RULES
The Hub is moderated for decorum. Please follow these rules while participating in The Hub:
- Be courteous and friendly to new members.
- Do not attempt to scare off new users from using the platform.
- Do advertise your Tribes and invite users to join conversations in them.
- Always Follow Our Content Policy
These rules only apply to The Hub with the exception of the content policy which is site-wide. Please observe individual tribe rules when visiting other tribes.
Sick of Rules? Want to Shit-talk?
Join The Beer Hall
Want a FLAIR next to your name? Send a message to redpillschool. Reasonable requests will be granted.
Have questions? Ask away here!
Join our chatroom for live entertainment.
death sentance for her children right?
Yeah she tries her best to be selective. Nature is trying to be selective, think about it next time when you go to a doctor, hospital or get miraculous medicine.
Imagine what - bitches are spoiled and they will be thinking all they get, they deserve. Simp conditioned women especially. Kind of when you think its only natural to treat an abscess at the dentist so you dont die from sepsis.
Redpill is science.
In the next paragraph I have pasted grog answer to your questions. Don't rely on answer from an entity that will sell itself out sooner or later (like Google did), but say you can paste this kind of AIstuff in your question and ask, do you agree. It will be easier to pick out bulshit AI generates rather than wrie everything from scratch.
Read the sidebar.
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Your intuition is solid and aligns with core evolutionary biology—parental investment theory (from Robert Trivers, 1972) does predict that women should generally be more selective and "coy" about sex than men. Females bear the heavier obligatory costs of reproduction: 9 months of pregnancy, lactation, and years of child-rearing in ancestral environments where a single mother (or her kids) faced higher mortality risks without reliable male investment or kin support. Males could reproduce with far lower per-offspring costs, so they evolved greater eagerness for opportunistic sex. This asymmetry makes women the "choosier" sex overall, especially for long-term mating. But the apparent conflict with "if she likes you, she won't make you wait" isn't a real contradiction once you factor in dual (or strategic pluralism) mating strategies. Evolution didn't wire women for one rigid rule ("always wait for commitment"). Instead, women evolved flexible psychology that trades off between two overlapping goals:
Long-term strategy: Prioritize reliable providers, good character, resources, and parenting traits. This is where high selectivity and waiting for commitment signals shine—historically, it reduced the odds of being abandoned with kids in a high-mortality environment. Short-term strategy: Prioritize "good genes" indicators (physical attractiveness, symmetry, masculinity, dominance, status, health). When a man strongly signals these, women can pursue uncommitted sex because the potential genetic payoff (healthier, more attractive offspring who themselves reproduce more—"sexy son" hypothesis) can outweigh some risks. This often ramps up around ovulation (fertile window), when conception is possible.
In other words: "Liking you" in the community sense usually means sexual attraction triggered by high short-term mate value. That flips the switch to faster sex because the evolutionary calculus shifts—it's not "random guy who might ghost"; it's "this guy's genes are worth the gamble right now." Extra-pair copulations (affairs) while in a primary pair-bond follow the same logic: secure investment from one man, sneak good genes from another. Studies of infidelity and mate preferences consistently show affair partners rated higher on attractiveness/physical quality than primary partners. Historical/ancestral risks weren't ignored by evolution You're right that casual sex with a non-committed man was risky for kids' survival in pre-modern environments (no welfare, high infant mortality). But:
It wasn't zero-sum—kin/allomaternal care (grandmothers, aunts, siblings) often helped. Short-term matings were likely rarer and more opportunistic, not the default. The dual strategy allowed women to hedge: pair-bond for resources, opportunistically seek better genes when cues were strong.
This isn't "anti-monogamy"; humans evolved pair-bonding and infidelity psychology. Both sexes show short-term strategies, but men's is stronger on average (desire for more partners, lower time-to-sex threshold). Your self-answer nails the modern resolution Yes—birth control, abortion, economic independence, and welfare states massively lower the costs that shaped ancestral selectivity. Sex no longer reliably leads to "stuck with consequences for years." This lets short-term strategies express more freely without the historical death sentence for offspring. Hormonal contraceptives can even tweak preferences (some evidence they reduce preference for masculine "good genes" traits and alter relationship satisfaction if started mid-relationship). Real-world data backs the nuance:
Many couples (30–40%+) have sex within the first month (or sooner if strong chemistry); only a minority wait very long. But delaying sex does correlate with better long-term relationship quality, satisfaction, and stability—suggesting the "wait" heuristic still serves the long-term strategy well for many. Women remain choosier overall (fewer lifetime partners desired, higher standards), but individual variation is huge: sociosexuality (openness to uncommitted sex), own mate value, cycle phase, culture, and personal values all modulate it.
The community advice is a useful heuristic (signal high value → trigger her short-term psychology), but it's not universal law—plenty of women still enforce waits for emotional safety, values, or long-term screening, even when attracted. Evolution built trade-offs and flexibility, not a simple on/off switch. Your original hard-wiring view captures the default/long-term bias perfectly; the "no wait if she likes you" bit just reveals the short-term side that modern conditions have unmasked. No deep conflict—just layered, context-sensitive adaptations.
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
Women are 5x more likely to kill themselves than be killed by an (ex)partner.
The rest is grogAI
Intimate partner homicides (IPH; current or former partner)
In short: For research, the closest proxies are overall female IPH rates (~0.5–1.0 per 100,000 women in the listed countries) plus qualitative risk-factor evidence that stepchildren (especially hers) elevate danger.
United Kingdom (Femicide Census + DHRs; excellent case-level detail)
Period: 2014–2023 (≈10 years; Femicide Census covers all men-killing-women cases). Reported female IPH (by current/ex-partner): ≈60–62% of women killed by men are by current/ex intimate partners. Annual total women killed by men: 120–150; IPH portion ≈60–80/year. 2009–2018 (prior 10y benchmark): 888 women killed by current/ex partners out of 1,425 total men-killing-women cases. Current vs. ex-partner: In recent years (e.g., 2021–2022), ≈51–53% of women killed by men were by current/ex partners; 37–52% of those involved separation or steps to leave. Children/stepchildren proxy: In 2021 example, 28% of victims had children under 18 (her own). DHRs: dependent children in ≈52% of households (victim
Read MoreAI? More like GAY-AI! This game was fun but it made me confront how AI is really our doom. Shrek, please save us from this mess!
Death sentence? Are you going to the most autistic extreme? There are plenty of kids that are alive with single moms. These moms later find a husband. You're thinking in absolutes and also have no idea what you're talking about.
Stop mentally masturbating bro.
I can't believe you're bitching about getting laid.
Go out in a wife beater and sweatpants with gravy stains on them. See if you get women when you are looking like shit.
I don't have problems getting women, but I don't think it's hard at all. Guys want bigger problems instead of success. Challenge yourself in other ways.
The issues from the 1970s warned about an upcoming ice age. By the 1990s, the same retards were worried about "global warming".
Careful, here. You're repeating uncritically, the retconning propaganda of oil and large industrial interests, with massive profits on the line in convincing the masses that "Environmentalists are full of shit." This superficial summary completely leaves out the REASONS that a manmade ice age was a real threat in the 70s, and that the legitimate threat changed to global warming by the 90s. I will now show that the ACTUAL non-predictive bullshitters all along, are those who claimed that "Environmentalists will bankrupt industries and take away cars and trucks."
During the postwar industrial boom, the population explosion helped drive a massive increase in particulate emissions, along with "invisible" CO2. One effect was worldwide particulate smog that blocked a significant percentage of solar input reaching ground level. Projections of growth of population and industry from 1950s numbers, solidly forecast a long and strong enough change to the very albedo of planet earth, to precipitate a new ice age.
One example you can see right in your NatGeo collection: Historical Ansel Adams photos of the crisp clear splendor of the remote Yosemite Valley. Then photos from the 70s where the same view was obscured for 200+ days a year by particulate emissions from power plants hundreds of miles upwind, then later with many times the population but with emissions equipment mandated into place, the view once again clear for 200+ days a year. Growing up in Los Angeles, in the 70s smog days were so bad that elementary students weren't allowed out into the playground to exercise and increase our respiration rate of the sickening brown soup that obscured the view just across the school's own athletic field.
Particulate filters an NOx scrubbers, are expensive at the individual vehicle level, but scale up very efficiently, to a percentage of production output to emissions capture, in big "smokestack" industries. The last frontier yet unconquered, is capturing the "invisible' CO2 emissions at scale.
Thus, emission reduction mandates that gained traction in the late 60s-70s, got realized in effective installed equipment through the 80s. So, entering the 90s, sun-blocking particulate emissions were on the downswing, while "invisible" CO2 emissions continued scaling upward with fossil fuel burning. Thus comes the positive feedback loop of "Radiative forcing" for which there is a detailed Wiki article. CO2 does not significantly block incoming solar radiation, but it DOES block the reradiation of the different wavelength back out to space. Thus, the "greenhouse effect." The steady increase of particulate blocking of insolation, no longer matches the steady increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
This is the PHYSICAL MECHANISM by which concern over "impending ice age" in the 70s, got replaced by legitimate concern over "impending global warming."
After receiving much rightful ridicule over the years, they started calling it "climate change".
Actually a direct response to dip shits saying, "Hurr durr, just shoveled 10 inches of Global Warming out of my driveway!" which is a weather not a climate factor.
A specific example of these dumb-fuck appeal memes getting injected into the popular culture. Studies made in the early 90s examined the entire life cycle of using biomass instead of fossil fuel for large scale power generation. Every aspect of the cycle, from fuel burned and CO2 generated during planting, harvest, transport, meticulously accounted for and the net CO2 impact,compared to the impact of the same amount of power generated by fossil fuel inputs. Turns out, renewable biomass is a much lower net producer of CO2, compared to extracting and burning carbon based fossil fuels.
Some crops, notably hemp, were found to result in a net REDUCTION in CO2. In other words, the growth of the plant, absorbed more CO2 out of the atmosphere, than the whole farming, transport, and ultimate burning in a power plant, ultimately released back into the atmosphere. Side note, hemp burns SO hot, that there have been cases of power plants built for other inputs getting damaged when burning large seizures of marijuana crops.
Anyway, I heard when that fat fuck Rush Limbaugh reported this finding, twisted to suit the agenda of the fossil fuel producers who paid for the $800 dollar surrogate penis cigars he loved to get photographed smoking. He said in a voice dripping with contempt and "Stupidest shit ever heard" snideness, "These environmentalist wackos said, that global warming can be stopped... by growing marijuana. Then his out-tro theme sound as he went to commercial. This is a nuts-and-bolts citation, of one exact mechanism of petrochemical industry favoring propaganda, getting delivered to the right wing masses, on the basis of ZERO actual understanding or legitimate critical analysis.
Read More@Typo-MAGAshiv with RPS it doesn't count,
Besides he should stop the service only for you but something got buggy and it stopped for everyone
she waits for sex because bad things happen
A woman will make a beta wait. Not out of fear of consequence, but appearing selective and baiting the beta keeps things in her frame. A woman plays the good innocent girl role, but you're her bitch. She wants you to choose her, chase her, "fight for her." Etc.
Theyre not hardwired to wait. They are hardwired to go with a man that serves them best at that time.
Now, they may not put out right away. I call that a good thing. It might even be better that you enrich her life with a good dose of KINO and then refuse to sleep with her on tbe first date. If she doesnt fuck until the 4th date, you gotta pull the plug on it. Plate broken, womp womp
Women arent afraid of having kids with the more alpha guys. They might not even consider it. The tingles will make her decisions for her.
That said, don't see everything as alpha/beta and just relax.
Read More