823
824
825

ScienceScience says: Women most attracted to arrogance, confrontative behavior, and musculature for short term relationships (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by [deleted]

[deleted]


[–]marcel_oh 67 points68 points  (7 children)

Maybe I'm misreading the study, but aren't those relative values compared to long-term relationships? So faithfulness could be highly selected in long-term strategies but irrelevant to short-term strategies, and one would expect to see a negative value. Likewise, arrogance could be penalized in long-term strategies, but ignored in short-term strategies, and that would result in a positive ts.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying (we've got other evidence to back up those assertions), I just don't see this as evidence.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 56 points57 points  (0 children)

You're right.

Women prefer alphas for sex when she's horny, and betas for provisioning when she's not.

The article linked is further proof of AF/BB, varying across her ovulatory cycle. Short term sexy hookup, then get another guy to pay when she's less likely to get knocked up. Those bucks sure are nice, especially when she doesn't have to have those second-rate genes cluttering up her womb.

[–]craftmacaro 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This whole study tries...and poorly, to make a point...and it sort of does, but not what OP talked about. Quick dirty trick, look at sample size. It was college students in the American south with an average age of 18-20 for both males and females. The sample size was incredibly low for a quantitative study and all participants got class credit just for being judged. Basically it actively and self selected for a specific group of people we know as Bros and Ho's. Any attempt to extrapolate it beyond this is completely insane. This study says nothing about betas losing to chads unless nerds are after the freshmen girls pledging sororities...not much in common there.

[–]PM_ME_BIG_DUCK_PICS 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This seems correct. It seems they only care less about faithfulness, which doesn't automatically make the opposite true, meaning they dont "prefer" unfaithfulness at any time.

[–]Pilliam66 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Yes it's not clear from the excerpt whether women prefer unfaithfulness to faithfulness when pursuing a short term relationship or if they choose unfaithful men more often for short term relationships than they would for long term ones.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]Pilliam66 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    You've misunderstood, I'm not debating the definition of the word.

    [–][deleted]  (93 children)

    [deleted]

    [–][deleted] 38 points39 points  (88 children)

    Please, in the name of God, expand!?!?!?!?

    [–][deleted]  (86 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 58 points59 points  (2 children)

      Totally with you there. You can be as kind and considerate as you want as long as she always knows you are doing because you are awesome, not because she is. Betas fail because they always find a way to make it clear that she is on a pedestal to them.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]Papiless 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        I don't like the word manipulative. Everyone is manipulative in their own way - we just use different strategies. Betas use the extreme commitment strategy. Your strategy is the same as I am using, and it is very efficient - do not be ashamed of that.

        [–]Big_Red_suppository 38 points39 points  (5 children)

        This is probably the most useful thing I've read on here in awhile since I'm dealing with it right with a chick. I contacted her once to hang out but she couldn't due a little crisis, she seems a little distant. Part of me wants touch base with her to see how she's doing but the logical part of my brain is saying if she wanted to talk she would and if I try making plans again it's gonna make me look like a bitch.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]look_in_the_mirror 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          6 months sounds long, what of there is someone new?

          [–]BoochBrewer 5 points6 points  (1 child)

          Bro hang in there man. Talk to some other women and she may come around. Happened to me recently. Had to put this chick on ice due to attitude and a week later I get a text saying how much she misses me and wants to know when is the next time we can get together.

          [–]sd4c 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Yeah, somehow 3 days to a week, always seems to be optimal. Athol says 5 days.

          No idea what the hell to do, if you move in with a chick (to raise kids).

          [–]Snufek 14 points15 points  (2 children)

          Don't they bother you, though? I think I'm at a point where I do this shit unconsciously and sometimes I despise the way they behave. I'd really be into some chick, but she suddenly starts acting like a psycho and it really turns me off.

          What is going on in their heads? 'Oh no, he didn't write to me for two days and the last time he did, it was only to set up a meeting. He must be fucking someone else. I'll better text him every hour to check that.'

          No, I'm not, I just don't like texting. Stop pissing me off with your pointless messages.

          [–]sd4c 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          I find airplane mode, accompanied by a tablet that has internet, but no communication/social media apps, to be a sublime escape from manipulative text barrages (and silent treatment alike, since you can't be sure she's not contacting you, until you check).

          [–]james_the_dean 12 points13 points  (0 children)

          you really doubled down on that expansion didn't you son? :D good stuff btw

          [–]Atticus_Crowley 7 points8 points  (2 children)

          Just curious, what do ya do after 3 days and they are also too stubborn to reach out? Just call it good, and move on?

          [–]SabotageTheWrit 11 points12 points  (0 children)

          Give it 7 to 10 days. If you still haven't heard anything (which I still truly believe you'll get from a lot of girls, since some of them simply do not chase, ever), go ahead and contact. Nothing personal, just logistics trying to set the next thing up.

          I've found that she will never contact you and remain in contact exactly how you want. She will always wait for you to text, or she will be really bad about responding in a timely manner, or she will ghost you after you've hooked up three times and she's decided she had enough. "It's just your turn", enjoy it while you can.

          [–]sumethreuaweiei 17 points18 points  (26 children)

          First off, how the fuck did you learn this?

          Second, how do you get a girl to the point where they're this committed that you can safely ghost them for three days? What happens if she doesn't contact you for three days, and if she contacts you within one or two, do you tell her you'll see her later because you're busy?

          [–][deleted]  (24 children)

          [removed]

            [–][deleted]  (17 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]calloberjig 19 points20 points  (0 children)

              Too skinny man Time to bulk

              [–][deleted]  (13 children)

              [removed]

                [–][deleted]  (12 children)

                [deleted]

                  [–][deleted]  (11 children)

                  [deleted]

                    [–][deleted]  (10 children)

                    [deleted]

                      [–]sd4c 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                      You sound ok, and have lots of potential at 6'0! Grow a beard, smile a lot less. STFU, just as much as you're humorous. Get jacked enough that most other guys give you a wide berth.

                      One thing to keep in mind, is that pursuing chicks in college, means they're about your age. They might be hot as hell, but later on when you're 45 and at your SMV peak, she'll be 43, and you'll be so tempted to cheat-especially if she was hard on you in the early days.

                      Better to focus on the prize- virgins, and the absolute legal minimum. Try tutoring math for a high school, teaching art or fitness somewhere. What you want in a GF is a LOW N-COUNT, and these days that's only gonna happen if she's 17-19. Follow the local law at all times, don't commit crime.

                      Money and education, in a woman, are a liability- not an asset. It reduces her admiration for you, and your utility for her. The virtues you're looking for, are youth, loyalty, honesty, meekness, obedience, loyalty (yep), sobriety, and beauty. In that order.

                      If you put looks first, Medusa will FUCK YOU UP. Learn to ignore their beauty, and that their pussies are mind-control tubes.

                      [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (4 children)

                      With sex, I've just now realized that I think I don't spend enough time on foreplay (it's taken me way too long to realize this), so I spend a lot more time making out, kissing her body, kissing her legs, eating her out, etc.

                      Do you have any other tips for give a girl a lot of orgasms?

                      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                      [removed]

                        [–]MisterMarbles1988 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        David Shade and Daniel Rose were my gurus for learning this. It is a complete different game when you're the guy that does this shit.

                        [–]abigbustycoon 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                        Talk, you'll be suprised just how much male vocals turn women on, talk dirty in the heat of the moment, and in the foreplay explain exactly what shes feeling like if you're undressing eachother talk into her ear with something along the lines of 'You feel that instinctual sexual adrenaline rush of hormones that make you feel amazing?' They like when you can explain what they're feeling and why they're feeling it.

                        [–]sd4c 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                        A few days later. Roger that!

                        [–]BoochBrewer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                        Great post man. You made me realize I meh too much. Probably 80% I am teasing her about something. I actually had a woman yesterday, first date, say "you are an asshole, but I like it."

                        I will say that this is an improvement from my BP days but I need to include a little more Pull to counteract the Pushes. They aren't banging down my door like they are yours and part of me wants that from them... an eagerness to please.

                        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                        [deleted]

                          [–]Andgelyo 5 points6 points  (1 child)

                          Reinforces that to truly control a woman you must demonstrate both alpha and beta characteristics. I think this especially applies when you’re dating a long term woman though, more so than just having a fling. Too much of one thing is always a bad thing( being too Alpha, being too Beta). Balance is key.

                          [–]xdppthrowaway9001x 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                          You have to be having sex with her for any of that to matter though, at which point it is somewhat redundant. If you haven't had sex with her, and you ignore her, she will simply forget about you due to many other options + her life.

                          And if you have had sex with her, then you can do a lot of things (your tactic included) or not and she will still like you for at least several months through half a year even if your game is garbage. So while what you're talking about may help someone get attached to you or maintain longer relationships (as long as your pull and lovey stuff accompanies your distance and hard-to-reachness), it really only applies to after you've done the hardest part. It's like icing or sprinkles. Getting into a sexual relationship is 80% of the work and is exponentially harder than managing the relationship after you've had sex the first time.

                          I think more useful advice would be tailored around getting to that point, and not on what to do when she has already given herself to you. What is your take on that?

                          [–]pridebrah 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                          Great advice and this resonates with a lot of my past experiences. Curious, how would you modify this to work in a situation where you live with a woman? I feel like this advice would be gold over on MRP and for more serious LTR's, but guys can't really vanish for 3 days on the regular. It's tough to keep that air of mystery and insecurity if she's around a lot.

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

                          This comment needs the +1 point thing. OP you are obv an experienced man, please do solid posts if you haven't already about this subject. Thanks either way, last line made me laugh

                          [–]sd4c 1 point2 points  (8 children)

                          You clearly know what you're doing. What would your advice be, for guys that want to have kids? I'd like to have a large family, but have no idea how to survive the inevitable turmoil, of living with a woman (been there, it sucks).

                          [–][deleted]  (7 children)

                          [deleted]

                            [–]d1cey 0 points1 point  (6 children)

                            Are you consciously aware of how often you hang out and keeping it in check based on a her behavior/your expectations of her and/or you have a busy life?

                            [–][deleted]  (5 children)

                            [deleted]

                              [–]d1cey 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                              I completely agree. I'm actually very good at following through with theory/game and have found myself doing the very same thing you described (picking up phone then saying no this isn't the "optimal" move and putting it back down). I just need a way to make sure not showing attention in a given situation is the right choice. How do I distinguish when actually showing her attention would be superior and result in her attraction/tingles to increase? I feel like playing it safe and thinking "it's probably best to air on the side of caution and feign busy/unavailable". The thought of "what if" or the alternative kills me though. It leads to overthinking and indecision.

                              I guess I'm looking for a structure or method I can rely on to quickly assess based on XYZ factors and know it's the right choice to show attention/not show attention. Where right now, I'm rarely secure it's the ideal move and kind of estimating.

                              [–][deleted]  (3 children)

                              [deleted]

                                [–]d1cey 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                                Incredible. I appreciate the time and advice your giving. It's really clarifying things I knew but had never seen discussed in such depth.

                                "He said that you shouldn't ever do anything that you don't feel you want to do."

                                It's so simple but so true. Where is this behavior coming from? A place of security and genuine interest/enthusiasm in the other person OR a place of insecurity ("I haven't heard from her, let me check in") and obligation. This is where you have to learn to be completely truthful with your self when committing to a particular action/choice/behavior.

                                "I would also say that with time and discipline, you can train her to reach out to you like clockwork."

                                Also very true from my experience. Every single girl I've talked to long term (plate/FWB/LTR) has eventually turned into the primary initiater of contact on a day to day basis (80%+ of the time). As I said in my other comment, I first learned of this from Corey Wayne and implemented it to great result right away. I did have to fake this behavior at first, if you will, since I'd find myself wanting to reach out far too often but once I became that type of guy the benefits were clear. Her interest level would always be high in scenarios where they are doing most of the reaching out and I would have less insecurity/time to focus on my mission as a man should be (ie genuinely becoming busy).

                                "Getting stuck in a texting thing can kill you with insecurity."

                                So very true yet again. This has been my biggest struggle by far and something I see often in my other redpill aware friends.

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

                                this.... ive had my ex buy me a car doing something similar.

                                [–]Elfclan30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                I was having the same thought for a while, but mine was like "overwhelm her with charisma, then leave".

                                I will try as u describe and let's see the results.

                                [–]mlforthebest 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                                Amazing advice!
                                Any other advice if you live together?

                                [–]SmilingWatermelon 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                                You actually explained my style to the T. Not only is this Method of pursuing women extremely viable as every woman will see the best of yourself.

                                It can also help with false allegations. If she had such am amazing time with you but your just a busy amazing guy, odds are she won't want that to end. She won't have buyers remorse if you don't treat her like a hoe.

                                Be the drug she can get no where else.

                                [–]removekebab2 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                                You're probably just very good looking.

                                [–]Talisman64 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                You are onto something buddy, The elusive man that women imagine while they masturbate. I would like to hear more about this from you I have a lot of questions I read a book recently about seducers. I will send you a direct message and we can take it from there

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

                                This is the best advice I've see on here is long time. Theoretically sound and very actionable. Please make it it's own post. Even if you just copy and past. Guys need to hear this.

                                [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                                [deleted]

                                  [–]d1cey 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                                  I’d love to hear your theory in practical application. For example, I’ve currently been dating my first LTR after being redpill aware. The only major facet I struggle with a year into the relationship is manintaining attention when apart. I need a way to calibrate when to increase or decreased the attention I’m giving her. How do you personally go about doing so? I practice a lot of Corey Wayne’s teachings, letting her initiate first for a given day, not responding back for hours at a time, etc.

                                  [–]d1cey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  No!? Why did he delete his replies? They were amazing did anyone save them?

                                  [–]Low_Cost_Chimp_Meat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  Yes, this is the formula that was always successful for me even before there was a "red pill" of aggregate male experiences. Alas! Soon as you marry them, it all goes down the toilet EVERY time. Two marriages to two ravenous whores in the beginning, both ended with cheating and divorce once they were "comfortable".

                                  So.....it has to be a SHORT term game plan, for a LONG term relationship now...confused?

                                  [–]Drtjwz 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                                  I think this is great advice, advice which I follow myself. One question though: with reaching out do you mean her actually asking you out, or just a random message. Cause girls will often text me first with something random, which I will use as an opener to set a date, but I am never sure whether just ignoring those messages until she explicitly requests to set a date is preferable to doing it yourself after she reaches out. As a rule I like to have her initiate a date 2 times for every time I do.

                                  [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 26 points27 points  (3 children)

                                  Changes in Women’s SELF REPORTED Mate Preferences Across the Ovulatory Cycle

                                  I can't stress this enough. Women were shown videos and self reported on their mate preferences.

                                  The primary aim of female communication is to indicate and imply her own value. "I would only fuck this level of male attractiveness" is one way to do this, even though after a glass of sherry on a Saturday night she's anybody's.

                                  Self reported studies into female behaviour are useless.

                                  [–]mnemos_1 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                                  With this trend having in at least some part been observed and described in other parts of the 'Sphere (Rollo in particular), doesn't the above then as weak evidence at very least?

                                  Fair enough, self-reported studies are pretty much useless, but when the results match a pattern already noted, I would imagine it indicates something interesting is happening.

                                  [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                                  With this trend having in at least some part been observed and described in other parts of the 'Sphere (Rollo in particular), doesn't the above then as weak evidence at very least?

                                  Yeah, the effect is there alright.

                                  Point is that it's going to be even worse than presented. Ever notice how women have their period once a month and go mental at their beta boyfriend, but don't lose their jobs, keep their friends, family etc?

                                  [–]thefisherman1961 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                  Point is that it's going to be even worse than presented.

                                  Agreed, the fact that they were even able to devise the experiment in such a way that it somewhat controlled for the hamster amazes me.

                                  [–]steppenwolfofwallst 24 points25 points  (0 children)

                                  Just FYI, if you want access to an article, http://sci-hub.tw and its mirrors are your best friends. And, you can try http://libgen.io/scimag/ . Just type in the title of the study (or the doi link) and voila, your article will usually appear.

                                  [–][deleted] 92 points93 points  (18 children)

                                  "Women are more attracted to men who they think are unfaithful"

                                  This is true but there's more to the story, they're attracted to that because it's an opportunity to turn him into someone faithful. It's Beauty and The Beast and its the archetypal female hero's journey

                                  [–]thefisherman1961 81 points82 points  (8 children)

                                  And because of pre-selection. A man who is unfaithful is a man who has options and isn’t afraid to explore them, even if it means losing her. It also demonstrates that he views himself as higher value than her.

                                  [–]node202fighter 31 points32 points  (2 children)

                                  Pre selection, THIS. Nothing, nothing, nothing when it comes to game beats pre selection. If a girl see other girl "gaming" you or you kissing another girl then you don't even have to approach her, they will literally approach you and A3 you.

                                  [–]pridebrah 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                                  Can't upvote this enough. I've had one of the hottest and most intelligent women I've ever been with tell me straight up that if a guy is seen with a cute girl, that instantly upgrades his attraction level due to the curiosity it creates, ie: hmm, he must have something going on if that girl is with him.

                                  Another RP nugget she dropped was, "girls simply want what they can't have." For the slow ones reading, competition of other women creates a bidding war that generates that feeling that they may not be able to have you, but they're damn well going to try.

                                  [–]thefisherman1961 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                  That's why abundance mentality is so important. Even if you're going through a dry spell, your abundance mentality can tremendously help your game with a girl because it gives her the impression that other girls are gaming you too. The objective truth is irrelevant.

                                  [–]RetiredRedPill 4 points5 points  (4 children)

                                  pre-selection

                                  Right, but you are getting the exact concept wrong in this context. Pre-selection here means that these preferred men are thought to be successfully mating with other females. Hence they are seen as being unfaithful. But sex with multiple partners is itself a type of pre-selection for fertility.

                                  When women are fertile (when ovulating) they prefer men who they perceive as fertile. All of these traits described, including unfaithfulness, are indicators for increased testosterone and virility.

                                  When women are not fertile (non-ovulating or post-menopausal) they prefer faithful men who they can depend on to help them raise their existing children.

                                  AF/BB paradigm: when fertile, seek to maximize pregnancy chance by having sex with the most virile men even if they have many partners. When not fertile, seek to maximize resources through faithful men more likely to commit resources to you.

                                  [–]thefisherman1961 13 points14 points  (3 children)

                                  Nothing you said contradicts what I said. Please explain how I got “the exact concept wrong in this context.”

                                  [–]RetiredRedPill -1 points0 points  (2 children)

                                  The sidebar has the below definition for "pre-selection."

                                  Preselection - The idea that women are more attracted to men who already have the interest of other women. This saves the woman time in judging a man by using the idea that other women have already judged him favorably.

                                  I'm arguing that this doesn't apply here. "Pre-selection" in this study isn't of the common social variety like this. Re-read the study above. There is no actual pre-selection occurring as defined in the side bar:

                                  appeared more confrontative, arrogant, muscular, socially respected, and physically attractive.

                                  When high in conception risk, women were also more attracted to men who were viewed as lower on faithfulness as short-term mates.

                                  So women are intuitively guessing at men who they think are pre-selected, rather than any actual pre-selection occurring. They don't know he's unfaithful, they just think he might be and that's good enough. What's occurring here is that women prefer men with higher testosterone (what I'll call "pre-pre-selection") when they are ovulating - this comes out as preferring men who they view as having associated traits, including unfaithfulness, but without actually knowing this via true pre-selection. There is, in fact, no actual pre-selection occurring in this study and that's very important.

                                  [–]thefisherman1961 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                                  I never said there’s actual pre selection occurring. I said women are attracted to men who appear unfaithful because it demonstrates pre selection. This isn’t that difficult to understand

                                  [–]RetiredRedPill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  Sorry, it seemed that way in your initial post:

                                  And because of pre-selection. A man who is unfaithful is a man who has options and isn’t afraid to explore them, even if it means losing her. It also demonstrates that he views himself as higher value than her.

                                  Men here aren't demonstrating anything empirically, which I find interesting. The difference is subtle, and I may post later about why I find this interesting and important.

                                  [–]Achillesreincarnated 7 points8 points  (0 children)

                                  Doubt that. Its probably just related to the other traits + the fact that he has options

                                  [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                                  This is true but there's more to the story, they're attracted to that because it's an opportunity to turn him into someone faithful.

                                  Please do say hello to Mr and Mrs hamster while you're in hamster town.

                                  [–]p3n1x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                  it's an opportunity to turn him into someone faithful.

                                  Only if they fall in love. They are attracted to the idea that you aren't "pussy whipped" and you more than likely are confident and good in the bedroom. A good fuck is a good fuck, everybody enjoys a no strings attached good fuck.

                                  Unfaithful = taboo.

                                  Put that " I can change them " shit to bed. That is for betas of both sexes.

                                  [–]wataDs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                  I read it in more of a "he's clearly getting puss, I want to be queen bitch and find out for myself what's so great."

                                  [–]chillledoutnumber 27 points28 points  (7 children)

                                  What do they mean by confrontational behavior? I thought aloofness and plausible deniability was the way to go.

                                  [–]NebraskaIsTheShit 44 points45 points  (5 children)

                                  I believe confrontational is a poor description for what they’re trying to say. Assertive behavior (read: sticking to your guns/passing shit tests/CONFIDENCE) is more along the lines of frame control and the other traits they’ve described.

                                  [–]RetiredRedPill 12 points13 points  (0 children)

                                  Yes, they are essentially describing markers for higher testosterone levels: assertive/confrontational behavior, musculature, high sex drive (multiple partners), arrogance/confidence, even physically attractive. Go look up that last one - women already find high-testosterone physical characteristics to be attractive, things like chiseled jaw, adam's apple, low body fat, etc.

                                  [–]Fulp_Piction 8 points9 points  (2 children)

                                  I've had more success lately being literally confrontational and not worrying about offending people. The whole non-reactive, stoic thing only goes so far. The guy who makes a bigger idiot out of the others usually fucks. JS.

                                  [–]Papiless 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                                  Depends on how you do it. If a guy gives you a lot of shit in front of girls A&A is the way to go imo, shows you are non reactive and don't give a shit. He's not on your level. Putting him down will make you look beta. On the other hand, it is definitely benefitial to offend/be confrontational with girls to get laid if you do it in the right way.

                                  [–]Fulp_Piction 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                  Just genuinely don't give a shit. Don't worry about appearing that way, that just makes you anxious. There is no right way, don't be a retard and trust your own process.

                                  [–]p3n1x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                  Subjective Synonyms. One can pass a shit test by confronting her bullshit.

                                  [–]p3n1x 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                                  Google Jordan Peterson and search for Confrontational vs. Agreeable people.

                                  [–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (1 child)

                                  Confrontational behavior means that you aren’t afraid to maintain your frame.

                                  All women love this.

                                  In an LTR you just do it better, more calmly.

                                  [–]casemodsalt 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                                  And thus the arrogant confrontational douchebag wins the girl while the warm faithful beta stays home and faps into his sock

                                  In other news, women also prefer fast, expensive cars over broken, cheap ones

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

                                  Women like men who act like males shocker!

                                  You mean women don't like weak skinny jean soyboys wearing knit caps and sporting beards while holding their wine coolers and talking about how toxic masculinity has ruined america???

                                  [–]ReluctantSlimeball 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                                  If only every thirteen year old boy learned this.

                                  [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                                  How many more studies of science do we need before people the world over realize theredpill beautifully explains the dynamics of sex and relationships?

                                  [–]dingman58 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                                  Great post and I wholeheartedly agree with the major points you've made but I think you might be misunderstanding the statistical measurements.

                                  Specifically here:

                                  For confrontativeness, arrogance, faithfulness, and muscularity, ts = 3.13 (df = 7986), 2.64 (df = 8081), -2.27 (df = 8057), and 1.85 (df = 7957), respectively, all ps < .041. For social respect, t(7927) = 1.51 (p = .081). For physical attractiveness, the effect dropped to nonsiginifance.t(7925) = 1.09, ns.

                                  What this quote is saying is that even while controlling for two big traits that were found attractive in a previous study (Social Presence and Direct Intrasexual Competitiveness), the traits in this study were still significance and the one that was most significant was social respect (p = 0.81).

                                  confrontativeness: 3.13 arrogance: 2.64 muscularity: 1.85 faithfulness: -2.27

                                  Basically, women love shit starting cunts.

                                  Higher t-score basically means there is more significant of a correlation observed. So t=0 is no correlation observed, t=1 is a weak correlation, and t=3 is stronger correlation (and negative values indicate an inverse correlation).

                                  So what the study is actually saying is that confrontativeness is actually the most strongly correlated (t=3.13) with attraction for short term relationships. Social respect (t=1.51) is actually the second lowest correlation and physical attractiveness surprisingly is the lowest correlation (t=1.09).

                                  Secondly, p-value is the probability the observed correlation was only due to random chance. So while a high t-value indicates a strong correlation, there is still the chance that we are seeing a false correlation just due to random chance in sampling and data collection. P-value tells us what that chance is. So a p-value of 0.081 means that the observed correlation is not that likely to be a result of random chance, to a confidence of 91.9%. But it depends on the rigor you wish to use.

                                  It is common to require 95% or greater confidence to consider the result statistically significant. Some studies even use 99% or 99.9% confidence.

                                  So the social respect correlation (p=0.081) is not considered statistically significant to a 95% confidence, but the other measures are significant to 95% confidence since p<0.041 for those.

                                  [–]Frich3 14 points15 points  (22 children)

                                  attractive men arent dicks by choice. well, i occasionally go out just to be a dick... just because I feel like I'm doing the world a service by getting some revenge for the guys who are always disrespected by women. but more often than not, its just a lifestyle. it's what you are accustomed to. attractive men and women get everything they want. why be overly nice when everyone treats you like a god anyway? I mean sure its the decent thing to do, but no one gives a fuck about decency anymore bro. on the other hand, less attractive people have to "try" harder, by being nice and cracking jokes and all that other bullshit. Why do you think the hot chicks always end up with the assholes? You never see ugly assholes with hot chicks, why? Because assholes that are ugly, well, theyre just assholes and nothing else. Basically what Im saying is that hot people can afford to be mean because.. theyre hot. We are all just playing the cards we were dealt with my man. Thats why PUA is bullshit and they have to try to "pick up" women. When those cameras stop rolling, those fat bearded guys who "gamed" drunk women arent fucking them. They may get a kiss or makeout session, but I've seen plenty of women kiss multiple guys on any given night to make themselves feel like "they've still got it". They are just spiking their emotions for a brief moment, but sooner or later the women come off of the "high" and end up coming to their senses and going home to fuck the infamous character you guys refer to as "Chad". If someone is genuienly interested in you, or thinks you fit their physical needs, you dont have to try all that PUA shit. Go up. Say hey. If she wants to talk, you met a certain criteria or were up to her standards and now its just about escalating. If you dont, and feel like you have to "try" in order to get her to be attracted to you.. then you never had a chance and you were her place holder until someone that fit their attractiveness description came along.

                                  Summary: Play the cards you were dealt. Dont overthink life. Assholes win because assholes are 10 times out of 10 either atttractive or wealthy. Live your life and the right people will gravitate toward you.

                                  [–]ReluctantSlimeball 10 points11 points  (1 child)

                                  Enjoyed in parts but some parts blatantly untrue.

                                  Asshole = Alpha. I’ve never NEVER N.E.V.E.R known an asshole who struggles with women.

                                  Now a square-jawed muscle-bound 6”2 asshole will obviously do a million times better than a physically average asshole.

                                  But both will do better than a man with a “nice” personality who otherwise matches their description.

                                  And PUA works. It works. How could it not?

                                  You teach a guy who thinks women are made of sugar, spice and all things nice that women don’t want to be courted respectfully by a gentlemanly best friend but want negs, frame and push-pull and he suddenly “gets it” and is naturally rewarded. Worked wonders for me long before trp existed.

                                  [–]Frich3 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                                  Thanks for your honesty. I wasn’t necessarily saying PUA doesn’t work, but I def meant that assholes that are ugly, who serve no benefit to the woman (money, status,, etc) will almost always be unsuccessful in picking up when, simply because they offer no value.

                                  Asshole does not equate to alpha. There are plenty of guys who get on reddit to be an asshole because they think it makes them alpha, but in actuality, women and other men simply view you as that angry person who’s just mad at the world for their unfortunate looks or life.

                                  I’m glad we can discuss this and agree to disagree instead most of these guys on here who pretend they have these qualities, when they are really just pretenders.

                                  [–]Heart_of_a_Lion0414 9 points10 points  (1 child)

                                  I call shenanigans. I see ugly, weak assholes with hot chicks all the time.

                                  [–]p3n1x 2 points3 points  (10 children)

                                  Equating masculine traits to being an asshole is for the whiny nerds that sit home and fap it on a Sat night.

                                  just because I feel like I'm doing the world a service by getting some revenge for the guys who are always disrespected by women

                                  This just ruined your entire beta rant. Quit living vicariously through successful men.

                                  [–]Frich3 3 points4 points  (2 children)

                                  I never said that was masculine. I’m just sayin that’s how life is. I don’t like to be an asshole. Sometimes it’s just how I am. Same w/ you and others. Doesn’t mean you are alpha. You may just be having a bad day or whatever the case may be. And call it what you want my man. I can send a picture of myself if you’d like. But you probably won’t respond because you like to think you are cool by arguing on here w/ no purpose in order to make yourself feel cool. If you’d like to have a constructive argument then cool. I’m all game. But I don’t argue w/ people that just like to argue for the sake of arguing. I think that’s kinda feminine.

                                  [–]p3n1x 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                                  Why do you think the hot chicks always end up with the assholes?

                                  I was challenging this, from my own experience.

                                  I can send a picture of myself if you’d like. But you probably won’t respond because you like to think you are cool by arguing on here w/ no purpose in order to make yourself feel cool. If you’d like to have a constructive argument

                                  I disagree with your opinion, put the boner away. How is this a "constructive" retort?

                                  [–]Frich3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  Constructive in a sense that we agree to disagree my man. Not that we are just on here shouting back and forth at one another w/ no end in mind. That’s all I’m saying. I appreciate and respect your opinion nonetheless.

                                  [–]ReluctantSlimeball 2 points3 points  (6 children)

                                  Equating masculine traits to being an asshole is what woman do.

                                  Check out Chateau Heartiste’s site which is arguably devoted to proving that theory with plenty of science to back it up if that’s your thing.

                                  Asshole game works because the hindbrain assumption is “if he is willing to be an asshole he is fearless/brave and can handle any comebacks”

                                  This isn’t necessarily true particularly in a civilised modern environment but as we know women are attracted to what works in a pre-civilised age.

                                  [–]p3n1x 0 points1 point  (5 children)

                                  Equating masculine traits to being an asshole is what woman do

                                  Not the same way men do.

                                  The confrontational guy that does not put up with someone's shit and stands up for what he believes in = asshole to women.

                                  Men equate "asshole" to make an excuse for rejection.

                                  So we end up with a bunch of spergs running around acting like dick heads and then wondering why women want nothing to do with them.

                                  [–]ReluctantSlimeball 1 point2 points  (4 children)

                                  My experience is the complete opposite. In fact I’ve said numerous times on here that I still can’t quite believe swaggering around the club like said dick-head works so well over “treating women as individuals” and other intuitive and altruistic behaviours.

                                  Assume by “spergs” you mean sufferers of autism? Well I’m no expert but it’s little wonder they struggle at social calibration. The majority of men who don’t suffer have a difficulty understanding the counterintuitive nature of female attraction.

                                  [–]p3n1x 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                                  Spergs as in, "social autism".

                                  I still can’t quite believe swaggering around the club like said dick-head works so well over “treating women as individuals” and other intuitive and altruistic behaviours.

                                  They believe it because their current game is shit, and they fail. They then observe the successful males and hamster up a reason as to why "that guy" is prosperous. Never once taking a moment to look into the mirror and blame themselves.

                                  As far as your "nice behavior" point, if you are a beta, you go into orbit. Alpha's are seen as compassionate. Your logic fails because you are saying that X Y Z behavior equates to all pussy.

                                  You don't have to be a dick head to be competent.

                                  [–]ReluctantSlimeball 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                                  X Y and Z equates to being more attractive. Take Billy Beta. With his natural supplications, compliments and altruism. Replace these with cockiness, negs and selfishness. He will be perceived as more attractive or even attractive.

                                  Of course you don’t have to be a knob to attract women. When I’ve been asked this question I always say the same thing - no but you have to understand why being one works.

                                  But asshole game wins hands down in a club environment.

                                  [–]p3n1x 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                                  Replace these with cockiness, negs and selfishness.

                                  It works even better when happens organically.

                                  But asshole game wins hands down in a club environment.

                                  I don't disagree, I think we need a good sidebar definition of what this is though. Being an "asshole" to a woman is far different than acting like a rude, obnoxious, spastic tool.

                                  [–]ReluctantSlimeball 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  I think in the end it is organic. Or at least becomes natural eventually like any skilled person who has had to learn anything.

                                  The hardest part for many guys is realising that what they thought was a patient and gentlemanly courtship was to her simply telegraphing low status, lack of options and unattractiveness Uber allés.

                                  It blows men away when they realise how misguided they’ve been. So some go the other extreme. I think it’s useful to understand that extreme as mentioned. I posted on here under an old username “Asshole Game: A Depressing Confirmation of Red Pill Truth” documenting my experiences in both my hometown and a major city. I don’t think given the title I need to tell you how it went.

                                  I was very much rude and obnoxious but then in looks and game I’m a 7 at least (very much NOT in status!) and some argued correctly that this wasn’t something for a newbie to attempt and that it wasn’t just my being an asshole (again correct). No it was being an asshole plus 10 years of intersexual sexual knowledge, a few good genes and some weights. But honestly those being bars and clubs it eclipsed my normal game. A fun and insightful experiment.

                                  [–]TheReformist94 -1 points0 points  (5 children)

                                  THIS NEEDS TO BE ON THE SIDEBAR FOR ALL THOSE PRICKS WHO LOVE PUA

                                  [–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 6 points7 points  (4 children)

                                  No it doesn't. It's a pile of horseshit.

                                  [–]TheReformist94 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                                  Why,because you dont like it?

                                  [–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                                  Because looks are just one part of SMV.

                                  [–]Frich3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  Which is exactly why in the summary I stated that if you don’t have looks, money, or add any value to someone’s life, what’s the point in keeping you around? It’s kind of like that saying, “if they aren’t adding to your life then they are subtracting from it”. Same idea. I appreciate your input however.

                                  [–]MGTOWManofMystery 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                                  Sounds like ole Aziz Ansari should be lifting! Ole Grace wasn't turned on by his boyish physique. Just saying...

                                  [–]p3n1x 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                                  As a man, are you threatened by Aziz in any fucking way? No.

                                  She wanted to shame a beta for fooling her.

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

                                  Science has never kissed a girl

                                  [–]Martysteiner 25 points26 points  (1 child)

                                  Instead, science gave her a screaming orgasm.

                                  [–]TRP_MushaShugyo 1 point2 points  (3 children)

                                  Would this mean that in tribal times, once the women became pregnant, they'd seek betas for taking care of the kid?

                                  [–]p3n1x 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  they'd seek betas

                                  Yeah, in a tribe they are called "the other woman". I wouldn't worry too much about the social structure of a tribe unless that is the type of girl you are currently trying to land.

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

                                  As a shit starting cunt, I can wholly endorse this study.

                                  [–][deleted]  (5 children)

                                  [deleted]

                                  [–]alclarkey 4 points5 points  (2 children)

                                  I.e. the women who rated how attractive they found the men weren't even the same women who scored how confrontational and arrogant they found the men.

                                  Well, that actually makes sense. If the same woman was asked how confrontational she found the man she also found to be attractive, wouldn't her answer be skewed by the Halo Effect? IE wouldn't she say that she found the man she was attracted to, to be less confrontational because that term generally carries a negative connotation?

                                  [–]p3n1x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                  Confrontational: they see a man being a man and get the tingles or they don't.

                                  Most women have a very difficult time expanding on the positive, they just feel good and go with it. But they can go on for weeks about beta behaviors. I have heard women say many times " love how you can put your foot down and not take any shit", I have yet to hear one say " I love how confrontational you are".

                                  [–]thefisherman1961 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                                  So according to their methods, one group of women is rating how attractive they perceive the men in the study for short- and long-term relationships, and ANOTHER group of women rates the men on their perceived qualities.

                                  I.e. the women who rated how attractive they found the men weren't even the same women who scored how confrontational and arrogant they found the men. That data was literally "aggregated across all women".

                                  Using different groups is one way you control for variables in a psychological experiment.

                                  Not only that but the opinions of these women are based on a one minute video of the man introducing himself and another video of the man reacting to another male competitor.

                                  This paper feels like a load of horse shit the authors have written to fit into their pre-conceived views. I'm not saying some of the principles of their theory aren't true but I think it's very difficult to right something truly scientific on this subject.

                                  I look forward to reading your scientific rebuttal in a peer-reviewed journal

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

                                  So after painstakingly searching the Internet, I finally found a PDF of the study he referenced.

                                  Sheesh, it was on the Wayback Machine, hope you didn't waste too much time

                                  [–]ZeroToAHundred 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                                  So should I aggressively ca out a girl I was trying to plate and sort of did for 2 weeks and than she just ghosted me?

                                  [–]Tzeentch_Gnosis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                  Not that simple. Dominance is not necessarily correlated with other rated attractiveness in female partners. It is possible that women who expect to have daughters require more parental investment in the father as opposed to seeking dominant males if they want sons. Perhaps even choosing between both in one partner. And they do have sons because they are usually more dominant themselves and marry further up in SES than non dominant women. However they did mention the parents as in those who married them which can affect studies as dominance is negatively correlated to faithfulness.

                                  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/14553/etd8641_JPalmer-Hague.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj6me3Z_N3YAhVLiFQKHTdqCP0QFjAHegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw2zMZ9Ir-ntsX0EC0D5Hi3z

                                  [–]hodltaco 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                  Dead on RP. NGAF + lifting = the pick of the litter.

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

                                  In other words, if you're an arrogant meathead most of the women you attract will be more interested in flings and one night stands. Could this mean that these women are more likely to cheat in an LTR?

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

                                  What does being confrontational mean in the context of this and/or TRP?

                                  [–]BlastCorporation 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                  When high in conception risk, women were also more attracted to men who were viewed as lower on faithfulness as short-term mates.

                                  Not quite sure what to make of this. This doesn't happen in other primate species. The betas don't take care of Alphas leftovers unless they are Alpha Widows and the Alpha has died.

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

                                  this is so dumb, as if women wanted any short term relationship whatsoever
                                  yes women ovulating will want to have sex, when not ovulating they will want to chill but this has nothing to do with relationships

                                  make the test yourself : you have a blonde frat girl dressed like a whore with her ass rounded up for the picture and a cute average girl in pyjamas with a hot chocolate

                                  You are horny as fuck, which one do you pick ? the first one
                                  You're not horny and just want to chill, which one do you pick ? the second probably, the first would eventually do too

                                  Horny = attirance for opposite sex traits skyrocketting, nothing about relationships.

                                  Women go for good genes when they're ovulating and beta resources the rest of the month

                                  breaking news : women will want to bear your child in exchange for resources as long as you're above her in terms of power or money. It has nothing to do with being a beta, it's basically how couples have worked forever.

                                  [–]Lambdal7 -4 points-3 points  (23 children)

                                  for short term relationship

                                  Which applies maybe to 10% of women who aren't looking for a relationship right now and want to have their wild phase. Some of these girls are non-trashy, but most of them are trashy.

                                  Try to be the alpha douche with attractive women who have abundance or women or women who aren't into hookups (90%) and they will roll eyes and lose all attraction for you.

                                  So, alpha douche works for trashy chicks or chicks who aren't looking for a relationship right now.

                                  Of course, it also works for girls that are less attractive, since it doesn't matter what you do, can be alpha douche, beta, nice alpha and she'll be attracted regardless.

                                  [–]slothsenpai 10 points11 points  (0 children)

                                  It's not even always trashy women, even the "progressive" educated, career-orientated women are just as receptive to those behavioural traits.

                                  [–]thefisherman1961 21 points22 points  (13 children)

                                  This is blue pill horse shit. Hypergamy doesn’t give a fuck whether she’s “looking” for a short term relationship or not. She will have a short term relationship with the right Alpha douche at the right time no matter what type of destruction it causes to herself and those around her. AWALT

                                  [–]Lambdal7 -4 points-3 points  (12 children)

                                  Eh, maybe for young girls. They are very impressed by alpha douchebags. But later on, once they've had 2-3 alpha douchebags, it doesn't interest them anymore, novelty has worn off. Women crave variety.

                                  [–]thefisherman1961 12 points13 points  (7 children)

                                  That’s because older girls are on the hunt for a beta provider and they’ve become consciously aware that the alpha douchebag isn’t him. It doesn’t mean the alpha douche gives them any less tingles than he did when they were young.

                                  Being older and more experienced, they may be a little better at controlling their hypergamy but like I said, all it takes is the right alpha douche at the right time.

                                  [–]p3n1x 1 point2 points  (3 children)

                                  Adultery statistics say you have no clue what you are mumbling about.

                                  [–]Lambdal7 -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

                                  Women don't cheat for short term sex. They cheat emotionally with a man that they can see themselves with long term.

                                  Women are oxycitin cheaters, men are dopamin cheaters. Few women are dopamin cheaters with a short term lover.

                                  [–]loktaiextatus 3 points4 points  (3 children)

                                  So let me just say you'd be right If you were interpreting alpha douche properly here. When they say a guy is confrontative, they don't mean he walks into a bar and starts a brawl with the first guy in a sports jersey he doesn't like... it means he stands his ground or asserts rather than folding or avoiding confrontation at the cost of his own stature. When they say a guy is less faithful they mean that he has options and isn't grabbed onto them like the last drop of water in a desert, and musculature and looks are a given. These things are with all other traits being equal. The only mistake you're making is assuming it means a cartoonish muscle-bound bafoon, like the jerk in a Disney movie. That's all.

                                  [–]Lambdal7 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

                                  This is probably the softest interpretation of this RP post. 90% of subscribers won't interpret it like that.

                                  Guys like that wouldn't be preferable for a short term relationship though, they would be the preferred option for both short term and long term relationships.

                                  [–]loktaiextatus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                  What's with all these percentages in your comments? Who cares about interpretation of this post, the idea is that is the actual truth of the statistical evidence, they weren't testing cartoon characters but people. And yes women prioritize those things short term.... guys are going to plow confident good looking girls who date around but may double bag it to avoid knocking those type of girls up, it's just human nature really.

                                  [–]p3n1x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                  Please stop making shit up, you are not influencing anyone here.

                                  [–]RedwallAllratuRatbar 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                                  It's not like that. Every (more inexperienced) woman assumes the guy will be faithful. It's only later than they accept it's not true. When it's too late for them. My cousin showed me her dating profile. What I inferred from it, was that if a guy was too obnoxious/arrogant/let's come sex baby, she ignored him, but then ignored rest of the betas anyway. The lesson learned - be a douche, but lie to her.

                                  [–]p3n1x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                  AWALT, and yes, this includes your made up number of women supposedly not into hookups.

                                  [–]throwlaca -1 points0 points  (3 children)

                                  And thus the arrogant confrontational douchebag wins the girl

                                  Well duh, thanks Dr. Obvious.

                                  For physical attractiveness, the effect dropped to nonsiginifance.t(7925) = 1.09

                                  Now this is interesting. For all the ugly bastards out there.

                                  [–]Westernhagen 10 points11 points  (0 children)

                                  Well duh, thanks Dr. Obvious.

                                  Now you know the obvious with science. Yay, science!

                                  [–]Reformed65 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                                  And thus the arrogant confrontational douchebag wins the girl

                                  Well duh, thanks Dr. Obvious.

                                  That in itself is arrogant, confrontational and douchebag-y.

                                  Comments like these are what get the girls wet.

                                  [–]185poundsofhatredWIP 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                  Motherfucker, did YOU call me ugly?

                                  I can smell the pussy already.

                                  [–]gabriot -1 points0 points  (5 children)

                                  "Science"

                                  facepalm

                                  A study involving 238 women and 74 men done in early 2000's means jack fuck all. That isn't even close to statistical significance. Just more pseudoscience bullshit on this sub as usual.

                                  [–]thefisherman1961 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                                  I look forward to reading your scientific rebuttal in a peer reviewed journal

                                  [–]gabriot 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                                  I'd hate to break this to you cupcake, but I don't need any "scientific rebuttal". If you conduct a "study" against 200 people where the majority liked licorice and conclude that humankind likes licorice, I don't need to conduct my own counter-study to point out how retarded your conclusions were for your "study".

                                  [–]thefisherman1961 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                                  Just because you arbitrarily and randomly decided that the sample size they used was too small does not mean the results were “statistically insignificant”, “pseudoscience bullshit”, or “retarded”.

                                  [–]gabriot 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                                  There's nothing arbitrary about it. Educate yourself: http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-statistical-significance.htm

                                  In this day and age "studies" get performed all the time that have no statistical significance yet everyone wants to immediately jump on them when they see them and say "AHA! SEE?! TOLD YOU SO!" as if it proves anything about society. But if the study did not have enough subjects to be statistically significant, it is as good as anecdotal evidence at best. How do you think a poker player gets rich? You think they see a person go all in on a flush draw when they are beat before the river and end up winning and say "AHA! SEE YOU SHOULD ALWAYS BET WITH A FLUSH DRAW!"

                                  No, because they aren't idiots. Try not to be an idiot.

                                  [–]thefisherman1961 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                  How about you explain why you think the study is statistically insignificant instead of just arbitrarily claiming the sample size was too small

                                  load more comments (1 reply)