On one hand I've had the experience where all I needed with some women was Attraction and Logistics (and the most basic conversation to fill the air), and they'd bang within 1-2 hours of meeting.
But then I bought into the idea that "not all women are like that," the idea that there are some women who require either some kind of emotional connection, or "liking you as a person" or even basic commonalities before having sex.
So is that a completely blue pilled idea? Is it in fact bad to focus on building a connection with a woman in any way other than sexually, before sex, otherwise the greater the chance of being LTR-zoned or even friend-zoned? *If a guy has short-term value demonstrations, can he get away with "connecting with women"?
Is it the most red pilled way to maximize nothing other than Attraction, Logistics, and Short-term value demonstration? Will all women be hoes and have sex with a man they consider attractive, without any degree of feeling connected?
I heard from a PUA that the four values are Fun, being Interesting, Masculinity and Confidence. Masculinity and Confidence seem congruent with red pill, then the Fun part seems like the point of "connecting." But is the 'Be Interesting' part either completely unnecessary, or is it that what women find interesting is just the more you can show bold moves and alpha traits?
Attempting to answer my own question: Yes, I've been in the past overprioritizing connection, especially over text. However, it doesn't mean that all non-sexual communication is detrimental, especially if it's about "fun." I should focus more on the concept of building short-term value, because even if and when a LTR is wanted, a plate can be turned into one. There is a bigger discussion to be had about a woman's distorted feeling and perception of a man's LTR-value after having short-term sex with him, versus a man's actual ability to run and manage LTR game, but that's a whole other topic. I honestly don't know how ratio-wise women can be split into groups of: 'needing emotional connection before sex' vs. 'don't need it but have stronger comfort-locks' vs. 'true DTF hoes only needing attraction'
Musicgoon78 2 6d ago
You're overthinking this to a ridiculous level bro. I am a fun guy. I have fun with plates, girlfriends. Co workers and family. It doesn't mean anything deeper than you are having fun.
Now you are going to have a bunch of unsuccessful spergs that will tell you that stoicism is the way and to not smile or make connections. It's all fucking bullshit.
You are in control of yourself. Live your life in a way that you'll enjoy. Make connections that you want to keep. Don't give exclusivity to a woman unless you absolutely want that.
All women are going to push for exclusivity if they really like you. Your job is simple: you decide what you want and take it. The rest you pass on.
It sounds like you're doing well. Just don't forget that you are the one in charge of your life.
nr_guidelines 6d ago
Appreciate the feedback. I still think that the "overthinking" in the post helps a lot to really put perspective on these concepts, as it's what so much of TRP is built upon. And the last sentence in the post, in particular, is a big point of controversy that has yet to find real objective truth anywhere.
Bozza 5d ago
If your SMV is high enough, and the girl likes you, she will fuck you. ALL women are "true DTF hoes only needing attraction"... for the right guy.
"I need a connection before sex" is a shit test and should be treated as such.
nr_guidelines 5d ago
The thing is here, what does it mean to have a girl like a guy. Maybe some girls just aren't as turned on solely by superficial aspects of a guy, as others
Bozza 5d ago
Is your SMV high enough? Does she see you as a Chad? Thats it. If you meet those criteria, she will fuck you almost immediately.
All of this "emotional connection", "superficial" bullshit is just that, bullshit. If she's showing strong signs of attraction, then it's simply a shit test to see if you are beta and whether you can push through it. If you're not getting the strong signs of attraction, it's because you've already been placed firmly in the "beta" box.
Blue pill thinking. Purge this from your mind.
nr_guidelines 5d ago
Yeah but even high-SMV Chads don't fuck 100% of the girls they meet, so there has to be more to it. Though it might be the core fundamental. I respect the point of view though.
No-Stress-Cat 5d ago
Young brother, you must ask yourself:
If the answer is yes to all three, then you're doing just fine.
redhawkes 2 5d ago
And that's where you fucked up. You're stuck in the madonna/whore trap. This is just an illusion in your head, not real life.
It all depends on your SMV. Commonalities doesn't lead to sex, neither comfort. It's TRP entry level shit. The word you're looking for is banter.
Aka orbiter. While you're feeding them free attention, Chad is feeding them dick.
What you put on pedestal, someone else is using as a cum dumpster.
Typo-MAGAshiv Endorsed Contributor 5d ago
You're overthinking this.
Rule of thumb: women categorize people into their girlfriends or their boyfriends. If you aren't fucking her, you're one of her girlfriends.
If you're attractive enough to a particular woman, she'll fuck within hours of meeting you for the first time.
If she makes you jump through hoops or gives you some bullshit about "needing an emotional connection first", then next!