why it is mainly the constraints of the society they live in that makes women behave monogamously.

    [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    No, this is called the 'sexy sons' hypothesis. Women prefer to have a kid with a sexy man over all else.

    From an excerpt I of a book I recommend to all entitled, the Myth of Monogamy. great broach on the subject, with proofs echoed throughout nature.

    Women want sexy sons, because the son will attract and thus aid more women. Ideally they want a sexy son to grow up, ignore his SMV, and be an obedient BB. They want the perfect blend in their minds of what makes a man. But since they rarely if ever find this hybrid, and if they cant create it, they will game guys to keep their options open.

    [–]Newdist2 -1 points0 points  (3 children)

    A little. But the fact that they can sleep around means they are higher value to begin with.

    [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Not necessarily. Taking a plate while it's hot is simply common sense / intelligence. It wont be as good tomorrow, or 20 years from now.

    Doesn't mean it's your favorite food when you take the plate, but well, a man's gotta eat.

    Strike while the iron's hot.

    What men desire is a virgin who is a whore. We won't find it, it's too rare, if it exists, but we wont starve chasing the elusive, fanciful unicorn.

    We men are cowboys, we are pioneers. We saddle up, make our own laws and rules, and ride bucking broncos til their broken in, and then we get off.

    [–]1exit_sandman -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    Taking a plate while it's hot is simply common sense / intelligence.

    Sure about this?

    (scnr)

    [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    You don't take plates off these.. you take pots off these, like body builders did when their eggs came to a boil in Muscle beach, while they clean bulked for the offseason of the Olympia.

    But still funny. You can grab the pot, just use pot holders.

    [–]candyred1 -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

    Woman here, I can only speak for myself, but I have a very select attraction to men. I would say out of 100 men, I would find one maybe two that I am attracted to. I cant even list what similar qualities may be, its just something thats there. A friend showed me a picture of a man and I just stood there speachless for a minute. We have been married for 7years and whatever it is, he has it.

    [–]ROIVeritas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Irrational, but at least you admit it.

    Attraction is not a choice, it's not always logical. But DISTRACTION, is.

    [–]Deaddpooll 185 points186 points  (44 children)

    Promiscuity is bad regardless if you ever want an LTR for life

    Its worse for women no doubt ,but if you think that after fucking 50 chicks in 5 yrs you'll miraculously be monogamous for the rest of your life, its naive and stupid.

    Thrill of fucking a new chick is a bad bad addiction .

    [–]Apex_Steez 39 points40 points  (7 children)

    So true. Currently trying to figure out how to digest and apply this realization to myself

    [–]olaf_from_norweden 25 points26 points  (6 children)

    I felt that way in my late 20s. Turns out into my mid-to-late 30s I realize I'm becoming more and more interested in the idea of settling down. Been dating someone for 2 years now. Maybe something changes with age? Or maybe my experience with her has been changing me.

    Either way, it's like this constant itch I've had all my life has been fading into constant satisfaction instead of the hunt for it. Either I'm conquering it or I'm just low on testosterone. ;)

    [–]Rock2MyBeat 3 points4 points  (2 children)

    Oh yeah, I got Low T, baby ;)

    [–]Wish_I_Was_Savvy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    lol this is stupid. Professional BBers are married and trust me they don't have low T lol

    [–]imeasureutils -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    This must have some part in it.

    [–]Apex_Steez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Makes sense! Thanks for your insight

    [–]Justbrowsingstuff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Either way, it's like this constant itch I've had all my life has been fading into constant satisfaction instead of the hunt for it. Either I'm conquering it or I'm just low on testosterone. ;)

    This is my thoughts on it as well. Something I've always felt compelled to do, but as i did it more and more the allure faded. Plus when you find a quality woman you don't feel the need to go to the thrift store to try out others.

    [–]a-orzie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Of course. Its like a toy that you got bored of.

    [–]ForYourSorrows 21 points22 points  (0 children)

    Yeah I'm realizing this and also how fucked I am

    [–]Haptic_Affinity 29 points30 points  (8 children)

    Thrill of fucking a new chick is a bad bad addiction .

    Yes, but logistically speaking, the temptation will never be as high for you as her, simply due to the ease with which it occurs for women vs men,.

    thus, self control is more important for her.

    [–]j-coordinate 16 points17 points  (4 children)

    bang on. its women who really struggle to remain faithful when options present themselves.

    [–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (2 children)

    I'm not sure how true this actually is. A women of even average looks has options, a man as we know, not so much.

    [–]ROIVeritas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Valid. And as we all know, women are as faithful, as their options.

    "Never make someone a priority, when to them, you are but only an option"

    [–]suloco 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Agree with you, Zhun. Women are used to having options.

    Imagine you are a AFC with a not-that-awful gf. Imagine you go TRP. You unplug. After twenty something years of being used to rejection and how things were for you suddenly these girls are opening to you, giving you the eyes etc. etc. It will take balls of steel to stay faithful in these conditions (if still find yourself in the relationship).

    [–]sofific 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Nope we dont even notice guys when you're in love.hell we dont even eat

    [–]AlphaJesus 14 points15 points  (2 children)

    Not when you actually really internalize and live out red pill truths. Think about it. If you really become a "red pill" man you will hit your prime and never stop until your about 60. Cause that is who and what men are. Think about that if you do want to get married. You're a red pill man in an ltr or marriage and all your girls friends are with beta bux and you're the only guy that is a master of the Alpha/Beta frequencies going on in your person. The hypergamy you will experience from all these women who have hit the wall, those who haven't and even those who are still in their prime in their 18-30 years of age as your marriage progresses trying to get your dick will probably be parallel to what hb7s and up experience from the time they hit puberty to when they are stopped by the wall.

    It's the clit carousel. When a man swallows the red pill, self-actualizes the red pill AND acta non verba, lives it out.

    That's a hard fucking thing for a man to fight. You got to prepare for that shit now.

    [–]AlphaJesus 20 points21 points  (1 child)

    To clarify, I am only speaking for the other guys here who DO want to get married. Red pill is about achieving ultimate happiness as YOU deem fit. Red pill is not about getting your dick wet, unless of course you desire to utilize it to that effect. Red pill is a cheat sheet to the culture. Red pill is the means to YOUR ends. Blue pill is being led by other forces to an ends not your own. Remember that.

    Marriage CAN work today in our society. Unicorns do exist. They are made, not found. AWALT is true. But we are NOT in the category of AMALT in a blue pill/plugged in/betabux sense. If you get that. If you get red pill. You have to tools for a successful marriage or a non successful marriage. You literally have the tools for whatever the fuck you want. That's why you don't talk about this shit with your friends, because it works. It is power.

    All of us should know, when a marriage fails it is never the fault of the woman but the man. If a woman cheats on her husband, that's his fault. If your girl desires another guys dick at any point in any relationship you are in with a woman in any way, you lost frame, you did something wrong, and you're at fault.

    Lift, game, life.

    This is 10 times as much important when you're married.

    Lifting shows your wife you value yourself. And that pussy will be dripping wet for you everyday as she progresses towards the wall herself. But if you're lifting for you, it'll encourage her to keep herself fit too. She will find value in herself as you find value in yourself. Her value is based on her mans value.

    The rest of your marriage and your life with that women is gaming her. Game isn't just for polyamory it is for monoamory as well. Master game and you will master your marriage/wife as well.

    And, keep it captain/firstmate dynamic if you want a successful marriage in my opinion. A woman does not want to be a mans world but a part of his world. Live your fucking life and make sure that your woman knows if she wants to be a part of it you're the captain, and make sure she realizes too that you have standards for the way your ship(life) is run.

    edit: nazi grammar

    [–]csmass 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    I beg to differ in regards to a woman wanting to improve herself if you improve yourself. My last relationship several years ago ended because my GF became a fatass. I was lifting regularly and playing intense sports (boxing, MMA, and Martial Arts). She didn't do a damn thing to herself, and of course I didn't do anything for her ( I wasn't going to fuck a fat chick).

    Just a heads up to all the guys out there: What you read on TRP is true for the most part, but keep in mind, humans are complex. Sometimes, TRP may not work well or at all.

    [–]asdfghjkltyu 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    Promiscuity is bad regardless if you ever want an LTR for life

    See this is one thing people rarely mention. Being a 'slut' is only bad for the women who want a LTR. If they just want to sleep around, power to them, I'm sure the men they sleep with will support their choices.

    It only goes poorly for them when they think they can just return from the abyss and find a chap to marry them after this. Sadly, even that isn't too difficult for them.

    [–]suloco 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    FINALLY! Someone finally takes into account male promiscuity and it's consequences. Thank you, Mr. Deadpool!

    [–]idrivesmallcars 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    I've been doing it solid for 10 years now and I was ready to settle a long time ago. That's all Is available at the moment. The "right-now" chick.

    [–]ROIVeritas 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    In the past, it was called "going steady", now with these immoral women wishing they'd been born men, thus fucking men anyway they can for the sake of all women, as if they'll become ever closer to becoming a man simply by sleeping with men.

    Now, because of the above scenarios playing out and being accepted as the new normal, it's just "steadily going nowhere"

    [–]King2realz 4 points5 points  (5 children)

    Open relationship. All the goods of having a girlfriend while still being able to have fun with other girls. It worked for me for several years.

    [–]guillaumesexprime 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    How do u actually convince the girls to go there?

    [–]VancouverSucks 7 points8 points  (1 child)

    Have a 6-pack and game and not give a fuck.

    [–]ROIVeritas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Women truly are weak for a man's phyisique. Something about controlling something of higher value than herself, more powerful, if albeit temporarily, is the height of pleasure for a woman.

    [–]King2realz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Leverage. They fall in love and want me to be their boyfriends. I agree to if they let me 'have fun and be young'. At this point there already in love so they don't really have a choice.

    [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (8 children)

    Probably because you realize how fucking stupid LTR's are as a man, and instead of losing yourself in the rapacious female void, you decide to stay single and not be ruled by another (if you enter an LTR, you are inviting the state into the relationship, so the woman now has a gun that she can use at any time on you).

    [–]VancouverSucks 5 points6 points  (3 children)

    This is exactly it..I would be down for an LTR, but common law in Canada even grants spouses property rights...its a joke. If the girl stays at your place for 4 days a week for a few months, its common law marriage. No thanks. Were not that dumb, blame the government, not us.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Agreed, I'm glad to see another Canuck here, and perhaps a fellow vancouverite?

    [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    This is also why married / involved women wear their rings on the right hand instead of the left. To remind herself and the world, you see.. I'm marriage material, but I have the right to pull the trigger on you, I'm the don. Most time it is bohemian hipster college CC riding women who buy these rings for themselves to show the world they are marriage material, but aren't acting like it, because men aren't doing their "duty". (chasing, escalating, showing interest)

    [–]ROIVeritas 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Someone give this man the key to all cities.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Oh well. This type of red-pill truth is not so popular here, because most people here are newbies. You'd probably find more support for this in /r/alreadyred

    [–]ROIVeritas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Newbs, and trolls paid to pose as RP'ers to spam post. But they suck, they lift up their own skirts in discussions where sex isnt even remotely broached as a subject.

    [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Keep the relationship open on your end.

    Problem solved.

    If you aren't capable of doing that, improve yourself until you are.

    [–]Labore_Et_Constantia 32 points33 points  (6 children)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733220/Women-don-t-sleep-wedding-happier-marriages-men-play-field-without-worry-study-finds.html

    Women who don't sleep around before their wedding have happier marriages - but men can play the field without worry, study finds

    53% of women who had slept only with husband felt satisfied in marriage

    Dropped to 42% if woman had more than 2 partners and 22% if more than 10

    Sex with many different partners 'may be risky' if wanting a happy marriage

    Those with more partners struggled because they are aware of alternatives

    http://i.imgur.com/7bDwvtk.png

    [–]soulmatter 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    This is the most damning evidence and should be paraded around everywhere.

    [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    "All things that are done in, and shrouded in darkness, shall come to the light"

    [–]ioncloud9 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Reading your image, preselection is a real thing.

    [–]smokingmonkey420 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    This is why TRP is so goddamn hard to swallow. How many women fit this category? How many men dating women fit this category? Not a lot. That's for sure.

    [–]Nerf_Circus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    This is so true. The more sex you have the easier it is to tell good from bad.

    The girl I'm seeing told me that with her ex-boyfriend she used to squirt maybe once or twice a year. I can get her squirting twice a night. When she ends up settling down she's in to be thinking back to the way I fucked her. Her LTR will never measure up to me in bed.

    How is she going to live with that?

    I'm glad you asked. she a girl with zero sex toys is currently badgering me for a 'replica of my cock' dildo. I don't know if I'm going oblige her.

    [–]1Mucl 31 points32 points  (29 children)

    This is also why women and men have opposite values on fidelity as it relates to emotional cheating and physical cheating. I remember when I was separated from my exwife years ago and when I knew it was over I took the advice of friend and hit the dog park and talk to one of those cute 20 year olds. I did that and started dating a cute girl and we fucked like bunnies.

    Smash cut to 3 weeks later the wife saw a lot of texting activity on the phone statement and came into my house while I was in the shower and started going through my phone. She did not give a shit about the tit pics and talking about fucking, she was mad that I had what looked like an emotional connnection.

    Someone who didn't give two shits about me is suddenly screaming about how she's moving back in and i need to cut it off didnt care I fucked this girl in the slightest. If anything she realized others thought I was desirable. Men are completely opposite, oce I heard she fucked someone else it was over.

    [–]sway_usa 31 points32 points  (16 children)

    once I heard she fucked someone else it was over.

    Never, ever, ever take back a girl who has cheated. That's like trying to put spoiled milk back in the refrigerator, it won't work.

    [–]rymdsylt 8 points9 points  (5 children)

    she's lying next to me, sleeping right now. never, ever, have I so much regretted the decision of taking her back.

    I can only agree to your statement. it's never the same and you'll be ashamed of yourself for the rest of your days.

    [–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (4 children)

    never, ever, have I so much regretted the decision of taking her back.

    So why are you still with her, now that you realize you don't want to be?

    [–]rymdsylt 5 points6 points  (1 child)

    just broke up with her. I'm so happy I feel like crying haha.

    and, of course, she said nasty things to me that I'm a spineless cunt and I'm the devil himself. "you've wasted three years of my life and toyed with my heart since the beginning". now, about an hour later, she's trying to call me on skype and texting me that she doesn't want this and that she regrets her actions. pfft, not falling for that again!

    [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    Good on you, man. Stay strong.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]userframe 4 points5 points  (7 children)

      Absolutely. I would also refrain from an LTRs with a girl that cheated in the past on other partners. The good women are the ones, that had very few LTRs and did not cheat. It shows that they understand the value of an LTR for them.

      [–]colombianguy 3 points4 points  (6 children)

      The thing is...I don't think I've encountered a female who hasn't, at some point in her life, cheated. Universally, I think males and females consider as cheating anything that one wouldn't do with another person in the presence of one's SO. However, women often break that rule and define cheating very differently for themselves, especially when they encounter a guy that really gives them the tingles and she thinks she can have a tryst with him without getting caught.

      For instance, some women will allow "harmless" flirting to extend into snuggling, kissing, groping, heavy petting, and groping with a clear conscience. Some women will allow it to get to mutual masturbation and oral stimulation. Some women will take it as far as anal sex, but it's not cheating because there is no PIV sex. And there will be some women who will have complete sexual intercourse, but it's not cheating because it's not love, just sex, and they always are faithful in their hearts.

      It sounds ridiculous, which it is, but I've been the confidant to many, many women in my lifetime, particularly during my defiantly Blue Pill and White Knight years, and I've heard the rationalizations, even from women that by all appearances were sweet, kind, faithful, and in every other way "good" girls.

      [–]ROIVeritas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvnSJuv5sa8

      Watch Tony Starks as the girl says faithful. This is the reaction of many an RP'er.

      [–]userframe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I think you re right for many, many women. But I met women, including my girlfriend, that know about these female weaknesses and understand, that it's not good for them. That does not mean, that they are totally immune to this seductions, but they live a life that does not favor these situations happening. On the other hand you have lots of woman, where you can tell at first sight, that she will take dick from any decent man who has the guts to just take her.

      But of course, there's always the possibility of my gf lieing to me about her past.

      [–]snbdmliss -1 points0 points  (3 children)

      I'm a woman, and have never once cheated on any relationship, and never will. I can control myself and my actions. I'll leave a relationship if there's a major issue that is unresolvable, such as the other person cheating on me, but I will not succumb to that low level of being a cheater. So there's one for you at least.

      However, I have been cheated on more than once....

      [–]thesaltysoup 11 points12 points  (0 children)

      Good for you. Here's your cookie.

      [–]pissoutofmyass 6 points7 points  (1 child)

      Why should anyone take you at your word? You've never done wrong and you're the victim.

      We've never heard that line before.

      [–]snbdmliss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I think it's important to be good to people, and to be a good woman. That's how I was raised and how I act. I'm not prefect, but I try to be conscious of myself, rational, learn from mistakes, and make good farsighted decisions.

      You can down vote if you want, but it's truth. Both men and women can be horrible to one another for a multitude of reasons that don't even matter, but in the end, how can there be any good in the world if no one ever tries to be above that?

      [–]FoxMcWeezer 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      I can't shake the fact that she's "used" after she cheats.

      [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      We men assume that women are encouraged to play fair, and be honest as men are groomed to be.

      They've had no such training. Girls are tapped on the wrist for sitting with their legs open, and forced to walk with books on their head. That is all

      [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Women want what other women have, and they want to keep what other women want.

      Jealousy ranks high on the list of females incentives and imperatives.

      [–]CornyHoosier 28 points29 points  (18 children)

      It's harder to be a stud than it is to be a slut.

      Lets take a fat & ugly male and a fat & ugly female. All it would take for the woman to get sex is to open her legs and there will likely be at least a few desperate men who will sex her up. However, no matter how far apart the fat & ugly male opens his legs, he will not find a woman ready to pounce on him.

      It's a pretty simple concept.

      [–]soccerplusaviation 6 points7 points  (16 children)

      Yeah, but once your a stud the world is yours. Since your a stud, improving yourself becomes a way of life and you can sustain a high SMV until your 60.

      If your a slut, once you hit the wall, your value drrooopppsss after 30. So in the long run, it's easier to be a stud.

      [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      it's easier to be a stud.

      Once you get there, maybe. But the initial work to get to that point is more work than a slut will ever have to put in during her carousel years.

      [–]soccerplusaviation 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      that's most definitely true. Personally I don't mind that. I would rather have a life where I can continuously raise my SMV for a good 30-40 years as oppose to being in my prime for 15 years.

      [–][deleted]  (12 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]soccerplusaviation 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        That's true the average 35 year old male has a reduced SMV because of what you stated above. I am just stating that if a man was RP, avoided the pitfalls of marriage and kids, and continued to keep improving himself, he can push his wall back a decade or 2.

        [–]drrtyfrrnr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Who invited you to drop your mindless blather here? Let us men have our peace, thanks.

        [–]flyingwolf 0 points1 point  (7 children)

        Don't downvote her. She is being honest here, why downvote her?

        I like her honesty, its refreshing.

        [–]pissoutofmyass 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        How in the world do you know she is being honest?

        [–]flyingwolf 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        Because you ask most any female this and they will say its bullshit and that they look for stable men etc and muscles don't mean anything etc.

        But if you stop listening to what they say and pay attention to what they do, (this sub) then you will see quickly that what they say is bullshit and much more in line with what this person has said.

        [–]ROIVeritas 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        What women say, and what they do-- are 2 separate chemical reactions that are in separate realms. They rarely ever run parallel to logic, they are often perpendicular to progress.

        [–]drrtyfrrnr 0 points1 point  (3 children)

        Here comes the first white knighter.

        [–]flyingwolf 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        lol, I can assure you, I am by far no white knight.

        If you took less than a minute to read my previous posts you would see that.

        [–]drrtyfrrnr 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Maybe I misread you bud, cheers.

        [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I think this needs to be yodelled from the highest peaks of every mountain from the Rockies to the Andes, to Kilamanjaro, to Mount Everest.

        [–]Newdist2 25 points26 points  (0 children)

        This is remedial-level stuff in both redpill and evo psychology, but it's well written, and there are new people here every day who need to read it.

        [–]wildeep_MacSound 6 points7 points  (1 child)

        That's why the male version are called Studs.

        There are plenty of ugly sluts.

        There are no ugly Studs.

        [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Argued with my pal about this years ago. When we used to lift together, we'd survey the scene, in our younger, 'I give a fuck what women think about me stage', and some hotties would be scoping us as well.

        Compared to my army vet friend, I thought he was more Alpha than I, he had the cars, the motorcycles, the money, and the muscles etc. But he always said, I was the stud.

        I never got this til one day I realized he was right. I had no car, no steady income for over a year, bummy clothes, had just started lifting seriously-- but I had what he didn't. I had the mind, or what my blood brothers, cousins, and pals call the aura, if you beleive that.

        They told me that I exude an aura of confidence, an aura that naturally attracts people to me, not just women, that I walk like a model, etc. Those were their projections onto me! I did not feel I personified what they told me, but obviously they were right, because women saw it too.

        Part of being a stud is internal; that is, it can't be bought.

        Removing the outcome from situations as a deterrent to take more risks, falling in love with lifting and self teaching / self help, not having the ideal life with money, glitz and the like, but still remaining emotionally in control of myself brought more women than I could handle across all age demographics and cultures.

        The moral of the story?-- there are a shortage of studs / real men in the eyes of women the world over. No one is going to give us men permission to be great. That initiative is reserved for those prepared to embark on that course of action.

        [–]ShekelBanker 3 points4 points  (3 children)

        I've seen a Tinder profile about this (of a girl, surprisingly) which addressed it, and it goes like this:

        "There's a lot of work put into being a male stud. As a female you just have to 'be there' while as a guy you must put on months and years of work in looking good and dressing well. Do fat sluts exist? Yes. Do fat studs exist? No."

        [–]EasyChief 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        That's a Jim Jeffries quote

        [–]ROIVeritas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        ... " And we hold these truths to be self evident.. that sluts and studs are NOT equal.

        [–]J2501 10 points11 points  (11 children)

        It isn't, to my knowledge. Being a promiscuous male will certainly disqualify you from many opportunities. One of the great fears of the prized, hard-to-get LTR female is sleeping with a smooth-talking man-whore who ultimately won't take her seriously, and this is the primary reason many women are so reserved, picky, and quick to flee once they percieve a red flag. They see promiscuous men as unlikely to be able to abide by commitment, in the same way that men see promiscuous females as similarly unreliable. There is just as much slut-shaming of man whores as of promiscuous females, and to believe otherwise is to fall victim to feminist mythology.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 11 points12 points  (8 children)

        It's a unique dilemma for them. They want the commitment of those men, but they know (or eventually learn) that such men are hard to tie down. Were they given assurance of one's commitment I doubt many of them would care about your past.

        The same is simply not true for men. Women become broken after sleeping around. They simply can't pair-bond the same way, their entire attitude towards men shifts.

        [–]J2501 5 points6 points  (4 children)

        It can go even further than that: in my community, the most desirable females have a feminist community that guards them: if such an alpha female has a crush on a man that can't be quashed with the usual behind the back character assassination, they will then conspire to 'hook him up' with an inferior female specimen, both as a means of diverting him and making him less attractive to the enpedastalled female.

        [–]userframe 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        Which country are you from ?

        [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        if such an alpha female has a crush on a man that can't be quashed with the usual behind the back character assassination, they will then conspire to 'hook him up' with an inferior female specimen, both as a means of diverting him and making him less attractive to the enpedastalled female.

        Lived it. And these desirable women have these older women to teach them the ropes, because they suck at reading men.

        If a desirable woman wants a man, and he's not the run of the mill BP, throwing his jacket over puddles for her, she's going to at first be taken aback, but then she'll start to get disturbed.

        After all, her female wiles and charm have gotten her all she wanted thus far.. right? WRONG

        I know guys who've tried with 9s and 10s, and the guy's at best a 5, 6,7, and the guy, indifferent to rejection, test these women to see how far he can get with them. Upon the results of his findings, much of what guys put on a pedestal, ain't much to brag about.

        I don't care how many tricks, wheelies, endos and 1080's I can pull with a brand new mongoose town bike. I dont care how many speeds it has, how many gears, or how many different sets of pegs it can be accessorized with.

        No matter how nice looking the bike, it is still the town bike. It doesnt belong to any one man, it never can. And if it doesn't belong to you, you can't take it home-- or at least you shouldn't.

        No guy is going to hold the handlebars, or the hands, of a top of the line, high quality, high maintenance bike / woman.. and present her to the town as having never been ridden. It simply ain't gonna happen.

        As a rule of thumb commonly accepted, men are supposed to be ruled by our cocks, we aren't supposed to turn down sex under any circumstances. While a woman can at will, and often does, even after she's complied.

        She makes one man court, and woo her, for a piece of ass that she is giving away for free to some juicer or spiky haired poser.

        Your post was great sir, I'd like you to expound on this topic if you have any examples, for instance. Not many can relate to having gone through this.

        [–]J2501 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        All I will say is that a female's desire can make a man a target... in a bad way. In a town full of white knights trying to save women from their own bad judgment, misinformationists who either break down their social enemies or hype their social allies, people who are judgmental of eachother's relationships (Do you really think THAT'S the right guy for her?!?!) And let's not forget about insecurely jealous lesbians and feminists who want to sabotage any kind of healthy relationship, which they see as 'patriarchal'. Liberal, pretentious, big city bullshit, basically. Probably quite common.

        [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        This is gold. I almost forgot that being a rake or a casanova either naturally or through learning frame or becoming RP, will make the avg BP hate you,it will make other women hate you. The envy that comes about from access to certain women is dangerous to the man receiving attention.

        "Only women are allowed to be careless. Women and children. But not men."-- Marlon Brando - Vito Corleone in the Godfather

        Guys who get girls with little effort, say just by being in a gym full of slores aching to get boned lets say, is in danger. Some guys dont care, but as you said. Once a guy has his catch, he has to fight to keep it, fending off an array of do gooders, jealous exes, etc.

        I once talked to a cute chick at the front desk of my gym to ask her about the hours when it's less crowded.(I had just started lifting)

        Some guy, who looks like he gets lots of women himself, was watching my every blink as I asked this girl a single platonic question.

        Even after I shook her hand, thanked her and walked away, he was still staring at me like I was Houdini or David Blaine. I could tell he was mad, since she was hot, but I wasn't trying to score. In beta guy's minds, they think being super respectful or having manners when dealing with a woman means you''re trying to get in their pants. But this is not always so.

        [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        This. I dated a girl that was super into getting into a LTR (claimed to not ever sleep around - not virginal but maybe 1 or 2 LTRs with sex), and from her awkwardness it seemed realistic and she didn't care so much about my -past-, that didn't bother her, it was the fact that I wouldn't commit to her and cut out all other girls before sleeping with her.

        [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Ya just cant keep a good man down.

        The same is simply not true for men. Women become broken after sleeping around. They simply can't pair-bond the same way, their entire attitude towards men shifts.

        This paradigm is what popularized the term, JADED. Some of the most run through slores on the market today still have that bubbly perky personality, like nothing can ruin their day as long as they have a man, his cock, his money, or some combo thereof. It's an act / fake. This is why pornstars are called actors.

        Other women who were probably raised right, but get to college and turn girls gone wild, try to follow their feminazi whore aspiring friends and find out that mentally and physically, they aren't built for the ONS's, she sees the diminished number of males chasing / expressing interest her own age, and her heart turns hard.

        Her face turns super serious. When she's spread her southern cheeks in bed a few times too many, her northern cheeks above the border / equator on her face will be in a cryogenic state. If she smiles she might crack her face in half, because she is not happy.

        This, and many other women and people with this mindset, actually believed that she / they could be shallow, and that it would somehow lead to a deeply fulfilling life. It didn't, It doesn't.

        She thought she could trade immorality / personal preference for security, financial or otherwise. She can't. So her cadre is made up of beta white knight orbiter supporters, because they came from a generation where they were spoonfed, no, forcefed this garbage, and us young boys / men simply aint havin' it. Point blank.

        It's long been said that real recognizes real. Sure. But real, recognizes fake too.

        Above all: Women want to be saved from the lives / relationships they create with men, with the men THEY attracted, by ANOTHER MAN.

        [–]Mermaid_Splashes 3 points4 points  (4 children)

        I can't speak for all women, but I get a little turned off if a guy's number is too ridiculously high. That generic, any-chick-will-do type of desire can be off-putting, and being selective is sexy in my opinion. I imagine guys must feel this way about women with high counts too.

        [–]DarthRoach 5 points6 points  (2 children)

        How many studs have you seen with an any-chick-will-do attitude? That's more an attitude for the thirsty loser, not someone with an abundance mentality.

        [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        If the male sees himself as a stud, like Quagmire from Family Guy, then I guess doing every girl that moves is his definition of a stud.

        But a more high quality version of the term should be attributed to a man who has options, but chooses his pursuits logically, and acutely.

        [–]drrtyfrrnr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Quagmire is actually a fictional character, if he was real he would either be desirable to many women and picky, or not desirable and not picky.

        It's kinda rare to meet a grown up stud who isn't discerning.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        It's exemplified. A man can have a wild past, but if he's looking for serious commitment few women will turn their noses. Most men would with a similar woman. Men abhor promiscuity when it comes to commitment.

        [–]Witherkay 7 points8 points  (2 children)

        Ecologically in animals, males and females have different reproductive strategies:

        Male's reproductive fitness (think fitness in terms of evolution) can keep increasing with each mating, a male's sperm can easily impregnate every egg the female can produce, up to millions. Keeping fucking, a male's reproductive fitness can keep increasing, he's not playing against females, he's playing against the other males.

        Female reproductive fitness essentially plateaus after one mating, continuing having sex has no effect, she is pregnant, all her eggs are fertilised.

        Mating instinct has been shown to be correlated with testosterone levels, and has a negative correlation with parenting efforts.

        • Just from the ecological perspective, we're all animals after all.

        [–]through_a_ways 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Ecologically in animals, males and females have different reproductive strategies:

        In all organisms, males and females have different reproductive strategies, and this strategy is fundamentally the same across organisms as diverse as primates and flowering plants.

        The male strategy is one of quantity and competition. In mammals and birds, this manifests itself as the individual male engaging in pursuit of the female.

        In plants, this manifests itself as the gametes (pollen) competing for geographic placement on the pistil (female reproductive structure).

        In the vertebrates, this means that the most fit males (biggest, tallest, most socially desirable) get most of the women.

        In the plants, this means that the most fit male parts (the ones that produce the smallest, fastest, and most pollen) fertilize more of the flowers.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        The need to secure the sperm of one high-quality male is precisely why women only chase the top 20%. They are predisposed for having eyes for the top, as that would have been advantageous evolutionarily.

        [–]errorstarcraft 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Women were the possession of men for the majority of relevant history. They passed from their father's to their husbands, as figurative deeds of ownership. Only in 1976 did women become peers when they began serving on juries in the United States.

        Women stayed at home and stayed pure, their skills were to be thrifty and good at spending their husbands money, shopping well. Men were much more free to be promiscuous, in whatever fashion was available to them.

        This context much better explains why men can be studs but women can be sluts.

        [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Women were the possession of men for the majority of relevant history. They passed from their father's to their husbands, as figurative deeds of ownership. Only in 1976 did women become peers when they began serving on juries in the United States.

        True, hence the tradition of massive dowries at weddings. A man was securing his return on investment, I.E a daughter, by wedding her off for a certain high worth. this still goes on in much of the world today.

        But the liberal, feminist West, with their men are dumb, women are smart approach has removed any and all need for dowries.

        Get rid of dowries, back to bartering again.

        The only thing with bartering is that women trade sex horribly, and unequally, especially outside of prostitution / porn. The platform is called marriage, and stage is set for the woman to become the undisputed champ

        [–]Venicedreaming 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        One could also argue that birth control and STD preventions have given women so much more power than ever before in their evolutionary timeline. If you think it's bad now, wait until the invention of a perfect female condom. A lot of people here voiced the opinion of not wanting an offspring, and this opinion will become more relevant with time, which is a bad sign for humanity in general going forward.

        [–]idrivesmallcars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        "To be a stud, you gotta work hard. To be a slut, you just have to be there."

        [–]ionforge 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        If a woman want to fuck a lot thats her problem, I don't see why people care so much. Yea she got it easier that guys, the point of the red pill is to accept this reality and work on yourself to overcome this, not whine that girls get it easier.

        You wont be crying in 20 years when you are still getting young pussy while woman your age hit their wall a long time ago.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        This has nothing to do about them and everything to do about you. The idea that a man can have preferences, that is, a desire to be with a chaste woman when looking for commitment is generally shamed and looked upon as not being progressive.

        If a woman wants to fuck a thousand dudes, more power to her. Myself (and I'd wager most commitment-minded men) want nothing to do with her.

        [–]ROIVeritas 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        The idea that a man can have preferences, that is, a desire to be with a chaste woman when looking for commitment is generally shamed and looked upon as not being progressive.

        If a woman wants to fuck a thousand dudes, more power to her. Myself (and I'd wager most commitment-minded men) want nothing to do with her.

        Seen it. Lived it. The horror. Thank God that Morpheus gave us the ability to be Neo's.

        A guy's weird, if he doesn't want to settle down with a town bike fresh outta college who has more miles on her tires than a used up honda civic... HE's the weirdo-- for not wanting the potential first teacher of his children to be a simple minded female doggy.

        But she can slobber all over however many cocks she wants, and then come to me and tries to plant a kiss on MY cheek? Hell, no thank you.

        [–]bobbatosakosanose 4 points5 points  (2 children)

        But what about the man she screw's 1000 times? Would she not be an alpha widow? And his genetic imprint on her etched forever, possibly also rubbing off on your children with her? I mean if she's been with one man for 5 years. She already gave him her best years. You are getting seconds. I think red pill is way too forgiving on women who date above their SMV, get strung along and dumped. Not to mentions her Ex's will always be around for life and she will inevitably end up fucking them if your relationship goes rocky.

        [–]Limekill 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        1 is better than 1,000.

        And if your better than him, she will look at you as the Alpha.

        [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        True. Plus, there is no such thing as breaking up in the modest sense. When I call things off, I tend to burn bridges. All my pals think I'm insane.

        Most relationships start with a week to a month of mind altering sex, only to end with a brief ugly fight, only to resume the relationship on a less heated scale, by fucking to make up, to show each other, "it's not totally personal, I still like your body / person."

        [–]Criviton 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        "A key that can open many locks is a very good key; a lock that is opened by many keys is a shitty lock" must save

        [–]bohemian_fappsody 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        The difference between a man sleeping with many women and a woman sleeping with many men is like the difference between riding a bike uphill and riding a bike downhill: they may look the same, but one requires strength, effort, and dedication, while the other requires just sitting there and letting nature take its course.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        That's actually a really apt analogy. I'm going to borrow that for the future.

        [–]ohsnapitsnathan 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Okay, but what you're describing here is a (hypothetical) explanation why why people are hypocritical about male and female sluttiness. The fact that something has been selected for doesn't automatically make it beneficial or not hypocritical.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        It makes it rational, which by definition makes it not hypocritical. It's not hypocritical if the two genders are differently incentivized.

        [–]RPthrowaway123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Hear hear! This puts the concept into simple words. Newbies should read it.

        [–]slippu 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        I think both sexes can choose to be promiscuous, it just depends on how low you want to reach into the bottom of the barrel

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Male promiscuity is generally not as frowned upon. Particularly if a man decides it's part of his past. Women are generally willing to overlook that.

        [–]ghee99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        This seems to sum it up quite nicely:

        http://imgur.com/gallery/0Kxrd

        [–]snbdmliss 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        Personally, I find it a major turn off if a man has slept around a lot. I understand there is some need for them to have experience to know what they want, need, don't want etc. in a relationship and to be confident, but beyond that, no thanks. I've stopped dating guys before because it became clear they were man-whores and I'm not going to share myself with someone who shares themselves so easily with everyone else. There are a variety of reasons for that, and to be honest the repulsion to that type of behaviour feels innate to me, for both sexes.

        In part, the reasoning is because it means they have no self restraint, no real care or concern for others, no concern how their actions affect others, no farsight or understanding of potential outcomes from behaviors, they only care about their own immediate satisfaction and are generally reckless about it, they are usually very selfish too, IMO most all women they've ever had will just be jumbled together in their mind, they won't really appreciate a good woman when they find one or treat her well deserving of her being a good woman to them, and will never really be capable of building a real relationship together with a solid captain and first mate dynamic, a partnership that is capable of lasting their while lives. They'll be quick to run if things are ever difficult or will always be looking for another conquest on the horizon if things were to go bad (the 'several in the kitty' approach which is repulsive, means they're preparing to cheat or leave the relationship, how can you ever have a solid foundation like that???), these are immature and insecure boys and it'll always feel like they only have 1 foot in the relationship. Add to that STD worries, and that I'll think about them with other women and that'll make me feel uncomfortable/insecure in the relationship, and I'll shut down sexually with them. Not a good combo for any relationship. Feeling secure and loved in a relationship is important for women just as feeling that your woman is loyal and there for you whenever you need her is for a man.

        There's no question, I very much know my man can easily go get other women if he wanted to (just as I could find other men, but I won't even entertain the thought as I only want him), but he doesn't need to reduce his value, waste his time or effort, or damage our relationship quality or future by giving any other women any thought or time. His being selective and choosing to be only with me is incredibly attractive to me as my being selective and conservative is attractive to him, and as long as he's a good man and captain to me I will be the best woman and first mate I can be for him. Good relationships are built and nurtured constantly.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Women and brevity are water and oil, hah.

        You're not wrong, women are similarly averse to excessively promiscuous men, particularly if they exhibit a lifestyle surrounding it. Past behaviour predicts future behaviour and all that.

        The key difference is that when a high-value man wants to commit, he can do so because he brings with him all the qualities that contribute to his value (you said it yourself -- your man can find other women, just chooses not to).

        With women this is entirely something different. Any woman can get up and find a man to fuck. She simply has to signal her desire. There's nothing special about this, no element of her SMV is made up by her ability to fuck around. The more she does sleep around the more she is seen as an inferior prospect relative to other women.

        When a promiscuous woman wants to commit, it's typically because she fears the idea of being a spinster in old age. High-value men can sniff out such women.

        That's the difference between the aversion to promiscuity between men and women.

        [–]ROIVeritas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        High-value men can sniff out such women.

        Like a drop of blood in a 2,000 gallon tank full of sharks.

        One part per 25 million

        [–]TheEverlastingScar 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        OP,

        I find this topic of evolutionary psychology of sexuality very interesting. Do you happen to know any books or articles on the matter? I'd like to study this in a little more depth.

        Thanks.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        If you want some basic material, start with The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. He lays the foundation for the genetics of ideas (i.e. memes).

        The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller is a book with interesting ideas, although it can be a sloggish read. His main focus is how women are the gatekeepers of sex and as such shaped human evolution.

        One last book that's on my to-read list as it's been recommended several times now, Sex at Dawn by Christoper Ryan. From what I understand he discusses the evolutionary psychology behind Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks. Sounds like an interesting read.

        [–]bigkerplunk -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

        A key that opens many locks is called a master key.

        [–]changshuaidiao 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        There are three kinds of women in the world: Virgins, sluts who'll fuck me, sluts who won't

        I have nothing but respect and admiration for women from groups one and two.

        Women don't like "cheap" sluts (even though all women are sluts for the right guys) because they ruin male thirst. If every girl was a slutbag there would be no beta bucks, and women might actually have to settle for men who are only as good as them, and lose the lustful validation from betas.

        Sluts also game the system. It is only by there being a sizeable number of women who withold sex that sluts get to enjoy the ability to fuck men out of their league. This is also why men dislike sluts, or at least those who won't sleep with them. These delusional women bang a bunch of dudes who are two or three steps above them and then look down their noses at the men who are actually in their league because they dont understand they are merely the path of least resistance that better men will settle for and foolish men will work for.

        [–]ROIVeritas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        This whole post is gold, dipped in titanium.

        What did you see? -- Christian Slater, Interviewer

        Might as well ask heaven what it sees; no human, can know - Brad Pitt in Interview with a Vampire

        [–]omnomdrugs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        If you guys are going to make these arguments, you should take into account the difference in rates of STI transmissions; women are far more likely to become infected than men based on the mechanics involved.

        Evolutionary psychology can be dismissed because it's soft science. Transmission rates can not because it's hard(er) science.

        Extra credit: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/11/08-059212/en/

        Edit: also this: http://www.yourtango.com/2014233119/std-facts-surprising-connection-between-stis-and-monogamy

        [–]sniperhiding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        The second reason comes down to value.

        Damn straight. Women know subconsciously there is value attached to their vagina. They have a love/hate relationship with it.

        They enjoy that value when it is valuable (virgin, young), but the moment reality slaps them in the face that their vagina is NOT valuable (they gave it away too much, too old), oh how fast they turn against the idea that vagina has value. Suddenly they condemn people for "treating them like meat". Funny how they had no problem treating men as disposable objects when her own value was high.

        [–]huge_gap -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

        Saw in a post yesterday:

        There can be fat and ugly sluts, but not fat and ugly studs.

        [–]2asd1100 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

        So what's the evolutionary advantage to slut aversion in males? Simple, prior to modern technology, there was no way to ensure that a child was biologically yours. Men who were averse to promiscuity had an advantage in that they avoided being cuckolded. Eventually they would have outcompeted the DNA of a man who was indifferent to slutty behaviour. This is why you see anti-slut attitudes across multiple cultures. Women would not have developed this trait because they cannot be cuckolded.

        I disagree, I think it's just a behavior that we learned to associate with unstable people. Speaking on a purely biological, primal level. Sluts are cheap slot machines: low investment and low chace of having a kid. They are acceptable options. Now, over time we learned to judge certain behaviors as detrimental to raising children(being in a relationship): crying men, slutty women, unstable behavior or an unbalanced versions of a dark triad personality. A slut is primarily a short term thinker, a hedonist, the fat girl of the sexual market. And that minimizes your child's chances of survival.

        It's precisely the rarity of the object that foments that desire.

        Not really that is a gross generalization. The status associated with ownership matters significantly more. Very few women want to have an excess, most are too shy and mild-mannered to be comfortable standing out. But that same fear manifests it's self in the keeping up with the smiths phenomenon: if most of her peer group/influence makers have something, not having it is emotionally painfull and undermines a woman's self image and her status. Add to this the fact that women look for socially prooven information so a popular item will actually be more desirable than a unique item.(unless that item comes with tonns of status and the womans ego is big enough to wear it)

        To be the kind of man that most women want to fuck is incredibly hard.

        not really, the bar is very low only recently has it been fixed at a vague unreachable and ever changing level.

        Great ending OP!

        [–]teeay -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

        I just read "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. It was an interesting read, if slightly dry in patches, but they do a decent job of laying waste the to the common "standard narrative" of human sexuality. Their compelling and well-substantiated argument is that the state of monogamy and nuclear families as we presently do them is an unnatural, and largely cultural artefact, rather than being innate to humanity. They describe many cultures where women are openly promiscuous and society works around this quite fine. This may not invalidate your points above, as we live in this world, not prehistory or some tribal jungle culture, but I'd recommend it as another perspective on things.

        Your para on the supposed evolutionary advantage of slut aversion makes no sense, though. It's a numbers game - for the man only. Who cares what the female is doing unless you have to apply resources to raising the kids you may (or may not) have produced?

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        I wrote an article touching on that, actually. Haven't read Sex at Dawn, but maybe I'll put it on my readings list.

        Your para on the supposed evolutionary advantage of slut aversion makes no sense, though. It's a numbers game - for the man only

        Not entirely true. A man's optimal mating strategy is to procreate with as many women as possible, while providing protection and provision for a small number. This is more optimal than simply fucking multiple women. In times of scarcity, K-selection is favoured, as having a lot of babies isn't beneficial if they all simply die in adolescence. In such times mate-selection is extremely important.

        Much of our ancestral past would have been times of scarcity, leading to punctuated evolutionary changes.

        [–]teeay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        A man's optimal mating strategy is to procreate with as many women as possible, while providing protection and provision for a small number.

        Fair point, although I wonder if that logic requires our procreative drive to be more of a conscious strategy than it might be. Testosterone driving us to fuck is a fairly low-level process, whereas understanding the politics and social constructs surrounding offspring survivability to adolescence is a bit more complex. Certainly involves a bunch more factors that a seasonal foraging troupe might not spend much time pondering.

        One of the points made in Sex at Dawn is that prehistoric times weren't characterized by as much scarcity as Hobbes imagined. I'm not completely convinced, but they do have some good evidence.

        [–]johnnythornton -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

        You made up and conjecturedd soooooooooo much of that.

        [–]IcarianComplex -1 points0 points  (5 children)

        The first is the most relevant one, and the one that is the core of most human behaviour: evolutionary psychology. Throughout every population on earth you can pick out qualities that are common to nearly all people -- such qualities aren't accidental. Most people have a natural aversion to danger, for example, the reason being that those that did not have this aversion simply didn't live to procreate as well as those that did.

        So what's the evolutionary advantage to slut aversion in males? Simple, prior to modern technology, there was no way to ensure that a child was biologically yours. Men who were averse to promiscuity had an advantage in that they avoided being cuckolded. Eventually they would have outcompeted the DNA of a man who was indifferent to slutty behaviour.

        This may explain why men have a natural aversion towards promiscous women, but that doesn't make it moral. To suggest otherwise is an argumentative fallacy called an appeal to nature.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

        You're correct, I didn't want to make a case for morality as that would have been a post on its own. Briefly though, I believe that a utilitarian outlook on desiring a chaste mate is not immoral. A core tenet of TRP is learning to look out for yourself first and foremost.

        [–]IcarianComplex 0 points1 point  (3 children)

        Okay cool, we appear to have consensus. Although I would say that it makes more sense to be repulsed by behaviors that indicate they're not trustworthy. That's a sign you're going to be betrayed in the future. I'm just not sure promiscuity is tantamount to deceitfullness.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's merely another facet to consider when selecting partners. Promiscuity has a notable correlation with relationship failure, no sense in dismissing it.

        [–]IcarianComplex 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        No of course not, I didn't mean to sound like I was dismissing it. I just think promiscuity itself doesn't undermine the relationship. The host of other behaviors that may or may not come along with it does -- like selfishness, deceitfulness, etc. Hence, it makes more sense to me to be repulsed by the behaviors that present a genuine threat to a healthy relationship.

        Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed like the first point you made in your post implicitly said this: promiscuity leads you to doubt faithfullness, and unfaithfulness is unattrative. Much of what I've said so far is a rebuttal to that and I'm not sure if that's the real premise you stand by.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        That's indeed my premise. I reference studies such as this one that show a clear link between female partner count and elevated infidelity risk.

        Pragmatically speaking, you're taking on a much greater risk by committing to a slutty woman as opposed to a chaste one. All else being equal, one should favour the latter.

        [–]Quansau18 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

        Meh, this is still ethnocentric thinking. If you look into the varied social structures that exist cross culturally you'll realize that there are a variety of sexual partnerships that can be condoned dependent upon the environmental factors that go into shaping them. For example, in matriarchal societies (yes they ate rare but do exist) it is true that a man cannot be sure his offspring is his own, and their belongings are passed down through women so they don't necessarily wish to pass on their belongings to someone else's child. So men in these cultures take on what we consider a father's role to their sister's kids (no doubt as to the genetic makeup there). When we look at the way things exist now and attempt to deduce past social organizations, as though our social structure was crafted by our ancestors with forethought, we are missing out on huge bodies of scientifically researched knowledge that is available to us all.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        There has never been a true matriarchal society in human history. The rest of your argument is moot.

        [–]ex_astris_sci -1 points0 points  (8 children)

        So what's the evolutionary advantage to slut aversion in males? Simple, prior to modern technology, there was no way to ensure that a child was biologically yours.

        Hm. Which means that, currently, there is no evolutionary advantage to it.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 2 points3 points  (7 children)

        Not as far as propagating your DNA, no. There are studies however that show clear links between female (and only female) promiscuity and infidelity/divorce. Promiscuity breaks the pair-bonding mechanism in women.

        [–]ex_astris_sci 0 points1 point  (6 children)

        Good point. But I thought the disruption of that pair-bonding mechanism was encouraged (or at least not frowned upon) by evolutionary forces when one's offspring reach a certain age- so does that mechanism continue to be an evolutionary advantage or more like a social comfort zone?

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

        Recent studies have shown that women may have developed antagonistic qualities towards their mate for precisely the reason you suggest. They become bitchier as that increases the potential for mating with another high quality mate after they've already reared a child past adolescence.

        The pair-bonding mechanism generally fades after 1-4 years (it's somewhat variable between people). Those are, incidentally, the years where child mortality is highest, so one can see how it may have been advantageous to lose a specific pair bond once your child has grown past that age.

        [–]ex_astris_sci 0 points1 point  (4 children)

        Yes. And if it was advantageous in the past, nowadays it's equally, if not more, advantageous, as single parents have more resources to care for their offspring (community/legal support etc- at least in advanced countries). Sure, the psycho-social implications can be almost traumatic for children but I don't think mutation/selection have these considerations in "mind".

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

        And that's where morality kicks in. Morality skews our behaviour where questions of "Is" versus "Ought" come into play. Of course, our morals have been fluid, and our specific views of morality too recent to have had any evolutionary effect.

        I do wonder if thousands of years down the road we wouldn't develop a stronger ability to pair-bond due to our current practices.

        [–]ex_astris_sci 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        Is it really morality or just protecting one's self-interest? Because in this context I think we can all agree we're not saying that women should be faithful because of a moral ideal we all share, but because it's more advantageous to us (less stress etc caused by infidelity, the lack of lasting pair-bonding mechanisms). When it's not self-interest, it's because of a traumatic childhood marked by the lack of family values.

        And what practices are you referring to? I don't think humans' practices can be currently described as monogamous, quite the contrary.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        What's more advantageous to the individual isn't necessarily more advantageous to one's DNA propagation. Increased stress and hardship mean nothing if the result is that you pass on your genetics more frequently.

        Morality is specifically the study of protecting one's well-being.

        [–]ex_astris_sci 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        What's more advantageous to the individual isn't necessarily more advantageous to one's DNA propagation. Increased stress and hardship mean nothing if the result is that you pass on your genetics more frequently.

        That's my point exactly.

        Yes, in the end, morality itself is a selected trait because of its obvious advantages but I wouldn't say that morality is (always) in one's self-interest (both Kant and Hobbes agree on that, I believe).