> As I said, I had all jobs in the relationship. Looking good, having sex all the time

(in response to, “Besides sex, which includes looks ...”)

> earning money

Same relationship one has with a business partner. That’s not something most men want or care about. Unless that’s something this particular guy actually cared about and valued greatly, that’s not something that was done for him just because you want to feel like it was something you were doing for him. The value is not determined by the POV of the cost of the giver, but by the POV of the value in the hands of the receiver.

> organizing dates, paying for dates, taking care of the transportation, taking care of the romance

Again, not something men care about. We’ll do that for you, not for us. You being happy (the ends) is something we care about. But the dates and romance (the means), not so much. Again, not something that was done for him, even though, no doubt, you did in fact do much of it.

> supporting him emotionally, helping him when he needed help with stuff

So, like a therapist and handyman. Same points as making money above. Not really a bargained for benefit most men are looking for from women. Again, no doubt you actually did all these things and expended all this time and effort. But, “cost/benefit” and “efficiency” principles. You can’t be dumping 90% of your time and energy onto things that make less than a 5% difference for the person on the receiving end of all your time and energy ... and then feeling like, “But I do so much for you!”

That’s like a guy being like, “But I go to the gym 12+ hours a week, have 8-10% bf%, dress well for you, I’m on Cialis and Cypionate and am horny for you all the time and 100% ready and willing to have sex whenever you want and willing to initiate all the time.”

That’s nice. But what about planning for a wedding? Or a vacation? Or getting a nice house? Or the latest iPhone or MacBook? Or going out on a nice date somewhere? Or doing something for me (besides sex) that’s going to make me feel appreciated, loved and cared about ... (drumroll) ... as a woman? Or helping out with the work involved in taking care of a home? Or listening to me and being an emotional tampon like my girlfriends ... they care about my emotional needs as a woman, surely my man cares as much about the same as my girlfriends do? Or helping me with other things I need help with (acts of service)?

> The guy didn't do anything.

No criticism, judgment or anything negative from my end towards you. Just saying this from a place of wanting to help another human being:

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Winning-Negotiating-Create-Disputes/dp/0674012313/ref=rtpb_of_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0674012313&pd_rd_r=5f232b8f-e768-4e93-bf5c-ac76858d8b16&pd_rd_w=qHdyN&pd_rd_wg=ndjWP&pf_rd_p=e63cdf88-70f7-45e9-a935-867bec475cac&pf_rd_r=AC8BNFZBAQS13CPVGJJY&psc=1&refRID=PP0YH424YPG54TTQD3H4

https://www.amazon.com/Bargaining-Advantage-Negotiation-Strategies-Reasonable/dp/0143036971/ref=pd_aw_fbt_14_img_3/134-7622501-1387826?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0143036971&pd_rd_r=8ca3a607-9c32-4911-937b-849a8761702d&pd_rd_w=b8Hxy&pd_rd_wg=ss7u6&pf_rd_p=3ecc74bd-d08f-44bd-96f3-d0c2b89f563a&pf_rd_r=AJPTASB84M6ENTSSZ69V&psc=1&refRID=AJPTASB84M6ENTSSZ69V

It’s irrelevant what the other person is getting in a relationship. It’s not a competition, although that’s always the default “woe to me” theme whenever anyone talks about these situations. The real issue is not that he got so much, or that he got so much more than you. The real issue is that you did not get the utility and value that you wanted from him, not just conventionally or generally, but specifically meaningful and valuable to you as a woman and as the individual you are. That was the issue, not all this other stuff.

> I was saying women can be in relationships where ... the guy offers nothing and we're still happy.

O.o

So, “nothing” makes you happy?

> It sounds like you just think highly of men and lowly of women

No. That’s what it sounds like ... to you ... or to women who read what I wrote and who also have some chip on their shoulder.

> so I want to hear what you think of a relationship where the woman does everything (all of her "jobs" and more) and the guy does nothing.

I’m wondering, what self-esteem issues does this woman have that makes her feel like she doesn’t deserve to want certain things for herself as a woman in this relationship, and has hypnotized herself and buried herself in mountains of rationalizations until she’s successfully convinced herself that she really is perfectly happy with “nothing” (which, in this context, is a fancy way of saying that the only emotional “pleasure” she derived from relationships is by playing the role of a martyr and relishing in self-pity or masturbating to a sense of self-sacrifice).

> Do you just refuse to acknowledge the existence of such relationships because they do not corroborate your worldview that men have systematically more to offer than women do?

Not at all. I handle divorces, and most of my divorce clients are women, and most of these cases are IDV and involve elements of domestic violence.

I’ve had domestic violence victims driven to court ... by their husband ... only to tell the judge that she wants to discontinue the action for divorce ... because her husband wants her to discontinue the action for divorce. Nothing the judge and I can do if the plaintiff doesn’t want to proceed with a divorce.

Respectfully, with zero anger or negative feelings towards you on this end, because I get your reaction all the time ... be mindful of your own assumptions about “men” and what you may be projecting onto what I wrote. Common theme on this subreddit. Women read something written by a man, and even the most intelligent and most jaded by life women give in to the automatic knee-jerk reflex to feel like, “Oh, great, another MGTOW / RP / all men are amazing and all women are evil asshole.”

Not at all the point or purpose of what I said.

Ah damn, I triggered some people here really hard. Good. I'm going to rub more salt on the wound, because it will feel great to me in this instance.

>he is just as autistic as some of the TRPers and not particularly self-actualized.

Oh wow! Autistic! The ultimate insult when.. you have no clue how to respond. Perfect.

>You find this a lot with reddit posters.....the complete lack of ability to look outside their bubble to realize that not everyone is exactly LIKE them...I mean read his comments...it is all "every normal person knows this" and "everybody understands that you do that"....well fuck if those guys knew that shit and were fucking 2 or 3 women a month\year then you think that would be on the internet looking for why they are not successful with finding a mate?

I watch even chubby slobs get decent looking girlfriends.. Maybe that's some 4 year, private college, white priviledge thing going on. Who knows? I've been armchair diagnosed by a very angry forum whiner with autism.. I can't possibly know anything!

There is something VERY wrong with these "men" in the Manosphere, and it's often more internal than external.

>It is the same as why people like Labron James would likely suck as a basketball coach because his instruction would only work if you are a physical specimen who is 6-9 275lbs and can jump out of the gym. But that doesn't mean that you can never learn to play basketball quite well even if you are a 5-11 165lb with instruction and practice from a guy who understands the challenges of not being a natural.

Asking a Manospherian for attraction advice is like asking a man who was born blind to teach someone basketball. No, people who are good something may not be good teachers, but at least they don't suck (or didn't suck in the past) at that thing...

>The guy is one of the navel gazers..he has a small modicum of success, doesn't really understand why or how but feels superior so he goes around blasting people for not being normal and just "understanding" this or that....truth is that he couldn't help even if he wanted to help because he really doesn't know.

Now my favorite part. Oh boy. I'm going to brag like no tomorrow because... why not?

My "small" modicum of success with women goes back to grade school. First kiss around age 12-13. FWB-like relationship towards the end of high school. Play around with some girls in college and then junior year I meet a keeper - who I marry 5 years later and am still together with till today (going on 9+ years now). I've had no shortage of interest from women even ever since I was taken - I'm not blind to their attention at all. Now, how did I do it? Well I have a pretty good idea, even if not perfect. Here's the catch: they are either too dumb to replicate it, too lazy, too unlucky or too late.

My recipe for success: get lucky to experience living on 2 different continents between age 0-18, and then on a third one. But hey, that's not even necessary... that's just gravy. Observe what women around you find attractive. Figure out what interests them (and people in general). Take advice from SUCCESSFUL people. Here's the meat of it: work hard in school and get into a very good college (and possibly grad school) and get relevant certifications (I'm a CFA Charterholder), then get a very competitive, very well paid job (I'm 30. I work in investment management at a large firm in Boston ; I've made over 75K/year all my life ; over 100K last 2 years. My income upside is exponential. ). Meanwhile, get lucky to enjoy some hobbies which other people can relate to (esp women) such as "food & drink". Don't be a lazy idiot - want to look good? Exercise hard. Learn basics of nutrition. Want to build muscle? Don't do that half-ass 5x5 or whatever crap. Get a resource from a legend.. Then benefit from it. 1 year of baseline exercise in college + 4 now in my late 20's = me now.. In the process of doing MUCH of this (and that's more than what most men will achieve), you actually do something that everyone jerks off to here: you build a specific personality/character which is attractive on many levels to women (both sexually and for relationships). You also gain worldly knowledge and become an interesting, unique individual (I speak 2 languages fluently plus advanced with a 3rd one; I can speak intelligently about everything from microbiology, to the energy and retail industries, the global economy and financial markets (duh), anything related to food and drink (including nutrition), electronic music (I used to DJ clubs/lounges and radio when I was younger), among a smorgasbord of other things that I could list.)

So.. what advice am I supposed to offer? Here's the summary of problems:

Most Manospherian guys are..

Too dumb to (or it's too late for them): get into a great college and get yourself into a great career; figure out nutrition and how to effectively manage calories; figure out which hobbies to pursue to become an interesting conversationalist; too dumb to figure out how to buy attractive / stylish clothes without breaking the bank

Too lazy to: get in good shape with a program that actually works; too lazy to practice impeccable grooming/hygiene; too lazy to do the above (get into a great school and then get a great job - here it's laziness, not a lack of "smarts")

Too poor to: buy designer clothing and grooming/styling accessories to look great; too poor to finance interesting hobbies

And it is perhaps impossible to truly / effectively teach someone: assertiveness/confidence, passion, empathy (this might be based on genetic baseline intelligence), moral integrity (people with shitty morals repel people with generally good ones), conscientiousness/agreeableness, general "wit" ("how well you think and analyze" - again, this could well be 50% genetic), humor (again, most impromptu use is intelligence-based.. maybe humor books can help), worldly knowledge and a unique, well-rounded knowledge bank. < These traits in this last list are either things you are born with OR built over time. There are no shortcuts to many of these.

So yeah, I think I have a pretty decent idea of why I am successful. I just think it's impossible to teach much of this, or people aren't good enough to learn it / do it. I could certainly help with some of the basic things or parts of these, but why would I if most of the Manospherians are, based on their behavior, vile asshats in my eyes?

Pardon me.. were you saying something?

For the alpha-est alphas who ever alpha-ed, you really need to read romance novels. If you look around, you can find some pretty crazy examples. (There are also plenty of "beta" romance novels, but there's a whole other discussion. Your typical romance "beta" hero would still win a bar fight.)

I'm slowly working on a nice, high-effort post with plenty of examples, but check out this example from Ilona Andrews Burn for Me, where the heroine first sees the anti-hero "Mad Rogan" in person:

> A dark-haired man walked out from one of the side trails into the plaza. He wore jeans and a plain black T-shirt and carried something that looked like a roll of fabric in his hand. His T-shirt stretched tight across his broad shoulders. Muscle corded his arms, the powerful, supple muscle of a fighter, built by practice to punch and rip through his opponents. He stepped lightly, his stride sure and unhurried, like a huge jungle cat, an apex predator out for a prowl in his domain. There was no hint of submission anywhere in his body. He walked like he didn’t know his spine could bend.
>
> I saw him. My heart skipped a beat. He had a sturdy, chiseled jaw, a strong nose, and a square forehead. He looked rough around the edges, from the trace of stubble on his jaw to the short, tousled dark hair. Rough, masculine, and arrestingly sexual. His eyes, smart and clear under the thick, dark eyebrows, evaluated everything he saw with calm precision, but deep inside those blue irises, a cold fire glowed. The same kind of lethal fire you would see in the amber eyes of a tiger, predatory yet irresistible. It compelled you to stare, even though you knew that if you caught his gaze, that icy fire would swallow you whole. He pulled me like a magnet. Every female instinct I had went into overdrive. Oh wow. He didn’t simply walk into the plaza. Those eyes told me that the moment he stepped foot into it, he owned it. I knew I should’ve looked away, but I couldn’t. I just sat there, shocked, and stared.

It's actually a pretty fun book, with good writing and plenty of action, though the cover is terrible. This is the book where Andrews decided to have fun and go completely over-the-top with the "alpha" stereotype. Rogan is a billionaire, ex-military, and (this is explicitly indicated in the text) a high-functioning sociopath. He's a bit like Cumberbatch's version of Sherlock: He understands that there are rules and he more-or-less obeys them, but:

> “Is that why you joined the military? To get away from your family?” And why did I ask that?
>
> “I joined because they told me I could kill without being sent to prison and be rewarded for it.” True. Holy shit. I was trapped in a car with a homicidal maniac. Awesome.

But he does beta comfort, too! Look:

> “I really would like to know,” he said with genuine curiosity. “The next time I kill someone, I’d like to do it in a way that doesn’t freak you out.”

See? He cares. Happily, the heroine is not an idiot:

> "You don’t feel that rules apply to you. If you want it, you buy it. If you can’t buy it, you take it. You don’t seem to feel bad about things, and you offer gratitude only when you need to overcome some hurdle. I think you might be a psychopath.
>
> "I can’t be with you, no matter how crazy you make me, because you have no empathy, Rogan... I would matter to you only as long as I had some use, and even then, I would be more of an object than a lover or a partner. The gulf between us, both financially and socially, is too great. You would use me, and when you were done with me, you would dismiss me like a servant and I would have to go back to pick up the pieces of my life, and I’m not sure there would be anything left of it or of me by that point. So no, I won’t go away with you. I want to be with someone who would if not love, then genuinely care, for me."

I can find you romance novels far more "beta" heroes than Rogan, of course, including at least one hero who's clearly intended to be autistic (and who is hilariously awful at body language). But plenty of romance novel heroes are seriously badass, even if you look at the sweet, romantic ones.

I haven't even read the guys but from what I understand they are (a) MRA and (b) Red Pill. My ideology is (a) anti-feminist but also anti-MRA and (b) against both Blue and Red Pill for the reasons explained in OP.

And practical solutions are in some of the sections I linked you just have to know how to read the thing. I don't dwell on those subjects because I am not successful in dating myself so why would I give other people advice? What I do instead is share my experiences with dating and refer to some of the resources that seem helpful and critique the ones that seem less helpful. I believe there is useful stuff in what I linked you to. For example in the tri-fold solution:

• learning how to lift with correct form and compound lifts (squats, deadlifts, etc.)
  
• learning good fashion
  
• learning how to cook, change tires, drive a car, know basic DIY
  
• learning how to be financially prudent
  
• learning how to be career oriented (i.e. have direction for the future) - and potential support with this (qualifications, references, etc.)
  
• learning how to hold conversations with friends/family acquaintances as well as being able to talk to strangers
  
  ​
  
  (as a basis which everyone knows anyway)
  
  And the platitudes I critique but can work I guess:
  
  
• online dating
  
• clubs and societies
  
• basic hygiene
  
• getting out of the house
  
• just being confident
  
• just being ourselves
  
• approaching women
  
• having purpose and ambition in our lives
  
• looking for self-actualisation in passions of ours that lie outside of dating women
  
• going to bars and night clubs
  
• hitting the gym
  
• consuming works of art, literature or filmography by feminist women with strong female protagonists
  
• seeing a therapist/psychiatrist/other related expert
  
• *insert meaningless tripe*
  
  ​
  
  (note: mentioned in the link I sent you: "Yes ... plenty of us have tried [those things] and for those of us ... who hadn't ... well it is all here for them now.")
  
  ​
  
  Also:
  
  
• Concrete Advice
  
  At [[](https://www.reddit.com/r/GoodMenGoodValues)*my community], we are open to concrete advice as opposed to nebulous inner-game concepts such as self-reflection and the other ones mentioned. For example, I the author of the GMGV Primer have read Mark Rippetoe's fantastic book "Starting Strength". Since some degree of muscularity is attractive to women, that is the way I workout now, but if you suggested that literature to me (without knowing that I had read the book), I would not have considered it platitude advice. Mark Manson's "Models" and Love System's "Magic Bullets" (guides to attracting women) are two relatively inexpensive books I have mixed feelings on (the content has pros and cons) but again, I would not consider that platitude advice. Lifestyle and dating tips that discuss the severely neglected verbal game element of approaching women are especially recommended because most existing "verbal game" is either just*
  
  

1. gimmicky canned material and stupid "routine stackers" that are simply dreadful
   
2. so-called "authentic" PUA that denies the legitimacy of verbal game because of number 1. but don't really consider alternatives because you should "just be confident" and let conversation flow freely or some bullshit
   
   Anything else that deals with propinquity (i.e. specific lifestyle choices that get you closer to women and not just "get a hobby, bro!" simplified bullshit) is considered concrete advice at GMGV. If you are reading this and you don't have any concrete suggestions (because not everyone does), that's fine. Just don't bother giving platitudes, or even advice really. Also, at this point most people normally say they have to know about you personally to give concrete suggestions but it's not true because the fundamentals for being attractive to a wide population of women are always the same click here.
   
   For that reason, you don't need to know the ins and outs of a person's life to give this advice. For example, Starting Strength is a sufficient foundation for the muscularity aspect (well the barbell training part, not so much for nutrition) - as an example. So far I have never encountered a sufficient foundation for verbal game. However there is a sufficient foundation for body language, which is SOFTEN (smile, open body language, forward lean, touch, eye contact but "nodding" not so much, I believe).
   
   But again, I really don't want to hear about nebulous inner game concepts unless it's to do with a specific discipline like positive psychology or stoic philosophy but with stronger empirical grounding. Because that stuff is interesting by itself anyway. If you have an academic interest in virtue ethics or Buddhist philosophy, Taoism or any related subjects I would love to learn from you.
   
   ​
   
   And finally:
   
   

   Here are some resources based on the central theme in the 'tutelage section' of the Primer.
   

   
   

• Learning how to lift with correct form and compound lifts (squats, deadlifts, etc.)
  
  "Starting Strength: Basic Barbell Training", Mark Rippetoe [click here]
  
  
• General physicality: self-defence, strength and conditioning, etc.
  
  Beast Skills: Bodyweight Strength Training [click here]
  
  Official Then X: An Introduction to Calisthenics [click here]
  
  Official Bas Rutten: General Strength & Conditioning, Self-Defence and Mixed Martial Arts [click here]
  
  Street Smart Self Protection and Weapons: General Strength & Conditioning, Self-Defence and Mixed Martial Arts [click here]
  
  
• Learning Good Fashion
  
  Not covered
  
  
• Learning how to cook, change tires, drive a car, know basic DIY
  
  Not covered
  
  
• Learning how to be financially prudent
  
  Not covered
  
  
• Learning how to be career oriented (i.e. have direction for the future) - getting good qualifications, references, etc.
  
  Not covered
  
  
• Learning how to hold conversations with friends/family acquaintances as well as being able to talk to strangers
  
  Conversation Starters [click here]
  
  Confidence: What It Is, What It Isn't [click here]
  
  Social Confidence Builders [click here]ve to learn and read it. It is primarily an ideological manifesto, not a how-to handbook. But how-tos happen to be in there.

> For me, RP is like economics. It's a model of human behavior that is built on predictions and patterns.
> TRPers are like economists. There are many "schools" that are built around RP, some of which are more closely aligned with the model (from my perspective) and some of which are not. And just because someone says they are an economist does make them an expert in economics.
> Trying to understand RP just from reading what various TRPers write is as ridiculous as trying to understand economics from what various self-proclaimed economists write.

Actually, I'm mostly referring to the sidebar when I discuss TRP concepts. And comparing TRP to economics is a great example.

Remember why the financial crisis happened in 2008? That's right - flawed ideas of economics. There's tons of literature on how applied neoclassical economics quickly can become a self-fulfilling prophecy which apparently produces results in the short term, but in the long term spells doom.

Same thing applies to TRP. Compare the average TRPer to an investor during the pre-crisis area. The investor buys MBS-funds which seem to pay off infinitely. So he puts more and more money into it, after a while he has invested everything he owns. Sometimes people warn him that his assets are based on mortages that will immediately default, and thus are worthless in the long run. But he points at his current net worth: Can't people see that this is working? Suddenly the entire market crashes do to the innate rotten nature of his MBS funds, and he is left with no assets and a whole lot of debt.

Same thing for the TRP guy. Spends years acting in line with TRP philosophy. It ostensibly works at first, but people are telling him that his behavior will not allow him to reach his goals in the long term. He ignores them and continues his TRP lifestyle. 5 years down the line the woman of his dreams leaves him. She's tired of him dissmissing her and walking away at the slightest hint of anger from her ("Holding frame"), she's tired of him not taking her seriously ("Amused mastery") and she has grown aware of how fragile and insecure his ego is as he seems to interpret anything she says as an insult ("Passing shit tests"). Now the man is fucked.

> Ugh. I hate the direct comparison to PUA. I know little about PUA as a whole (though some of their actions do seem to line up with what I would recommend), but I know I'm not the only RPer who bemoans RP turning into something like "PUA 2.0". RP, to my mind, is not just a new form of PUA. It goes way beyond what I understand of PUA, which really seems to only focus on short-term hookups.

Every single TRP idea existed in the PUA community. The most famous part of the community (popularly seen in "The Game" By Neil Strauss) involved tips and tricks for short-term hookups. The "Inner game" part of the community is pretty much identical to TRP. Just look at videos from RSD (Real Social Dynamics) and you'll find pretty much every TRP concept there.

> Again, you are focusing on the doing and not on the being (which isn't surprising, given that many TRPers make the same mistake). It's back to the old "fake it until you make it" idea. If you know who you need to be (like, say, confident), it can be useful to emulate that quality until you actually express it naturally, but to assume that the faking it is the making it is completely off-base.

I disagree. This is a flawed way of thinking. You cannot emulate confidence until it appears. Confidence is a feeling that makes you act and feel a certain way. We know from psychology that confidence is the result of your experiences within a given field and your interpretation of that. The only thing you accomplish by acting confident is that you get better at... acting like a confident person. Most people see through that easily.

> The end goal of RP is not to "do alpha", it's to "be alpha." If you are being alpha, all the rest of the shit will fall into place.

I understand the differences her between being and doing. But if you are actively (as is promoted in the sidebar) doing "Alpha male stuff" like "Holding frame" or "Amused mastery", then you are actually just teaching yourself a set behavior. You are not actually being authentic and acting in line with your own values - which would be what the idealized "Alpha male" would do.

> I can always tell that someone just attended a class or training by the fact that their actions are so out of alignment with their being.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about! Would that leader "Be" a leader by faking it until he made it?

> My understanding of the "hypergamy" dynamic and how men and women express and feel love differently comes from years of both reading various experts and studies on the subject of human sexuality and from my countless conversations (and relationships) with other people from all walks of life, so it's hard for me to reference something off-hand. I would say that the work of David Buss goes a long way towards validating the idea of hypergamy/polygyny as base sexual drives in humans, so I would check him out for that. Not included in this discussion, but I found that Esther Parel advocates a view of sexuality that confirms the idea of AF/BB, so that's another non-RP source.

I'm familiar with David Buss and evolutionary psychology. And yes, it describes why the impulses men and women have when it comes to sex have evolved. Women have evolved to be more selective because they risk pregnancy, while for men no such mechanism has been adaptive. However, men are also strongly attracted to visual cues of genetic fitness, just like women. There is nothing gender specific about the idea of "Hypergamy" if it is merely defined as the desire for an attractive partner.

> Why is that so hard to believe?

There are plenty of reasons for this in an evo psych perspective. The most important one being that the high SMV man has other opportunities. Unless the woman is equally high in SMV, there's no way for her to know that he won't just pump and dump her, then leave her for a prettier woman. Then she's stuck with a baby and no man to protect her. Bad idea.

But in terms of real life applications, I was referring to the "Branch jumping" idea. Let's say you have a girlfriend. She meets a guy who has a better job than you, is more confident, looks better than you - he is a higher SMV male.

Does she immediately leave you if he hits on her? According to the idea of branch jumping : Yes.

> What people ideally want and what people can realistically get are two totally different animals.

Of course. I mean, If everyone got what they wanted, I'd be a space cowboy. But I'm not, and I'm still quite happy with my career. And just like I'm happy with my career, a woman can be happy with her man even though he's not the perfect man. And a man can be the same.

> Most of life requires trade-offs that result from a cost benefit analysis.

Are you applying classical economical assumptions to human behavior? Because it seems you're talking of humans as rational actors. I recommend this book by Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize winner in economics, which describes why humans do not fall in line with the assumption of the classical "Economic man".

> And it's interesting that you perceive polygamy as the result of patriarchal societies. I would maybe conjecture that you think that, conversely, monogamy is not a result of patriarchal societies? If so, there are many anthropologists who would disagree with you. They see enforced monogamy as something instituted by men for men and not for the benefit of women.

The old-fashioned form of monogamy is patriarchal because women had to marry. They couldn't work or go to school. Modern monogamy is not a patriarchal construct. And since we've already covered evolutionary psychology, it's worth mentioning that humans have an evolved pair-bonding mechanism which includes emotions aimed at keeping the relationship exclusive (Jealousy).

> The assertion that "women wouldn't want to share" presumes a modern setting for mating, which would be a mistake. I guarantee you that, at a time when resources were scarce and survival was a daily question, the concern over "sharing" becomes far less important than the concern over "how do I ensure the survival of my child and myself? How will I ensure that sufficient resources are available for accomplishing that?"

We agree here. If nuclear war ravaged the world tomorrow this would definately be the case.

> Additionally, it must be noted that the whole notion of humans being naturally monogamous, especially for life, doesn't really hold up in either an academic or a real world sense. Clearly, monogamy, especially life-long monogamy, is not the natural order of things for humans (otherwise, we wouldn't have all the conversations about n-counts and cheating and divorce and...). Humans have found that lifetime monogamy can work well for both parties in certain settings, but that does not mean that's what we are wired to do.

We have a drive for pair bonding, that's about it. It doesn't really make sense to talk about a "Natural order of things" with humans, the entire success of our species is contingent on us being adaptive. For a lot of people. life long monogamy will work. For a lot of people, it won't. The reasons why and why not are unique to each case and infinitely complex.

> I could write a book on this. Many authors already have. I don't have time now, but maybe we can get into it at some point. In the meantime, this is probably one of the most explored topics in human sexuality.

Sure, I'm interested.

I need to know a little bit more about you before I advise anything. What country are you from? Is there something particular about the present that you are hoping to learn more about, via the past? Are there any historical events that you find even moderately interesting? What books do you like to read, if any? Genres and titles?

I've only got a few minutes now, but I am a military historian and as Atlas_B_Shruggin says, war is the mother of us all. If you are from the US, I would highly recommend reading David Hackett Fischer's book Washington's Crossing to start with, for a variety of reasons:

1. It is deeply researched and engagingly written; it is like reading a gripping novel and will likely hold your interest in a way that some other histories might not.
   
   
2. If you are from the US, you are probably already familiar with the broad strokes of the Revolution, and are not starting from scratch.
   
   
3. This is a book that pays disproportionate rewards for a minimum of critical thought, so it's a good way to start using that part of your brain. Fischer, for example, goes into some detail about the diversity of thought among the colonists, the wildly different ways that they defined "freedom," and how these disagreements - and they were disagreements at the beginning of the war - threatened their cause from the very beginning. To what extent do those differences still exist today? How do they manifest? Have they informed other events in American history (hint: yes) and if so, how? Fischer includes a detailed appendix about the mythology of the Revolution, and the crossing of the Delaware in particular, which is very helpful in this respect. (Edit: And it's available as an audiobook, if you've got an Audible account and prefer listening to reading.)
   
   As far as art, I will agree with what u/Salty-Bastard has said. Find a medium and a school that you like, and start exploring. I grew up going to the Met with my mother to look at the French Impressionists, and I liked them fine. But once I was an adult, I started going to the National Gallery in DC and learned that the American Impressionists are a thing, and I liked their work so much better, particularly George Bellows, who approached his work from a very different place than the French Impressionists.
   
   And then, purely by chance, I happened to wander into the final day of a special exhibit of Adolph Menzel, probably the foremost German Impressionist, whom I had had no idea even existed up until that point. It was probably the second-most stunning art exhibit I have ever viewed, and included a painting that made me gasp aloud when I first saw it, and spend the rest of the day until the museum desperately trying to imprint every detail onto my memory.
   
   I would really recommend visiting art museums in person, because so much art can only really be appreciated in person, and museums are very good about providing you with a manageable amount of information about what you're seeing. You can always look up more. (And many of them are making it ever-easier for you to look up more, with the apps and the QR codes and the intertubes and whatnot.)
   
   Start with art that you already know you like. If all you ever want to look at is Van Gogh and you end up thinking that all other Impressionists and all the Dutch Masters and American Moderns and everybody else is a waste of time, that is perfectly all right. (And, honestly, makes it easier for you to spend time looking at the stuff you really like, since you've narrowed it down so much.) After you're done looking at the stuff you know you like, wander through the rest of the museum and see if there's anything that catches your eye, and do it more than once. If there is a special exhibit, go check it out, even if you're "meh" on the artist. I liked Mark Rothko okay until the NG had a huge and stunning exhibit of his work in the late 1990s. Now he is one of my favorite artists.
   
   I haven't even gotten to literature yet, but I need to get my kids up; will return to this later on today.
   
   

>such as you ultimately study things to help yourself, but really you're helping someone else who will pay you so you can help yourself

I love to learn about about laminar flow, the Germans who got lost in Death Valley (seriously read this, and his post on the hunt for downed airplanes), how ISIS formed, and an understanding of how people interpret data not because it will pay me, but because it makes me a smarter person. Your own intellect is not most beneficial to you because of what words you can make come out of your mouth, but by letting you decipher the words that come out of other people's mouths. The best thing about knowledge is that it gives you perspective.

>The real question, however, is will that make you attractive to us ladies? That's still the big question. Getting in shape will. Playing board games "for the challenge" with nerdy dudes who talk about pseudo philosophical BS they read on the internet? Not so much.

There in lies your problem. You're wanting to form yourself to make yourself attractive, where as long as you're a top 10 then you can do whatever you want. You honestly think a guy who is in great shape, well read, and works hard but happens to like board games or D&D can't get a girl?. Sure, if that's your only hobby it will be harder, but everyone should have multiple hobbies that they're passionate about. Women love confidence and passion. Confidence is just a different word for truly loving and believing in yourself regardless of what other people think. Passion is just another word for what you really really like.

If you don't love yourself, why would anyone else?

TLDR: Your experience of musicians is shaped by their performance to you, which they know is necessary to get ahead. You are not truly an "insider" to their world, largely because its mostly a boys club. Rather, you are a resource who can only be utilized if musicians make you like them. This is why you are being told and shown the things you want to hear.

Having toured in many bands and occasionally rolled in some fairly high profile circles as well, this aligns a lot with my experiences. However, the key here is that I find your experience of these guys believable, but I am also aware there is a different reality you have not, will not, and are not supposed to experience. Touring music is largely a boys club, especially rock and hip hop. Even at the low level, musicians are performers, and part of that performance is appealing to the audience down to the micro level. That includes appealing to people like you, who would be appalled by a lot of the private conversations I'm sure the nice sweet alphas you meet have. The top musicians would not be where they are if they failed to follow one of the crucial 48 laws of Power: think as you like, but act like others. This book is massively popular within the hip hop community to the point where Roberte Greene even wrote a book about 50 cent. Greene's work, especially 48 laws, is the heart and soul of true redpill imo.

My point here is that a lot of what you are experiencing is a performance unto itself. As u/Atlas_B_Shruggin has said, artists and musicians are often "show ponies" lol.

>Again, this might be just my theory, but it seems like, if you don't HATE women, like TRP does, you don't feel threatened by feminity, you also don't mind women being independent and completely liberated.

No shit, who but a liberated, "independent" woman would fuck an unshowered, unshaven, broke ass dude who lives in a van 8 months out of the year, knowing full well this will only last one night because he is constantly on the road? Also, the feminism these dudes are often encountering is the "sex positive" kind that benefits them because like you said, they are attractive and cannot meaningfully offer commitment.

>All over the internet you read that "a rejection is not a rejection" and that you have to push a girl till she gives up.

Tons of band dudes have this mentality, but it doesn't mean pester an obviously uninterested girl or literally tear her clothes off. It means if you get a no, deescalate and build more comfort before trying again. Lost track of how many t imes I've had to explain this. It's really not a tough concept.

>I explained I'm not interested in sex outside of a relationship, it was met with a complete understanding (and it was one of the guys of the "smoking hot rock star" type too).

A) you got lucky, this could have gone much worse
B) this guy DGAF's because he knows there's other pussy out there, he may have even gotten laid that same day before or after you.

>Once you are really attractive, you don't have to use tricks to become a center of attention.

LOL performance is ALL tricks to become the center of attention. Great performers have simply internalized them one way or the other. You think a good puppeteer lets you see the strings?

>As for said partners, often they are really pretty girls, but - an interesting fact - some musicians pick girls/women who are by no means considered physically attractive, but have certain achievements in their (usually artistic) field.

This happens sometimes, but those girls are almost always getting cheated on with the type of girl you think they don't want for some mind blowing reason. Their gfs are often even aware of it and don't care. Some of them even have another sidepiece, often for weird reasons like not liking to have to sleep alone while their man is on the road, which he usually is. Musicians have unspoken "open" relationships sometimes, with the dude cheating for variety of ONS and the girl having one consistent back burner dude for emotional intimacy/companionship/sex while he's gone.

>I suppose once you have a confidence of a rock star, you don't feel the need to show off that you are able to get a super hot teen babe, huh?

Once again, I am truly mind blown about female projection here. Women simply cannot accept that the motivation for fucking/dating teen babes is almost purely physical pleasure and showing off is a secondary benefit if at all. Women date men to show off status, men date women to fuck a good looking body.

I've known all types of musicians. Ultimately, band dudes are the scum of the earth and should be avoided by women looking for long term commitment and a family. Yes there are exceptions, but chances are you are just enjoying the performance ;)

EDIT: One last example I'll add is the recent wave of outrage at Warped Tour pop punk bands over the last few years. A huge amount of their fan base comes from tumblr, which of course has the unspoken assumption of feminism being a part of their bands views, so of course the bands champion this cause. Then, inevitably, almost every band has a scandal of some girl leaking screen shots of some band member scamming on 15 year old smokin hot jailbait, and the scene goes berzerk as though this hasn't been par for the course on Warped Tour since its inception. The difference is the audience now has evidence of it that can spread in a viral manner, and are mad that their perception of the band was obviously inaccurate.

I'm just going to respond to all four in this reply:

>Did you see both his vids, and can you give even more detail on what you think of my OP and his vids? Sorry to bother you, but you seem insightful.

I actually agree that there aren't many positive male role models out there. Men just don't have many exemplars that aren't nuts.

>What do you mean by [well turned-out]?

Well-dressed. I didn't say well-dressed, because that has connotations of needing to cradle your nuts in the finest italian silk. You don't. It just needs to:

• Be clean and in good repair.
  
• Fit your body correctly.
  
• Stylish in the sense that it isn't a horrible fashion faux-pas, like pleat-front dockers or tennis shoes with dad jeans.
  
• Appropriate to the setting.
  
  You don't have to spend a shitload of money on this.
  
  >I was also confused about how exactly it "gives your power away."
  
  >1: Do you know what he meant by that? Does it pedestalize her or put her above you to declare intent (rather than demonstrate it nonverbally or subtly with push-pull)?
  
  >2: Why is it an "overcomplication?" I don't understand how he arrived at it, but the statement itself seems quite straightforward, and not "overcomplicated."
  
  I can't really articulate it, but in short, I think it's based on this toxic notion that whoever "needs" the other person less has more power in the relationship. So if you stumble over to a girl and proclaim your undying love for her, you're now subject to her whims, because she can either fulfill you or not. It's a way of looking at things that isn't entirely wrong, but it's also rather toxic, in that it can lead to people believing that they need to not give a shit or something. As I said, the most natural thing in the world is for a man and a woman to want to get naked and get going. In other words, people WANT to have sex. You don't need to get to "yes." You need to take away the reasons for "no."
  
  To tie this back to "well turned-out" as I said above, in America, the way most men dress is a definite fucking no. Clothes don't fit, holes in them, shoes are old and ratty, etc. That shit has "no" written all over it for women. If you can wear some decent clothing and pair some decent accessories with it (shoes, watch, belt, MAYBE one other piece of jewelry, NOTHING else), then you take away one reason for "no," because it shows that you care about how you come across to people.
  
  >Can you give more advice?
  
  >You seem to understand. :)
  
  >You said sex "is already on the table" and it's socially clumsy to be overt about it.
  
  >So what should you do, then?
  
  ...
  
  >Also, just in general what resources do you recommend to learn how to flirt and get laid and stuff?
  
  >Just curious what you do recommend, since I agree with your criticism of Todd Valentine's overcomplication.
  
  It's not easy to say how I got to my way of looking at the world. I stumbled into a lot of it by accident. I found a podcast/book by, of all people, Tucker Max, called "The Mating Grounds" (podcast) and "Mate" (book), and that's a really terrific source. If anyone knows about getting laid, it's that guy, but he's not at all what you'd expect. I didn't learn a whole lot of new things from it, so much as it helped me contextualize what I had figured out on my own, and helped to integrate other aspects of social life, as well.
  
  As for other things, just read a lot. Read all kinds of things. Believe it or not, one book that taught me a great deal about true leadership (not this "be an Alpha" bullshit) was Starship Troopers. It's practically a master course in leadership and responsibility.
  
  Also, make friends with other men and do things with them. Having awesome male friends is an incredible aphrodisiac. Just be a well-rounded person. Seriously. I wish I could be more helpful.

I've seen and appreciated my fair share of vaginas, and probably your fair share as well. And my appreciation has been appreciated. That's why I can be so adamant about the utter stupidity of making silly predilections out of vaginal characteristics.

One of the great things about being a man is that we have created the freedom for ourselves not to objectify women and create long lists of specifications that they must have for us to be attracted to them or to be able to love them. One of the greatest things about being a man is that we have the capacity to appreciate and love women for who they are. Both unfortunately and currently there are few better ways to appreciate their diversity and individuality than by appreciation of their vaginas.

When we start objectifying women and coming up with various and sundry detailed specifications for "our perfect woman," we are literally emasculating ourselves. We literally turn ourselves into women - objectifiers who carry around detailed mental checklists that we compare against the women for whom we are shopping. And there can be no greater symbol of that emasculation and feminization than the line on your spec sheet marked vaginal characteristic preference.

I mean c'mon, vaginal characteristic predilection has gotta be the most bitch-ass thing since Mr. Milker.

>I agree with you here. So does this mean you disagree with TRP's stance on this topic?

I've never been one for towing the party line.

> Interesting. I still don't really get it honestly. women are emotionally trained to place responsibility for their feelings onto their partners? What does this mean, and what leads you to believe that?

There are 2 parts to this. One is well explained by Women's Infidelity by Michelle Langley, and is also it's a common criticism feminism makes of popular culture. Society conditions women that marriage or a relationship with a man will make them happy. That they need to find the right guy who will complete them (the implication that without a man they are incomplete). This is bullshit of course, no one can make anyone else happy. You have to learn to be happy yourself.

The second part is that while society conditions men to be stoic (avoid and suppress their feelings) girls are taught to over identify with them. Women who aren't emotionally whole often surrender to their feelings, rather than simply accept them, while understanding the distinction between their being and what they feeling in any given moment.

TRP accurately observes that women end marriages (and probably relationships) more than men, but concludes falsely that this is because women cannot love the way men can. In reality, it's the combination of what I described above. Women enter into relationships thinking that will magically make them happy and they will feel whole and complete and loved. When this doesn't happen because it was never realistic to begin with, they begin to feel sad, anxious, and often angry. While a man would probably bury these emotions until he explodes (or becomes depressed) women both act on them and blame their partners due to how they have been emotionally conditioned.

>There is an huge amount of psychological evidence to support this assertion, and anyone who has spent any time working on emotional healing and therapy will quickly see that I am correct.

Here are some links, but these are books not easily digestible articles. The important thing to understand is that core emotional problems are the same amongst all people. It's the external expression of that pain that is often gendered. Reading about the difference between NPD and BPD will shed some let on this.

Women's Infidelity

Facing Co-Dependence

The Mindful Path to Self-Compassion

Healing the Shame that Binds You

Healing Your Aloneness

Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle Towards Self-Realization

>I don't really see what this has to do with gender. Both partners need to feel that expression of love. Dread Game actually seems to be based around purposely withdrawing love and affection, which seems irreconcilable with the idea of unconditional love.

What tends to be gendered is the preferred expression of love (love language). Different people need and express love differently, and sometimes couples don't have compatible styles of showing affection. In cases where one partner will not work on the issue, that partner is withdrawing their love. I agree that dread game is not compatible with unconditional love, and I don' think I ever said it was compatible.

You have way more than two options this Christmas and both of the ones you mentioned are as good as any other. Of course, much will depend on where you are mentally. Christmas is just another day. You don’t have to give it such enormous significance. Nevertheless, you could indulge yourself and celebrate it in any number of ways if you so choose. If you have good health, secure accommodation and food in your stomach, there’s already a lot to be thankful for. You’re already doing better than 95% of the planet.

If you spend Christmas alone, some good food and drink, dimly or candle lit living spaces, J.S Bach’s St Matthew Passion ([Sir John Eliot Gardiner’s recording]( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bach-Matthew-Passion-Johann-Sebastian/dp/B0000057DG "Title")) playing in the background, should do the trick. What’s not to love? This is better than the way a lot of other people with families will be spending their Christmas.

If you must be around people, then the mum option is there. So what, if they have families? You’re better off, you’re free. Alternatively, you could volunteer at a homeless charity. That would give you a profound appreciation of how lucky you are, could be very rewarding and would introduce you to new people. Another option might be to arrange something with others in the same boat as you. I’m sure you can find different things going on locally via the internet.

Non-mercenary and non-co-dependent romantic relationships are about attraction, not love. What we describe as love only comes after the attraction. With that in mind, do what you need to do to become more attractive, but don’t sweat it. Relax and enjoy the process. In that regard, I think that an abundance mentality is a good way of not appearing desperate, which will hurt your success. Don’t overplay it though. Just behave normally, with a smidgen of nonchalance.

Also, it sounds to me like you are bored. Therefore, I suggest you embark on a project. Resolve to achieve a particular goal or pick up a new skill, maybe decide to master a musical instrument and start attending lessons. Join a group of likeminded people. Really, there’s no reason to be bored in this world. There are so many opportunities and things going on, particularly in the West and in big cities. Having a mission will engage you in life more and draw in many additional benefits, including potential female suitors.

>Very subtle changes give great information on health, genetic quality, providership (in males) and fertility (in females).

What evidence establishes this link?

Anecdotally, I myself am fortunate to have a lot of the good aesthetic features that the WAW guy discusses, and this has made me do a lot better with women than I would have otherwise.

However, I feel like a walking "false advertisement," because my genes are fucked up in various ways. I guess my immume-system is OK. To be honest, I guess my health is OK. But my brain is fucked five ways to Friday, and it runs in the fam.

There are tons of sexy male celebs who simply aren't that healthy or aren't that well-endowed neurologically in terms of the REALLY IMPORTANT STUFF that governs your success.

And it certainly has zero correlation with intelligence, as we all know.

This book also challenges the idea that you put forward:

>https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Beauty-Darwins-Forgotten-Theory/dp/0385537212

>A major reimagining of how evolutionary forces work, revealing how mating preferences—what Darwin termed “the taste for the beautiful”—create the extraordinary range of ornament in the animal world.

>In the great halls of science, dogma holds that Darwin’s theory of natural selection explains every branch on the tree of life: which species thrive, which wither away to extinction, and what features each evolves. But can adaptation by natural selection really account for everything we see in nature?

>Yale University ornithologist Richard Prum—reviving Darwin’s own views—thinks not. Deep in tropical jungles around the world are birds with a dizzying array of appearances and mating displays: Club-winged Manakins who sing with their wings, Great Argus Pheasants who dazzle prospective mates with a four-foot-wide cone of feathers covered in golden 3D spheres, Red-capped Manakins who moonwalk. In thirty years of fieldwork, Prum has seen numerous display traits that seem disconnected from, if not outright contrary to, selection for individual survival. To explain this, he dusts off Darwin’s long-neglected theory of sexual selection in which the act of choosing a mate for purely aesthetic reasons—for the mere pleasure of it—is an independent engine of evolutionary change.

>Mate choice can drive ornamental traits from the constraints of adaptive evolution, allowing them to grow ever more elaborate. It also sets the stakes for sexual conflict, in which the sexual autonomy of the female evolves in response to male sexual control. Most crucially, this framework provides important insights into the evolution of human sexuality, particularly the ways in which female preferences have changed male bodies, and even maleness itself, through evolutionary time.

>The Evolution of Beauty presents a unique scientific vision for how nature’s splendor contributes to a more complete understanding of evolution and of ourselves.

If you are truly curious why not read this book? https://www.amazon.com/Self-Made-Man-Womans-Year-Disguised/dp/0143038702

If you want to know what it's like to be a man from a female perspective read this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0143038702?pc_redir=1408373321&robot_redir=1

If you want to pretend like you care, continue arguing for arguing.

http://www.amazon.com/Self-Made-Man-Womans-Year-Disguised/dp/0143038702

Yep women are totally attracted to feminine men, to men that are open with their emotions, that are not stoic, that have jobs like being a teacher.

With my fraternity brothers, we don't care if one of us cries, we give him support, we talk about our feelings and our problems. But guess who finds that behavior unattractive, guess who looks upon a crying man emotional man with disdain.

to quote an anonymous, "My wife and daughters would rather see me die on my horse than fall off of it."

The only reason my friends and I do 1/2 the shit we do is because women find it attractive, it was up to me i would get a history and education degree and teach highschool history, but guess who doesn't get laid. So I'm going economics and finance, LOOK at the JOBS men go into.

Hard STRESSFUL >>>high paying<<< take a gander why. Most of my friends dislike their majors but guess what's sexier an account executive or a teacher TO THE MAJORITY OF ATTRACTIVE WOMEN.

I women just starting going buckwild after a teacher, GUESS WHAT HAPPENS, more men go into teaching. If the education major pulled more than the econ major frat star football player then guess what ---> more men will go into education.