The one thing that bugs me about this subreddit is how useful redpill concepts are prone to redefinition over time because the democratic aspect of reddit (one user, one vote) results in the less informed mass to get control of the narrative. At least in the blogs of the manosphere, the Master gets to stay on the pulpit and delivers the right message, to be then discussed by the rest of the congregation, allowing the message to stay the same over time and maintain its usefuleness.
The misunderstanding that bugs me the most on this sub is about AF;BB, as I was reminded again recently with the "Don't just split every situation into AF/BB" post yesterday by /u/JustHornyLoser that got over 250 points (90% upvoted). Archived link here: https://archive.is/8G7nz
Now, that score is not entirely undeserved. /u/JustHornyLoser 's post is only a thought experiment but it does shine a light on a real phenomenon: that you can be a sexually attractive man ("alpha") only to have your partner cheat on you for a more sexually attractive man than you ("alpha"). It's real, it happens. Hence the upvotes.
What's wrong is /u/JustHornyLoser 's argument being that the branch swinging act does not mean that guy #1 has suddenly become a "beta bucks". Except he kinda did, since the thought experiment was that guy #1 was a "boyfriend of 1.5 years" and therefore committed to providing. EC /u/MattyAnon pointed it out clearly but he got only 14 points for this.. far behind /u/JBo4Three 's 93 points for "Some women are simply sloots" which is not only an admission of failure of trying to understand a phenomenon according to redpill theory but also pretty close to be a grave admission of NAWALT ("Some women are simply sloots" aka "some women aren't going to branch swing for a better alpha if one comes along"?)
But let's remove the "boyfriend of 1.5 years" part of the scenario and assume the same story with guy #1 being not a boyfriend but a redpill-aware, plate-spinning man. The thought experiment becomes one where the girls branch swings from an "alpha" to a better "alpha", which doesn't make the first one a "beta" all of a sudden right? Aka, "Don't just split every situation into AF/BB" right?
Well, yes and no.
The problem here is in people's understanding of the whole "AF/BB" concept.
The concept is a massively useful one, but not completely straightforward and therefore got redefined over time on this sub as something akin to: Men can be classified in two groups: sexually attractive "alphas" and pathetic unattractive loser "betas".
The problem is that this is completely wrong. Absolutely not useful.
Let's try to clear that up.
"AF;BB" is the red pill expression for a concept modified from "short-term;long-term sexual strategy of women" from evolutionary psychology.
AF/BB are not a dichotomous classification of men. It's the statement that the sexual strategy of women is dual: on one side they are sexually attracted to some sexually attractive man, and other other side, she is willing to exchange sex for providing (and the insurance of future continued provision) from a not-necessarily-attractive man.
Add to this Hypergamy (or the basic behavior of humans to maximize their return if you wish) and the sexual strategy of woman becomes clear: Fuck the most sexually attractive man you can get at the moment, and obtain providing from the most dependable/wealthiest man you can get at the moment.
The most important lessons to learn from the concept.
"Betas" are not "losers". Betas are "for a given woman at a given time and in a given situation, the men who demonstrated a capability to provide, the willingness to do so to her, and the insurance to continue doing so". If you are in a committed relationship with a woman, you qualify for the term. It does not mean you're a loser. It does not mean you're unattractive. But it does mean you are in the real risk of seeing her genuine sexual interest in you wane eventually to be replaced by a "unwilling-sex-against-continuation-of-providing" type of contract.
Stop thinking there are two "types" of men, and you gotta work to become the "right" type of man. You won't be "alpha" for every girl, in every situation. "Alpha" is contextual. "Alpha" is the most sexually desirable man at the moment, for a given girl. For a nurse during the day, "alpha" is the chief physician. For that same nurse out at night with her friends, "alpha" is the leader of the band on stage. For that same nurse on a trip to Brazil, "alpha" is that hot local bartender with a tanned body. And in /u/JustHornyLoser 's thought experiment, "alpha" is for a moment guy #2: exciting, new, fitter than boyfriend guy #1.
That being said. There are a number of things you can do that can reasonably be assumed to increase your chances to be the alpha for the largest number of girls, in the larger number of contexts. This is what TRP advises you to do if you so wish. And TRP gives you the theory from which you can find the other particular things you can do to become (or remain) the alpha for a particular girl at a particular moment in particular context, if you so wish.
You don't become "beta" when you stop being her "alpha" of the moment. First off, as point #1 above discussed, "beta" means "the dependable provider", not "the second most desirable man around". For the nurse I discussed above, if the chief physician is at the night gig to her he was just a nobody sipping a beer at the bar. If the band leader was visiting Brazil at the same time to her he was just that weak-ass white tourist. If the Brazilian dude was at the hospital, to her he was just yet one other sick client in need of help. There's not betas. They're just invisible on the moment in that context.
When /u/JustHornyLoser says "don't automatically assume that if someone gets cheated on he is BB" he is right and wrong. It's not the cheating that makes you the BB, it's the fact that you were in a relationship with her to start with. And if you are a given woman's "alpha" at a given moment and she cheats, it only meant that on that moment, the "alpha" was not you anymore.
And in any case, every "situation" (the sexual behavior of a woman) can be explained in the light of that sexual strategy as defined by red pill theory.
AF;BB is an important concept. Get it right.
It does not mean "Men can be classified in two groups: sexually attractive "alphas" and pathetic unattractive loser "betas"."
A girl not wanting to fuck you on the moment does not make you a "beta bucks", irrespective of your attractiveness. Agreeing to provide her with your wealth and attention in a sexually committed relationship does.
AF;BB only means: Women are wired such as to desire to (1) fuck the most sexually attractive man she can get at the moment, AND (2) obtain providing from the most dependable/wealthiest man she can get at the moment.
From this concept, every sexual behavior of a woman can be explained. Get it right.