Take a good look at this picture. (Be careful, though. Erections that last longer than four hours can be damaging.)
But I am not here to gloat, and TRP is not here for "saving society", even if it actually proves possible after all. (I'm still a little skeptical. SJW tears are tasty, though.) TRP is here to empower the individual, and nothing empowers like understanding.
So examine the picture closely. Come on, look again. See anything enlightening?
Yeah, the title gives it away. This picture explains what liberals and conservatives really are. Liberalism is urbanism. Conservativism is ruralism.
Political views are a direct function of population density.
Both groups see the other as fundamentally insane because their different surroundings lead to completely different notions of what society is. The difference, in this context, between "rural" and "urban" is that a living situation becomes "urban" when the number of people they must directly get along with in their daily lives exceeds approximately 148.
This special ~148 is called Dunbar's Number. It's an approximate limit to the number of people the normal human brain can sustain individual psychological models of, for the purpose for maintaining a functioning social relationship.
When that functioning social relationship is maintained, elabourate and formalized rules for social are not necessary. Each relationship can be negotiated on an individual basis using communication both subtle and overt. Overarching rules are unnecessary, and no one uses them, because they lack precision. One size fits nobody.
But when there are too many different individuals around for every single person to have a mental model, not only of that person, but of how they relate to the others, then something breaks. Relationships can no longer be negotiated, interactions can no longer be personal. Suddenly, people start needing rules, and rules means authorities to make them, and praetorians to enforce them.
I'm sure intelligent readers can see plenty of other ramifications at this point.
Thus, ruralists have relationships, not rules and urbanists have rules, not relationships. The implications for sexual strategy are numerous, but the most important is this:
Slutty behaviour is an inevitable result of urbanism. Giving free rein to hypergamous instincts and AF/BB strategy allows a woman to satisfy sexual instincts and maximize resource gifts from males, but its drawback (from the female point of view) is that it destroys relationships (both with men, and with the social network in general). In an urban, and urbanist, environment, a woman can replace damaged relationships with new ones, as there are plenty of strangers around, and people are social networks tend to be wide, but shallow (many, but weak, bonds).
Ruralist environments, by contrast, restrain hypergamy. Women in these environments are dependent on the social network not only for status, but for survival, and social networks tend to be sparse, but deep (few, but strong, bonds). This means damaging relationships with hypergamy is unsustainable, because those damaged relationships are more valuable, and cannot be easily replaced.
So what's good for men?
It depends what you want. Unchecked hypergamy is good for you if you are looking for sex with as many different women as possible with as low as possible an investment of time, effort, and money... but it sucks if you want an LTR. If hypergamy is kept strictly in check, then there are more good candidates for LTRs, but a critical shortage of sluts.
This matters because opportunity rules everything. No matter how tight your same-night-lay game is, you're going to strike out with the Amish. No matter how alpha-male you are in your relationship, hoes gonna ho. To get what you want, learn the skills you need, but also place yourself where those things happen.