ScienceAmerican Psychological Association confirms AF/BB and a host of other RP truths (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by hawkeaglejesus

Article here: http://archive.is/AjQvN. My selection of favorite excerpts below.

There are, of course, critics of this line of research, who believe that it’s overly focused on ovulation-related behavior, and that it doesn’t necessarily translate into what happens in real-world relationships.

Funny how even highly trained scientists choose to hamster feelz over scientifically proven realz in order to appease the feminine imperative.

This much, however, is not debatable: Both men and women have little to no awareness of just how much these hormonal machinations in their bodies affect what they do.

During ovulation, women literally can't control themselves from wanting arrogant Alpha cock and being repulsed by supplicating Betas. It's in their genes.

In recent work, Gangestad and his colleagues recruited 66 young couples, assessed the male partners’ intelligence and, using photographs, gauged their facial attractiveness and features. Meanwhile, they required the women to complete questionnaires about their sexual feelings toward their partners and other men at fertile and non-fertile points in their cycles.

The study, in press at Evolution and Human Behavior, produced results consistent with previous research: Women paired with feminine-faced men were more attracted to men other than their partners, relative to their partners, when ovulating. The same effect was found for women with facially unattractive men, though not when the researchers controlled for men’s facial masculinity or femininity. No significant effects were found for men’s intelligence.

Doesn't matter if you're smarter than Elon Musk. When your wife is ovulating she will always crave dick that ain't yours.

he and his colleagues found that, in mid-cycle, women tended to prefer flings with “caddish” men. On average, fertile women were more interested in short-term relationships with men who came across as confident, or even cocky, on videotape. In comparison, at other points in their cycle, they gravitated toward longer-term relationships with kinder, more conscientious, deferential types — good father material.

Alpha Fucks, Beta Bux

All this may seem counterintuitive. Wouldn’t it make more sense for a woman to make babies with a nurturing man? Someone more likely to stick around?

Look at the adorable little hamster

You would think, says Gangestad, but, in an evolutionary sense, women want manly men’s superior genes.

Alpha Fucks yet again

Infidelity may be part of the strategy,” says Gangestad. “But while there has been selection for conditional unfaithfulness, it’s also very possible that there was never selection of that sort — that estrus is a carry over from pre-pair-bonding, and has not been modified in the context of pair-bonding (for example, for infidelity).”

Cucking Beta Bob by cheating with Alpha Chad is literally in their DNA. Being a cheating whore was a good evolutionary survival tactic, and unfortunately monogamous marriage hasn't been around long enough for women to lose their whore gene.

"...so far, there’s no evidence to prove that women act on a supposed ovulation-induced desire for extracurricular sex. But there are data trends in those directions."

Contradictory hamstering to appease the feminist overlords.

In one study, Durante’s team had 88 women draw pictures of outfits they planned to wear to a hypothetical party that evening. Not only were fertile-phase women more likely to draw more revealing outfits, but those in happy long-term relationships planned outfits that were almost as provocative as those of single women.

Even in LTRs, women are always looking for the next branch swing.

Durante theorizes that the committed women may have opted for slinkier outfits to retain their partners’ interest.

This hamster is going to die of exhaustion.

Testosterone levels also tend to drop when a man enters a committed relationship and has children, says Gangestad. “Probably the most effective way, short of castration, for men to reduce testosterone levels is to have a child,” he says.

This is how women turn Alphas into Betas. Don't get married, don't have kids, don't have your balls chopped off.

[–]SasquatchMcKraken 309 points310 points  (67 children)

People think this is some sort of multiracial reincarnation of the Nazi Party. Really TRP just points to nature and empirical experience. You can't make this shit up, and you don't have to. Everyone else tries to intellectualize, moralize, and virtue signal over something that at its core is a raw biological affair.

[–][deleted] 167 points168 points  (34 children)

My ex-wife had a biological affair.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 90 points91 points  (30 children)

Mine too, but don't worry: "It didn't mean anything."

[–]TheRiseAndFall 51 points52 points  (6 children)

That isn't false though. It meant nothing to her. Just like in the long run your relationship meant nothing to her. Women's brains are wired to live in the short term. It is the only way for them to survive the life of contradictions thay her biology forces her to live.

It was convenient at the time.

[–]hawkeaglejesus[S] 23 points24 points  (5 children)

Women's brains are wired to live in the short term.

"Eddie! What have you done for me lately?"

[–]daringdeviljackass 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Lol. Story behind this one ...

[–]throwawayclarkken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Watch this for the story 3.10 specially


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

Mine too...but she swears that he was "just a friend". haha

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (21 children)

You weren't giving her the tingles.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (20 children)

Obviously not, but my brother did. Now they are both happy together. I got well and truly cucked.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Hot damn. That's disgusting. Have your families cut them off?

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

Mine has. Hers are low life scum that should never have left the pond.

[–]FailingBillionaire 0 points1 point  (7 children)

I hope at least you gave him a scar in the face to remember you.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (6 children)

Would have been nice and theatrical and all, but not worth going to jail for. He has to live with the slut now, and her family. His own kids have lost respect for him. He's arrogant enough not to care, but in time it will eat at him I reckon. I have forgiven myself, and wish them all the best. I'm doing well in my life and have nothing to be envious of him.

[–]midnightrequest 2 points3 points  (4 children)

How much of a creep a man has to be to go for his brother's wife? No surprise that his children lost respect for him...

[–]pellrid 4 points5 points  (3 children)

he's lost respect for himself "deep down" as well

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

He has always been a self-righteous prick, and believes everything he does is rational and proper. He only cares about himself. They will be a good pair. ;-)

[–]aDrunkenWhaler 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Holy fuck. What low life cunts, both of them. When did this happen?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Yeah. Three years ago. They are getting married soon apparently. I really hope she cucks him and worse. She cheated on her previous husband too. She told me. I was a fool to have anything to do with her.

[–]aDrunkenWhaler 3 points4 points  (4 children)

I can only imagine the power trip she's on right now, pulling something like this. Nevertheless, be glad you got rid of 2 cunts from your life. You already won the battle.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Yeah, she monkey-branched quite well. Glad to be rid of them for sure. Going MGTOW has saved me my life, literally.

[–]aDrunkenWhaler 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Word of caution. It's a high chance you will have the oportunity to fuck her again. It might be appealing for a good number of reasons, including to spite your brother, but don't do it. Be the better man and don't bring drama back in your life.

[–]CQC3 0 points1 point  (1 child)

At least you didn't pop off like the guy in Finally Free by Dream Theater.

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

Finally Free by Dream Theater

Okay, that's a weird song. Can't say I understand it, but yeah, I didn't pop off. lol

[–]SasquatchMcKraken 2 points3 points  (1 child)

If it makes things any better, at least you're one of the lucky relative few who actually caught the bitch.

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

Yep, not red-handed though. I'm kinda glad otherwise I would likely have killed him on the spot.

[–]colmatterson 5 points6 points  (25 children)

Well, yeah, of course people do.. We're not just mindless animals anymore, why should we try to continue to act like it? It doesn't mean we have to deny our basic instincts, but at the same time, it's like you're proposing denying our civility and higher ability for sentience.

[–]Shaman6624 39 points40 points  (17 children)

But. The problem is we have no choice in the matter. We may have superb frontal lobe capacity to devise complex social relationships. But we keep displaying the same predictable mating rituals and behaviours.

It's like that those parts of our brain are totally seperate from eachother. Sex, aggression and fear are older and closer to the core of who we are as the parts of our brain that control those higher functions you talked about. But they run on a different OS and don't communicate with eachother.

[–]TheRiseAndFall 23 points24 points  (15 children)

You are closer than you think.

To continue your OS analogy, the pre-frontal cortex is your primary application. It runs all of your features such as hobbies, interests, work, play, etc. But the more primal part of your brain is the task scheduler, your hardware interface, etc. This part is the same for us all. But the application is different by model, special features, etc.

While we are free to do what we want, the more primal parts of the brain will always take precedence over the application tasks. This is necessary for overall system survival.

If you are facing immenent danger then you cannot wait for the current process to run its course and then make a decision to flee, or change course. You have an immediate system interrupt that will be processed and modify system behavior accordingly.

Humans are just biological robots with advanced personality modules.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

deleted What is this?

[–]darngooddogs 0 points1 point  (13 children)

This. Humans dream that we are somehow not animals like any other animal. You said it, we are meat robots that are fooled into believing we are somehow superior.

[–]francisco_DANKonia 0 points1 point  (12 children)

To be fair, there is solid evidence we are superior to many other species, considering our dominance. Ants or bacteria are in our league though.

[–]darngooddogs 1 point2 points  (11 children)

What is the definition of superior? Biologically any species that can thrive in its environment is perfect, therefore it is as superior as it gets. Not trying to be an asshole, but really we are no better than any species. The point was about intellect though and how we think we are somehow better than others. Yes, we are better at building nuclear power plants and going to the moon, but does that really make us better? Semantics I guess.

[–]francisco_DANKonia 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If you define it that way, then in our environment, we are superior anyway. But there are definitely tons of ways to define it.

[–]hahayeahthatscool 0 points1 point  (8 children)

We are the only animal that changes the environment to fit our needs, instead of adapting our needs for the environment.

[–]darngooddogs 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Wrong. To some extent nearly every animal does this. Beavers, wasps , bees, burrowing animals, nest building animals, elephants...the list goes on.

[–]hahayeahthatscool 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Nope, having hundreds of offspring is always 100x better for the succession of your genes. Not spending valuable time and energy on the single offspring you have.

[–]SasquatchMcKraken 11 points12 points  (4 children)

No one's saying give in totally to our instincts. The problem is that there's a whole dominant narrative out there which basically says that instincts either don't matter at all or, better yet, don't exist. It's all a "social construct," they say. And this has real-world, awful consequences in how people approach intergender relations.

[–]CQC3 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I think it's one of those things where it's foolish to obsessively explain everything through evo-psych and pretend we cannot defy those things, and it is also foolish to pretend those things are not there at all. The truth is somewhere in the middle for this one.

The more intelligent someone becomes, the more their intelligence potentially warps those instincts. This can be a good thing or bad thing. Most people vary with how in tune with their animal instincts they are. The important thing is that it is FOOLISH and naive to believe those things don't exist, this is where the issue is. Just look at most intelligent betas and you'll see that their prodigious minds and ability to think, consider, rationalize and create narratives to suit them can be extremely devastating to their perception of reality. It's the prime reason why they get cucked literally and figuratively by women. Whatever nonsense women tell them they find some way to make it true or through their logic try to consider it genuinely.

Many people choose to believe that we aren't animalistic and at the mercy of our wiring to an extent, and so those instincts are allowed to run rampant. Meanwhile there are many who justify their lowly behavior by giving in to all those things and saying that it can't be avoided.

If intelligence didn't overlap with primal functions/behaviors, then civilization as we know it wouldn't have formed.

[–]SasquatchMcKraken 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I agree. Our instincts inform our actions, they don't direct them. In my opinion a lot of dudes here on TRP are overly biologically determinist. But the pendelum has swung so far in the "everything is a social construct" direction that I can tolerate a bit of exaggeration in the other direction. When it comes to sex, you'll get better results erring on the side of instinct than you will by trusting in intellect which is the very basis, it seems, of BP thinking. In other aspects of human behavior I think things like "tingles" are far less relevant (or at least far more suppressed). But when it comes to fucking, I think it's extremely useful.

[–]CQC3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When it comes to sex, you'll get better results erring on the side of instinct than you will by trusting in intellect

Absolutely, I'd wager this is even amplified by the fact that overt masculine behavior is rarer to see so that in order to create contrast you almost necessarily have to exaggerate in the other direction. But I get the feeling TRP has and is being ripped off wholesale and with this era of internet savvy shitlords and edgelords who are aware of TRP or even remotely similar communities scaling up or down in extremism, you are going to see a propagation of faux alpha's emulating the same idiotic caricature alpha figure you see perpetuated around here. The sort of blunt, insensitive and tactless character that many have brainwashed themselves to act like but it's not their true face. Just a means to an end.

Perhaps this isn't the spot to discuss this, but I feel up to typing it. One thing we never see discussed around here is how game evolves, people seem to think that TRP is something that is true and always has been, but it's not--at least not entirely. Certain things will always be true, like AWALT which is all about the potential and propensity of women to swing branches if it suits, but the reasoning and sensibilities behind those actions are determined by society. If society becomes a place that spoils women and enables--encourages even, the worst, then it is no surprise that hypergamy is magnified in a much more volatile manner.

The crux of game relies on behind ahead of the curve, and so as game becomes more widely known, the game changes. Simple as that. It's like street fashion trends, the point isn't to dress a certain way and be satisfied, it mostly distinguishes (poorly) who is socially conscious and who isn't. It takes social sensitivity to be on top of trends before they become too mainstream and get ditched.

Because of it's fluid nature, and reliance on associations for tingles, game varies a lot era to era. I'll give an example: the type of cocksure arrogant and insensitive alpha game works these days because the contrast. Many guys are whipped beta cucks who cry tears of joy when they see a tit, and they'll do anything to keep girls around. The opposite is intoxicating and attractive because it signals power and by nature indifference (the opposite of over investment). If these qualities become associated with abundance and confidence, then naturally they give women tingles. They figure that behind these actions must be a masculine mindset of SOME sort to drive them. Masculinity is a mindset, not a prescriptive set of behaviors (note I said behaviors not traits). An MMA fighter could be effeminate with women and an effeminate artist could be masculine in his pursuits. Now, if we lived in a time where all sorts of bum ass morons displayed these behaviors they wouldn't be anything unique or special, right?

This could go on, but basically game, masculinity and expression of those things are subject to many variables and not least of all the intelligence of the woman and her background. You can't game dumb bitches who won't even register a nuanced advance the same way as you would a girl who was intelligent and does catch on to your slickness in that regard. The catch is that--as is currently, if there is a lack of masculinity in her life than anything will do. Enter the cocksure faux-alpha game we see.

This post is a bit messy I'll admit, but my general point is that the line between animal instincts and intellectual stimulation is muddy at best. The same instincts govern us but how we see those and identify those being expressed through culture is completely variable. Much like the political atmosphere now, the more polarized people are becoming, the more we see these behaviors expressed (seemingly, as the net seems to exaggerate the impact of everything) in an increasingly disingenuous and black and white fashion. While this seems to work in the short term, if we look at society, is anyone really happier for it? Women aren't, and men definitely aren't.

[–]colmatterson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

See, I read your first comment like you were saying that the attempt to "...intellectualize, moralize, and virtue signal[?]..." is a bad thing. Not that you were necessarily saying that people should totally, 100%, embrace their lower, primal instincts, but that we shouldn't try to objectively rationalize those instincts at all in the first place. Which I also thought was ironic, considering the thread that we're in, lol..

But anyway! I do believe that the number of people that claim these instincts don't exist anymore in humans, or that we humans have the ability to easily overcome these feelings, is a definite minority. Most feminists will admit the jock ape-man is obviously more attractive than the pasty-white and acne-riddled nerd (most well-known cliche I could think of off the top of my head), even though they consciously know that the nerd is far more likely to be able to provide for them, be more mature, stay committed and faithful, etc. - basically everything that a woman will want in a long-term domestic partner - while the physically hot panty-dropper is the worst choice for all the obvious, cliche reasons. But who's going to be able to fuck better? Feminists aren't going to lie about that, it would be ridiculous to deny something so obvious.

I thought it was funny that from OP's post,

This much, however, is not debatable: Both men and women have little to no awareness of just how much these hormonal machinations in their bodies affect what they do.

During ovulation, women literally can't control themselves from wanting arrogant Alpha cock and being repulsed by supplicating Betas. It's in their genes.

because I find it absolutely debatable, and I also think that is ridiculous "evidence" for claiming woman have literally no control of themselves. That's the part that feminists would argue, that women are well-aware of how their hormones affect them during ovulation - they've all been dealing with it since their pre-pubescent years, after all! - and that wanting to be fucked by a guy who obviously knows how to fuck (insert: "better than the supplicating Beta") isn't a crime. Because who cares? Why shouldn't women want to be fucked by an attractive guy who's also likely to be good at fucking.

The point of all this is that people are aware of their instincts, and bodily desires, and so on. They might believe it's a "social construct", but that's still believing/admitting that the instinctual desires exist.

This got long. I just got off of work, I'm really tired, and I feel like I probably went over the rails in my response, I dunno. I understand your position better than I did when I first replied to you, and though I disagree with you less now than I did before, I still don't fully agree with you, either.

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

It's like if you could talk to an ant and explain everything to it about its life cycle, it's ant hill and how it communicates via pheromones and whatnot. That wouldn't change the ant, the ant is still going to live in its colony and communicate the only way its aligned to.

[–]hahayeahthatscool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every decision you've made so far has been directly or indirectly related to you getting laid. And there's nothing you can to about it.

[–]Throwawaysteve123456 54 points55 points  (36 children)

Learned this a decade ago. Evo psych has a lot of practical information to be honest.

[–]throw17453 57 points58 points  (34 children)

There is an issue with evo psych - at least regarding people who tend to use it to explain things as a layman.

You can quite easily explain almost anything under the sun, and evoke evo psych terms to do so.

So let's use an example: Women are attracted to strong men

Evo Psych explanation: This is a byproduct of our evolutionary past, in which protection from danger was essential for survival of both themselves and children, so women are attracted to strong men capable of protecting.

My issue with this line of thinking is not that it's wrong - often it comes across as insightful, and gives a clear, understandable explanation for some phenomena.

It's more that you can invent almost any explanation you wish - dressed up with reference to our evolutionary past.

It reminds me of Karl Poppers statement:

Any theory which explains everything, explains nothing

Evo psych seems to me a theory which can be used to explain anything you wish it to.

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 28 points29 points  (22 children)

It should be easy for you to give an evo psyche based explaination for the opposite assumption then: Women are attracted to weak men.

[–]throw17453 27 points28 points  (13 children)

Women are attracted to weak men:

This is a byproduct of our evolutionary past, in which the well-being of their children, and a stable partner to raise and support a family was an essential concern. Weak men are more likely to be dependable and stay around to help maintain and support a family.

Strong masculine men, in an evolutionary sense, are less likely to provide the stability and nurture that is key component of the underlying biological role that women play. Indeed are more likely to abandon her or her family, endanger themselves by fighting, or consort with other women - and by doing so undermine the emotional bond she would seek to make, to establish and maintain a strong family unit, and mate.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (7 children)

You've actually made a correct argument with the wrong conclusion. What you've argued, which is standard TRP wisdom, is that women seek out beta males (and beta traits) in order to secure a provider. Your mistake is in making the logical jump to this meaning that women are attracted to them. What we mean by "attraction" is sexual attraction, and women are not sexually attracted to beta males except in a perfunctory and duplicitous manner (they're attracted to them during the most infertile phase of their menstrual cycle, which is probably an evolutionary adaptation designed to keep the beta around while still not risking reproducing with him).

Women are sexually attracted to alpha males because their genetics are desirable in an offspring. If she can keep the alpha around as a provider all the better (that's the dream that women endlessly fantasize about).

[–]throw17453 6 points7 points  (4 children)

That was just to illustrate that you can come up with plausible sounding - evo psych - explanation for any phenomena you wish.

For the record, I know quite well the characteristics women are attracted to in men, and neither weak nor beta are among them.

Although a strong alpha guy, who shows some "beta" bonding and comforting behaviors to a girl can easily deepen her attraction - but thats a difficult tight-rope to walk, and generally speaking guys here need to develop alpha traits, and dispense with beta ones.

[–]theONE843663 1 point2 points  (3 children)

The easiest way to mix beta and Alpha with her ovulate cycle is to claim that you are bipolar, and have diagnosed yourself with bipolar disorder but don't want to take meds cuz weed cures you of it. .

Then you have all the plausibility deniability to act beta sometimes.

[–]NotMyBestEffort 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Admitting mental illness to a woman? Sounds like trouble.

[–]throw17453 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Haha, I could see this working! Seems overkill though, to pretend to have a personality disorder, to achieve that affect.

[–]laere 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that women are "sexually attracted" to Alpha males because of their genetics. What would be a better term than "attraction" when in conjunction with finding a beta male for their long-term provisioning?

[–]dammit_redskins points points [recovered]

There's a flaw in here. You are using the real attraction scheme (women like strong men) to explain why, in this instance, women like weak men. It's contradictory. You say that weak men are more likely to be dependable and stick around, yet ignore the fact that in this scenario, women are more attracted to weak men, which gives weak men all the power, which makes the weak men less likely to settle because they are wanted by many women, which makes them more likely to pursue their biological imperative of spreading their seed instead of sticking around.

Fundamentally wrong. Strong masculine men today are less reliable only because they have more power (not talking about physical power) than weak men, they have more power because more women want them.

[–]throw17453 8 points9 points  (1 child)

That's an interesting point.

In this scenario, women are more attracted to weak men


which gives weak men all the power

All would be overplaying it, but agreed it would suggest weak men have some power deriving from women's attraction prefference.

which makes the weak men less likely to settle because they are wanted by many women

Not necessarily - I could say that weak men are, temperamentally, disinclined to exercise that power - even if they theoretically do have it. Just because a man has a gun does not mean that he can pull the trigger.

which makes them more likely to pursue their biological imperative of spreading their seed instead of sticking around

Similar answer to before - but you could say the psychological, hormonal, and temperamental natures of weak men would far outweigh any power increase given - and thus they would be much more likely to settle.

[–]boboliboliobli 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also, "weak" men (in the sense of sticking around and rearing children while the female is more socially and perhaps sexually active) tend to suffer from oneitis. True or false?

[–]boboliboliobli 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Isn't it also true that women want both strong and weak men at different times. Aka strong man for the genes, and "weak" man as the mother figure at home while she's out looking for better genes for her next child? (Basically OPs point)

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Blue pill fathers of yesteryear were not weak men. They just displayed more beta traits.

Weak men are the product of feminization. That's an entirely different evolution psych track.

[–]anonymoustrper 5 points6 points  (7 children)

Ah.. Here's one.. Weak men tended to form groups and live in groups. A group of men/ape-families tended to survive more often than the ones that tend to live alone. Therefore genes favouring the weak men survived and were propagated. As strong men almost always were either a, sent out of a group or killed by group action/war.

[–]Bonesteel50 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Except before the war he knocked up all the bitches

[–]anonymoustrper 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Meh.. the weak men's elder taught how to kill the unborn... So no.. the strong man's genes didn't survive.. :-P

[–]Bonesteel50 1 point2 points  (1 child)

"but its yours baby it has to be!"

[–]anonymoustrper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha.. try saying that with language from stone-age.. :-)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Your argument unravels because the premise is false:

Weak men tended to form groups and live in groups

Humans are fairly hierarchical and apt at forming groups with recognized leaders. So while it's true that socially collaborative primates can displace competitors (physicals being equal), this is no way implies an egalitarian social organization. It's also true that socially collaborative primates don't need males who are individually as strong, which is probably part of the reason why human males are physically much weaker than chimps or gorillas, but again that doesn't mean human social organization is internally egalitarian.

[–]anonymoustrper 1 point2 points  (1 child)

  • It was meant as satirical, showing how easy it is to make up evolutionary psych theories when you don't have to worry about evidence.
  • I am still having trouble drawing the connection between internal egalitarianism and strong males doing better in a group based society. May be we're using different meanings of egalitarianism. I don't remember implying that in anyway.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was meant as satirical, showing how easy it is to make up evolutionary psych theories when you don't have to worry about evidence.

TIL it's easy to pull shit out of your ass and pretend it is a sound theory.

Oh.. that's why / r / hamsters exist. Been trying to figure that one out.

[–]resolutions316 5 points6 points  (7 children)

This has bothered me about TRP ever since I came here. Nearly every explanation for behavior is completely unfalsifiable.

In the end, "why" is less important to me than "what"...but it does leave one wondering how much of this towering philosophical edifice is built on sand.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Probably the best reason I've seen to explain that 'why' is a dumb fucking question with TRP. Had never articulated it quite that way.

Don't worry about the house, this place is a huge orrery. And while the OG orrerries weren't 100% accurate, they were good enough to predict the solar system for hundreds of years. We don't live nearly that long

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Well, as your oneitis' edifice gets filled with sand while getting plowed by locals during her "girl's vacation" to Jamaica beaches, you can ponder how little that actually matters when the end result is often so predictable.

Women make quantum physics seem so simple...

[–]TheRedChemist 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Women are pretty simple, but if one of you is playing chess and the other is playing checkers, you're both going to think the other is fucking wacko.

[–]Ripred019 4 points5 points  (2 children)

The pyramids were built on sand.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's almost like that shit is made out of rock.

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

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[–]Shaman6624 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But this is not EVO psych. This is ethology.

[–]riverraider69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which is why I fucking LOVE the big names in evo psych. They're wizards - the mental discipline necessary is awe inspiring.

[–]Rownik 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Evolution doesn't care about political correctness. Male and female genetics have been carefully refined over millions of years to optimize men's and women's chances of producing viable offspring. Everything else (especially your fee fees) are irrelevant to this.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 21 points22 points  (11 children)

When your wife is ovulating she will always crave dick that ain't yours.

Unless you're the guy with the masculine face who she's dating. It's the women dating facially-feminine men who are craving the AF, according to this study.

“But while there has been selection for conditional unfaithfulness,
 it’s also very possible that there was never selection of that sort
 — that estrus is a carry over from pre-pair-bonding, and has not
  been modified in the context of pair-bonding (for example, for

This is some epic level hamstering in that study. "We found these results, but it doesn't mean that the results are actual results".

and unfortunately monogamous marriage hasn't been around long enough for women to lose their whore gene.

Indeed... it's literally being selected for. Where's the selection pressure to stop this? Certainly not from willingly cuckolded betas...

"...so far, there’s no evidence to prove that women act on a
 supposed ovulation-induced desire for extracurricular sex. But
 there are data trends in those directions."

Where's the evidence that they don't?

Durante theorizes that the committed women may have opted 
for slinkier outfits to retain their partners’ interest

Hahaha this makes zero sense. If this was the case, it would be all month long.

says Gangestad. “Probably the most effective way, short of 
castration, for men to reduce testosterone levels is to have 
a child,” he says.

Why would any man WANT to reduce his testosterone levels? It's just making you more beta - with the evolutionary benefit that you stick around for raise your child. And also your woman finds you less attractive. And goes and bangs Chad once a month.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

But there are data trends in those directions."

Weasel-words. They know it is true but they can't bring themselves to swallow the pill.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

ya know I never understood the one about having a feminine face. I kinda have a feminine/baby face and some women love it and find me cute and some don't...it's pretty polarizing. The local milfs seem to dig it when i go out to bars around here. Some younger chicks seem to dig it as well and then there's the girls won't give me the time of the day because I look like a kid.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 4 points5 points  (3 children)

e. I kinda have a feminine/baby face and some women love it and find me cute a

Cute isn't the same thing as hot/sexy/masculine.

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

I agree for the most part...nevertheless it still occasionally works in my favor. I guess I was just curious about why this works, because its undeniably a thing. I'm sure the super strong jaw line is an advantage but it just wasn't in the cards for me. So i guess "cute" is better than nothing

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I guess I was just curious about why this works, because its undeniably a thing.

Because women are in "get a beta mode" for 3 out of 4 weeks of the month?

Less judgmentally: boyishness is certainly attractive in a certain way. The men ...errrr... boys in boy bands aren't exactly masculine and they do fine with girls.

All this AF/BB and masculine/feminine male faces stuff is a tendency. It's a strong tendency, but it's not the only story.

Noone is saying you can't get laid, cutie pie.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Play the card you're given I guess...Justin biebs was never gonna be a lumberjack that's for sure.

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

Grow out your facial hair and put on some muscle.

[–]rayray2kbdp 0 points1 point  (2 children)

What exactly is a feminine/masculine face?

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

Chiseled jawline, medium-large nose, Clint Eastwood eyes = Masculine Round jawline, small nose, big eyes = feminine

The trend is, square parts are masculine whereas round are feminine.

[–]rayray2kbdp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

SO as I mentioned elsewhere, this doesn't sound good for white boys.

[–]Koryphae_ 20 points21 points  (23 children)

That makes me wonder, if testosterone levels of a man lower when having a child with his partner, why, biologically speaking, a man would want to raise a child at all? Are we not supposed to 'spread the seed' as much as possible? In that case, why would we biologically want to lower our testosterone levels, making us less inefficient males? Could it be that this is one of the mechanisms of population growth slowing? But why women are disgusted with the betafied male then?

Maybe somebody can connect the dots for this, there must be some kind of connection.

[–]Heathcliff-- points points [recovered]

It's not like evolution chooses for us to lower our Test levels after having a child, more like, the guys who's Test levels lowered after children seemed to have survived better (and his children survived better) than the ones who didn't.

For example; take 2 prehistoric men. One has Gene A that exhibits the mechanism of a drop of Testosterone after a child is born. The other does not have this gene. When the first guy has a child, his test levels drop and he "settles down" with the kid and the mother, nurturing the kid and making a few more over the years.

He doesn't take as many risks, doesn't go out hunting with his group as often, doesn't take part in the tribe wars, doesn't pursue other females and the drama that comes with it. His kids survive into adulthood and pass on that Gene A.

Guy number two, who doesn't have this gene, has a kid and continues to be his high test self. He hunts Mammoths and fights neighboring tribes or gets more risky and aggressive with his behaviors. Maybe he tries to fuck another mans wife, maybe he challenges the chiefs authority. Maybe he leaves his wife after only one kid or beats her to death in a fit of rage, maybe he doesn't care so much about having more kids after the first one. Maybe he's not around to help raise kids because he's busy commanding battalions and shit, whatever. In general, his higher test levels can contribute to 1) increasing the chance of him dying before he has another kid, 2) reducing the number of kids he has overall, 3) reducing the investment he has in his current kid. Maybe as a result, his kid doesn't grow up to be as successful as a kid who had a low-test but active father. Repeat this over a whole population and a couple of hundred generations and a pattern will emerge where the low-test father gene A is evolutionarily successful and over-expressed.

Now this is just a hypothetical explanation I came up with off the top of my head, it isn't necessarily true and there's no real way to prove or disprove it properly.. Like was mentioned above, evopsyche is tricky because you can twist it to fit any explanation and use it to justify anything at all with the right language and rhetoric. This does however give a decent mechanism to how this kind of behavior could have happened.

[–]Koryphae_ 8 points9 points  (6 children)

Great input, thanks alot for thinking along with me. But if

not like evolution chooses for us to lower our Test levels after having a child, more like, the guys who's Test levels lowered after children seemed to have survived better (and his children survived better) than the ones who didn't.

How come evolution has not developed women not to disgust with the betafied male? Do you have any ideas?

[–]Merwebb 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Exactly. It's almost like evolution made them to want to have the alfa's kid and the beta's nurturing

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (2 children)

because being disgusted by a beta means she will seek out top tier seed.

women who didn't get disgusted by betas had children with betas, who were less likely to be successful. those lines survived less than the ones whose children were from top tier seed.

[–]rayray2kbdp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which would mean they should be bred out already and not be chosen for reproduction...

[–]TheRedChemist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because once she's successfully bred with one male and reared the offspring to the age where they are self-sufficient (maybe with beta dad's help if needed depending on environment), it's a better use of her fertility to breed with a different male next time, giving offspring with still half her own genes but now a new combination in the mix compared to her first child - a better chance of both surviving long enough to breed themselves and preserve her lineage.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This has confirmation in T levels in married men being lower.

There are 2 opinions about married men living longer, true and false, but I'm not familiar at all with research. Googling the subject gives similar support to both.

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

HighT reproduces more rapidly because tribes needs warriors, and because women like a good hard fucking.

[–]NihilistMonkey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Something else to consider is that what people on this sub consider beta didn't really exist in these "ancient times". Women are looking for two things in a man, Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. The marketplace is so fucked nowadays that women are more likely to get those two things from two different men now, but back in the day they would get those from the same man.

The men would go off to battle another tribe or whatever is is they were doing, and the winners would be alphas and the losers would be dead. Beta is only a thing at all because our society is strong enough to support weak men. In harder times they simply wouldn't exist.

In addition to your reasons, I also believe that our testosterone levels dropping with age is an evolutionary advantage. Men can impregnate their entire lives if they want to, barring some bullshit happening. If older male T levels didn't drop, they would be in competition with their sons, younger brothers, etc.

[–]dammit_redskins points points [recovered]

It might not be having the child that reduces test levels. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

It might be the new lifestyle many modern men pick up after having a kid. Less exciting, less adventure, no new women to conquer = less testosterone.

[–]Therightmike 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Inactivity, weight gain, interrupted sleep patterns, stress, poor diet...I'm sure we could easily extend this list.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Absolutely this. You can have a kid and avoid the T lowering factors while actively keeping it up on your own, aka lifting.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Correlation is not causation. Once your kid is born, for most dads, your sleep goes to shit, your lifestyle changes to a less healthy one (you develop the dad bod) and most likely sex with the wife dries up. All of this significantly contributes to falling testosterone levels.

[–]donkey_democrat 8 points9 points  (2 children)

I would assume those who have kids stop going to the gym and all that. Being conscious of any potential lowering of testosterone is probably sufficient enough to overcome this drop if you do plan on having kids.

[–]analyticaltoafault 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being conscious of parts of ourselves that are not easily within our ability to manage is TRP summed up as well, especially MTRP. It's always going to be work maintaining a balance of ideal traits for either sex, while also managing our expectations from our mates.

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

Only if taking in the assumption that having high levels is the greatest thing in the world when it is not. I'm sure Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Barack Obama, George Washington were average married men and the inmates at rikers island who raised none of their children have high levels no lifting required.

[–]Senior Contributoradam-l 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Simply put, men were not built for marriage and fatherhood. People in here that replied identified some of the practical problems of marriage for men. Evolutionary speaking, though, marriage and fatherhood are new inventions, and men are not built to accommodate them. Men are being forced into marriage, and into fatherhood (I consider even those that actively select fatherhood to be ideological victims).

There are no "alpha" and "beta" "genes" in men. What we identify as a "Beta man" is a social construct. All men are programmed to seek the male sexual reproductive strategy, of spreading their sperm far and wide. There is an intense social engineering taking place, in order to turn them into Betas.

Long ago, back before marriage became the social norm, each tribe was like this: a brotherhood of men, with a collective harem of women. No man could be certain who his children were, so no direct fathering was done. Even today, fathering is much more akin to mentoring, than mothering. So, if a woman was especially good with you, you could mentor her son. Notice how much more bargaining power men have when there is no marriage, and no identified paternity. Women had to pay, with sex, in order to raise their children. Sex was cheaper, men were happier.

For more info, check out my post Family, marriage, paternity: update your fundamentals, as well as Free sex and probabilistic reproduction vs mate selection.

If you want to look into it in more depth, pick a copy of my book.

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

Or a women could be "good" to somebody else and have him "mentor" her child. A different set up with the exact same strategy, there is no reason why this one would be egalitarian/good for men and the other a misogynist nightmare. You complain because you are losers in the sexual market place and you would be in every other time and place, deal with it.

[–]TheRedStoic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Usually men want to spread the seed, but also do want to care for their own children, if they're aware of them.

I think you'll find it not uncommon that the sperm donor isn't even informed on the decision to carry through term. He may have a suspicion, likely not unless the woman wants him to become the new provider as well.

[–]rayray2kbdp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is why evo psych needs some improvement. Your first premise here completely destroys the notion that these 'weak' men's genes would ever carry forward after several generations.

[–][deleted] 80 points81 points  (18 children)

Nothing wrong with this post, in fact all it does is help men unlearn the bullshit that they have learned growing up. So it turns out that during ovulation my unicorn is craving other men to impregnate her? Well guess what, every single time I see another hot bit of female ass, or some pert titties, I want to impregnate another girl. Who has it worse?

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 60 points61 points  (16 children)

Well guess what, every single time I see another hot bit of female ass, or some pert titties, I want to impregnate another girl. Who has it worse?

Ahh... but it's men who are paying. We're paying alimony and supporting women and paying child support. And we go to more efforts with dating than women.

Sure, men and women cheat. But women are literally paid to date, while men pay for dating and children and wives and girlfriends.

And even if you can not pay out a single penny to her, you still pay more taxes than she does, and she gets more state support from that tax.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 12 points13 points  (5 children)

Ahh... but it's men who are paying. We're paying alimony and supporting women and paying child support

We pay because of an organization we created and maintain. I think it's time to call in sick.

Enjoy the decline.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 15 points16 points  (4 children)

I think it's time to call in sick

Oh yes.

First I opted out of marriage. Because clearly it's a shitty deal for the man.

Then I opted out of exclusivity. Because I noticed women treated me worse after I committed to them.

It's amazing the difference it can make to your life if you are honest about the patterns that are laid out before you, and are prepared to act accordingly.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Women treating you worse after exclusivity is another annoying habit of women which needs to be dealt with. Here is how I ensure that exclusivity results in better treatment for you:

  1. No presents except for birthday and christmas, and I expect a present of equal value

  2. She does EVERYTHING when it comes to domestic stuff. If I want a coffee, I ask her to go make it for me

  3. She gets the benefit of my leadership, I save her from doing the thing she hates the most - thinking. I make all important decisions

  4. I control the finances, giving control of joint money to a woman is like giving a kid a box of matches

  5. Passive dread, she should know you are willing to leave over any significantly bad behaviour (rather she leaves and I stay where I am).

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I hear you..... but my plan is to never let them detract from my life, and that includes removal of other women from it.

She has to compete with my other options.... permanently.

She fails to measure up? See less of her, have fun elsewhere. She either comes around and improves.... or not.... I'm fine either way.

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

Yes my situation is different, I have two kids so someone to help out is good. Plates will help a bit, but I find something more long term to be useful to me. Don't know who down voted, wasn't me

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

Yes agreed that society has shit stacked against us financially, my observation was purely based on the psychology of it all.

[–]Love_LittleBoo 1 point2 points  (8 children)

You're dating the wrong women if you have to pay them to date you.

[–]theONE843663 15 points16 points  (7 children)

He's talking about how 97% of men end up paying alimony in this no fault divorce system because women are lazy shits.

[–]Love_LittleBoo -1 points0 points  (6 children)

His words partway through are "women are literally paid to date".

[–]theONE843663 6 points7 points  (5 children)

Well I think it is implied that men are expected to pay for dinner, buy drinks, etc. Thanks to feminism, we no longer are held to past standards in that matter but that general expectation for betas to pay up are still maintained.

Of course, women are women and sometimes even buy shit for the Alphas with their supplicating beta(s)' 💰 💰 💰!

[–]Love_LittleBoo -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

that general expectation for betas to pay up are still maintained.

Like I said, you're dating the wrong women if you're expected to pay.

Of course, women are women and sometimes even buy shit for the Alphas with their supplicating beta(s)' 💰 💰 💰!

Right...or our own money, because a good woman doesn't expect men to pay for her shit. Or, I'm sorry, do you think that all women have a beta they drag around like an ATM? Ain't nobody got time for that.

[–]theONE843663 6 points7 points  (3 children)

I don't date fyi I just "go out". I dunno all the hot women seem to have orbiters. Of course they have their own money but would obv prefer to use someone else's. I'd do the same if I was a hot girl.

EDIT: You're wasting your time by being here btw. The contents of this sub will make u more enraged than help you land an alpha provider. Visit red pill wives instead.

[–]Love_LittleBoo -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

I'm reading for entertainment and the occasional educated post by someone past their rage and onto the "this is how biology works and it's really interesting and cool" side of things, actually. I already have a guy so I'm not looking for advice from emotionally weird women. Seriously have you been in that sub? It's mostly just full of women looking for an excuse to be either a ho or in an abusive relationship. Not to my taste.

[–]theONE843663 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Nope never been, never cared. Abusive? Not really Dom/sub isn't abusive. You wouldn't know unless you've tried. But it's difficult to come by such a setup and seperation is even more difficult cuz of strong emotional ties.

This one sub girl I was very srs with a few years back still to this date contacts me about how she misses what we had together. Yeah... not happening girl I'm dumb but not THAT dumb.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

In reality - no one since it all balances out, but going by your words - the man. Who has it better, the woman whose husband has 100 other children running around somewhere, or the man whose wife has a dozen children who are not his?

[–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl 13 points14 points  (3 children)

1) Come to TRP
2) See posts about AWALT
3) Wonder WTF is wrong with people
4) Read OP about Evo sexual strategy
5) Epiphany stage
6) Teach others
7) Never Marry

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (2 children)

NEVER MARRY. Let this wisdom be etched into eternity.

[–]FailingBillionaire 0 points1 point  (1 child)

At least for it is: Never Marry AGAIN.

Maybe I do, but not without prenub and for the next 10 years.

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

I'm in the opinion that prenups should be reserved for arranged marriages, shotgun weddings, and idiots. If you have a lot to lose, and wish to share your life with someone - you should be fully prepared to lose your shit. Otherwise, don't get married. Guys are often like women in hamster logic - you think you can play by the margins. Judges know this when divorce comes up, and the guy rightly deserves to have that shit thrown out the window.

[–]yomo86 13 points14 points  (0 children)

AF/BB men and women are complaining because biology does not fit into the disney'esque fantasy.

One of my former bosses said: If everybody is complaining equally you are doing something right.

[–]Ganaria_Gente 46 points47 points  (0 children)

It's hilarious/tragic just how anti science and anti factual* SJWs can be. Thanks for posting this

*Hence the name, antifa.

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

If you're looking for further reading "The Red Queen" is a great follow-up on this topic.

A general guideline to know when a girl is ovulating is her wearing red, ie: red dress, very red lipstick (if they don't usually do) or just generally more revealing clothing than usual.

If you're in an LTR and you see these signs be extra dominant to her in this stage. Ravage sex, biting her lips, grabbing her neck when kissing, etc. This isn't a fool proof plan to stop your girl from cheating but it's better than being passive.

[–]alexman91 7 points8 points  (0 children)

testosterone makes you agressive and more prone to act on impulses paired with maoa gene makes you violent. men are jailed and punished hard for acting on their urges. why should women get a free pass.

[–]nsquared5 3 points4 points  (6 children)

This post got me thinking into shit/comfort tests. Can a test be based on what time of the cycle are they in? This could lead to a very interesting insight.

[–]Koryphae_ 11 points12 points  (5 children)

Logically, yes. I mean during ovulation, when she is craving for Chad Thundercock, she will test her partner probably much intensively and frequently to see whether she is with an acceptable male. I guess when the male fails these shit tests, she might give in to the cravings?

[–]nsquared5 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Hmm. I meant more on the lines of a test being a shit test when she is ovulating and a comfort test when she is not. We at trp usually have a problem discerning between the two.

[–]theONE843663 4 points5 points  (3 children)

It's easy. Just get her on the pill and she'll never ovulate and pretty much every single test after you mate is gon be a comfort test.

[–]shaqdatruth points points [recovered]

You may be onto something here..

[–]theONE843663 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was onto this a long while back bro but bitches on the pill ain't fun their sex drive is all messed up. Biggest fuckin' attentive whores. I'd rather fuck a cheap prostitute than them.

[–]TxnyMontana 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you explain this to me bro? Im following my ltr period cause we dont use condoms , and i noticed during ovulation she gives me shit test streaks. I fuck her like an animal un those days. What sbout the pill and no ovulation? She Will be chilled?

[–]rigbed 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Is it having the kid or raising the kid that lowers testosterone

[–]pantsoffire 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Excellent question, we should all be asking that.

[–]rigbed 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's playing with the kid apparently. So you have to be aloof with your kids too

[–]hahayeahthatscool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's definitely raising the child that lowers test. Impregnating a hundred chicks won't lower your test.

[–]Shaman6624 6 points7 points  (0 children)

"...so far, there’s no evidence to prove that women act on a supposed ovulation-induced desire for extracurricular sex. But there are data trends in those directions."

Contradictory hamstering to appease the feminist overlords.

I think you misunderstand. Now that they determined that women have the desires it's logical from an empirical point to find out if they act on them. They are saying here that there ARE data trends suggesting that women ARE acting on it but there is nu evidence YET.

So no this is not hamstering. They are litterally saying that they are expecting to find evidence that women act on it. It's a sign of the mind of a "conspiracy nut" to see things this black and white: oh this sentence doesn't seem to wholeheartedly support trp truths must be supporting the "feminist overlords" then.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 5 points6 points  (0 children)


Eternal Truths are eternal for a reason.

The Red Pill has invented it's own terminology for these eternal Truths but they have been known as Natural Laws for thousands of years.

Only in the last 50 years has the Blue Pill mythology successfully hidden the eternal Truths.

Psychology tries hard to hide the eternal Truths and redirect attention away from them, but this post shows that even though they are trying very hard to hide this stuff it still leaks through.


[–]MyPill 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Here is another af/bb study from 2017:


And an article about it

The study found that the masculinity or femininity of a face appeared to be more important than the symmetry of facial features or healthy/unhealthy skin coloration, particularly for male faces.

The study also found that more masculine faces were preferred more for a short-term relationship than for a long-term relationship, for both men and women.

[–]VickVaseline 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bravo! I like to see scientific content.

[–]Jollarn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Science always slower than common sense. This has been common knowledge since the dawn of man.

[–]alvlear 1 point2 points  (0 children)

some folks will read this, and still choose to get married. smh.

[–]BlackWildBoar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This should be in the required reading.

[–]mksu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TRP has been saying this for years...science seems to be catching on.

[–]Spoopsnloops 1 point2 points  (0 children)

On average, fertile women were more interested in short-term relationships with men who came across as confident, or even cocky, on videotape. In comparison, at other points in their cycle, they gravitated toward longer-term relationships with kinder, more conscientious, deferential types — good father material.

Funny stuff. Literally what TRP talks about. Known as settling.

[–]TunedtoPerfection 3 points4 points  (2 children)

You lose a lot of credibility because of your tone and obvious bias. Your making a lot of huge logical leaps and things you don't really understand are just getting tossed under the hamster or feminism agenda umbrela. All this study really did was show a good reason to look into this phenomenon deeper. There are too many problems with this study to try and reinforce the theory your pushing. But it is step one to figure it out.

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

There are too many problems with this study to try and reinforce the theory your pushing.

What problems does the study itself have?

[–]TunedtoPerfection 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the first study is based on female opinion. So it should be taken with a grain of salt. Any study based on the participants opinion isn't meant to prove a theory, it's meant as a way to see if further investigation is warranted.

The second study doesn't really go along with what the OP is trying to prove. So if the OP is trying to say "All women want to cheat when aunt flow comes to town". You can't use a study that doesn't explain how it asked the question about fling preference.

The third study just proves that women stay with kinder men, a longer amount of time.

I kinda see your point. I guess I can't really say the studies themselves have flaws. Just the conclusions the OP is drawing from them are flawed.

The last part about test dropping because a man enters a committed relationship and has kids can't be proven though. It could also be that men in committed relationships, who have children lose more sleep. Getting less sleep lowers test as well. Or the stress of kids lowers test levels.

There is just no way to attribute that to the sole reason of being in a LTR and the act of having kids. How the fuck would you body know that a woman around you had YOUR kid and signal the decrease of test production? There are to many aspect going on and changing in a relationship.

[–]captainaryan points points [recovered]

rest in peace feminism

[–]cagedLion88 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This reminds me of the evolutionary psychology book named "Why women have sex?" (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Women-Have-Sex-Understanding-ebook/dp/B002N44XRC/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=) from my human sexuality psych course. This book was my white rabbit. Evolutionary/biologically speaking it is a woman's imperative to acquire the best genes(alpha aka Sancho/Don Juan) and resources/stability(beta aka sugga daddy)

[–]Five_Decades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really, if you understand evolution you can use deductive reasoning to figure a lot of this stuff out.

[–]mymonster8u 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry but why are the women refered to as whores? For feeling horney during ovulation? What is the big secret? They dress to get laid on that day? They are not always wanting their SO? So? So sometimes women feel more horney and would prefer to have sex with a hot guy. Its almost like they have hormones and like sex and more long term quality friendships with other men when their hormones aren't raging. Mind blowing.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

You shouldn't care if having a child lowers your testosterone, ideally you should be committed to taking care of said child besides men with the highest T are fucking other men in the ass right now which you conveniently forgot to mention.

[–]hahayeahthatscool 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Why is being gay worse than raising some shitty kid.

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

Lowering of testosterone is a normal part of hetero male sexuality, stop hamstering and embrace your nature.

[–]hahayeahthatscool 0 points1 point  (2 children)

lol no it's not. the nuclear family is extremely new, there's no way we're genetically predisposed to be minivan driving dads

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

Two people cloistered away in the single unit suburban family is a extremely unnatural, unhealthy and not how we evolved to live/raise children but men are evolved/hardwired to be providers, if not then you are good for nothing?

[–]hahayeahthatscool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean that may be completely true for you, but not everyone else is a beta provider.

[–]RedPillDetox 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry but you're literally wrong for every assertion you made except for the idea that women like masculine men more during ovulation. In fact there's something i wrote a while back about a scentific paper that shows that high testosterone men who get laid a lot actually spend more money for women (ex.: buying colognes to impress women) and with women (ex.: buying gifts and dinner to women) during courtship. Search for "AF/BB debunked by science" on exredpill sub post called "first aid kit" and you'll find it (i can't post a direct link because the automoderator from this sub doesn't allow it).

Anyway, appearently, alfas do buck to fuck. Lol.

load more comments (5 replies)