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.
I'm convinced that X has just become extremely broken since Musk took over.
I made an account again way back in Dec 2024. After about a month, it got randomly banned without any explanation. Which is odd given that I never even made a single post, just a few retweets. I appealed multiple times but never got a response.
Few weeks ago I found the login details for one of my old twitter accounts which I've been using.
I checked my profile on another browser (not logged in) and it just shows "this user has no posts" - huh? Thinking I might be shadow banned or some shit again.
So I go and check @Vermillion-Rx profile. And all of his "recent" posts are 2 years old.
Maybe it's not just my accounts then.
Second, and my specific point, is that what the female attraction circuits perceive as "good" might have nothing to do with adaptive quality
I've been saying similar for years.
I am kinda average looking , slim And of avg height (178 cm). I tried bulking up but I got injury which put me out for a solid 3 years.
As others have said, focus on getting in shape. It makes a dramatic difference. The more in shape that you are (mosre muscle, lower bodyfat) the more leeway you get in terms of game.
Since I wasn't getting dates irl so, got good photos and downloaded hinge. Got 80 matches of which Managed to score 3 dates. All 3 unmatched after first date and didn't pursue for a 2nd one.
Dating apps are a whole thing in and of themselves, and there's a science to them. Some of the other guys on here aren't the biggest of fans, but I get most of my dates/lays from them and I've spent an awful lot of time into figuring them out.
You have to think of dating apps as a marketing funnel.
You have multiple steps - Match -> Open -> Message -> Arrange -> Date -> Lay
At each stage of the "funnel" women are going to drop off for a multitude of reasons. But, you need to look at each stage of the funnel objectively and ask yourself where are women falling off, and where can I improve?
If most don't respond to your opener, improve the opener. If they drop off during conversation, make it more engaging. You get the idea.
tried doing "game", maintained a playful smile with intense eye contact, flirting constantly. I asked them about themselves, made sure to keep the conversation to themselves.
I'm getting sperg vibes. What I think is happening here is that there is an inconsistency between the persona you are trying to convey and your actions. Women pick up on that shit instantly.
It's not all about hardcore game, A&A etc. That can sometimes be too robotic and inauthentic.
It's a hard balance to maintain, but with practice it gets easier. I'd suggest posting some Field Reports so we can really dive into what went wrong and why.
Read MoreSecond, and my specific point, is that what the female attraction circuits perceive as "good" might have nothing to do with adaptive quality, and be just a superstimulus. That's how psychopathy holds a niche in societies. It's not women's business to contain it: that's left to the wider society. Women have notoriously narrow social scope, and their limiting switches are external.
Well it's essentially novelty within a scope, right. So traits that are novel or stand out from the rest of her social bubble are going to stand out and be attractive.
But those attractive traits still generally follow the same playbook. Good looks, tall, strong, social proof, status, provisioning etc.
My point is that today there is really nothing inherently "good" about the female sexual strategy boosting "good" male genes. Whether a "superstimulus gene" proves adaptive, neutral or maladaptive takes several generations, and has no straightforward relation to the person's wellbeing.
Evoluiton is inherently about trying random shit and seeing what sticks. But the idea of passing on better genes to your offspring is pretty hardwired.
But it's also selfish. If she can mate with a "good genes" guy, there's at least a chance she can get some benefit from said guy.
Read More@adam-l I totally agree that pedestalling female sexual strategy seems to be the entire substrate of a lot of this society's art, literature, TV and film. This is, amusingly enough, a social construct.
The left like to tell us that facts like gender are social constructs. That is untrue. They are reality.
What is true that a fact like female dual sexual strategy can be used to create a social construct. Society has worked very successfully without unchecked female sexual strategy being dominant but we are tod this is the way of the world. It would be constraining and morally wrong if it were otherwise. this is a social construct that is damaging society.
Where it gets interesting is in the interplay between the sexual strategies. This is where art, film and literature suddenly start to become powerful. But this is very rare today. When one sex is on top, the other has to get very creative. Today men are getting creative. Life is getting interesting again.
Read MoreLet me elaborate:
I'm not claiming that "nothing inherently good". Obviously, looks is inherently good, and related to good health.
I mainly have psychopathy in mind, as well as other "fast life" genes.
The most represenaltative example is Huntington's disease. It's genetic, leathal, and has a higher representation in the population than what would be expected, mainly because it leads to disinhibition, and women like that.
So, a specific trait that is attractive to females "might have nothing to do with adaptive quality". This is the area of "genetic viruses".
Mine is all an argument against the pedestalization of the female sexual strategy. I believe that nowadays, that it is endorsed by the system and is protected from the male-sociey's checks, it is detrimental rather than adaptive, the same way a virus let loose on a virgin population.
Read MoreI was reading Rollo's takedown of the Mate Switching Hypothesis in favor of the Dual Mating Strategy and I want to raise an issue that is monumental, but doesn't receive the proper attention.
It has to do with the "good genes" part of the DMS. First thing, "good genes" means "good in the context of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA)". That much is acknowledged.
Second, and my specific point, is that what the female attraction circuits perceive as "good" might have nothing to do with adaptive quality, and be just a superstimulus. That's how psychopathy holds a niche in societies. It's not women's business to contain it: that's left to the wider society. Women have notoriously narrow social scope, and their limiting switches are external.
Evolution famously proceeds in random directions.
My point is that today there is really nothing inherently "good" about the female sexual strategy boosting "good" male genes. Whether a "superstimulus gene" proves adaptive, neutral or maladaptive takes several generations, and has no straightforward relation to the person's wellbeing.
Read More