And off we go!
(If you want me to go down the rabbit hole further, I certainly can, but this is long enough to begin.)
What isthe coreof an interpersonal relationship? That is, what is the essential element, the glue, that keeps two people together? Would you be with your wife or husband if you could never have sex with them? The answer to that question is no, you wouldn't. You would find someone with whom you could (orwant...) to have sex with. Almost all relationship issues boil down, at the bottom, as sexual or attraction issues. Every divorce, every breakup, every cheating instance at its most basest form are lack of attraction issues.I love you but I'm not in love with youis the famous line heard far & wide, all across the land. This essential element then, this glue, of interpersonal relationships is sex, for both men and women. Spreadsheet guy recently proved it, Eat Pray Love proves it, every time someone cheats, that's why. Every time someone actuallyenters intoa relationship, sex is why. Yes, there may be other reasons that support the relationship; maybe both of you like the color blue or whatever, but those are not essential elements - i.e., they don't have to be there for the relationship to form. The sex does. It's essential for a marriage, LTR just as it is for a hookup. Why? Because we're animals, and our limbic impulses, our instinctual urges, must be fulfilled per nature's behest. Not because god said so. Not because we're 'in love' or other religious ways to describe it. Because nature is as it is.
So then, we must focus our lens on attraction and its generators, because that's what leads to and maintains a healthy sexual relationship, and by only the way of real, carnal attraction can true sexual satisfaction be fulfilled. Not through negotiation of desire, not throughrationalityorreasoned thoughtcan this impulse be fulfilled. It's limbic, propagated through many thousands of years in an evolutionary process that created you, here today. Your rational thoughts, although they help you drive cars and bake pies,do notdictate to this impulse what is attractive and what isn't.It just is, as nature just is. And regardless of what feminism spews at us,men and women arefundamentally different, but complement each other. And as such, what they find attractive will be different (but complement).
What iscarnally attractiveto women but not men?Dominance,forced compliance, andasshole behaviorwhen they're most fertile. When they're not, things likeagreeableness, kindness, and faithfulness; conveniently, this is the same traits they look for in a long-term mate when they're older (and again, less fertile). This is women's sexual pluralism, defined by RP: an innate, unconscious sexual strategy driven by biology and proven by science.
How do women fulfill this pluralism? How do they find the James Bond asshole who will play American Dad to their children? The answer is they won't; that man is like a male unicorn because those traits are almost mutually exclusive. The truth is, men are a small mix of both, but you cannot truly be a James Bond while being an American Dad, and vice versa; the personalities can't exist together because what separates them makes them each a respective personality. So then, we arrive: the ideal situation for a woman is short-term mating with Mr. Bond and long-term provisioning with Mr. Dad. That's the way a woman can get both the best genes and the best provisioning. Or the RP tl;dralpha fux, beta bux.
This is the reasoning, the premises and the conclusion behind one of the cornerstones of RP thought, based wholly in science, not in idealism as relationships are described by mass society and people here.
For married men, this is hard to swallow. You were likely not your wife's first choice; you likely were not her best sex; and you likely would not have been chosen had one of the alpha cads, the tatted meathead, the jerkboy, the rocker, etc she blew in the bathroom at 22 continued to dominate her and she plopped out a kid. Or maybe you're taking care of that cad's kid now.
It's cuckoldry. And as men, as RP-aware men, we reject this arrangement: a LTR or marriage with a woman who maximizes this isused goodsbecause when the woman was and is most fertile, when she was the most attractive to us as men in her youth,she slept with countless menwith the traits mentioned above, the kind who justgave her Skittles. So as the theory goes, the best of her femininity, her sexuality was given to someone else for nothing. And as we noted above that men and women are fundamentally different, theresearchshows that more sexual partners affect women more than men or aka again, women becomeused goods.
I know this sounds very depressing - it should be for a time, butits simply nature being nature, no right or wrong, onlyjust is. Once you reach that level of epiphany, there's no emotion attached to the analyses, only objectivity.
Welcome to reality, gentlemen.
So then, we must focus our lens on attraction and its generators, because that's what leads to and maintains a healthy sexual relationship, and by only the way of real, carnal attraction can true sexual satisfaction be fulfilled. Not through negotiation of desire, not throughrationalityorreasoned thoughtcan this impulse be fulfilled. It's limbic, propagated through many thousands of years in an evolutionary process that created you, here today. Your rational thoughts, although they help you drive cars and bake pies,do notdictate to this impulse what is attractive and what isn't.It just is, as nature just is. And regardless of what feminism spews at us,men and women arefundamentally different, but complement each other. And as such, what they find attractive will be different (but complement).
What iscarnally attractiveto women but not men?Dominance,forced compliance, andasshole behaviorwhen they're most fertile. When they're not, things likeagreeableness, kindness, and faithfulness; conveniently, this is the same traits they look for in a long-term mate when they're older (and again, less fertile). This is women's sexual pluralism, defined by RP: an innate, unconscious sexual strategy driven by biology and proven by science.
How do women fulfill this pluralism? How do they find the James Bond asshole who will play American Dad to their children? The answer is they won't; that man is like a male unicorn because those traits are almost mutually exclusive. The truth is, men are a small mix of both, but you cannot truly be a James Bond while being an American Dad, and vice versa; the personalities can't exist together because what separates them makes them each a respective personality. So then, we arrive: the ideal situation for a woman is short-term mating with Mr. Bond and long-term provisioning with Mr. Dad. That's the way a woman can get both the best genes and the best provisioning. Or the RP tl;dralpha fux, beta bux.
This is the reasoning, the premises and the conclusion behind one of the cornerstones of RP thought, based wholly in science, not in idealism as relationships are described by mass society and people here.
For married men, this is hard to swallow. You were likely not your wife's first choice; you likely were not her best sex; and you likely would not have been chosen had one of the alpha cads, the tatted meathead, the jerkboy, the rocker, etc she blew in the bathroom at 22 continued to dominate her and she plopped out a kid. Or maybe you're taking care of that cad's kid now.
It's cuckoldry. And as men, as RP-aware men, we reject this arrangement: a LTR or marriage with a woman who maximizes this isused goodsbecause when the woman was and is most fertile, when she was the most attractive to us as men in her youth,she slept with countless menwith the traits mentioned above, the kind who justgave her Skittles. So as the theory goes, the best of her femininity, her sexuality was given to someone else for nothing. And as we noted above that men and women are fundamentally different, theresearchshows that more sexual partners affect women more than men or aka again, women becomeused goods.
I know this sounds very depressing - it should be for a time, butits simply nature being nature, no right or wrong, onlyjust is. Once you reach that level of epiphany, there's no emotion attached to the analyses, only objectivity.
Welcome to reality, gentlemen.
(If you want me to go down the rabbit hole further, I certainly can, but this is long enough to begin.)
