Why do many women seem to get bored and branch swing when the man is too loving, respectful, devoted, etc (self.asktrp)

submitted by Five_Decades

This is something I keep hearing about, if the man is too respectful or devoted the woman will end up losing respect for him and cheating. My question is what is her motivation?

It is my understanding that due to evolution, women value fidelity in men. They need to make sure the man won't abandon them after pregnancy so they test for fidelity. Why would they feel compelled to sabotage fidelity once they obtain it?

The only theory I can come up with is that a woman who feels a man is too devoted must be devoted because she has the higher smv in the relationship, and this sets off alarm bells in her hypergamy alarm system. So she finds a man who acts like he has more and better options, which comes across as him not valuing her much. The person with more and better options generally cares less.

That or they assume the man's fidelity is guaranteed and so they can be free to cheat to get higher quality sperm and still have the man waiting for them like Forrest Gump.

What do other people think? I've only been aware of the red pill for a few months, I am still learning.

[–]Senior ContributorOmLaLa 46 points47 points  (20 children)

Why do many women seem to get bored and branch swing when the man is too loving, respectful, devoted, etc

Over-Investment and over-dependance.

A woman inherently wants to be dependent on a man, not the other way around.

She wants to feel as though he's her "unwavering rock" should problems in her life arise. It's a survivalist trait past down from our ancestors.

That said, when a man exposes his flaws, faults and weaknesses or when he shows a high level of emotional dependence on the woman's thoughts and feelings, he is seen moreso as just another human being rather than as a rock.

And while she may respect him for his humanitarian ways, this does not fundamentally garner her attraction, let alone her arousal.

Women are turned on by rocks and stones, not mush and goop, although Hollywood would have you believe otherwise.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (3 children)

Alternatively: a woman loses respect for a man devoted to her. He stopped challenging her. He stopped being interesting to her. She took him for granted. She stopped finding him sexy.

Whoever needs the other less controls the relationship.

[–]Senior ContributorOmLaLa 6 points7 points  (2 children)

It can me seen in multiple facets. When you truly desire something, let's say a new car, it can be all you think about, oft times even leading to a lack of sleep.

But as soon as you obtain the car, you interest in it immediately begins to deteriorate.

We, as humans, enjoy the chase and the challenge moreso than we enjoy the result.

The challenge of achieving the result is what produces the most dopamine and adrenaline, not so much the actual thing we're pining for.

[–]tyson2444 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In my opinion; compared to others: I seem to retain interest in new things I wanted and acquired for quite some time. Which, I guess, really sucks. Any tips, anyone? On... How to appreciate things less, I guess?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Having is not so pleasing a thing as wanting."


[–]Five_Decades[S] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

That's a valid point. Rollo tomassi once wrote an enlightening article on the subject about how women have to devalue all pain felt by men to keep themselves believing that men are their rocks that they can rely on. Rollo got injured and his wife and daughter treated him like a baby for being hurt. Maybe it is that, a man who is too committed shows he has too many vulnerabilities

[–]Squeezymypenisy 6 points7 points  (4 children)

It seems to vary. I was sick for a few days and my ltr took this as an opportunity to play nurse for her man. She liked it to some extent.

[–]Senior ContributorOmLaLa 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Women are naturally attuned to maternity. It’s a role they are born understanding and a role they genuinely enjoy.

But don't mistake enjoyment for respect, intrigue or attraction. It's oft hard to work back up from playing the patient to playing the rock, as rocks don't get injured.

[–]CuntyMcFagNuts69 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep this is spot on. If you as a man are sick, do everything for yourself. Never expect empathy and tingles from a woman at the same time. You get one or the other. It will never balance out. If it's empathy you seek, expect her to show her hints of hypergamy. Sounds extreme but you must respect hypergamy if you want to wear the alpha cape

[–]StuffaYouFace 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They like to play the role for a few days. See how she feels after a week. Or if it happens often through a chronic issue. Then she is disgusted. The nurturing part of her is short lived.

[–]benusmc 0 points1 point  (9 children)

In Models they discuss opening up your emotions, how do you maintain that fine line?

[–]Senior ContributorOmLaLa 6 points7 points  (5 children)

I'm opposed to the book Models on multiple facets including this one.

It promotes vulnerability in order to seem more hunan, but this actually impedes one's progress towards success in the long run.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)


    [–]Senior ContributorOmLaLa 5 points6 points  (3 children)

    I know what you mean. If your SMV is so high that showing vulnerability doesn't hinder your chances, good on you. But to promote vulnerability as a safe practice for newcomers is ill-advisable.

    There are gems there, that just wasn't one of them.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)


      [–]awalt_cupcake 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      He did make some good points about Honest Living increasing number of women, Honest Action increasing the quality of women, and "Game" increasing number of potential plates.

      But the vulnerable chapter set off alarms in me hard. I agree it sounds very end-game. He's in a position, lived a very experienced life, and age that he can open up his beta game.

      /u/Rice_Fields I just got a copy of How to win Friends and Influence People is it a lot like Mark's Models? TRP and my own experience has taught me that friends are not something you should trust. Friends are like plates. You both want something from each other and commitment is expected to be low to non-existent. Also, they can turn on you at any time. The Law of Power states to Appear Friendly and I do agree with that. I appear friendly and have "friends" but I've learned to never open up to them. So I expect the book may help me appear more friendly.

      [–]FrameWalker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I didn't find models very helpful beyond the discussion of status.

      [–]BeefJesusMaker 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      He's talking about being vulnerable to rejection. Sticking your neck out and showing confidence. Not showing your emotions. Read it again. At least that part.

      [–]illusiveab 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Exactly..Manson is pretty much saying get out there and eliminate your outcome dependence. Be yourself, but be the best version of yourself. Be vulnerable in understanding your weaknesses. Bridge that gap and improve. Otherwise you will attract a lot of women who are not what you actually want.

      [–]CuntyMcFagNuts69 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      Why? It's easy to see. TL;dr, women feed off dread, they are never truly content. Once they feel like the "tamed the alpha" they will strip the alpha traits from him that she once desired to keep other women at bay. But then, right before their eyes, they are disgusted by the man they stripped away

      [–]demilitarizdsm 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      They are programmed to obtain the most commensurate to their own perceived value. A man who is too XZY is sending a signal that he getting the better end of the deal by not making himself scarce. Having not to worry about obtaining more from him, she sets her goals higher, often to the next man. The man who keeps her working for his attention is sending her the signal that she is getting the best for who she is.

      [–]demilitarizdsm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      It's not a perfect to only treat them as economic machines, but it is helpful to understanding them. Don't blame them, don't pretend you're different, but know that almost everything they project out, usually via words, purposefully serves to deceive and distract from the fact they are making choices on economic perceptions to get the most they can from their environment.

      [–]InformalCriticism 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      A lot of this will be what you think or what has already been said, but I like to add my version in case it's easier to digest:

      Women value fidelity, but they value sexual excitement more: fidelity is important to them for many reasons, but without the reality in their mind that their man could have other women activates hypergamy.

      The bottom line becomes how men can navigate: "women want what they want when they want it". The brass tacks solutions a lot of quick-fix advice you'll get here is to play SMV and dread to get what you want. That's not LTR stuff, though; even women have breaking points depending on their level of intelligence.

      To your question more exactly:

      what is her motivation?

      It's always nature before nurture. Women who develop a moral compass, or principles can lose that direction as soon as the right circumstance arises. Same can be said for men, but it's much more difficult to break a man who is devoted to principle than it does a woman (or if you want to believe something more egalitarian, just think to yourself, most women do not attain the same moral equivalence as most men).* - I looked for a while to find a link to a report on the event where a dean or professor of some rapport resigned after making those exact comments, it was Princeton, or Harvard, or Stanford, can't remember - it was a long time ago.

      What you should be taking from TRP isn't a "capital T Truth", you should be constantly asking yourself "what am I capable of?" and "does this work for me?". It truly doesn't matter what's "true" in TRP, only what works. For many here, that's the only thing that's qualifies as truth anymore. The areas of gray that bleed between philosophy and science are more than dizzying.

      What I'm getting at: It sounds like you're still looking for answer to questions about women. That's actually not going to help you as much as answering questions about yourself.

      You're not going to be writing books on this when you're through with this sub or trying to sell merch like some of these hacks feeding off raw predispositions toward misogyny.

      Anecdotal Experience tells me that "respect", "devotion", and "love" only pays off when a woman is convinced of your strength, intelligence, and potential. After that, you don't even have to try to run dread, their emotions constantly worry they are not worthy of your attention and time. After TRP, the number of times I get women referencing "when [I] get tired of [them]" gets comical. Just say babe, just keep being a woman, you're good at that, I'll do the rest.

      [–]MightyTaint 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      The only theory I can come up with is that a woman who feels a man is too devoted must be devoted because she has the higher smv in the relationship, and this sets off alarm bells in her hypergamy alarm system. So she finds a man who acts like he has more and better options, which comes across as him not valuing her much. The person with more and better options generally cares less.

      This. In a lot of ways it doesn't even matter what your SMV is. It's what the woman perceives it to be. For instance, a man with an impressive profession and a nice car will likely have an easier time getting women, because they perceive his SMV to be high. But if a man doesn't have that profession or nice car, but some woman thinks he does (due to lying or manipulation), she will still try to get with him.

      On the same token, even if a man has a high SMV, if he acts like he doesn't (gets oneitis, fails her shit tests, devotes his life to her instead of him), he will make himself appear low SMV in her eyes.

      Women don't want men who do everything they want. Women want to be with men who are high value.

      [–]McLarenX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Women in history past would typically be property of a powerful warrior, part of a king's concubine, or be the sex slave of an influential merchant. If you're not chopping heads off, ruling an entire people, or traveling to far lands in search of riches then the odds are already a little stacked against you based on thousands of years of genetic selection. Women crave exciting men who simply only need them for pleasure and baby production, and who could easily procure another woman (or 10).

      [–]afroose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      That's attraction, women needs to be owned, it doesn't work in the other way.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      In tribal societies(99% of human history) the nuclear family was not a thing. Kids were raised by the tribe, not just a mother/father.(its a hard concept to grasp given our current society). Because of this, women almost always would be impregnated by the alpha male and the other males would help raise the child. So if you present Beta male qualities, Her biology views you as someone to help raise children, not someone with the genetics that should enter her womb.

      [–]DrXaos 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      If that were so, then men wouldn't have evolved such an instinctive, physical loathing of cuckoldry.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      This dynamic didn't change the desire to pass on genetic information.The loathing is a consequence of not doing so.

      [–]www777com 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      If you were a woman, which of these two men would treat you like you were a real person?

      1. the guy who doesn't care weather or not you leave him, or

      2. the guy who does whatever it takes to keep you?

      [–]StarDestinyGuy 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      Can't there be a middle ground?

      [–]www777com 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      A middle ground to treating her like she's a real person? Never!

      Couple has an argument. The man is clearly in the right. The guy who does whatever it takes to keep her says sorry. It's a fake sorry. He's not truly sorry because he did nothing wrong. He's just saying it to keep her. He's fake. He believes if he doesn't say sorry, she'll leave. If she leaves, he's not getting any pussy. Now she's no longer a person, she's just a pussy.

      The other guy, who doesn't care whether or not she leaves, knows he did nothing wrong, and thus will never say sorry. A genuine person would never say sorry when he or she is in the right. This is not fake, it's real. He also knows if she leaves, he's not getting any pussy. But he doesn't care. It's not about the pussy, it's about her as a person. She's a person and he expects her to be a person and he treats her like a person by holding her accountable for being wrong--not giving in, refusing to say sorry because she as a person should know better than to expect an apology when she's wrong.

      [–]awalt_cupcake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Middle ground is treating the relationship like a business transaction. It requires alpha and beta game in moderation. This is KEY for LTR game. However, the average woman these days will still deceive and manipulate the man, like two companies trying to get a better "deal". So in a modern relationship dynamic, a woman is not loyal enough to keep her end of the deal true. You're always at the risk of being played.

      In short, in order to have an HONEST middle ground from a woman: prostitution.

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

      Read the sidebar.

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

      Women like drama, they like excitement and adventure. Respectful and devoted is boring.

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

      SMV doesn't have much pull in these cases. SMV is one facet of a man's value to a women.

      I'm of the opinion that, when it comes to branch swinging, a woman is going to be looking for a guy who corrects the deficiencies of her current relationship.

      She's looking to solve her problem, which is that something is lacking in her relationship, while assuming that she will suffer no loss in the benefits that she receives in her current one. She may feel that she'll have all of those needs met in the new relationship. She may feel that she believes she'll be able to keep getting those needs met by her previous chump, or she may be taking everyone's support for granted that she has no clue of how much support she is getting from the men in her life.

      If she has a mid value BB on the line, then her deficiency is Alpha. She branch swings to that guy, and if he has enough beta, she has no regrets. But if he's All Chad, All Day, then over time she's going to crave Beta. If she can't wrangle orbiters, then she'll escalate with Chad. Once she realizes he's not going to change, she notices Tyler in Accounting. She wistfully remembers Tyler is a lot like whats-his-name, the guy who broke her heart before she was lured into her abusive relationship with Chad...

      On the opposite end, she could be starting out with Chad. Who is totally ripped, but has been struggling to build his life coaching business on FaceBook for years. He's nice and his business might take off. So she marries him. Then the week after they get back from their honeymoon, she's working out at the gym and Jerry Sienfeld hops onto the treadmill next to hers and strikes up a conversation...

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

      Betaization – The slow process by which a woman transforms a man she’s in a relationship with from an Alpha to a beta, usually by means of drama, demands, rules, sex (giving or withholding), or threats. Betaization is a completely natural part of a woman’s biological makeup and is usually not done from a place of malice (though there are exceptions to this). A successful Alpha 2.0 consistently avoids betaization; AFCs and many Alpha 1.0s eventually succumb to it and become betas (or at least very beta-like).

      This process (if successful) turns men into the very things women loath, thus boredom sets in (no more challenge) and branch swinging occurs (where is the next challenge.)

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

      Because women by nature are amoral