Essay:
https://therationalmale.com/2018/10/30/widows-warbrides/
The TL;DR version is this: Women only ‘widow’ for men that made an Alpha impression on them. If their previous Alpha was somehow ‘killed’ and replaced by a lesser man, their hindbrains resist that man’s authority over her while using her previous Alpha as the lesser man’s SMV (sexual market value) benchmark. In the most extreme examples, a woman who’s been forced to accept the authority of a lesser man who defeated her former Alpha will resist him and/or plot revenge for the idealized lover.
Historical accounts and various cultural fiction are rife with this archetypal story. The woman who is married off to a lesser man or becomes the War Bride of an undeserving rival (usually by subterfuge or sinister means) is an archetype because it reflects women’s deepest evolutionary, existential, fear – to have her Hypergamous sexual selection strategy forcibly chosen for her by a man (or men) who are undeserving or are suboptimal breeding prospects. As I mentioned, this is an existential fear for women; anything less than unilateral control over her own Hypergamous destiny is tantamount to rape. The fear is that she will spend her life raising the child(ren) of a suboptimal man.
War Brides
The premise of the War Brides dynamic is thus: Evolution selected for women who could more easily transition psychologically from one dominant male to another. In our chaotic ancestral past women and girls were a commodity to be preserved for a conquering tribe. While men or boys were either killed or enslaved, fertile age women would be preserved as spoils of conquest for superior, invading, men. Simply put, women have reproductive value – men (and often their sons) were mostly obstacles in the way of resource acquisition and those reproductive opportunities.
That may seem like a bleak proposition to a Blue Pill conditioned mind today. We want to believe in some egalitarian dream of humanism and cooperation, but our evolved, ancestral past is responsible for what we are today in terms of base biological and psychological imperatives.
zyqkvx 5y ago
And resource creation. I never see resource creation referenced. Every time a man lays bricks to make a brick building, or invents something more resources exist. The more resources there are the less value women have outside their reproduction value, and the fun fuck hole resources they provide. The ratio keeps going up and up, yet fun fuck holes and reproduction are so imporant that the amount of resources available for a woman can get for them goes up and up as men create uncapped resources. And with the
[deleted]
Prison4SideofBeef 5y ago
Woman do not have loyalty to the tribe. They fuck shit up and cause chaos in order for strong men to emerge out of the chaos. They don't even realize they're doing this, subconsciosly it's just how they're programmed.
If a woman's tribe is only weak men they have no problem going to other tribes for their strong men. See the "Refugees welcome" women in Sweden and Germany as examples of this. See also the french women in WWII who fell in love with the invading German soldiers who killed their own people, or the Japanese women who fell in love with Americans who atomic bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and firebombed Kyoto.
BillyRedRocks 5y ago
The alpha widow dynamic proves that "true love" as presented to us by the Blue Pill (a woman helping you bury the bodies, and murdering betas long after you're gone) and the war brides dynamic proves that the same, "True love" the Blue Pill offers everyone, is reserved only for the alphaest of alphas. Rollo proved true love exists but only if you're alpha enough and leave women with that precious alpha impression. So guys you have power here... power to make as many alpha widows as your alphaness allows. Thank God this isn't a comic book or someone would start preaching about power and responsubuluties.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
I think this is true to a degree, but we also have to consider history beyond the tiny slice of time that we live in. Virtually no western women alive today have ever experienced hardship or privation, and so they are free to pursue alpha fucks with impunity.
Even 100 years ago, a woman who grew up poor might have been very happy with her provider husband and probably did genuinely love him. We also have to consider that the median man back then was much more masculine than the median western man today. He had higher testosterone (T levels have been falling) and was much more likely to perform manual labor for his career, meaning that he would probably have some muscle definition and physical fitness just from going to work.
I'm not saying women's panties didn't get wet for alphas back then, but I think we have to take changing circumstances into account.
BillyRedRocks 5y ago
Alphas aren't muscles. Our hindbrains have not changed much, they always craved alpha cock.
AutoModerator 5y ago
Just a friendly reminder that as TRP has been quarantined, we have developed backup sites: https://www.trp.red and our full post archive (and future forums) https://www.forums.red/i/TheRedPill. Don't forget to register on TRP.RED and reserve your reddit name today. Forums.Red is currently locked but will be opened soon.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
ikeurbantraut 5y ago
Question for Rollo...
Your premise (which I 100% agree with) shows that women have been naturally selected to be hypergamous, essentially.
My question is, In this new Postmodern Era, things are obviously far different from any other time period in history. Do you see women “evolving” new sexual mating strategies in the distant future because of this new time period and the freedoms it gives, and if so, what would that be?
I find this an interesting topic I’ve been thinking about the last few days
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
ikeurbantraut 5y ago
This.
This is what I’ve been thinking, and honestly it’s kinda sad. Any girl above an HB6 will be Alpha Widowed, and anything below generally wouldn’t be worth anything near marriage material. Oh well, I guess I’ll just keep taking my turns for now
redpillschool Admin 5y ago
Unless you get them when they turn 18.
Ansec 5y ago
18 is too late. Back in high school those above HB6 were already sucking dick and taking it in the ass of any hot alpha chad. Sure it was limited selection for them, but as soon as they hit 18 the selection sky rockets.
MrCongeniality1 5y ago
Ironically, empowering women will ultimately undermine feminism. You can see this in other Western countries outside of the U.S. - socially, they tend to fall into more traditional gender roles despite having stronger equality laws and for longer than the U.S.
By controlling female sexual behavior to keep low-tier males productive and compliant, we forced low-tier women into breeding roles.
On average, the raging feminist career woman is producing less offspring than the submissive housewife. The modern career woman just isn't going to exist because it's a failing reproductive strategy.
Nature will sort itself out eventually, but we have to play the hand we are given.
[deleted] 5y ago
Mammalian mating behaviors far exceed (100MYA) the existence of humans (0.5MYA). Birth control has existed for about 60 years. Do the math.
p3n1x 5y ago
Our theories on what "should be/want to be" are still manipulated by "old" genetics". Postmodern era is people wearing masks to feel accepted socially. But, behind closed doors, we still behave biologically.
xenigala 5y ago
British writer Aldous Huxley in his book Island envisioned that couples would pick sperm from a bank of accomplished men and the ordinary men would raise these kids as their own because they loved their wives so much and because they admired the sperm donors.
In China there is a society where people never marry or live as couples, they just have casual lovers ("the land without husbands or fathers"). Men continue to live with their mothers and sisters. They help raise their sister's children without having a special relationship with their own children.
Memeandmesomemore 5y ago
That's an intellectual view on what would make a kind of utopian society.
What we've ended up with thanks to all of the cuck, PC politicians, media, and "academics" is more akin to the film idiocracy.
All the low value humans on welfare are popping out kids like they're shelling peas, all the high value, responsible, intelligent people are holding off having kids until they can afford it.
So my theory is that as a species we're now devolving rather than evolving.
red_philosopher 5y ago
There's no such thing as de-evolution. Evolution NEVER MEANS or MEANT BETTER THAN BEFORE. Evolution selects for adaptations that are suitable for the selective pressures that exist AT THAT TIME. Currently, that means that strongly intelligent people are less advantaged than people who aren't as intelligent, and thusly have less children. It's natural selection doing what it does best.
X-Trem0 5y ago
I haven't read the book (is coming to my reading list) but I think that men will revolve against that and simply not play along. Taking into consideration the decreasing number in marriages and in couples in general. I think that this denotes an ulterior problem, one that speaks about actively deciding not to "play" the game. If you don't like the rules of the game and you don't like the cards you've dealt with, the only logical solution is not to play.
Without reproducing? I really have never heard of this and I find it extremely interesting from a socio cultural perspective. Can you please share some more info?
ZephyrBluu 5y ago
Most definitely. There are so many dudes out there that are either ill equipped to deal with women on a basic level that they are checking out (At least this is my hypothesis). Any average (Or even below average) girl that knows how to put make up on has such a large leg up over an average dude I'm not surprised this is occurring.
Most girls start getting male attention from the time they hit puberty. Guys do not and are forced to sink or swim. Right now I think most guys are sinking because no one taught them how to swim.
mrssmithhh 5y ago
This is all so true. But the thing is, ALL of us have been lied to. Women pump up on a dangerous high when they are young (this is possible because most of them have huge issues due to no father or, at best, a bad relationship with a father figure) which leads to complete misery and dysfunction for the rest of their lives after the ages of 25-30. A majority of young women actually believe that being promiscuous is a sign of how awesome and adventurous they are, and is a tribute to their desirability. They can't imagine a world in which they are not objectified by others or by themselves, and do not know that they could actually have value, beauty, and love without selling their sex appeal. Consequently, they ruin themselves before they even understand what they're doing, and find that they will never experience the love, security, and peace that is so fundamental to a woman's well being.
​
Men have been lied to by their own mothers and have had no male models to teach them what a healthy, thriving man looks like, and how masculinity can be such a life saving thing. I have seen many boys figuratively skewered for being boys. They committed no moral wrong, but it went against the preference of their mothers for a more docile and compliant behavior (the ways girls tend to be), instead of the physically rambunctious curiosity that boys typically have. You end up with men who are broken in spirit and lost and unable to love properly or be admired or respected by their peers and the women they love. Boys really do sink, and it's tragic because they don't have to - the beauty of being a man is that you can make your own destiny. It's such a gift, and it really does belong to men, and boys are being neutered and taken out of the game before they even know what the game is, and it cripples them and turns them into a shadow of a person. It's awful.
​
I support TRP 100%, because it's the first time I've heard the truth about men and about myself, and that's so powerful and liberating. I at last am getting some dim perspective about my own behavior - something which honestly baffled me before. I did things that very directly made me feel sad, hurt, vulnerable and remorseful, but it is so much easier to be in control of your actions and thoughts when you understand why you do what you do and what you react to.
​
I really wonder why our own natures have been so forcefully suppressed by our parents and teachers and the media. It makes me angry. I am cautious to say that this was done by design because saying that seems so conspiratorial and serious, but I really don't know how a whole generation of people have been toyed with and destroyed by accident or with innocence. TRP is awesome. I hope it arms a new crop of men to be men, and I hope those men have families and make more men who are real men, and raise daughters who are supportive, respectful, and happy to be real women.
[deleted]
Kyson5 5y ago
It's been a while since I said out loud to myself "This needs to be printed out and framed before it's too late"
.. imagine if TRP teachings were in schools.. once can dream though
mrssmithhh 5y ago
That will never happen. Government schools abhor masculinity (in men, that is), because as all invaders know, get rid of the men and you can control the female population. This is way better for governments who want to use men as tax livestock and use the women as a social marionette puppet. Governments are anti-man because governments have no one to control and gain power from if men are the proper protectors and lords of their own families.
X-Trem0 5y ago
Thus the necessity of increasing the male support. Most of us have been raised without a father to teach us (either by lack of figure or luck of knowledge) and this created a huge void that needs to be filled.
When you’ve never been taught how to be a man you’ve started the game in clear disadvantage
The_Red_Trooper 5y ago
Where does rollo get his cover photos from lol they always look depressing.
[deleted]
Compeliminator 5y ago
my question is what do you do when you realize youve been dating an alpha widow? it seems to me that common sense would dictate you guard against any kind of attachment whatsoever . low level plate at most. that is unless you want to be miserable
GodOfDinosaurs 5y ago
Pure pseudoscience. How do you even respond critically to something without evidence?
jwarner95 5y ago
It’s easy to dismiss this stuff, but when you actually leave from behind your food encrusted keyboard and out of your basement the glaring truth of this stuff practically smacks you in the face.
GodOfDinosaurs 5y ago
I use TRP tactics in my sex life and it works wonders. That says nothing about whether this evopsych bs is true
p3n1x 5y ago
Go outside, experience it for yourself.
newName543456 5y ago
Pretty sure the bit about Stockholm syndrome has decent enough amount of evidence already.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
It's not pseudoscience. It's a hypothesis based off of observations of the world. If this was chemistry we would now design a perfect experiment testing the it, and either prove or disprove the hypothesis.
Things are not so simple in the social sciences because it's much more difficult to gather unbiased data on humans, and impossible to gather data on something like war brides from our prehistoric past. We therefore try to draw conclusions based on hypotheses that make sense within the framework of what we know about human evolutionary biology, from historical sources, and from what data we can gather from our observations of modern human behavior.
GodOfDinosaurs 5y ago
You can do experiments in the social sciences, including psychology. This is a horrible attempt at evopsych. He's literally telling a story about the history of human behavior and psychology based on nothing more than his own intuition and vague references to archetypes. There's absolutely nothing empirical about this. It isn't falsifiable.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Yes, you can do some social science experiments. Please tell me how you design an experiment testing alpha widowing though? The answer is that you can't, except maybe by survey data, and survey data is pretty much worthless as it relies on subjects telling the truth.
No, he is constructing a theory of human behavior based on strong understanding of evolutionary psychology and human history. We know that in chimpanzees, our closest relative, groups of males control territory (food) and the females within that territory, and that those groups go to war with each other and the winner gains more food and more breeding opportunities.
We also have evidence from recorded history, with myths such as the Rape of the Sabines, where an ancient city captured the females of a neighboring tribe to and then they went to war over it. There are countless stories of cities being sacked and the men being killed while the women are sold into slavery (and presumably used for sex by their new masters).
We also have a huge amount of anecdotal evidence in the modern day that alpha-widowing is a legitimate phenomenon. This is not a scientific sample, but anecdotal evidence is still much better than no data.
Overall, OP's position is supported by the preponderance of evidence that we have and it fits nicely into what we know about human biology and history. Why don't you go gather some evidence of your own and disprove it, instead of bitching about "muh empiricism." Something tells me you wouldn't have statistical the skills to analyze a data set and provide constructive criticism anyways.
GodOfDinosaurs 5y ago
You can tell the exact opposite story about human psychology using the same sort of "evidence". The rape of the Sabines is just that - a myth. That tells us literally nothing about actual human history or psychology other than perhaps some Roman values.
The TRP version of "alpha" is not even popular among actual evolutionary biologists/psychologists. The dark triad personality is catastrophic for actual alpha male leaders in mammalian species who instead display primarily "beta" traits according to TRP. Anthropology also strongly suggests that early human communities were vastly more egalitarian than anything we have today and did not rely primarily on this "alpha male" archetype.
The way this writing is formulated is pure fantasy and would be rejected by anyone actually in the scientific community. You can't take some myths plus selective anecdote and arrive at something profound about the human condition. It is literally meaningless if you are concerned about what is actually true, even if it's a nice story to help some kids get laid. This is Jordan Peterson level nonsense.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Hunter gatherers were more egalitarian because there is no wealth to spread around so there is by definition no inequality. Genetic evidence does suggest that in prehistoric times two women reproduced for every one man, so that is much more unequal than our modern times.
It seems from your other posts that you are a raging socialist and you are really just regurgitating your political beliefs in this form. Just go. We don't need or want your type here.
GodOfDinosaurs 5y ago
Egalitarian social hierarchy, not just economic. Again, that says nothing about actual human psychology. Believe what you want but it’s hilarious to see these “rational” men so willing to buy into pseudoscience when it fits their narrative.
[deleted]