I see some guys who learn about the red pill idea talk about creating an appearance which makes them seem to have much women attention. This idea is harboured by individuals who don't want to seem needy. Because according to the red pill, you would be more attractive if you are not needy.

The problem about creating this persona for some people, is that they do not really have many potential female partners in their life.

So they are creating a fake persona.

And the thing with fake persona's is that the more you show it, the more odd it appears.

Unless their acting has an incredibly low room for error, it will not work.

I'm looking for clinical data or any resources built from scientific data which compares males and females for long term relationship success and satisfaction using n count as a variable.

We all know the data on promiscuous women, and how a high n count degrades their ability to pair bond, oxytocin levels, bailout habit patterns, and lack of trust, etc.

But I'm looking for someone data on males. Primarily I'm trying to answer the question of whether promiscuous males have a similar negative effects... Or if they are largely immune to those negative effects.

Any links very welcome.

Thanks

The concept I'll be describing frequently crops up in finance discussions, if anyone is wondering where they've heard this before.

There are roughly 160 million men in the U.S. One day an anonymous multi-billionaire announces a massive national contest that promises $10K to all the winners -- it's only open to men, and all men enter. The rules of the contest are simple:

• Each morning every contestant flips a coin and writes down whether it comes up heads or tails. They email/text/tweet in the result before 5 pm CST.
• That night the contest organizers announce whether heads or tails wins.
• Anyone who correctly calls the winning coin flip seven days in a row wins the contest and collects a $10,000 prize.

It's extremely likely that each day the contest runs half of the contestants will choose heads, and half will choose tails. This means that each day half of the remaining contestants will win (correctly call the correct side of the coin announced that night) and half will lose (call the announced coin incorrectly). Let's see how this plays out over the week the contest runs:

• Monday: 160 million men flip a coin. 80 million pick heads, 80 million pick tails. Heads is announced that night.
• Tuesday: 80 million men remain in the contest -- the 80 million who picked heads Monday night. Today 40 million stick with heads and 40 million go tails. Tails is announced that night.
• Wednesday: 40 million men are left.
• Thursday: 20 million men are left.
• Friday: 10 million men are left.
• Saturday: 5 million men are left.
• Sunday: 2.5 million men are left.

Sunday night the 7th and final group of winners are announced -- at the end of the contest 1.25 million men take home a prize. Obviously some attribute their success to luck, but others claim they used their instincts, or that they're good at guessing, or that they used an elegantly simple procedure to decide their picks, or that god helped them, or that they won because they lived life the right way. The winners make money off books and appearances about their winning streaks. They preach to those who didn't win about how "if you only did what I did, you could have won too!"

Just as interesting is how common winners and near-winners seem to be. There's a winning male for every 128 men, and one out of every 32 men won five straight flips and came up just short. Everyone knows someone who came close, and if they don't personally know someone who outright won they've at least heard of a few nearby.

How does this relate to sexual strategy? Replace coin flipping with men attempting to be sexually and romantically successful. Through sheer luck enough can succeed to the point where winners can be found commonly, and while some of these winners may realize that they stumbled into success many others will claim to have done it on their own and figure the losers must have done something wrong. This is how I see successful non-RP relationships: They aren't impossible, but there's no formula to follow if you want one. Winners might claim to have special knowledge of what works, but in reality it's almost entirely luck.

TRP is for people who want to win but would rather not rely on luck. The first step is to realize that the game is not fair, and the next is learning how to weight the coin in your favor.

I've been in the 'sphere since around 2011 when I found MMSL (the old version, not anything like what it has become, not saying that is a bad or good thing, just clarifying) I've read Rollo, Athol, Vox Day, Dalrock, and a host of others I've forgotten. Recently I found Reddit as well.

Overall I'm finding that there aren't many "moderate" voices in the 'sphere, and certainly not among the masses. (meaning some bloggers/authors appear more moderate, but they all tend to attract more radical followers.) I'm beginning to wonder if moderate RP men are simply rare, or just not as vocal. It seems like there are plenty of extremists, and I find it odd since RP tends to collect more conservative minded men by default (in the old sense of conservative)

Am I just awfully old to be RP? Is it just that the most vocal are always the most extreme? Or, is this another way that RP is dividing itself into smaller and more focused camps? (we already have PUA, MRA, MGTOW, are we seeing the start of a moderate party?)

Thoughts?

I recently started reading books. Models was a recommended book at TRP. I just read it and I must say it is different than what TRP is preaching. I see more stuff like false confidence on TRP, than true confidence. I think the book fits more with the things that I see in the Netherlands. The way TRP react on women/feminism is maybe something people in America experience. IMO the book had useful stuff.

Whats your view on it?

This isn't something I've seen written about extensively in the manosphere. It gets a mention now and then, but I think he makes a good point.

There’s more advice than there are readers in our cozy, if sometimes bitterly cold, little corner of the ‘net.

Such is the limited market of Truth.

But one thing I infrequently see mentioned, let alone stressed sufficiently, is this:

The importance of male friends (for men).

See, so much emphasis is placed upon self-improvement.

Accumulation of wealth.

Acquisition of “notches”.

That simply having people that understand you; can relate to you; can share your joys and sorrows and make the harrowing march we call existence meaningful, seems to get forgotten.

Of course self improvement is crucial, but so is this. I cannot empathize and maybe I'm wrong, but it seems he makes an important point about men having other men they can relate to, one who can understand and help make him better (iron sharpens iron).

This sub has a lot of potential, but likely a lot of very busy people. To keep things going, I offer this for discussion.

The red pill is the radical notion that women are people.

A longstanding motif in western culture is that men are human but Women Are Wonderful. A strange man walking around after dark is viewed as potentially dangerous; a strange woman doing the same is not. Men are presumed to be watching out for their own interests even if those interests will harm you while women are presumed to be of higher moral character.

Simply put, this isn't the case. The main TRP sub has countless stories of a woman hurting a man (financially, legally, and emotionally) because that happens to work to her advantage. No one would be surprised if the genders were reversed in these stories, because men are expected to act coldly and dish out harm without remorse. But cultural expectations make it shocking when women do it, so TRP highlights those stories (and ramps up the shock value) to demonstrate how said expectations don't match reality. Women are selfish, cold, and won't hesitate to screw you over -- just like men.

Once you've accepted that women (like men) are self-interested, the rest of TRP is easy to understand.

Who wouldn't take free, easy sex (usually with free drinks attached) if they were offered it by an attractive partner? Who wouldn't shirk responsibility for their actions if they were allowed to get away with it? Who wouldn't play the winning hand in divorce court if that's what they were dealt? These are all rational, self-interested actions -- the only reason men don't do them is that they don't have the opportunity to do so. When men do have the opportunity to act like this (wealthy men and male celebrities) they respond in the same way because they have the same incentives. TRP at it's most fundamental is the idea that women are (self-interested) people who are simply able to get away with more behaviors than men.

"Just like men"

TRP doesn't include a similar "like men" refrain in each of their posts because 1) it's a discussion of female, not male, behaviors, and 2) the "like men" idea is understood. It's understood that men are selfish, it's understood that men will coldly do what's best for them, it's understood that men won't hesitate to screw you over -- those ideas are ubiquitous throughout western culture and don't bear constant repeating. I did repeat them here to highlight how the TRP worldview is not critical of women. TRP isn't claiming that women are selfish shrews yet implying (by omission) that men are saints; TRP is claiming that women act in their own self-interest just like men are understood to act. TRP can be fully supported by the idea that women are the same as men, not different.

This is adapted from a recent comment I made on PPD which I think brings to light an underlying RP theory for a few different aspects of why male and female sex drives are different and I think it provides important context behind those ideas and merits discussion.

The core RP theory here is that men are more capable of being attracted to multiple women than women are at being attracted to multiple men. This relates to the double standards with regards to promiscuity as well as hypergamy vs. polygyny. I will discuss both here.

These concepts are based on the idea that it's easier for a man to be attracted to multiple women and still retain equal attraction to all of them (polygyny) than it is for a woman to do the same with men. Women are a lot more likely to lose interest in a man once they find someone else they're attracted to (hypergamy).

Obviously this is a guideline rather than a strict characterisation of what literally all women do like all AWALT concepts. So, because of this, I think women who sleep around a lot are more likely to want a broader range of sexual partners in the future, and therefore more likely to not remain attracted to me. The behaviour displayed in promiscuous women displays a strong presence of this personality trait and therefore acts as a marker of potential hypergamous behaviour.

One may very well ask why men are any different. Indeed, me with my male brain would sit here and assume women use the same logic I do and ignore men who sleep around a lot because even though men can remain attracted to multiple women, that's still not ideal in a monogamous relationship which is what most people are looking for. But RP suggests otherwise and so does my real life experience. What I’ve more often seen is confirmation of the RP idea that women are more attracted to men with higher partner counts because it signals that they are attractive enough to seduce a large number of women (to a degree - past a certain point you get stigma as a guy too).

To answer the question to many ask about the big double standard RP ideology has when discussing partner counts, if, hypothetically, women started selecting men with lower partner counts, it would be a good strategy for men to not sleep around. But this is simply not what happens. If you tell a woman you are still a virgin she is most likely going to find you less attractive whereas if you tell her you’ve been with 10 women already she’ll find that more attractive.

Aside from that, this is also a very important idea to understand when you read about hypergamy and polygyny. It helps you realise exactly why women are generally more hypergamous while men are generally more polygynous. Both can be considered negative traits in a monogamous relationship but the general male and female behaviours and the general responses to them are different in important ways.

When business people are asked what makes them so successful, they almost always answer "Hard work", which is one of the greatest white lies ever conceived. Hard work at what? Hard work when? Hard work how?

Though there are many attributes that one must possess the succeed in business, the one most important thing is often not discussed in public company. Why? Simple. If you know what it is, you're half-way beating the game. Hard work is the other half.

What is that attribute? It's one word: alertness.

Alertness represents your ability to spot new business opportunities. You can be an analytical genius, but if all your analysis goes towards ideas that are bad, you won't go anywhere.

Sun Tzu famously said that accurate information is life and death. No statement in history rings more true.

How does one acquire alertness? Also simple. Networking. Which requires social skills.

How do you gain these social skills? By socializing. And that's the hard part for most people.

Most people don't have the social skills necessary to accurately ascertain various facts about people (i.e cold reading them), and that's why our estranged little brother r/TheRedPill is chalk full of whiny wussies complaining about failing miserably with women, because being an angry raging asshole that thinks everyone, including women, is emotionally monochromatic will get you nowhere.

To gain cold reading ability, like most things, requires practice and the ability to gain said practice. The best place for getting this practice is in a career that is involved with sales.

Sales is one of the only places left where egalitarian whinyness is not tolerated, because that would only mean less sales. It's a place where competition is everything and a place where you can access the people you need to practice alertness.

In a business setting, alertness is comprised of three things.

1. Knowing oneself
2. Knowing one's client
3. Knowing one's adversaries.

Knowing oneself is where everyone can start.

You must first start by analyzing your thought patterns and the things that will allow you to develop a rationally objective and effective strategy. To do that, you first need to learn to subdue all your emotions and neuroses and allow only cold hard analysis to go through.

Questions like "Why am I not getting as many sales?" will not get answered by simplistic answers like "Because I'm not good enough".

Knowing one's clients is based purely on observation, observation and more observation, and analyzing said observations.

Suppose you work as a sales representative for a trucking company. Trucking companies make money getting goods from place to place at the lowest cost possible and at the greatest speed possible. If you want to convince a client to go with you, you'll have to find him before any of your coworkers or competitors' workers finds him and make him so enamored with your cause that he'll join you on the spot. This does not work as well in environments where business do business with other businesses but works absolutely terrific with irrational consumers, i.e almost every average Joe.

Knowing thy competitors is a bit harder however, primarily because bright competitors follow the prime rule of competition, i.e making one's intentions muddy and unreadable. Now, one must begin by establishing how less Machiavellian competitors operate. It's often very simple to do: A) Talk to them B) Befriend them C) Talk to them again. Easy as ABC. Once they're handled with, you'll need to handle with the more Machiavellian ones. The way to do this is to lay and watch closely what they do, analyze it, and then go for the kill. Then again, the people you're going against that are bright are possibly doing this, which makes experience the only great teacher in this regard.

OK,

Seeing as we have a chance here to push the RP envelope a little there is a subject I wanted to cover, largely because it's a subject I feel is often incorrectly used (mainly by noobs) over on TRP proper.

The idea I see over at TRP, is that there are alpha males, and beta males... And you are one or t'other. Certainly it is often how the terms are used in comments and general conversation over there. I think as a basic understanding for noobs it works for TRP, they have a lot of success with this over there, but I'm not so sure it's correct in the details.

I know a little bit about about primate mating strategies from some old reading interests so...

Gorillas and Chimps

With gorilla's there exists this true alpha/beta system. The alpha is the silverback. He undergoes extensive physical changes when he becomes the alpha. Massive muscle growth. Grey hair. Huge up surge in testosterone and extreme aggression. Over a short period he automatically and naturally becomes a fucking primate battleship. Gorillas have alpha males and beta males, exactly as TRP specifies. Top 10% are alpha. Rest are beta. Orangutang's have a similar true a/b system.

With chimps there exists another system (actually two systems but I'm going to leave bonobos out).

There are no true alpha or beta males. There are just males. One of those males is a bigger and meaner badass than the rest. He gets treated as the alpha in that group. Primatologists classify chimps as alpha and beta as loose categories of convenience.

The AMOG is simply the chimp with the highest level of alpha in the group. Others have similarly high alpha scores, they get laid too (if not much). Maybe one day they'll challenge him for the main share of the females. Maybe tomorrow a lightning bolt zaps him out of the blue. After a tussle among the other high ranking males, the chimp with the highest alpha level in the group takes over. The other high alphas bide their time or ally themselves to the boss for his scraps.

But the chimp AMOG don't get to become a chimp battleship, except as he grabs more food. He's only as big as he was the day before he took over. They ain't gorillas. They don't have an true "a/b system". They have a "more alpha than the rest by a smidgen, less alpha by a smidgen, less than him, less than him, etc" system and within that system one alpha rises to dominate and command the group.

Interestingly, when groups split (temporarily or permanently) high alpha males have the privileges in the sub-group. They act like mini alpha's whilst the big bad boy is elsewhere. They fuck the shit out of the low rank females, basically.

In a sense there are no chimp "alpha males" and "beta males". Just a difference of degree, not a difference of kind.

Chimps are all about the muscle. If you trained a "natural low beta chimp" to use a squat cage/Olympic bar, then filled him up with protein shakes and waited 24 months, he'd be the new alpha. Not a "recovering beta" or a "natural beta, playing games to up his SMV" the real actual troop leader. The top badass. In the gorilla system he'd still be nothing. A jacked up beta... But in the chimp system he IS now the AMOG, he could challenge and overthrow the current leader and take that spot (until some better setup challenger arises from the mists of the forest).

Humans

Humans are not chimps. They're not gorillas either. In our case pure muscle means a hell of a lot for dominance, but it's not everything as it is with the chimps.

Now, if you're asking which social interaction model we are closer to... It is chimps. If it were gorillas our alpha males would sprout grey hair, would naturally acquire Ahnold bodies with no gym, would naturally receive huge testosterone surges and be acutely aggressive. Maybe we'd grow huge face flaps like the Orangutang's. We don't do this. We're more similar to chimps. Humans don't have a true alpha male/beta male system. Human alphas are not physically dysmorphic in comparison to human betas.

In a modern complex society you are in many groups. You can be an AMOG in any group where you are the most alpha guy there. Just like chimps, in that situation you are the alpha. Not a "recovering beta" or a "natural beta, playing games to up his SMV" the real actual troop leader, the Alpha Male Of the Group.

Humans don't have "alpha males" and "beta males" they only have "alpha of the group" and "beta of the group". We're chimps, not gorillas.

It's why chicks have fat wing-ladies (AFOG). It's why a guy making some male friends laugh attracts female attention even if his looks/genetics are terrible (AMOG).

The strong a/b theory would say a man who is the alpha of a lot of groups is an "alpha male" and one who is alpha of none is a "beta male" with the crossover half-and-half being what they call "high rank betas". But really, that's wrong. There are no ranks... Just long gradations and individual groups.

Understanding it as gradations in separate groups opens new opportunities for improvement.

AMOGing Groups

The higher you raise your alpha, The more of the groups of your life will treat you as the alpha male in that vicinity.. your work, your home, your family, your friends, your teammates, the party, the work day outs... When you lead these groups, when you are the AMOG (no matter what your total level of alpha is) then you are an alpha male in that group. Period.

There is no "become a true alpha male". There is ONLY "raise your alpha" and "AMOG more groups" and you don't need to be a super badass to do it.

If you are just starting your RP journey. Let's say you're a month in. Let's say you're total alpha level is A15 compared to Chad Thundercocks A1000.

Well, if Chad ain't there, and you find yourself in a work group with a major pussy (A0), a ditsy girl(A5), and an old codger counting days until retirement(A10), take it over. AMOG them. Use your natural primate advantage in dominance to take the leadership of that group. You're not play acting or faking it. THIS IS IT. Being the alpha male of that group is being an alpha male. Work out what needs to be done, use your newly aquired dominance and get everyone to do it. Step forward and lead, when you do... Other follow.

"Cocky/Funny types" will do that a different way to "Strong stoic types", but the effect is the same. You don't have to be a gabby fucker to do it.

Now my personal experience is in a married relationship, so at this point I'll leave single guys suggestions for you singles in the comments... But if you are in a relationship then either straight away, or as soon as your alpha is getting higher (SMV higher than your partner ? She knows this ?) become the AMOG of your nuclear family. Even if the wife is a tough nut to crack, it's easy to AMOG the kids, let them know daddy is boss, give em a bit of rough play. Throw them around a bit and make them squeal. You're not faking it. You're not a beta "getting by" you ARE the AMOG in that frame. It's not faked. The fact that you aren't an alpha elsewhere is largely immaterial. It can drag the effect of this down, but that's also an opportunity.

AMOG rubs off between groups.

As you raise your alpha... You lift, you hold frame, you pass shit tests, you are establishing your position as a dominant male, you are getting what you want more and more... Expand this circle of groups you AMOG.

If your wife sees you ordering some guys around at work in an emergency, being the alpha, that transfers... Same as if she sees you AMOGing the kids,

If you sit at the head of the thanksgiving table and carve the turkey, that transfers alpha from your home situation to your wider family... You just expanded your influence.

The more groups you AMOG, the more chances you have. You gain a bit of alpha in your sports team when they overhear you AMOGing your wife. Maybe you just laugh when they ask why you didn't make the "Honey, can I stay out late with my friends tonight ?" call when they all did.

There Are No "Alpha Males", Just AMOGs

I think the idea of "Alpha males" and "Beta males" can be a cop out. An "Oh woe is me, my genetics aren't good. I'll only ever be a beta faking it. Oh to be a natural alpha!" idea. It become a defeatist path, at least for some.

The problem with that is, there are no betas "faking it". Everyone is on the scale of alpha, you're just climbing that ladder. Just because you ain't at the top it does not mean you are a "beta faking progress". Humans use a gradation. Progress is real. There is no flip the switch moment when you become an alpha male, just progress, just little additions of alpha any way you can.

So dividing the world into "alpha males" and "beta males" is missing the point, and it's allowing some to "resign themselves to their fate". Sure many have genetic and other advantages over others. But anyone prepared to lift can find a group or two to AMOG. You can build it from there. As the ball rolls, you transfer the alpha, behaviour and lessons learned between groups. Steve Buscemi's genetics are fucking awful. I bet his a big badass AMOG in at least some groups.

Mountains are steeper, and higher, for some than others. I ain't denying that. Unless you are POTUS you're never going to grab all the groups in any case. But, the more the better, build that snowball.

You'll never be a "true alpha" as they don't exist, but you can become "the alpha male of all the groups I give two fucking shits about".

Think of the chimps. Be the chimp trained to use a squat cage.

Take over the groups you can take direct (like your nuclear home).

For bigger groups, turn yourself into one of those "badasses in waiting" who are contenders for the title. Take on the current alpha direct if you think you should take the risk, wait for the alpha in any group to get "zapped by lightning", if you don't. The moment he's gone start slapping people on the back, being generally dominant and forceful in a friendly manner, slip into the vacant leader role.

People will gravitate toward the flag you are planting. Particularly, if you've been applying RP for a while and are getting the "Alpha Gainz".

Welcome, new true alpha male of this sub-group. You ain't faking shit any more. This is the real deal. This is how human primates establish dominance heirarchies. These are the cues human females key off of when feeling attracted to dominant men.

Even if it's only "Crazy uncle eddie, his halfwit friend and a bunch of assorted teenagers at the family bbq".

The girls notice. This is how you build and display that natural dominance, and this is what they respond to. Not well divided "Alpha Males" and "Beta Males" and never the twain shall meet.... But who is dominant in that group and how social circles and other humans respond to your place in those natural primate dominance heirarchies.

If you want to use dominance to increase your SMV it's through females noticing these positions in group dominance heirarchies that dominance has that SMV effect. AMOGing groups is where that SMV is available to be gained.

AMOG that shit.

This is a very simple model. You have to accept one premise to embrace it:

Sexual dynamics is a power relationship between men and women.

Power can be defined as one's capability to get another person to perform an action that in the absence of your power, that person would not perform.

Let's say we have two people, person A and person B.

Person A's power over B is determined by the extent to which A controls resources which B wants.

A's power over B is moderated by two factors:

1. How much B wants A's resources
2. The extent to which A's resources are avaliable elsewhere.

This definition is from organisational science.

Example: A holds a gun to B's head. A controls B's ability to live. If B does not want to live (Factor 1), A cannot force B to do anything. If B is Agent Smith from The Matrix, life is avaliable elsewhere, and a gun to his head can't force him to do anything.

So let's apply this to relationship dynamics:

Roughly speaking, men and women both control a resource we can call sexual capital. This is a resource makes someone desire you sexually. Athough sexual desire is sparked by different things in different people, on a group level the male and female gender have clear trends in their desires. A man's sexual capital consists of his physical looks, his social status, and his access to resources (AKA money). A woman's sexual capital consists mostly of her looks.

Both men and women can use their sexual capital to influence one another to have sex. However, as is implied in the definition of power, the extent to which they can do this is moderated by two factors: How much the other person wants it, and how avaliable it is else.

When it comes to sexual desire, women have a lower desire for casual sex, and a higher desire for companionship. For males, it works the opposite way.

This has implications for the power dynamics on the SMP. First, it means that women with the same amount of sexual capital as men will have more power than them due to the two moderating factors of power. The first one we've covered - they want it less. However, since men also wants it more, that means the avaliability from other sources (factor 2) is also higher for women than for men.

From this we can conclude that in order to have a power balance, a man must control a larger amount of sexual capital than the woman. Basically, on average you will have to lower your standards to get casual sex.

But we already knew this. However, if you have ascribed to the TRP explanation, your understanding of why this is so has been wrong. You have based your understanding on the following premise:

Hypergamy – The instinctual urge for women to seek out the best alpha available. This is marked by maximizing rejection (therefore women are the selective gender). A woman will vet her alpha through various shit tests to ensure his "health" on the alpha scale. She is conditioned to recognize a declining alpha, as hypergamy also tends to continue seeking out higher status males even while with an alpha male. Shit tests allow her to prepare herself for eventually leaving when a new higher status male is found. If the male fails shit tests to a great enough degree, it will effect her feelings for him. He will effectively lower his sexual market value in her eyes. This will enable her to jump to the next male with ease and little remorse.

While both women and men are wired to be most attracted to the best mate avaliable, our race would not have survived if this was all we wanted and we never were happy with something else. It would sabotage our genetic diversity and we would not have enough children. Power dynamics prove a superior model of explanation to hypergamy for the phenomenon of women sleeping with men hotter than themselves.

The 80/20 principle (stating that 20% of men have 80% of the sex, or similarly that 80% of women sleep with 20% of men) is also based on the errornous assumption of hypergamy as a phenomenon. While more attractive men can have sex with large numbers of women if they want to, this does not mean that women are only having sex with them. The time when women only want the best looking guys is the time when they're not really interested in casual sex.

Which brings us to the next point, the cock carosel:

CC, or Cock Carousel – The period of time in a woman's life where she successfully exploits her sexual value and maximizes her hypergamous tendencies by having sex with as many alphas as possible. Usually happens between ages 18 - 27. Often ends when the woman hits the wall.

If we accept that hypergamy fails to explain casual sex trends, and we accept the power model of sexual dynamics, the period in which the "CC" takes place gives us some interesting premises to work with. Let's say this is a typical hook-up culture college. In this setting, two things are true:

1. Young women have a desire to experiment sexually
2. There are more women than men in colleges

How does this affect the power dynamics? As women's(as a group) desire for casual sex rises, their sexual power falls. Both because the sexual capital men (as a group) holds now is more powerful, but also because the power women hold over men due to factor 2 (the avaliability of women who want casual sex) decreases. This factor further decreases due to the fact that there are more women than men in college.

The resulting conclusion intuitively makes sense given the popular notion of college: College is not the place where women are the pickiest and only the best males get laid. It's the complete opposite: College is the setting where getting laid is easiest.

Now for the last part:

Dread Game - Purposefully inciting jealousy in an LTR by openly getting attention from other women. Soft Dread is similar, but less open. With Soft Dread, the attention doesn't even need to be real. Creating the possibilty for female attention is enough to get the hamster going. (If you develop a great body, she knows that other women will find that attractive without having to actually see other women displaying interest.) The purpose of using Dread is to get the target (wife, girlfriend, plate) to step up their game to compete with other interested women.

If you have the power dynamics mechanics in the back of your head, you easily see the problem here. While soft dread increases your power via sexual capital(her desire grows - it's not the fact that other women are interested), getting attention from other women only weakens her power over you. It might make woman work harder if she thinks that you have a lot of power over her in the relationship already, but if she has lost attraction for you, it's meaningless. This does not mean that flirting with other women is always a no-no, but it won't help if she's lost interest.

So that's my little brainfart. Hope you liked it, all feedback welcome.

I mean, do you guys agree or disagree with the following:

20/80 principle

Cock Carosel

Hypergamy and Branch Jumping

Alpha Bux/Beta Fucks

Shit tests and the ways of handling them

Being stoic

Not openly expressing emotion

When /u/pk_atheist made TRP little over two years ago his introduction post for the first hundred subscribers stated:

It's too easy to blame feminism for our troubles.

Men, our happiness is our responsibility. Culture has always shifted, it's dynamic and fluid. It has never and will never stay still.

Feminism was inevitable. Equal rights are something I strongly am in support of. For men and women.

Women have the right to pursue happiness. Nobody should tell them otherwise. Maximizing happiness is the goal of every living creature on this planet.

But this spirit does not reflect the current community rife with moral outrage rather than the pragmatic rational self-interest grounds it was founded on. TRP today is made up largely of those in the anger phase and the mods put “endorsed contributor” tags on people who encourage this behaviour.

He wasn’t wrong when he said “there's truth in the red pill.” But we believe there needs to be a more rational place to discuss it.

Ironically I find PPD has become a better place to “become red pilled” than TRP itself due to its more rational tone. But it cannot be used as a central hub for discussing RP theory because that’s simply not what it’s for.

Enter /r/TRPcore. This is not a community designed to replace TRP, but rather a community to discuss TRP’s core concepts in a rational level-headed manner. Unlike other subreddits which have tried to capture those who have already swallowed the pill, all are fully welcome here whether you’re a newbie who’s still learning about all this or a guy who’s been red for years, just as long as you are able to keep a cool head.

Do not misinterpret our rejection of anger to mean we are attempting to pander to political correctness. You are free to discuss all that encompasses TRP theory including the darker more controversial elements such as psychological manipulation, just as long as your discussions and arguments are based on logic rather than emotion.

The key rule of /r/TRPcore is simple: leave your emotions at the door.

Want to help build up our resources? Feel free to write something or suggest reading material. Good content will go on the sidebar. Yes, you can put forward comments you made in TRP, PPD etc.