garoupilled_
.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2022
- Posts
- 1,883
- Reputation
- 3,730
More often than not, redpillers are copers and tend to be dumb. Water. But the one thing they actually got right is in regard to female nature and psychological behavior - more specifically, the SMV theory and Briffault’s law - now, what are these?
The SMV theory, in short, specifies that women only date up - never their looksmatch. That's it. If a girl is with you romantically, or sees a guy that she would date/give a chance, subconsciously, she's already admitted to the idea that the guy has a higher sexual market value than her - or else, she wouldn't even glance at him, even if they were to be looksmatched, because women just don't work like that - they never go for someone equal or below them - only men do.
Now, Briffault’s law states that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” - swap "association" with "relationship" for a more modern interpretation. Briffault continues by adding these 3 main points to his law:
Point is, even though redpillers are major copers, indeed you need to be valuable to be taken seriously by women. That value can either be genetic, as in looks and height, or financial, whatever - but their mantra of self-improvement might not be a bad one after all. Just hamzamaxx bro
The SMV theory, in short, specifies that women only date up - never their looksmatch. That's it. If a girl is with you romantically, or sees a guy that she would date/give a chance, subconsciously, she's already admitted to the idea that the guy has a higher sexual market value than her - or else, she wouldn't even glance at him, even if they were to be looksmatched, because women just don't work like that - they never go for someone equal or below them - only men do.
Now, Briffault’s law states that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” - swap "association" with "relationship" for a more modern interpretation. Briffault continues by adding these 3 main points to his law:
- Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him. (Example: even if a woman is married to a man for decades, and he has never failed to provide for her once in that marriage, the moment he loses his job and goes broke is the moment she divorces and leaves)
- If a woman promises a man to continue her relationship with him in the future in exchange for a benefit received from him today, her promise becomes null and void as soon as the benefit is rendered. (Example: if a woman promises to be loyal to a man, but in actuality is with him for only a period of momentary interest, let's say, because he's paying something for her (education, a car, house, etc) the moment that interest is fulfilled (paid, in this case) she will leave him with no remorse or sense of entitlement whatsoever)
- A man’s promise of a future benefit has limited ability to secure a continuing relationship with a woman, and his promise carries weight with her only to the extent that the woman’s wait for the benefit is short and to the extent that she trusts him to keep his promise. (Example: women are immediatist and amoral in regards to resource accumulation - they would be more attracted to a thug who acquired wealth illegally/immorally, than a dedicated hardworking man with principles and high likelihood of acquiring lots of resources later on in life in a rightful manner)
Point is, even though redpillers are major copers, indeed you need to be valuable to be taken seriously by women. That value can either be genetic, as in looks and height, or financial, whatever - but their mantra of self-improvement might not be a bad one after all. Just hamzamaxx bro
