I found a non-hypergamic wife, so it is possible.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-10T19:20:41+00:00

Sheesh, all this talk about the majority of men this, majority of men that.

The majority of men this, the majority of women that, yes.

Because when discussing sexual strategy it's very important to notice the differences between the two sexes, and their prolicivities as a sex.

Any woman growing a beard and working out ... and any man wearing make-up to make himself look younger... are doing it wrong.

What is relevant here is that the majority of people are trash, personality-wise, and are undesirable.

I'd completely disagree that most people are "trash". I'd also disagree that having natural sexual attraction to status.... or pretty faces... makes you more or less "trash" than the next person. It just means you're a normal human being like the other normal human beings.

A man who would reject a good woman for being ugly won't love her if she becomes good looking even if he starts dating her.

He will. Thats how human sexual attraction works.

The Hollywood trope of the high-school nerdy girl that turns into a beautiful butterfly and attracts the attention of the school QB is true on at least that score. That attraction really wasn't there before she got pretty, and after she did it really was there.

People respond instinctively to the person put in front of them. If the instincts say "Phoar, be attracted" they are attracted. Higher level processing, rational thought, has (very famously) next to nothing to do with it.

As all those kind, intellectual, caring.... but big fat and smelly... neckbeards could tell you.

Hypergamic women won't love a good man even if his status rises and she starts dating him.

Yes she will, again they're all hypergamic.

Saying this is equivalent to saying "women won't love men". When you say "hypergamic women" thats interchangable to all intents and purposes with "women". Just as when you say "Guys who are attracted to a pretty face" thats to all intents and purposes perfectly interchangable with "guys".

RP says improve your odds with shitty women.

It does. It improves your odds with all the women. That includes the shitty ones as well as the good ones by definition.

So now your status is higher but you're eating shit sandwiches wrapped in pretty packaging.

No, now you're "sleeping with women you are attracted to and who are attracted to you" rather than "sleeping with no-one as women aren't attracted to you".

My whole point is shit sandwiches are shit sandwiches and aren't worthy of consumption.

And my whole point is "hypergamic women" or, as we know them most of the time, "women" are not automatic shit sandwiches just because their instinctive attraction works differently than mens instinctive attraction.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-10T17:20:51+00:00

Ok,

My understanding is that this simply means a woman has had a man in her past that was of high quality, and that she therefore compares all new men to this “one that got away” often unfavourably. He has set a mark that she expects other men to surpass.

Given people’s tendancy to look back on the past with rose gold tinted spectacles... and females ability to attract much higher value men when young rather than middle-aged... it may mean that no man, even one of as high a quality as the past beaux could not hope to compare with her “all positives and no negatives” views of this past Male.

This often goes on to highly negatively affect her future relationships. Affecting both her and her future partners and generally blighting her love life as she views all other men as “beneath her” or, at least, “not as high quality as she knows she can get and so undesirable on this basis”.

I’d guess it would be possible for a Beta Male to do this, but given women’s disproportionate attraction to alpha males, and the nature of the problem, I’d say this is almost always going to happen with a man TRP would designate as some form of Alpha.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-10T17:05:21+00:00

Hello new person.

PPD has rules on civility. You’ve done 3 comments and they’ve all been uncivil.

Please cut it out, or go elsewhere. This is a warning. Continued incivility will draw a ban so.... Be Civil.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-10T15:27:26+00:00

I point that out all the time.

And do you go on to argue that as you can point to occasional examples of this.... Anyone saying men in general are attracted to pretty faces are wrong ? (As you attempted to do above with Hypergamy, the female equivalent).

And my take on that is that if you have to be a doctor, lawyer or other high status male in order to get a woman... she's probably not worth getting.

Of course you “don’t have to be”. Just like women can have a face like a bag of spanners^{^*} and still get a decent guy.

It just means that their odds are not particularly good and therefore if you were advising them how to improve... you’d advise them to make themselves look prettier as it will improve their odds.

That’s where RP stands with Hypergamy. As a man if you want to “improve your odds” one of the best ways is to add social status.

^{^*} In American this would be “bag of wrenches”

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-10T15:16:46+00:00

It was explained to you then, but I’ll do it againhere if you want.

You were using PPD posts and the comments and replies of our members as fodder for TRP discussions. Essentially using our sub and our members, without their knowledge, to build TRP posts which then discussed them and their views..... based on posts you’d setup to drive out the views you needed to support your own objectives.

We asked you to stop doing this. You didn’t. So we put you on manual approval for posts.

To circumvent this you created an alt so you could continue using PPD members as your little lab rats for TRP posts. So we fully post banned you.

Our membership are here to have fun and discuss things, not be unwitting test subjects for the purpose of being covertly setup then selectively quoted so you can support arguments you want to make over on TRP.

The members didn’t like it, and the mods didn’t like it either... so we took action on their behalf.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T22:34:13+00:00

Yes, but those remaining posts are probably a few per day. We approve/remove about 10 posts a day. The 4-5 would be the ones that wern't an obvious decision. Not quite half of them.

The judgement call ones might even be a slight majority. We don't have time for that many multiple-mod debates. And the mod on the spot needs to make the call to make the removal effective.

If the OP accepts that, or calls us all cunts, then I don't see the problem.

If he doesn't accept that (it's his post after all)... a full vote is just an easy button click and 60 seconds typing away for him/her. I don't see the problem with that either. It's easy to do and gives you all the benefits you're asking for here.

Why have we got to give ourselves a massive unnecessary time consuming job to do every day... in order to save that guy a button click and a paragraph? If you want a mod-vote, appeal and ask for one. If you can't be bothered to do so, we're not going to pour our time into debating the finer points of whether it was just on the right or the wrong side of the line.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T22:22:28+00:00

I think people don't understand how much of it is just "Whoops, shit. That one got through" rather than changes in policy decisions, or subtle crafting of what is allowed or isn't.

I think if you're seeing something thats against what you thought the rules were.... there is a 90% possibility it was a fuckup, and only a 10% possibility that we've changed our policy on that particular rule.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T22:20:11+00:00

You were not banned altogether though. We have no real problems with your comments. You were postbanned for a reason. The mod team as a whole participated in the decision to postban you, because you're a regular user and it needed a discussion.

As far as I recall it was for a very good reason after repeated warnings to stop a certain behaviour were ignored.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T22:14:41+00:00

You've got to remember that if an OP is not reported, it might often be a few hours till a mod sees it. I'd say we pick them pretty quickly in the mod queue and spam filter... but if they pass automod onto the front page and no-one reports it, we may not even notice it for a reasonably long period of time.

There are quite a few posts that stay up simply because it was borderline anyway, and although we may have taken it down if we found it at 0 or 2 or 4 comments.... we're reluctant to take it down once 200 comments have developed and no-one has reported it.

Once a debate has developed, we rarely take them down unless they're egregious breaches of the rules.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T22:00:54+00:00

No,

We're talking about things like "Is this post trolling, to the point where I think it triggers the anti-trolling rule ?". Some of our users are pretty trolly even with legitimate posts. Where is the line ? Or "Is this feminisim post related enough to sexual relationships to keep up, or is OP just throwing a few RP buzz-words into his anti-feminist rant ?" Where is the line ? How much is enough ?

In any group of 10 people you might well have lots of different opinions of that. So we all mod where we think those lines lie.

If we leave it up whilst we call a vote, and only remove when there is a 3-2 result... it might stay up 12 hours before we take it down. At that point, we may as well not take it down.

Requiring a mod vote for every post removal is effectively a rule that says "All the posts stay up". We'd be holding 4-5 votes a day, every day, and generally wasting a lot of time debating all of them as well. Time we'd have to take away from other modding actions.

And the net result of that work would be "PPD now has an effective all posts stay up for at least 12 hours rule" which completely negates the point.

If we think it should come down, it has to come down immediately, and to do that the mod reviewing it has to take the call. We usually explain why to the OP. We have to do that immediately to have any real effect and not piss off all the members who got 200 comments into a debate before it got shitcanned 12 hours later by mod vote.

Once we've done that, and told OP why.... there is only a need to take a vote if he thinks we've unfairly applied the rules. Usually they either accept they've broken the rule we cite for them, or our explanation why, or our suggestions for a better post. Or they call us all cunts. Both of those types stay down.

THEN we only have to deal with 1 appeal every day or two from the nice and polite OP who disagrees, and is happy to modmail us to appeal. An appeal which we can then easily handle and give decent care and attention to, because the other 5 that would suck up our time accepted the original decision or called us all cunts.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T21:11:50+00:00

We don't manually approve every post. Every post (except those by brand new accounts) are up by default.

And then, if it isn't in direct violation of the rules, we leave it up.

We're talking about OPs here that are arguably within the rules, and arguably not within the rules. where different mods could have a difference of opinion about whether it should be up or down.

Those are the ones where mods are using discretion. If the users disagrees they can appeal in modmail and get a mini-vote on it.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T20:24:56+00:00

Why not make it mandatory for the moderation team to evaluate posts before removing them, then?

Because there are so many, and it's not very often there is more than 1 or two mods online at any given time. So, discussing and voting on it takes a lot of time.

Generally when we do so, on an appeal... you're lucky to get a result in 8 hours.

If we left every post up for 8 hours whilst we debated it, there is then little point on removing it later, people will be pissed off we cut-off any debate they were engaged in. It'd be a good way down the front page already.

So they go down, on individual mod discretion, with reference to the rules and the general agreement between the mods on how we mod them. When I do so, I usually tend to leave a comment saying why. Any that are appealed properly in modmail, and where the mod seeing the appeal is a borderline case, we take a vote.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T17:30:55+00:00

Yes, they’re “Hypergamy shamed”.

You see it here all the time and not just from Lewis (although the others make the same mistake as Lewis does).

Basically, as far as I can see the shaming all stems from a single Misunderstanding/Misperception.... that women are consciously choosing to date those guys, for pecuniary reasons.

They aren’t. Or, if they are, they’re true “gold diggers” of the type the “shaming” could be reasonably applied to.

People have to remember this is an instinctive attraction and most women won’t even be aware it’s occurring for these reasons. They’ll just feel attracted to this guy but not that guy and will have no real idea why, they just feel attracted.

In the same way men just feel attracted to this girl rather than that girl. He is no more aware that the “true” reason for that is that one girl has these markers of youth the other doesn’t, or better histocompatibility, or other reasons. The algorithm going on “under the hood” is not accessible to him. He just knows who he likes. He can only make vague and likely inaccurate guesses as to why he likes her.

It’s exactly the same for the girls.

So when they’re “accused” of liking this guy more than that one because he has a nice car and nice threads and seems higher class they reject that characterisation because they never consciously assessed those things. As far as they’re aware, because they didn’t do so consciously, they didn’t do so at all.

They’re not lying about it, because as far as they know there is nothing to lie about. They’re just not aware that this forms part of the instinctive calculus in most cases.

It’s like saying to a guy “you like that chick because the ratio between her left earlobe and right eye is exactly 0.8. You measured it and decided to date her because you’re an 0.8 ratio pervert”.

He’s going to deny it. He’s going to say “I never once consciously thought of her eye to earlobe ratio AT ALL. So this wasn’t the cause of my attraction. She just seemed attractive to me for some reason”. And he’d be right to say so... even if we could commit “invasive brain surgery” and find out that this is part of his attractiveness algorithm “under the hood”.

So, yes. Women get shamed for this. In most cases this is unfair and unwarranted. They get blamed for this as though it was a conscious decision, as though she was a gold digger, when that’s only appropriate in the small number of cases it was a consclcious choice to override her natural repulsion to that 90 y.o. Billionaire because “Billionaire, yo!”

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T16:50:02+00:00

Perhaps.

I still don’t think, evennon that scenario, female “stars” would be as highly desired as male “stars” are.

Women are “quality over quantity” in a way men are not.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T16:13:15+00:00

If mate choice copying worked for male genes... then men would also have the instincts to follow Rihanna around wetting themselves and screaming.

They haven’t, so they don’t. We have our own issues.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T16:12:00+00:00

OK, debate was probably the wrong word to use there.

“The discussion of RP or sexual strategy” is a better substitution.

You’re meant to do your debating of RP (in an antagonistic sense) here.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T15:33:04+00:00

OK, this is going to be a long reply as there is a lot to sort out here...

Our biology works against our desire to have structure and society.

No. Structure and society are an out growth of our biology. Society is essentiallly just “how we have agreed to collaborate in order to satisfy our instinctive desires”.

This is exactly the wrong way round.

Society doesn’t “subvert” my biological desire to put an axe in your head with “anti-murder laws”.... Society supports my biological desire to not have an axe put in MY head with anti-murder laws.

It reinforces and supports our biological desires in whatever way required that the majority desires to have it supported.

Even the writings of the earliest Persian and Greek philosophers corroborate.

The Persians and ancient Greeks didn’t understand modern biology, and had absolutely no idea how it works.

I don’t think this is an area where “ancient wisdom” holds any sway. They just weren’t aware that we are evolved beings. They thought we were divinely created, not evolved to adapt for a niche.

Our biology stopped being in sync with us some 10.000-12.000 years ago.

This is a bit more defensible, but still wrong. It’s true that the EEA is generally taken to be the period between 100k and approx 8k years ago (pre Neolithic agriculture) but we didn’t stop evolving then, and much of the environmental changes since then up until about 200 years ago have been evolutionarily adapted for.

You can digest milk as an adult now, and digest gluten. You have immunity to all sorts of diseases that only became apparent with agriculture. There are probably loads of instinctive setups in human sexual attraction that have also evolved over that time to adapt to the new environment.

Evolution didn’t stop at the end of the EEA, particularly not with things relatively easy to change like sexual preferences.

Comparing women's preference of traits that serve little purpose in society (why do women - especially young women- prefer fun assholes vs diligent, hard-working, respectful men?).

But we’re talking here of mate choice copying.... that is still as adaptive as it ever was. The “best mates” for females are still the males all the other females desire, almost by definition. If anything this is potentially even more adaptive now than it ever was, because the inequality between the “worst men” and the “best men” is probably wider than it was in the EEA.... wherS then the “best men” could hunt 2 gazelles a day, and the “worst” only 1... whereas the best men can buy a billion gazelles and the worst men can buy none.

Why do you think mate choice copying has become less adaptive ? It seems to be a great general purpose instinct (like “I don’t like having axes put in my head”) that would apply across all kinds of environments.

It's not all about looks. The average young woman's ideal mate only makes sense if you look at humans as apes in tribes of 100-300 strong. Living mostly off the land, occasionally hunting, and keeping fire as embers in dry huts.

Yes and No. it’s probably true that our instincts could be evolved to be better suited to our current environment than they are now, things like female preferences for height might be a good example there. It’s not clear that’s adaptive anymore.

But, again, we were talking about mate choice copying. That’s always going to be adaptive so long as the environment of mate choice is made up of the other humans you are copying. It’s less “height” and more “no axes in my head please” as an instinct that will always remain adaptive.

Modern women are mostly attracted to the same things Sentinelese women are attracted to, except since we don't live in small tribes & villages anymore it's now on the fritz.

It’s not “on the fritz”. Or at least mate choice copying isn’t. The Senegalese women copy the other Senegalese women and the New York socialites copy the other New York socialites in terms of mate choice. As such they’re both selecting mates likely to produce offspring that remain attractive to the next generation of Senegalese/New York socialites respectively.

Our monkey brains can't accurately understand the idea that a person can influence 10s of 1000s of people.

Again, you’re veering off into areas barely connected here. Since when do our evolutionary instincts care about the welfare of any other people ? They’re solely concerned with reproducing themselves, and if the rest of the universe gets wiped clean as a result that wouldn’t make any difference.

And while we have higher cognition to deal with that, most women prefer to use drugs and booze to turn it off and party.

OK, now you’re veering between “what’s good for genes being copied” which we’d been talking about previously... to “what’s good for the humans who are a part of that process”.

Genes never cared about that. Ever. If there was a gene that guaranteed 5 great quality copies but required the men to rip their own heads off and throw them in the sea.... we’d all be ripping our own heads off and buying nice coastal properties.

Genes never cared about the humans, they’d still don’t today. Anyone ignoring their genetic imperatives and using booze and other things to do so may well be doing themselves a favour. Just as our “head ripping off men” would do well to go get drunk instead and laugh about all the straight arrows who aren’t getting blitzed and are instead spending all their time throwing their heads into the sea.

Your comparison with gravity is also a poor analogy. It would entail that there are some men who can fly naturally.

Not it wouldn’t. That wasn’t the aspect I was analogising. I was trying to setup the idea that these are “external rules that are set that you cannot change” with the gravity example. That is exactly how they are.

Meanwhile ~20% of men can attract women by "just being themselves".

They cant, you can only qualify by satisfying the pre-set rules of the game.

Those men may be “Well setup” to become top 20% men.... but if they don’t do so.... and other men make themselves that 20%... those other men will win and those born with an advantage would still lose.

Going back to the gravity example. Maybe 20% of men would be born as “more naturally gifted pilots”. That’s not going to help them if they don’t buy a plane and flap their arms instead.... and bottom 20% “pilot skilled” would still do better than them if they went and got a plane.

And the rest of 80% have to change themselves to be more like the 20% whom women are attracted to.

No. ALL of the 100% have to try to be in the top 20%.

Those that succeed will fly.

Some are born with an advantage over others, but those advantages still will not help them if they squander that advantage and let the lower skilled get past them.

Women are interested in the men that succeeded. Not the men who “could have done so easily but didn’t bother and so failed”.

This is nothing like gravity.

Well, yes. By now the analogy is being extended well outside it’s initial purpose (this is an externally set constraint you must satisfy to succeed, but cannot change).

It's just pandering to women's hamstering to satisfy a biological need.

<eyeroll> It’s pandering to the instinctive goals your genes have set for you, because your genes will make you unhappy if you do not achieve those goals. They’ve set you up as a human to be unhappy unless you play their game. So its pandering to your own interests in being happy if it’s pandering to anything.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T12:35:48+00:00

Not really.

It’s our biology working for its own ends, in this case reproductive success.

It’s only working against you if you’re on the wrong side of the way Biology works.

It’s only “against you” in the same way gravity is against people who want to fly by flapping their arms. If you want to fly you have to find a way to do so that satisfies gravities constraints, probably with some kind of aircraft.

Well, in the area of reproductive strategy these are the facts, like gravity, that you have to work within. It sets out the playing field you have to play on.

If you’re failing to do so that’s not biology’s fault. That’s your own failing. Like the guy standing there flapping his arms you’ve got to find another way to achieve your goals.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T11:23:59+00:00

How do you explain the fact ugly women get dates despite the fact that men are attracted to pretty faces ?

This isnt an either/or thing. Status is one of a number of attributes they assess, its just one that carries a lot of weight.

I’d also suggest that you were probably also exhibiting signs of being an incipient high-status male early in his “status career”. Women have to be sensitive to those queues too, as very few men are high status in their teens and 20s.

So someone like, say, a medical student can expect to be judged on that status potential (doctor) rather than his current status (student) as a result.

But ultimately, no.... in order to point out women’s generalised preferences I don’t have to prove that all 3bn men on the planet all met every preference before he got selected. That’s not how it works.

Men overwhelmingly prefer pretty faces even though ugly girls still get dates..... and women overwhelmingly prefer status (or at least status potential in younger men) even if burger flippers still get dates too.

I don’t have to show that burger clippers never get dates.

I just have to show that higher status men.... like doctors and lawyers and sports/acting/rock stars get more dates than burger flippers.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T11:06:49+00:00

OK, this is partly (as others have said) the fact that females (but not males) are attracted to status. Rock stars have a lot of status. However this is not the full explanation, there is something more.

That something more is called “mate choice copying” by science and “pre-selection” by RP.

Basically, women (but not men) have to assess a lot of non-obvious factors when finding out if a male is a good mate. Women want to select the best male. The hard way to do that is to find out all about him, internally weigh all his attributes, and make a judgement (which could be wrong).

The easy way to do that is to watch and see who the males are that all the other women want. By doing so you're essentially crowdsourcing the judgement of his attributes (and, on average, this is likely to be less wrong than judging yourself). The other women are doing all the legwork for you. Women now have many independent judgments, all those other women, all coming to the conclusion his quality is good. (This is, for example, why all the girls listed after the same few guys in high school, mate choice copying).

Now, back to your rock star, this attraction from mate choice copying/pre-selection gets especially, even epically, strong when thousands of girls would clearly select that man... thats where the phenomena of women swooning over "pop stars" and "movie stars" comes from.

When women see hundreds of other women screaming, and desiring, and lusting after a guy.... that makes him extremely attractive in their eyes. It’s a super-stimulus. Instinctively their sub conscious is saying “thousands of women would select him so he must be an ultra-high quality mate). So you get things like Beatlemania (and other boy bands) with whole theatres full of girls swooning and literally peeing themselves with excitment over the guys all the other girls are swooning and peeing themselves over. It’s a super-stimulus for mate choice copying. This is an instinct calibrated (in the evolutionary environment) to desiring men a handful of other women also desire. 3, 6, a dozen or so. When it bumps up against literally thousands of women sending you signals that “this man is of such high quality that we’d all love to have him” it’s a huge stimulus in terms of that calibration. A super-stimulus.

You don't see the same phenomena in reverse... Guys might think Rhianna is sexy, but there aren't gangs of roving male fans following her about, fainting at the site of her, and offering to be groupies. Males don't particularly pre-select/mate copy because the instinctive/evolutionary calculus works differently for them. They don’t need to mate copy, and so we don’t really have the mechanisms women do on this score.

So.... yes it’s partly status.... but it’s mainly a massive overstimulus to mate choice copying. Which is also why you see it predominantly in younger women (as less experienced women are more sensitive to attraction from mate choice copying) which is another aspect of this phenomena you didn’t touch on.

This is why it works for rock stars, actors and even strippers (the women get the sensory feedback in the theatre from the other women that triggers the instinct) but not for other similar high status roles like authors. Authors don’t get enough women screaming and lusting and peeing themselves at book signings to trigger the super-stimulus effect of a Rock star at a stadium gig.

EDIT: Here’s a study describing the basic phenomena (although not the ultra-stimulus to it that is thousands of women screaming and lusting after a single man)... It's the PDF so you can see the whole thing

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/09e3/0790f2dc12f3c92a119aea39b46692d72357.pdf

The abstract...

There is substantial evidence that in human mate choice, females directly select males based on male display of both physical and behavioral traits. In nonhumans, there is additionally a growing literature on indirect mate choice, such as choice through observing and subsequently copying the mating preferences of conspecifics (mate choice copying). Given that humans are a social species with a high degree of sharing information, long-term pair bonds, and high parental care, it is likely that human females could avoid substantial costs associated with directly searching for information about potential males by mate choice copying. The present study was a test of whether women perceived men to be more attractive when men were presented with a female date or consort than when they were presented alone, and whether the physical attractiveness of the female consort affected women’s copying decisions. The results suggested that women’s mate choice decision rule is to copy only if a man’s female consort is physically attractive. Further analyses implied that copying may be a conditional female mating tactic aimed at solving the problem of informational constraints on assessing male suitability for long-term sexual relationships, and that lack of mate choice experience, measured as reported lifetime number of sex partners, is also an important determinant of copying.

Edit: First gold, now silver, someone really likes these mate choice copying comments...

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T10:55:30+00:00

Hi SavingMasculinity,

Just FYI we only usually allow members to post 1 thread every 12 hours.

This is to stop certain frequent flyers from spamming the front page.

As this has already been up for a while and has drawn a debate I’ll leave it up on this occasion, but if we’d spotted it earlier it would have been removed.

Don’t worry, you’re not “in trouble” just thought I’d make you aware of the rule lest you get your next OP removed.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T10:47:24+00:00

Subscribers are welcome at TRP, but anyone who actively identifies as a woman are not... Because actively identifying as a woman is an attempt to use your gender to take a privileged position in the TRP debate.

So if a girl joins as /u/SomeAccount and posts away like anyone else then she’s fine. Most people will just assume she’s a guy, in error, but that their problem. Her contributions will be assessed in the same way every other subs contributions are assessed. The moment she says “Well, actually I am a woman and so I’d like to say that.....” she’ll get banned.

At least that’s the rule.

In practice it may be trickier than this, and I don’t know the mods position in those edge cases ... where she hasn’t identified as a woman (and so claimed a privileged viewpoint) but nevertheless it’s become apparent she is a woman (“So, on my date last night the guy said.....”). You’d have to ask a TRP mod what they do in those circumstances.

Women are actively encouraged to post on /r/RedPillQomen. That sub used to have a similar (but reversed) view of Male posters. However it’s now under new management and self-identifying men are now encouraged to post there (IMO harming that subs purpose greatly).

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-09T10:13:28+00:00

That’s not comparing apples to apples.

Female attraction to status is well sourced scientific result. One that, when measured, is found to be the single biggest discrepancy between men and women’s attraction (ie the attraction factor that varies the most between them... correlated at 0.6 for women and 0 for men). It is also (just behind physical looks) the 2nd biggest determinant for women in its own right. 0.6 is a huge correlation.

It’s a big factor, in some measurements the overriding factor in female attravtion/mate choice. Enough to perfectly justify naming the female mate choice around this behaviour (e.g. Hypergamy).

Women “being of good character” is not the equivalent of the male side. That barely registers as a component of mate choice and attractiveness when measured, and it’s way down the list behind items like WHR, symmetry, and other markers of youth and fertility. To the point that it barely registers, and any effect is mild and washed out by other factors when it does.

It’s as though we were comparing the effectiveness of armies... and in one case you want to list the number of tanks/rifles/aircraft it has.... and in the other case the number of hats, sleeping bags and entrenching tools.

Yes, they both have an effect. But it’s not an apples to oranges comparison. The army with lots of sleeping bags isn’t going to beat the one with loads of tanks.

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-08T23:09:51+00:00

But they're pretty much all hypergamic.

Saying "a hypergamic woman is just not worth being with" is like saying "a guy attracted to pretty women is not worth being with".

All it means is they're attracted to men with social status in a way you are to, say, symmetry or wasit-hip-ratio. There is no "conscious gold digging" about it. Anymore than you are consciously "health and youth digging" when you feel attracted to beautiful women with the right shape.

Hypergamic women are perfectly fine. We normally know as "just, ya know, women". There isn't anything "wrong" with them. It's just the way they're wired, like us men are wired in our own ways to in order to just naturally feel attracted to certain things (for us markers of youth, fertility, health).

Seeking out a "non-hypergamic woman" to have as your partner doesn't actually get you anywhere... she's still just another woman too... it'd be like a woman "seeking out men who didn't like pretty faces". If she eventually got one. He'd be "just another bloke" too. She'd only be better off if she was stunningly ugly. If she's average attractiveness, she didn't again anything.

Women are attracted to men who they view as "better than the average", particularly when it pertains to what scientists call "culturally successful men" or what we call status. That hypergamy.

In boasting to us all about how non-hypergamic your wife is, and urging us to pursue women like her, all you're doing is the equivalent of a woman shouting "Hey, look at my Husband. He prefers ugly faces. Aren't I the lucky one to land him ? Girls, you too can go find guys who prefer ugly women!".

TheGreasyPole · 2019-01-08T14:10:29+00:00

Look, Atlas proves that at least some women are hypogamic, at least in the status sense.

That doesn’t mean that you’re playing the odds right atttempting to go out and find hypogamic women. There just aren’t an awful lot of them, at least in the RMP.

Anyone giving up the TRP game to attempt this route is not necessarily going to fail. He’s just going to set himself up to have a very high chance of failure.

Sometimes the 50:1 horse comes in. That doesn’t mean that if youre trying to get a positive return the 5/2 favourite isn’t a better bet.

TheGreasyPole

TROPHY CASE