Post: #1

What kind of man are you? Women place men into two general categories: the Lover and the Provider. The lover is the bad boys they have sex with. The Provider are the good guys they have as boyfriends and marry. Even within those two categories they are subcategories. There are two types of Lovers: the Boy Toy and the Alpha Male. The Boy Toy is usually under 25 with model good looks. The Alpha male is masculine, strong, and assertive. The Provider also have sub-categories: there is the traditional Provider who is financially well off and is able to "provide" for a woman and a family. But there is also a new type of Provider: the Supporter. The Supporter role is to support a woman while she goes out to conquer the world, very much like women did for men in the 50s. More and more Western career women are looking for this type of man - a Supporter.

So what kind of women want which type of man? Well, if you are Heidi Klum with lots of money you don't need any kind of Provider. So you go out and find a lover and the older you get the younger you want the lover to be to validate you. So you go get a Boy Toy. If you are a young girl who also doesn't need a Provider because daddy has got you banked then you will also want a lover but to validate yourself you will want an Alpha male. A career woman looking to marry or have a children will want a Supporter. And a woman that is in need of financial support will still want a traditional Provider. Or if she's young, a Sugar Daddy.

To understand what kind of women will be looking for you, you have to first be completely honest with yourself about which of those four types of men you are. If you are over 25 or not that good looking you can't be a Boy Toy. If you don't have money you can't be a traditional Provider. If you don't have a lot of self-confidence and don't have a strong masculine internal image then you can't be an Alpha male. So what does that leave? What a lot of men are today: a Supporter. Men are becoming what women want

Post: #2

Quite interesting. Career women and women from upper-middle class (daddy's princess) have no need at all for traditional beta providers, and they can have an alpha every now and then.

What they need are sentimental supporters, which they have via their homosexual male friends and emasculated, ultra blue-pill betas like pajama boy, which are essentialy orbiter eunuchs.

So for many women you are either an alpha fuck or an homosexual eunuch, with most men in between being invisible.

Betas are being rejected en masse, and as more men take the red-pill, I think the MGTOW movement will reach enormous numbers.

Post: #3

No they want real supporters. A guy that is going to listen to all their problems about work, help fix their car, watch their cat, clean their apartment, do their laundry, cook, and provide sex on demand.

Post: #4

My order of preference is:

alpha>boy toy>supporter>provider.

Post: #5

When you're aware of these roles it can become somewhat difficult to stomach the thought of being any type of provider, even if it's just a boyfriend in a more or less enthusiastic attempt at a relationship that fails some months later.
Certainly if you're a recovering nice guy the thought that the girl you might finally be getting into bed after several dates, has likely numerous times in the past - and perhaps even while you're still going through the early sex-less dates with her - jumped into bed with the lover types with no or little hesitation at all, stings a bit.
Along with everything else I'm picking up about game and manosphere wisdom I'm also trying to condition myself to just not care about a girl's past if I like her in the present. But if I meet a girl again in the future I consider long term material, a few history lessons are probably in order to help determine if she's a good candidate.

I'm definitely planning to aim for some time in the lover role (making progress towards it) before I might feel comfortable trying to play the provider again (not that I've had a whole lot of experience in that either, I've mostly been a chode the last two decades who managed to pull off SNLs - occasionally turning into short term relationships - on a bearable basis thanks to some natural charm and until last year living in a country where one night stands are the norm).

Post: #6

Tom Torero did a lengthy video on the lover/provider spectrum a few months back. What's interesting is it's not necessarily black and white r/k selection. For example you can be an R selected alpha boyfriend.

The lover/provider lies in how you're presenting yourself to women. Since many men in the west are raised to lack entitlement and are brainwashed to walk on eggshells, we will have a generation of K leaning men trying to keep R leaning women.

R selection is encouraged by holding the frame and going after what you want. Women in modern society are generally R selected while this forum and similar minded sites are encouraging men to be R selected.

What happens when R selected men and women get together? An out of control sexual market place. The women are the choosers, the men the dancing monkeys. The men are adapting by acting like clowns, peacocking in overdrive to compensate for women's distorted standards.

As for where I fit: I've always felt an affinity for the sigma. I like doing activities alone and don't mind being alone. I go after girls I like and don't worry about what kind of woman is looking for me; I'd rather choose than be chosen. If an "alpha" tries to dominate me in a social situation I don't let him. I don't try to dominate him and I won't let myself fall under his jurisdiction. We can be friends or respect each other, but I don't want part in the hierarchy.

An R woman will want to bring an alpha down the hierarchy through scandal. When the R woman realizes she can't dominate the sigma because he doesn't play by the rules, she may just bow her head while passing him on the street, hoping he talks to her.

Post: #7

The type that pumps and dumps them.

Post: #8

When exactly did all this r/K stuff start to work its way into the 'pickup community'?
Humans are about as far from being 'r-selected' as you can get. Perhaps someone can show me a woman who spawns like a mouse, I'd be interested to see this.

I don't think the 'lover' and 'provider' are two separate 'roles' or 'personalities'. They merely indicate the bargaining position.
The 'lover' is like a guy with a car casually perusing a full car yard for a possible upgrade: the salesman invests more effort than him and demands less margin.
The 'provider' is like a guy who desperately needs a set of wheels in a sparse car yard: the salesman invests less effort than him and demands more margin.

That is - the lover is the man of higher value demanding value in return. The provider is the man of lower value supplying value hoping for return.

Post: #9

These are not identities created by men. Their are identities created by how women view us. And yes, a man can be both a lover and provider BUT is usually more of one than the other. It's the same how we are all bisexual, it's just a matter of degrees in which particular direction.

Post: #10

Nomad77, would you say all of the big cities in the US are pussy wastelands? Or just Miami?

Post: #11

This is all women need to hear from me

(09-11-2014 01:48 AM)speeddemon Wrote:  Nomad77, would you say all of the big cities in the US are pussy wastelands? Or just Miami?

Are you in the wrong thread? What does that have to do with this?

Post: #12

This theory suggests that all women religiously follow the dual-mating strategy, which isn't true.

In the West, predominantly among young girls you will find the long-term single (50-75% of young girls aprox). These girls are not looking for a provider, they have opted out of relationships and therefore their dating lives consist of short-term flings and one-night-stands with alphas (lovers). They only have one strategy.

In Ukraine, for instance, you will find that whatever traits you show, the girl will just want one thing from you (if she likes you): A relationship. You could be Brad Pitt and she still wouldn't fuck you the same day or on the first date. Her default strategy is also one-sided, and although it is possible to get her into R-selection, it is very difficult (she must be tricked into it) and certainly not a part of her fundamental mindset. Sometimes she may also want a sugar daddy (which is also an extreme form of K-selection), but this doesn't apply to you so it is not of concern.

The dual-mating strategy can only be found in a small proportion of girls (>25%) in the West, where they have what we call the "beta boyfriend". The problem is, through cold approach you cannot audition for this role. The requirements are usually logical:

1. There is some kind of social pressure or social benefit from getting this particular man into a relationship, meaning there is a motivation. If a girl is a regular in a particular social circle, she can sometimes gain social value from getting into a relationship with another member of it. Think of teenage girls who want to gain caché in class by getting into a relationship there. Other times the girl is lonely and wants some kind of company, or there is pressure from family etc. Unfortunately, the motivation is less than the external pressure to NOT get into a relationship, which is why long-term single girls far outweigh girls in relationships.

2. Although players will rarely admit this, a pump and dump is an emotional protection mechanism. If you believe a girl is likely to reject you, your subconscious will pre-emptively reject her to ease the ego and avoid the pain. You might not even realize this is the reason you are doing it. I am conscious of this and, in reality, I am not afraid to admit that the reason I pump and dump R-girls is because it is very likely they will never text back after sex, or that in the 25% of R-bangs that turn into relationships she will almost certainly cheat and have one-night-stands in my absence.
The reason Western girls classify alpha males as lover is exactly the same. Women take rejection way worse than men, a bad breakup or a pump and dump and it is R-selection for life (or until they are old hags wondering where all good men went). The reason this doesn't happen in the FSU is because men don't really pump and dump women, because of the high initial investment of getting her into bed (often 4 or 5 dates), and that feminism hasn't aided in expanding man-hatred throughout the land.
A woman in the West will be very careful not to invest herself emotionally in alpha males due to these bad experiences. She hates them inside, and has a sadistic drive inside to hurt them, and through projection of her own experience believes that using them for sex is the way to do it. I believe that the word "empowerment" has a strong base on this. I hate to say this, but the reason Western women are the way they are has a lot to do with Western men. BUT, if you trace this back to feminism, it was men who adapted to the new sexual market whose rules women created. Women always create the sexual rules, not men. Present-day women are not to be blamed as agents, the cause were the early 20th Century whores who created the ideology, but modern women are damaged enough that these attitudes in men are warranted.

3. Therefore, the only men she can feel at ease around, the ones she is not scared will hurt her, are beta males. She isn't attracted to beta males, but the reason she gets into the relationship, her motivation, is very rarely sexual. There are bunch of reasons, a few listed in point 1, but there are many more. Then, she has her sexual demands satisfied by one-night-stands with alphas. It is perfectly reasonable in her mind to do this, it would be like for a man getting into a relationship with an ugly girl for companionship, then fucking hot girls on the side. What she would really like in her heart is a relationship with an alpha male (just like we all want a relationship with a hot girl who also has a great personality), but she is damaged enough in her mind that she shields herself completely. Even a well-intentioned alpha would probably be unable to get in because of her preconceptions. The only way is to turn her into a fuckbuddy, have her progressively fall in love with you while showing mini-signs that you like her as a person and could possibly be open to a relationship, then she might ask for one and you can agree if you wish (this accounts for the 25% of R-bangs that turn into relationships). I wouldn't recommend this strategy, because a girl falling in love is statistically unreliable, and the fact that she is a damaged whore makes her unsuitable for one anyway. If you want connection head to a K-society.

As you can see, the dual-strategy is not that common. In the West, unless you are in her social circle, a beta male, and in the right place at the right time, you cannot audition for the beta boyfriend role. In fact, I don't see why you would want to. In practice, in an R-selected society, through cold approach you will be dealing ONLY with R-selected girls (at least with regards to you). And in K-societies like Russia, you will only be dealing with K-girls (on whom I admit it is possible to impose a male R-selection strategy or lover strategy, but with great difficulty). The fact is, you should tailor your approach to each kind of girl, and the distinction here is made culturally. Take 10 girls from that culture, see what their common mindsets are, and that will be how every girl thinks. Remember: Women take the form of the container.

Post: #13

I'm sorry but I'm going to raise it again.

r-selected basically means 'rapid spawning', typically 'short life spans, large litters, short gestation, early age of reproduction, little parental investment'.
K-selected basically means 'slow spawning', typically 'long life spans, small litters, long gestation, later age of reproduction, large parental investment'.

If there is any species that cannot be confused as being 'r-selected', it is humans. The West would be considered even further from 'r-selected', given the costs of raising a child, the longer life spans, smaller litters and the large gap between female puberty and average age of giving birth.

Life-history strategy and degree of monogamy/polygamy are two separate biological concepts. Species can be any combination and shade of r-selected/k-selected, and monogamous/polygamous. If we were to zoom in on the human species, and compare sub-groups, we would find for example, that India is 'strict monogamy, closer to r-selected', and America is 'fairly polygamous, closer to K-selected'.

It is important that terms, and the concepts they label, are used accurately and consistency, lest sentences lose meaning.

Post: #14

(09-11-2014 01:52 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  I'm sorry but I'm going to raise it again.

r-selected basically means 'rapid spawning', typically 'short life spans, large litters, short gestation, early age of reproduction, little parental investment'.
K-selected basically means 'slow spawning', typically 'long life spans, small litters, long gestation, later age of reproduction, large parental investment'.

If there is any species that cannot be confused as being 'r-selected', it is humans. The West would be considered even further from 'r-selected', given the costs of raising a child, the longer life spans, smaller litters and the large gap between female puberty and average age of giving birth.

Life-history strategy and degree of monogamy/polygamy are two separate biological concepts. Species can be any combination and shade of r-selected/k-selected, and monogamous/polygamous. If we were to zoom in on the human species, and compare sub-groups, we would find for example, that India is 'strict monogamy, closer to r-selected', and America is 'fairly polygamous, closer to K-selected'.

It is important that terms, and the concepts they label, are used accurately and consistency, lest sentences lose meaning.

We are not talking about R/K-selected species, but R/K-selected strategies. Both male and female. Know the difference. Strategy comes from mindset, so a girl with a certain mindset will be R-selected because those ideas affect her strategy.

Biologically humans are an R/K hybrid. That is all there is to it, every single human being has that biological definition, just like rabbits are R and wolves are K. Thing is, in game we don't give a fuck about that.

We have taken a definition from biology and applied it to our discipline. It absolutely does not take on the same meaning as in biology. It means that, at one point or another in a person's life, they are following a certain mating strategy (or outlook on dating) that determines how they behave.

Post: #15

(09-11-2014 01:54 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  This is all women need to hear from me

Those backup vocals sound like they jizzed on a synth, and 9 months later gave birth to autotune as we know it today.

Post: #16

And it was a bastard child

Post: #17

(09-11-2014 07:34 PM)Courage Reborn Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 01:54 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  This is all women need to hear from me

Those backup vocals sound like they jizzed on a synth, and 9 months later gave birth to autotune as we know it today.

That was a fucking hilarious quip.

Post: #18

(09-11-2014 02:10 PM)OnlyMarryInTajikistan Wrote:  We are not talking about R/K-selected species, but R/K-selected strategies. Both male and female. Know the difference. Strategy comes from mindset, so a girl with a certain mindset will be R-selected because those ideas affect her strategy.

Sorry, but r-selected and K-selected are breeding strategies. The West would be considered to have the 'most K' of the females, for the reasons described. Chicks having fast contraceptive sex with big cocky morons, does not make them 'r-selected'. These same chicks usually continue having their fun until their childless 30s. Placating your sexual desires with contraceptive sex, and waiting out hopefully for 'the one' (perfect man), with which you will have 1 or 2 expensive childen who don't earn money until they're 22, could not possibly be more K-selected.
Compare say Africa or old Europe, where the strategy was 'have kids as fast as physically possible as many will die', which required a husband who would feed them, and where the man prefers to take her as a virgin when she is like 15. That is the most 'r-selected' society humans can create. I submit that you are trying to give 'r/K' selection a meaning that it doesn't have.

r/K is too simplistic to be particularly useful describing human behaviour. I'd say it's only useful in comparing species. Human reproduction is much more complicated.