FEMALE STRATEGIES THAT MEN STILL DON'T KNOW - An analysis on how men and women view the opposite sex for relationships

Men want partnership, but it should be understood that due to the differences in sex drive means that a man always wants more sex than any one woman can provide. This has usually translated to various forms of concubineage historically. In fact many pre-modern societies practiced androcentric polygamy or quasi polygamy. Romans believed that a wife was merely for procreation. When she was born she was the property of her father and with marriage this ownership was transferred to her husband, alongside exclusive sexual access. Some things were considered odious for a married woman to perform, such as oral or anal sex. This is where prostitution and concubineage plays an important part. Concubines appealed to more romantic ideas and fantasies, a sort of elevated form of prostitution. Prostitution in its simplest form was merely a sexual release. If you define fetishism as anything that doesn't strictly pertain to procreation, this is where those needs were satisfied. It was seen as acceptable to defile a prostitutes mouth with oral sex. Anal sex was also possible here.
Although lack of fidelity was always theoretically punishable in both genders, it was usually the women who had harsher punishments for it.
Where keeping concubines wasn't always legally allowed there were practices that were tolerated. In fact in our own very West prostititution has always been a thriving industry. It was mostly married men who engaged in having sex with prostitutes.
Since women often died in childbirth it wasn't uncommon for a man to remarry
The biology of a woman does not support such a model of several partners because with her having to choose one man to impregnate her she must choose carefully. As no man is interested in raising offspring that isn't his, it is within her interests to stay with the male she had sex with. Not only that but it is a womans role to select for good attributes, ergo womans pickiness with whom she matrs with.

Male biology is completely different. A man can impregnate five different women in a single day. A horny man isn't always the best selector for genes because he has no nine month commitment for each successful act of procreation. In fact a horny man will often fuck a woman that is far beneath his genetic quality. Post nut clarity exists for a reason.

I think this is where you are confused. Men want some partnership, as in they desire to have exclusive sexual and reproductive access to women, but they gravitate towards polygamy due to their sex drive and ability to sire many children from different women simultaneously. A woman tends towards monogamy for the reasons I described. What changes is that a man, even though polygamous, doesn't have to  swap partners. He can add to his  harem for a lack of a better word. You see many species of mammals practicing this with one male holding access to several females, and IIRC this is quite common in primates too. Even in prehistory most men were incels if you follow the implication of some men holding several partners.

There has indeed been a change.

Two things:

Modern man is in every quantifiable less  fertile than his progenitors. Men have less testosterone and lower sperm count.

Modern woman has access to contraception.

What I am arguing based on this is that the idea of a man dreaming of one woman type marriage is a very modern idea. A virile, premodern man desired exclusive partnership, but it is more like that of a lion having access to a large flock of females to mate with. Some societies still practice this in some form, with Islam allowing marriage to several women simultaneously.

Since the sexual act is no longer tied to her having a 9 month commitment and other responsibilities, it means female sex drive is more pleasure based than ever before. She still selects for genetic qualities (like I said a horny man will fuck anything, even an ugly fat pig, but a woman doesn't operate the same way) when mating more than any man ever will (on consistent basis).

If anything I'd argue that in some way the roles of what has existed has been swapped. Where a man used to desire a harem of women and a woman the best possible genetic match as an exclusive partner, now a woman can keep a harem of attractive males while many men dream of one single sexual partner. Is this because the average man is unable to compete without strict forms of societal structures like marriage and ability to restrict female mating choice? I lean towards saying yes, but I am putting this far too simplistically. A poor buyer can only afford what he can haggle unlike someone with a fat purse (in this case genetic capital is what is used as bargaining chips).

I've had this on my mind for some time and I think I will do a proper write-up in a new thread. Sorry if what I wrote is rather disjointed and not very well presented.. I am writing this in bed, one phone, ready to rest. I think the rough idea what I'm saying is clear despite the poor presentation.

I enjoyed reading your thread, so this is also a bump.

Edit:

Old Finding but it somewhat relates to what I am saying.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: horizontallytall, poopoohead and Ryldoo IS COPING
The female gaze is all about having a mysterious story to you, provided youre above 5'11 and are atleast a white htn/ ethnic chadlite facially, with a good enough face and are nt like that is water. If u qualify that barrier, now u can work on the female gaze, which is having this story to you that never ends. Having far fetched ambitions that she might even laugh at but she will think of u more highly. Having things going on with u in life. Best way to be that is having a job where u gotta travel alot. There is a reason why women still fantasize about ww2 soldiers as their husbands who go to war, kill a thousand enemies and make it back with some wounds that now they take care of. Ive literally seen my female friends obsessing over certain stories like these. The general representation of an ideal man for a woman is a disney prince. Tall, wide, charming, deep voice, chad facially OFC, and has a story to himself. JUST STORYMAX BRO
 
  • +1
Reactions: poopoohead, BeanletMogger, HTN_Mentalcel and 1 other person
Focus on non NT jbs that stray from this “norm”
 
  • JFL
Reactions: poopoohead
Maybe if he didn't had his status and money, to me, she's the one who scored! Won't have to work ever again and every family member of her is retired rn.
Scored more than almost any athlete. Don't really get your point. This whole cuck nonsense about her not wanting him at first is peak looksmax garbage projection fanfiction.
 
That's why women are seeking fewer relationships nowadays, at least compared to men and to women of the past, because simply sharing a house with a man and discovering everything about him, with no secrets, nothing intriguing, no mystery, nothing to pique a woman's curiosity, is a big turn-off.
That's an interesting theory, but wholly wrong. Women are getting into less relationships because of them having little to no incentive to do so. They provide for themselves now, can obtain companionship through friends and fling relationships, and most are largely on some type of medication or birth-control that alters there hormones which can have a downstream effect upon who and what they find attractive.
Look at how many celebrities, after achieving fame and being able to have a vast number of women, often choose a girl they knew before fame, very attached to teenage crushes...
That just comes down to pair-bonding. Your first relationship will always feel stronger then any succeeding relationship thereafter because love is a lot like a drug, and you'll always be chasing after that first time. Also, the neurochemicals that produces these feelings of togetherness that is pair-bonding become down regulated after many relationships, so you quite literally don't feel the same about anyone as you did your first love.
Some say that technology is the problem, no, technology is not the problem, technology imitates the current power, which is feminine.
How can you even say that? We can see clear data from when the Iphone was invented, to when social media and dating apps started taking off, that there is a clear rise in male virginity with a sharp decline in relationships.
Helping them to separate men based on pragmatism because we are tools for them, it's almost as if they classify men as 'this one is a hammer, this one is a screwdriver,' each with its function: there's the beta orbiter friend (friendzone), the reproducer (hit it and quit it), the sugar daddy (microwave, heats it up for others to eat), and the emotional provision boyfriend who receives sex almost out of pity.
You are giving women way to much credit. They are not elaborately grouping men based on these superficial categories, rather they don't even recognize or care about the vast majority of men. They go for high-status, attractive, or rich men. Those are the three categories that matter, and will be what men should be optimizing for if they want to obtain a relationship with a quality girl.

This is the first post I've read on here in months and am now reminded why I left. You have written a bunch of psuedoscientific "psychology" that completely misses the mark. The fact that people are saying "muh high-IQ" goes to show the quality of this board is forever in a downward spiral.

If you want to understand female psychology read a popular romance novel like Fifty Shades of Gray, or The Secret Garden by Nancy Friday where women explicitly tell you what there sexual fantasies are, not this useless drivel that is leading men further away from how women actually think.
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: poopoohead
Men want partnership, but it should be understood that due to the differences in sex drive means that a man always wants more sex than any one woman can provide. This has usually translated to various forms of concubineage historically. In fact many pre-modern societies practiced androcentric polygamy or quasi polygamy. Romans believed that a wife was merely for procreation. When she was born she was the property of her father and with marriage this ownership was transferred to her husband, alongside exclusive sexual access. Some things were considered odious for a married woman to perform, such as oral or anal sex. This is where prostitution and concubineage plays an important part. Concubines appealed to more romantic ideas and fantasies, a sort of elevated form of prostitution. Prostitution in its simplest form was merely a sexual release. If you define fetishism as anything that doesn't strictly pertain to procreation, this is where those needs were satisfied. It was seen as acceptable to defile a prostitutes mouth with oral sex. Anal sex was also possible here.
Although lack of fidelity was always theoretically punishable in both genders, it was usually the women who had harsher punishments for it.
Where keeping concubines wasn't always legally allowed there were practices that were tolerated. In fact in our own very West prostititution has always been a thriving industry. It was mostly married men who engaged in having sex with prostitutes.
Since women often died in childbirth it wasn't uncommon for a man to remarry
The biology of a woman does not support such a model of several partners because with her having to choose one man to impregnate her she must choose carefully. As no man is interested in raising offspring that isn't his, it is within her interests to stay with the male she had sex with. Not only that but it is a womans role to select for good attributes, ergo womans pickiness with whom she matrs with.

Male biology is completely different. A man can impregnate five different women in a single day. A horny man isn't always the best selector for genes because he has no nine month commitment for each successful act of procreation. In fact a horny man will often fuck a woman that is far beneath his genetic quality. Post nut clarity exists for a reason.

I think this is where you are confused. Men want some partnership, as in they desire to have exclusive sexual and reproductive access to women, but they gravitate towards polygamy due to their sex drive and ability to sire many children from different women simultaneously. A woman tends towards monogamy for the reasons I described. What changes is that a man, even though polygamous, doesn't have to  swap partners. He can add to his  harem for a lack of a better word. You see many species of mammals practicing this with one male holding access to several females, and IIRC this is quite common in primates too. Even in prehistory most men were incels if you follow the implication of some men holding several partners.

There has indeed been a change.

Two things:

Modern man is in every quantifiable less  fertile than his progenitors. Men have less testosterone and lower sperm count.

Modern woman has access to contraception.

What I am arguing based on this is that the idea of a man dreaming of one woman type marriage is a very modern idea. A virile, premodern man desired exclusive partnership, but it is more like that of a lion having access to a large flock of females to mate with. Some societies still practice this in some form, with Islam allowing marriage to several women simultaneously.

Since the sexual act is no longer tied to her having a 9 month commitment and other responsibilities, it means female sex drive is more pleasure based than ever before. She still selects for genetic qualities (like I said a horny man will fuck anything, even an ugly fat pig, but a woman doesn't operate the same way) when mating more than any man ever will (on consistent basis).

If anything I'd argue that in some way the roles of what has existed has been swapped. Where a man used to desire a harem of women and a woman the best possible genetic match as an exclusive partner, now a woman can keep a harem of attractive males while many men dream of one single sexual partner. Is this because the average man is unable to compete without strict forms of societal structures like marriage and ability to restrict female mating choice? I lean towards saying yes, but I am putting this far too simplistically. A poor buyer can only afford what he can haggle unlike someone with a fat purse (in this case genetic capital is what is used as bargaining chips).

I've had this on my mind for some time and I think I will do a proper write-up in a new thread. Sorry if what I wrote is rather disjointed and not very well presented.. I am writing this in bed, one phone, ready to rest. I think the rough idea what I'm saying is clear despite the poor presentation.

I enjoyed reading your thread, so this is also a bump.

Edit:

Old Finding but it somewhat relates to what I am saying.
Male dating strategies for obtaining females has always been a shotgun approach, whereas for women it's always been a sniper approach. That's a simplified, easier digestible way to think about what you're saying.

One thing that should be noted is that within pre-history polygny was only practiced because the population density for tribes wasn't large, so conflict could be kept to a minimum, and there was no civilizational structure to upkeep as we have now. As humans advanced into groups beyond tribes our societies became ever more complex, and monogamy out competed the polygamous groups, as cooperation always favored the monogomy adherents. I'd argue that most people nowadays, descending from more then likely a monogomous structure, are apt to repeat monogomy as an evolutionarliy sound relationship structure to uphold complex societies, and to outcompete there rivals. Incel men are a danger to complex societies, and is why monogomy has prospered for most of written histories.
 
  • +1
Reactions: poopoohead and karpeltunnel
Forum is not dead @MakinItHappen
 
Approximately 70% of all divorces are initiated by women, with the main reasons being financial problems and the famous 'wear and tear.' You know that classic line: 'Oh, it just wasn't like the beginning anymore and something is missing,' basically boredom. The truth is that men in a relationship have a very different psychology from women. The female psychology within a relationship has a biological clock for getting tired of the male...​

Car Breaking Up GIF by megan lockhart


Obviousness is a big turn-off and there's no avoiding it in a shared life under the same roof. That's why women are seeking fewer relationships nowadays, at least compared to men and to women of the past, because simply sharing a house with a man and discovering everything about him, with no secrets, nothing intriguing, no mystery, nothing to pique a woman's curiosity, is a big turn-off.

By design, a long-term relationship and life together is something that repels the feminine spirit, and as mentioned, this is evidenced by statistics, with women being the ones who initiate divorce the most, citing financial reasons (totally pragmatic, if he's not providing anymore, then he's no longer useful) and wear and tear (pure triviality, there are many things that can lead to this such as seeing famous couples on Instagram living a more exciting life, longing for multiple partners, the obviousness of already knowing that man). So, it makes sense to notice that when a woman reaches a certain age and is still single, she starts adopting cats.

adopts cat lady GIF


The behavior of a cat mimics that of a womanizer to a large extent; the cat only shows up when it wants to, only seeks affection when it wants to, if you try to pet the cat, it will usually not want it, it only comes on its own terms and is quite independent, leaving the house for days to procreate in the streets only to return later, pragmatically seeking cuddles and food; it's a behavior that is quite attractive to women.

On the other hand, men enjoy life together, the obviousness, and knowing their partner since the beginning of her life; they realize that the idea of boyfriends or spouses who were childhood friends is practically a male neurosis.

Look at how many celebrities, after achieving fame and being able to have a vast number of women, often choose a girl they knew before fame, very attached to teenage crushes...

messi_0-sixteen_nine.jpg


Waiting for the girl to be ready to take them as a consolation prize, like: 'Oh, Chad didn't want me, I've been with many guys... This one here is left, who waited for me all this time, now I'll settle for him.' These guys don't have the sagacity and the vision that we in this community have, the red pill/black pill is nothing more than a change in values and paradigms.

Before all of this, you probably didn't see this as a problem, dating a single mother, being a consolation prize; he is convinced that he is the best of the moment and not that the best man didn't want her. These men also don't realize that at 30 and 40 years old, if they've built something beyond appearance, they are at the peak of their career/intellect/physicality (if well maintained), while the woman, at the same age, is at the end of her career, swapping cats for hares, exchanging years of effort for the worst years of a woman's life, full of relationship baggage (which are not only biological, like children, they are also psycho-emotional, already somewhat traumatized by other 'toxic' relationships, guys who just used them and disappeared or did something else, full of baggage and a collection of problems that will have to be dealt with), but the normie man is not aware of this, and if you tell him about it? He'll call you paranoid because his value system does not align with yours.
We think very differently: 'if you're going to ask for this, you have to offer that.' Before, you valued one thing and today you value another, and your system doesn't align with the rest of society; if you demand what you think is fair? You'll be spat on by society. So, what's happening in the relationship market is that men are paying much higher than what you're willing to pay, simple as that.

Imagine you go to the market and oranges are priced at $100 per kilogram, and your nation's favorite fruit is the orange, everyone loves it, and men are willing to pay $100 for it, and it's also your favorite fruit, you would love to have an orange 😍... But do you think it's fair to pay that much for an orange? There's no use crying to the seller, because why would he sell it cheaply if there are plenty of people willing to pay more? So what's left for you? Joining a group of men who don't agree with the price of the orange or one that tells you how to improve yourself so you can pay less/or become accessible to you (literally the goal of 91% of this forum).

Saturday Night Live Nbc GIF by HULU


It all depends on how much money you have to spend and how much you're willing to haggle over the price per kilogram of oranges.

There are many self-proclaimed red pill creators who proclaim: 'tattoos are a red flag, more than X partners is a red flag,' and then the guy shows up with a girlfriend who has tattoos, dyed and short hair :lul:.

I'm not going to say that this guy is unhappy or coping because he might be happy... But you see, it's all about how much you're willing to overlook those values that you assumed after changing your paradigms, how much you want that kilogram of oranges and how much you're willing to pay.

So, understand, I'm referring to the price only in terms of money, which is not the only way you pay, such as: taking them out, going on trips, going to places you don't want to go, giving up certain hobbies. This tends to be the rule in most relationships, of course, there are cases where this doesn't happen, but when you start living together, you're no longer just one, there's more than one person to make happy besides yourself. And at least what is expected, said to the four winds, is: one day one does 80% and the other 20%, the next day you're lucky and both do 50%, and the next 70% and 30%, and so on... There are days when you have to give up more than your partner.

sad jeff buckley GIF by Greg Gunn


And I know, men love relationships, they like them more than women do, for simple reasons: we evolved as protectors and providers, benefiting throughout history in reproductive success with negotiation of fidelity and exclusivity, staying close to your partner, why? Because then other men wouldn't come near and disrupt the guy's reproductive process, preventing false paternities, with his beloved nearby, he could also provide and protect better, avoiding risks against predators, diseases, etc., being extremely careful with the receptacle of his genetics (AKA. Mother of his children), but the woman doesn't, she doesn't benefit as much from this system.

The woman benefits more from a system where she jumps from branch to branch, leaving several guys in the 'closet,' available for any need she may have (consolation prizes, providers, orbiting betas, and a reproductive partner).

Overall, women are very good at dividing men: friend, coworker, boyfriend, reproducer (AKA. Chad), and the consolation prize (that possible guy who will take her if everything goes wrong after 35).

That's the logic of our society because it's very feminine, and you can also observe it in a technocratic way, with this imitating feminine behavior. Men are complicated, still in this Neanderthal module, wanting one woman to be everything: a friend, a mother to their own and often to themselves, an emotional provider, and also a woman for sex.

And that's the problem with men, they're not playing well currently, the rules of the game are dictated by women, if they don't adapt, they will suffer.

Some say that technology is the problem, no, technology is not the problem, technology imitates the current power, which is feminine.

Valentines Day Love GIF by Jimmy Simpson


What are Tinder and Instagram if not catalogs of men for women?

Helping them to separate men based on pragmatism because we are tools for them, it's almost as if they classify men as 'this one is a hammer, this one is a screwdriver,' each with its function: there's the beta orbiter friend (friendzone), the reproducer (hit it and quit it), the sugar daddy (microwave, heats it up for others to eat), and the emotional provision boyfriend who receives sex almost out of pity.

All cataloged in the apps, remember that today people meet more through apps than in the real world, the metaverse is in full swing (people meet and relate more through the internet, a parallel world where they project what they want to be, not what they are. Because, well, the photos are only the best ones, the moments are only the best ones and don't show the real person (appearance and emotional state), almost like makeup (something widely used by women). If men were the prevailing powers, an androcentric society, we would see apps that cater to these masculine interests: marriage, parenthood, more conservative and right-wing interests (according to surveys, men are already leaning more to the right while women lean more to the left). So, Instagram in an androcentric environment would be very different.

Basically, you choose the man you want to be. If you want to be the reproducer, beta orbiter, sugar daddy, or the husband. I believe most will want to be the reproducer. You can't be all at the same time.

If you're too straight-laced, you won't get anyone excited. If you're a sugar daddy, you'll end up with an undeclared escort. If you're the husband, you'll be a mix of sugar daddy and beta orbiter. If you want to be the reproducer, you'll need to develop the required qualities through looksmaxing and not be too attached. If you can't, and still want the orange, you'll end up as one of the other three.

Many believe that the black pill/red pill is an almost magical esoteric awakening, reaching a higher level of consciousness or something like that, but it's merely a change of paradigms.

There are no harsher truths, no one true truth. Not even in the movie where these pills were taken (Matrix), the outside world is nothing more than a different world from what the Matrix is.

matrix GIF


No one knows if the outside world isn't also simulated, a matrix within a matrix.

So you've just changed your paradigms, your values are different, you value youth more, don't want older women with children, want virginity, and so on. The hard part is, you want that, but can you get it? And then comes the bargaining... 'Yeah, that's what I want, but they can't offer it, and I need to ejaculate... I just want to have sex with her and disappear... But who's going to cuddle with me? Is there someone else having sex with her too...? I want her just for myself...'

The more you want, the more you need to offer. Choose how much you want, show how much you have to offer, and how attractive you are.​
W thread
 
Male dating strategies for obtaining females has always been a shotgun approach, whereas for women it's always been a sniper approach. That's a simplified, easier digestible way to think about what you're saying.

One thing that should be noted is that within pre-history polygny was only practiced because the population density for tribes wasn't large, so conflict could be kept to a minimum, and there was no civilizational structure to upkeep as we have now. As humans advanced into groups beyond tribes our societies became ever more complex, and monogamy out competed the polygamous groups, as cooperation always favored the monogomy adherents. I'd argue that most people nowadays, descending from more then likely a monogomous structure, are apt to repeat monogomy as an evolutionarliy sound relationship structure to uphold complex societies, and to outcompete there rivals. Incel men are a danger to complex societies, and is why monogomy has prospered for most of written histories.
^^agreed. If you grew up in a household that was monogamous (99% of people in the west), you would most likely see that as the normal and more natural approach. Anybody in the West who talks about polygamy goes against his upbringing and the society that he at large grew up in. Polygamy is no longer natural for humans and hasn’t been for any civilized successful society in over a millennia.
 
  • +1
Reactions: poopoohead and Outlier

Imagine you go to the market and oranges are priced at $100 per kilogram, and your nation's favorite fruit is the orange, everyone loves it, and men are willing to pay $100 for it, and it's also your favorite fruit, you would love to have an orange 😍... But do you think it's fair to pay that much for an orange? There's no use crying to the seller, because why would he sell it cheaply if there are plenty of people willing to pay more? So what's left for you? Joining a group of men who don't agree with the price of the orange or one that tells you how to improve yourself so you can pay less/or become accessible to you (literally the goal of 91% of this forum).
Very insightful analogy. At the end of the day there's no point in complaining about the conditions female set, you simply need to meet the requirements one way or another. Adapt or die, those willing to change will demonstrate their fitness and others will die and fail their biological mission.

Many believe that the black pill/red pill is an almost magical esoteric awakening, reaching a higher level of consciousness or something like that, but it's merely a change of paradigms.
Agreed the blackpill isn't a mystical spiritual wavelength one discovers through meditation, it's just a different way of approaching life. Sometimes people are caught up in the pleasure of acquiring "esoteric ground-breaking information" when literally nothing has changed, you simply view life in a different perspective.
 
great thread
 
tldr, women are biologically monkey branchers/ hypergamy maxxers, and will always cheat even if its a tera chad. no amount of looks will hold the creature that are naturally programmed to kill you and replace you.


modern era : 2-3 children with a male, steal his resources and then monkeybranching

10000 bce: 1 child per man, then backstab and kill him, steal his resource and move to a bigger chad. rinse and repeat,
till their biological clock runs out.

so 10 - 15 childrens per woman till she dries up like the water in south sudan.
 
Very true. Especially the cat part.

Which gives credibility to my posts about how my aunts cat acts human and fucks her clothing and acts like a man in a cats body. I always knew women loved cats because they’re the closet thing to bad boys that women can get. They’re independent, selfish, arrogant and evil. That’s why I loved the day my dad’s friend showed me and my dad a kitten locked in a cage and how he blow torched the kitten to death in front of us. Such a beautiful memory.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: LancasteR

Similar threads

RichmondBread
Replies
2
Views
138
Hardrada
Hardrada
Freixel
Replies
8
Views
385
darkness97
darkness97
letsgetout
Replies
16
Views
334
Funnyunenjoyer1
Funnyunenjoyer1
Subhra26
Replies
0
Views
167
Subhra26
Subhra26

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top