DISCUSSIONThe Hierarchy of Men (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by AerobusTRP MOD

I wrote a post on TRP titled the hierarchy of women. Please note, TRP is a male-space; we do not use feminine language. The goal of the post was to help men differentiate between women that they encounter, place them into a strata, and then treat them accordingly. I thought a post for the ladies would only be fair.

I. The Prince Charmings

These men are over six feet tall, dark, drop-dead gorgeous, endowed with broad foreheads, possess chiseled jawlines, rock six packs, make over $1,000,000 annually, are friends with socialites, are physically strong enough to push you down with one hand, are tender enough to warmly embrace you when your emotions get the better of you, have eyes for you and you alone, never cheat, possibly have slept with other women but committed only to you, masters of the culinary arts, can fix the car, do the dishes, do not put up with your whining yet genuinely listen to you when you are in a time of crisis, value you not for your body but for your intelligence, charisma, and personality all while being amazing in bed.

These men have Ivy League degrees, work in a prominent STEM field and are CEOs. Naturally, they are knowledgeable enough to explain Einstein’s theory of General Relativity to you in a simple, easy to understand manner, yet they are also connoisseurs of the arts. As they walk you through art galleries, they distinguish Rembrant from Degas. Donned in three-piece tailored suits, at home in their mansions, they play Bach’s Cello Suites perfectly. While you sip their champagne from their wine collection, they proceed to play Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 21 in C major on their ornate grand piano.

These men sweep you off your feet and leave you breathless when they waltz with you in the ballroom, and excite you when they rock-out at the disco. They have a library full of classics and a dedicated theater room. They live in area with sprawling gardens and nature, yet are only an hour away from a major city.

These men are willing to kill if it means protecting you. Their bodies are toned and rugged, capable of besting any man, woman, or any other being that gets in his way; however, he is skilled a diplomat capable of eloquently resolving conflicts without resorting to violence.

These men also enjoy giving oral.

These men do not exist. However, a good goal to have is to think of the man you are in a relationship with as your prince charming. If you are honestly able to convince yourself of this, then you really do love him.

II. The Marriageable Men.

These men have just the right amount of alpha and beta traits. They can lead, they are responsible, they know how to manage finances, they know how to manage you, they take the relationship seriously, and they are not afraid of commitment. While not necessarily possessing the genetics of the roman gods, these men are physically attractive. In addition, they have amicable personalities and are not a burden for you to put up with.

You feel at ease with these men. They do not mess up; they act in such a manner that you do not resent them for the actions they take. You find it easy to love these men because they are loveable. They are like prince charmings in some ways: some are rich, some are tall, some have a pssion for science, others a passion for the arts. The difference is they have, one, two, three, or more flaws, major and/or minor, that you are able to overlook and forgive.

These men do not pester you for sex all the time … because they keep you attracted so the chemistry does not fade. You want to sleep with this man. They do not laugh at your mistakes, yet they maintain your attraction towards them by making you feel like a woman. These men are just the right mix of alpha fucks—as they are physically attractive and possess important alpha traits—and beta bucks—because they are caring and are financially able to provide.

Getting a marriageable man is not difficult, but it does require work on your part..

III. The Alpha Fucks

These men are attractive, or as you women would say, “cute.” They are confident, attractive, and tall. You notice them while you do your grocery shopping, when you are at the gym, and when you are simply walking outside.

But why would you want a relationship with these men? Some of them are broke. Others have just too much alpha—they can be confident and assertive, but they do not care that your aunt just died. They do not have the time nor energy to listen to your problems. Chances are, to them, you are a plate.

They are not ideal relationship options, although highly dominant women will feel feminine with alpha fucks. It is possible for a strong alpha fucks/weak beta bucks man to be relationship material for high dominance women if he does not fail any important requirement for being in a relationship with.

IV. The Beta Oribters.

These are the men you friendzone. You know your friends that are just so gosh darn nice? The same ones you just cannot help but feel like are not relationship material? These are them.

Beta orbiters try to win a woman through their wallet, by listening to all of women’s problems, by being an emotional tampon, and by always being there for women. But those things turn women off.

Beta orbiters are too needy. They lack confidence. Even if you step back and let the man be a man and lead, he will not fare well. You almost feel like a mother when it comes to these men because they are not self-assured and seek guidance from you. You dominated them, grow to resent them, and feel contempt toward them. They are emasculated and do not know how to be masculine. They are not relationship material because you do not feel a shred of attraction towards them.

V. The Invisible Men

These men are about 80% of the male population to you (give or take 5%). They are not attractive. They are short. They have no ambition in life. They do not know how to treat a lady with respect and equality, and they certainly do not know how to make a woman feel like a woman in bed by acting dominant and treating her submissively.

These men are a mix of betas and omegas. The betas here, as opposed to the beta orbiters in strata four are not even on your radar. You have never met them, you do not even know these guys’ names. You appreciate (or do you?) the men at the cash register, the garbagemen, the boilermakers, the coal miners, and the construction workers. But none of them are relationship material. Some do not make enough money. Others do not want a family. Others just are not attractive enough. Others are attractive, but they do not want to support your dreams of becoming a painter. Some men want to, but they do not want to help pay for your student loans. All in all, these men are too problematic.

The omegas are on a whole other level. Not only are they short, fat, and unattractive, these men are really invisible to you. Why? Because they do not even bother with women. They go play video games all day. They cannot for the life of them attract a woman. They go in front of a woman and stutter and twiddle their thumbs and do their best to muster “D-d-do y-you want, uh, um, to um l-like go on a d-d-d-date with me” and the poor woman cannot help but feel her vagina dry up like the Sahara Desert.

My advice to women in relationships is that they should try to think of the man they are in a relationship with as their prince charming. Of course it is not true, but doing this will help limit hypergamic tendencies. For single women, of course you should look to LTR and/or marry quality men. Do not settle, at least not for the sake of settling. Improve your SMV and MMV so you can get a guy in the second strata.

TL;DR Prince charming doesn't exist, marriageable are almost perfect but have flaws, alpha fucks can be unstable and have trouble committing, beta orbiters aren't your first choice, and invisible men are completely unattractive. Also read the post.

[–]box_cutter_ 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I read both of your posts and I wanted to add that if a woman supports her man he can and will become a better prince charming. If you marry a 55% alpha and you act feminine in a way that shows him it's okay for him to be and you like it when he is a man he will step up to the plate. Likewise, a man can turn his woman into a unicorn. If my man tells me he wants me to make him a steak like Gordon Ramsey makes them I will find a youtube video and learn how. I wouldn't like it if he told me to go to the gym though. If he bought us both a membership I would take the hint.

[–]furtive_pua 6 points7 points  (13 children)

Really, 80% of the male population is invisible to you? Seems a bit high. I didn't realize it was that bad.

[–]AerobusTRP MOD[S] 3 points4 points  (11 children)

Not to me, to most women.

Have you read the TRP Sidebar at all? Do you understand the 80/20 dynamic?

[–]RICCIedm 4 points5 points  (10 children)

yea, but betas are in that 80%. so invisible can't be that much. 5% marriageble men 10% alpha 1.0 5% some orbiters getting pitty sex 30% orbiters paying for shit and receiving no sex 10% betas fucking fat feminists 40% invisible men

[–]AerobusTRP MOD[S] 1 point2 points  (9 children)

They are invisible in terms of sexual attractiveness. They are not invisible in terms of how much money they can give a woman.

[–]Mrswhiskers 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Meh, I know a lot of guys that should be in that 80% that aren't, because there are ugly chicks out there as well. Ugly dudes get with ugly chicks. I know very few men who don't have some sort of sexual/romantic relationship with women.

[–]lord-denning 4 points5 points  (7 children)

This is exactly the 80/20 dynamic in action - there are vast masses of men not getting laid and you literally don't know them. Genetic studies have confirmed we are all descended from a vastly wider pool of women than men; even historically a relatively small number of men have gotten all the action.

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

Genetic studies have confirmed we are all descended from a vastly wider pool of women than men; even historically a relatively small number of men have gotten all the action.

Do you have a source on this? I've been looking for scientific evidence for the 80/20 rule for a long time, but I can't seem to find any.

[–]Mrswhiskers 0 points1 point  (4 children)

there are vast masses of men not getting laid reproducing.

Fixed that for you.

Just because someone isn't reproducing doesn't mean, in this day and age, that they're not getting laid. Genetic studies look at the past. And in the past it used to be widely acceptable to rape women when conquering their village, have several wives, and take women and children as slaves. Genghis Khan alone is thought to be a direct blood line of 1 in 200 men due to the massive amount of children he fathered and the massive amount of people he killed.

With the modern invention of birth control a woman doesn't have to be as thoughtful about having sex. Sex used to equal children, it no longer does. So women are able, and willing, to have sex with those that they may deem not quite marriage material but date or even fuck worthy. Not necessarily the women here, but in general.

[–]lord-denning 6 points7 points  (3 children)

What you are disputing is a tenet of TRP, and it does not hold up logically.

As you say, women are no longer as thoughtful about having sex. So they have more fun - that short term fun is all being had with a smal subset of men. It does not make sense for that fun to be had with low SMV guys when the high SMV guys are willing to have a little side action.

If most men were getting laid there wouldn't be a multi-million dollar PUA industry to begin with.

[–]Mrswhiskers 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I'm not saying most men, I'm just saying I don't believe it's 80/20. It's probably around half and half. I think most people forget about the ugly girls. Ugly girls go out with the ugly guys, the broke guys, the low SMV guys, because they, themselves, have low SMV. I mean really, ugly people need(and get) love too.

[–]bicepsblastingstud 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Y'all agree on every point, but are arguing about what the specific ratio is. It's a little ridiculous.

[–]mystikcal1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a girl that is a 5 can get with a guy that is an 8. the reverse rarely occurs.

[–]Str_ 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Tfw sigma bros aren't represented here ;)

[–]PowerHuffGirl 4 points5 points  (1 child)

LOL the first description (Prince Charming) is totally Christian Grey. No wonder that book is so popular.

[–]ColdEiric 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The Taming Of The Shrew is better, if you want a story about an alpha taking the charge of a girl.

He marries her, makes everyone distrust her word, humiliates her, starves her, ruins her clothes, and forces her to publicly agree with whatever he says. And he makes the rest of the guys to look like young boys. And she understands that she loves it.

Here's the link for you.

[–]SuperSlavisWifeEndorsed Contributor 4 points5 points  (5 children)

In regards to the prince charming: it's actually simpler to think of prince charming as an abstract concept and to think of your man as perfect.

Too many women try and make their husbands into prince charming and end up scaring the high ranking beta providers, turning ltr-minded alphas into betas and generally annoying their husband. Because they got it into their head that "prince charming would get me a pony, so I must have a pony!"

In reality, thinking of a man as prince charming is putting a square in a circular box. It looks like it fits if we sort of turn it this way and that, until we try and close the lid and then it doesn't fit any more.

Provided a woman is both selective and open and chooses a man who is actually compatible with her in the first place, it's far easier to develop a genuine disregard for a man's flaws and a genuine appreciation for his talents than it is to pretend he's anything like prince charming. After all, if you were well-suited enough when you met, then unless he's suddenly changed, these flaws/talents are the same ones you ignored/loved when you were dating.

Personal example: Sports is a dealbreaker for me. I don't mind if a guy watches a bit of something alternative like MMA or boxing from time to time, but I couldn't stand someone who's big on team spirit and all that. So I haven't ended up with one. That is selectivity in action.

I also dislike speech impediments and certain accents. However this was not a deal breaker. Jon can from time to time slip into a very strong Derbyshire accent when he's speaking. Overlooking it was openness in action. And because I could overlook it on day 1, I choose to overlook it even when I am prone to annoyance, such as when I have a headache or I'm stressed, so it's never become an issue for me. Although I am aware of my preference, when the accent shows up I instinctively disregard it and no longer see it as a flaw (in him).

I also appreciate artistic talent. Quite simply because I'm passably good at painting and like sitting back and quietly painting for hours. But as he isn't as talented a painter as the people I grew up with, I disregard it. I used to be very ambivalent regarding mathematics because I have difficulties with numbers and just didn't understand. Now I still don't understand, but because he's good with numbers it's something I marvel at.

Forgetting about prince charmings and obsessing over your husband is far more effective than trying to draw comparisons between the two.

PS @Aerobus: I noted, though did not comment, on your "Hierarchy of Women" post, that if unicorns must, by their very nature, not exist, then your standards for a unicorn are too low. Source: met Jon as a 17yo, 8/10 hourglass figured with 0.68-0.72 whr and 7/10 faced (would have been hotter, but I messed my body up in my early teens with bad diet), feminine, traditionally minded virgin, have cooked international cuisine at home since I was 6 or 7, have a very high sex drive, want children with him, want him as my leader and patriarch and through a combination of poor female socialization and having my father as my primary educator, have adopted strategies against nagging and shit-testing to a point where when he's vulnerable I can flip between nurturing, soothing, pleasuring and supporting him in matters of minutes.

The standards given are too low if someone can meet them.

[–]smilesbot 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Relax human! Smoke a bowl ;)

[–]AerobusTRP MOD[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Regarding your PS, I'd have to question what generation you are in.

Yes, women like you, as you've described yourself, probably do exist; however, there are some things that are just impossible. (e.g. a virgin who is sexually experienced and not shy with her body).

In older generations, especially pre-feminism, women didn't sleep around as much. It's harder to find low-partner count women nowadays than it ever was before. In addition, many of the women today who have no/few former partners haven't been raised in the west. Hence if men place such an emphasis on this, they have to look outside western nations.

Maybe you feel the standards are too low. The point I was trying to make is that men shouldn't waste time trying to find woman like you because it's impossible or very unlikely.

[–]SuperSlavisWifeEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I am 21, British, raised in Spain. My generation is pretty damaged but those of us who aren't that way inclined seem to gravitate towards older, more grounded mentors and friends anyway.

And yes, there was shyness, but inexperience can be worked around as long as desire is strong. Otherwise we'd be pandas.

True on the unlikelihood of finding women similar to or better than me, but stating it's 100% impossible can have as bad an effect on the individual man as stating there's 45% of us. It's like when a few liberal papers called UKIP "Nazis". When the public found out they weren't, in fact, Nazis, their votes surged, even though their policies are inapplicable and their stances are weak. And this wasn't waves of young dumb people or politically illiterate women suddenly voting, this was swayed by fairly bright and motivated people who probably felt deceived and like they had found a kernel of truth in modern politics. You can cause the same reaction in anyone who "discovers" "the truth". When you say women like me are nonexistent, any man who meets me or a woman like me is at risk of either dismissing it (which isn't so bad for him, but pretty bad for us) or falling head over heels (which is terrible for him). The fact that men's highest ideals are actually an attainable goal for women shows how sincere and deep male desires run biologically. If a man is swept off his feet by something totally unexpected, harm may come his way very quickly. Without going too far out of observation or giving much advice, I do think it would help for men to have the knowledge and stoicism to stay grounded even if Belldandy were to appear before him and declare herself his wife (see "Oh! My Goddess!" for further details and quite beautiful romanticism). Not being prepared isn't exactly favourable unless you're in a state of anatta and stoicism similar to the Buddha's.

[–]eatplaycrushEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (1 child)

True on the unlikelihood of finding women similar to or better than me

Well, damn, humble much? ;)

Just giving you a hard time, BUT as a 22 y/o who was born in the US and raised here you are not anywhere near the average American female in our age range. That is very unrealistic for typical behavior. Source: I used to be the opposite of what I am today and I see it on a day to day basis.

[–]SuperSlavisWifeEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha. Humility gets hard when you're on a high AND reading about how apparently perfect you are. :p Though at least I'm still aware that there are hotter, smarter, younger, more submissive women with every one of my positive attributes.

And I'm finding it hard not to be insular at the moment. I'm naturally introverted and Jon keeps few friends who he sees intermittently, so other than work we manage to avoid people of our respective ages. But I've definitely seen the "common Homo Hembra Occidentalis" (that being the common human female of the West) and it isn't a pleasant beast to be around, be you man, woman or child.

[–]WhimsicalWonderland 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I'm gonna be honest and say that the invisible men are totally true for me. You can interact with them but as far as them ever being anything more than just existing or an acquaintance, the chances are zero. I don't even think it's because I have high standards of any kind... I think people just set low standards for themselves.

[–]AerobusTRP MOD[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I think those men are invisible to you because you're a typical woman.

That's not a problem. You can't change biology. I am not vilifying you for that.

Just recognize and accept that if you and all other women are vying for a chance with all the same men, you're going to have to step up your game to attract such men. Luckily, you have RPW.

[–]WhimsicalWonderland 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Competition is definitely higher for the cream of the crop. I think something that everyone has to realize just as people is that even though these men are invisible, it doesn't give anyone rights to mistreat them or hurt them either. It's just about being a good person, not even just red pill. Just because you aren't attracted to someone doesn't make that your fault (like you said, it's just biological). But being nasty to someone with low SMV would be.

[–]tradmarriageftw 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Interesting read, but I know I'm not the only one here who has said they were attracted to men who work with their hands and come home dirty. I think that's the most manly thing a man can do. Yet it seems so often I see it out as undesirable because of financial reasons and that women go crazy for a man in a suit and tie. When I see a man in a suit and tie masculine is not my first thought.

[–]Ettie-29 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Completely agree.

[–]AerobusTRP MOD[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I want to thank /u/homo_homini_lupus and /u/PhantomDream09 for offering their perspectives, allowing me to clarify my points and strengthen my arguments.

[–]probablybluepill 0 points1 point  (12 children)

I am curious about something. If you are otherwise in the invisible men, but you make good money. How much money would you have to make not to be invisible? I mean, it's clear that some guy with a billion dollars who is non-dominant, a midget, partially blind, and missing a leg would still get a wife if he wanted one. What's the cut off when you stop being invisible? And what category would someone like that fall into?

[–]AerobusTRP MOD[S] 0 points1 point  (11 children)

Good question. There is no good answer I can give you. I recall reading a study that something like a 5' 6" guy would need to make roughly 170K annually to be as attractive as a 6' guy that makes 45K annually. That should give you an idea.

[–]Lyrad1002 5 points6 points  (0 children)

interesting read: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123853


Nothing worked. The women always chose the tall men. Sherr asked whether there'd be anything she could say that would make the shortest of the men, who was 5 feet, irresistible. One of the women replied, "Maybe the only thing you could say is that the other four are murderers." Another backed her up, saying that had the taller men had a criminal record she might have been swayed to choose a shorter man. Another said she'd have considered the shorter men, if the taller men had been described as "child molesters."

[–]Notsuru 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Damn, I'm 5'6" and make around $25,000 a year, I guess I'll never find love

[–]AerobusTRP MOD[S] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

That's not true, but, you should be realistic. Do you have a hobby? Is there something you're really passionate about? Can you be charming/charismatic? Do you have ambition? Do you want to work harder in your career and gain money/status as you go onward?

RPW can correct me on this (paging /u/PhantomDream /u/homo_homini_lupus /u/StingrayVC /u/Tempy ) but one thing I've found out is that women are really, really, unnattracted to men without any drive at all.

[–]blonde_locks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I found this out with my ex. Near the end, I'd stare and him and in my mind I'd ask, "what do you do?". I was busy doing a million things and he was doing nothing. It became disturbingly unsexy to me as time passed.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Ambition, Game, Physique. In that order, just OD on it, you must have insane drive and ambition, and after that, you need great game, and next in importance, you need your smaller frame to look damn good.

After those 3, the holy trinity, you need to dress great, have excellent body language, and reach a point in your career where you can at least give yourself a life that looks and feels successful to you.

That's enough. She doesn't see your bank account and feel attracted; she sees your lifestyle. Have you built a life she wants to enter (crib, cars, clothes, etc) and can she see potential to give a child a good life with you.

We do say trust what women do, not what they say, but if you read RPW, it should be pretty clear: women (at least the ones you want to LTR) are attracted to ambition and it shows from what they say AND do. Do not think of it like "I have to make 3x as much as the tall attractive guy". Think of it as "I have to have 3x the AMBITION of the tall attractive guy."

The top 3 tiers, the only tiers where you do not get shit on, have this in common. Ambition is truly everything and when you have it in abundance, and your GF trusts that you will fulfill a "destiny" if you will, then you can keep a girl through all kinds of turbulence. This is the beauty of women - in a twisted way, they buy into your dreams if you willing to have them; if you prove to them that you're destined for something, they will actually believe it, and you will be feel compelled to hold yourself to that merciless standard. If you lose the ambition though, you lose everything.

[–]Masonjarteadrinker2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

in a twisted way, they buy into your dreams if you willing to have them; if you prove to them that you're destined for something, they will actually believe it, and you will be feel compelled to hold yourself to that merciless standard. If you lose the ambition though, you lose everything.

I like this, and I agree.

[–]MrToM88 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    The courage to change the things I can,
    And the wisdom to know the difference.

[–]probablybluepill 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I've been quite curious where I fit into RP categories.

I think somewhere between beta and omega - this doesn't bother me too much, which I guess would make me more omega than beta.

These are all the relevant facts I can think off the top of my head.

  • I'm 28.
  • I'm a big fan of video games.
  • I do not lift, and don't really plan to.
  • I wouldn't say I'm particularly ambitious, but my income increased from $30k/yr to over $100k/yr in my first four years of work (via 2 job changes in the same field), so events would suggest otherwise.
  • I'm a big fan of musical theatre.
  • I'm 5'11 and overweight but not obese.
  • I have STEM bachelors and master's degrees.
  • I spend more time lurking mgotw and RPW subreddits than I tend to on TRP.
  • I have no game and I tend to be pretty anti-social.
  • I would self-describe as a geek.

[–]AerobusTRP MOD[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Is that what you want in life? If so, more power to you. If you are fine with your life, then that's what matters.

However, this philosophy does not and should not apply in some cases. For example, if you remain overweight and do not exercise, you're only doing yourself a disservice. Don't exercise and live healthy to get girls; do it so that you will live a healthier life and not spend lots of money on medicine later.

If you don't have game and tend to be anti-social, don't complain if you can't attract girls. If you want to get with girls, learn to be social. If you don't care about attracting girls, then it's perfectly fine to be anti-social.

[–]probablybluepill 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Actually, I think yes. I have some projects going on and I think going through any kind of lifestyle transformation right now would be a distraction.

I'm loosely following the Japanese herbivore/MGTOW movement (as in, trying to read more about it, not trying to live that lifestyle) because I'm quite interested in what the impact on society would be.

[–]AerobusTRP MOD[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well if you genuinely feel happy, I'm not going to ostracize you. The one thing I do recommend is that you eat healthy and get exercise. You don't need to body build, but staying healthy will help you avoid a lot of health complications down the line.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)


[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I don't ever want to support a woman financially, is this a problem?

Do you mean "I never want to be with a woman that expects my money to pay for anything in our relationship" or do you mean "I don't want fully support a woman financially so she can stay home all day while I work" ?

Do you want to have children? If so, do you want those children to be raised by a stay at home mom? Do you want the children to be home-schooled?

Some traditional women grow up expecting to fulfill wifely duties (looking after the family and home) purely in a domestic manner, while the man is the bread-winner. Other women want to take care of the family and home while pursuing work (either part-time or full-time). There are women that expect a man to fully support them financially if they ever get serious or marry - but there are also a lot of women that value being financially independent and contributing to a relationship/marriage in a meaningful way. There are ladies on this sub that cover all of these categories, and there are also some ladies that make far more money than (and support) their SO's/Husbands.

Depending on what you're looking for in a significant other and where you live, there are a lot of things to consider. That said, I don't any women that expect to be fully supported by a man financially in my personal life. There's a difference between fully supporting a woman financially, and helping cover shared costs in a relationship (a committed relationship where you're either living together, practically living together, or married - not casual dating).

Without expanding more on what you mean - it's difficult to say one way or the other if your expectations are reasonable/normal or not.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)


    [–]nomnompuffs 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Ok then.

    [–]mrp3anut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Do you intend on supporting your hobbies?

    Let's say you bring a woman into your life and work in order to being home food and rent in exchange for her raising children, keeping the house up, cooking, being your voice at PTA meeting, parent/teacher conferences etc. Would you not support some side passion of hers?

    Now I'm going to assume half the readers here took that to mean slaving away so she can buy $5000 paintbrushes to make stick figures with but look at her hobbies with the same lenses as yours financially. You shouldn't be risking financial hardship over a hobby so don't.

    Regarding student loans. What were they used to obtain? If she got a women's studies degree why is she more than a plate? If she got an engineering degree then sure since that is a sign of a logical woman in today's world. She got a degree in something useful so she could support herself if needed but if she is traditionally minded a SAHM is more valuable to a family unit than a second engineer so I wouldnt mind paying that off if I deemed her worthy of marriage.

    [–]wendy-fly1 Star 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I totally see my man as a prince charming so I have trouble imaging that they don't exist. Well, I will admit that I think he also values me for my body, not just my sparkling conversation. ;)

    I do have one question. You said that in the Marriageable Men that

    They do not mess up

    What does that mean? My question is because I don't expect perfection from my husband. He is allowed to break a dish or overdraw the bank account because he is human. I don't see that as an avoidable thing, that occasionally he will mess up. It's probably unimportant, it just caught my eye.

    Also, what would be classify the men who get married but end up in dead bedrooms with shrew/mean wives and in unhappy marriages? Or are these categories just for us, RPW, not for the general population?

    [–]AerobusTRP MOD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    You answered your own question.

    He is allowed to break a dish or overdraw the bank account because he is human. I don't see that as an avoidable thing, that occasionally he will mess up.

    It's basically that sentiment. Most women don't have it. A lot of women, who don't love their husband despite the small mistakes he makes, hold those mistakes against him. Him 'messing up' could be him breaking a dish, or overdrawing the bank account, or buying 70/30 burger meat.

    [–]valkyrieone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I would just like to say that the man I have now is my Prince Charming. He's tall, smart, attractive, strong, just the right amount of "nerdy", has a great relationship with his parents, and can get any woman he wants. I am not only physically attracted but am extremely mentally attracted. I can tell when he has been in a room just by the way it smells. An actual incident of when he came to surprise me at work; after I had walked into the elevator when he was waiting for me on a different floor I knew he had been in there and I was instantly turned on. I am so turned on by the fact that his real brute strength can literally snap my neck and he uses just enough to man handle me or curl up next to me.

    He gives me chills and still makes me nervous even after being with him for over a year. He does not need me and I don't need him, but he chose me to be with him and I feel so lucky. He's my prince charming. I'm swooning just thinking about him.

    [–]eatplaycrushEndorsed Contributor 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    Besides the point I would never refer to a man, most definitely never my SO, as "cute" this was a good read. Cute, to me, is for females and animals lol

    edit: so, do DT men fall under your alpha category as well?

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)


      [–]eatplaycrushEndorsed Contributor -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      Yeah, I don't know if that was suppose to be like a bit of a joke, but when a female meets a severely high dominant man or one that is genuinely DT you will not be putting him in the cute category. You won't even know how to describe him if you are the average female with zero RP knowledge be it from the internet or how you were raised, but you'll know you want him and you'll also be more frightened by it then "aww so cute hehehe."

      [–]frozen_strawberryEndorsed Woman 4 points5 points  (2 children)

      my boyfriend is cute sometimes. he's mostly manly but sometimes, for example when he tries to speak my native language he is incredibly cute. or when he yawns and looks like a hippo.

      [–]eatplaycrushEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      This was not my exact point.

      When I first spotted my SO I did not think he was cute. When I first was getting to know him I would not classify him as cute. He was something completely different, something I could not even describe. It lit me up in a more fearful way then in a way my teenage self was around "cute" boys/men. My SO is very, very dominant so I don't find much about him cute in the ways I find my dog absolutely the cutest. I view him as incredibly appealing and attractive because of how he handles himself, his businesses, and because of how he handles me. Is it cute when he thinks he knows more about what I'm doing when it comes to coloring my hair for example, yes cute as in lol you're weird, but in describing him as a man he is not cute. I hope that gives a bit more insight on how I look at that! Not everyone is the same.

      [–]AerobusTRP MOD[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Yes, DT men are a sub-category of alpha fucks.

      [–]Parrtech 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      That was awesome. You should do a youtube video like the one floating around about hot vs crazy women. It would be hillarious.

      [–]AerobusTRP MOD[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      The guy who did that video spent about 1 min doing a man's matrix (cute vs money axis). He got it right. He basically summed up AF/BB