I always thought that a woman was hard wired to wait for sex and be more selective because she is stuck with the consequences (children) for years.
Yet this community explains that if a woman likes you she wont make you wait for sex. Doesnt this conflict with the evolution hard wiring to be selective? I mean if she is fucking a man that might not stick around thats historically a potential death sentance for her children right?
Attempt to answer own question - I guess it might be partly because society and birth control allows them to skip the serious consequences?
Vermillion-Rx Admin 1d ago
You are not understanding evolutionary drivers correctly
You need to stick to the basics. You don't need to keep confusing yourself. Stick to basics and stop focusing on more advanced information. It is not helping you
Farang131 1d ago
OK. Is it like an Alpha fucks beta bucks type thing?
Vermillion-Rx Admin 1d ago
If your hypothesis of your post were true there wouldn't be so many single mothers
Yes it is beta bucks alpha fucks. And women still historically got beta men to raise kids. A lot of animals do that in the animal kingdom
Birth control and feminists telling them to be free and hook up with guys doesn't help either. If they want to fuck someone they will try to and he won't have to wait
You should stop trying to dive into theory and just stick to improving your game
Farang131 5h ago
I know there are a significant number of single mums but they are still a minority. In my country about 7O% of the mums are still with the biological father so a significant majority.
I appreciate your concern about me trying to improve game and I genuinely am trying I am talking to multiple women right now and will start dating multiple (hopefully) .
My game might not be as terribly awful as you think If I am using dating apps successfully I must have some game to be able to beat the 1OOOs of other men on there and quickly get dates without excess chatting and B.S especially when the women meets me in my hometown and pays for the drinks. This isnt a bad accomplishment seeing as I'm average looking at best.
Also when living in Asia I have more girls to date than I had time in the day believe it or not. I was never short of oppourtunity and success.
With that said I am 1OO% working on it and have taken everything you and the others have said onboard 1OO% and I respect you.
But yeah I do wonder what life is best. Blue pill / red pill / MGTOW / Black pill etc. Sometimes blue pill ignorance does seem best but I care about whats true and provable too much to blue pill.
If you meet a girl in high school or college with 0 or low body count get married have childen I think that can be a blue pill win as you've got quite a good outcome but if you settle for a low quality single mother that would be a bill pill disaster.
Dxmx99 1d ago
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.
Farang131 2h ago
Thats exactly what I did but it turned out to be wrong unless it was the boring conversation after that that ruined it or maybe a comboination of both.
Typo-MAGAshiv Endorsed Contributor 1d ago
That's terrible advice.
Farang131 5h ago
Thats exactly what I did but it turned out to be wrong unless it was the boring conversation after that that ruined it or maybe a comboination of both.
Typo-MAGAshiv Endorsed Contributor 3h ago
You replied to me instead of to the guy who said that
Farang131 2h ago
oh sorry about that
Musicgoon78 3 1d ago
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.
Farang131 5h ago
I think you misunderstand me I'm talking about historically it may have been a death sentence not in modern times. I'm talking about the thousands of years of evolution where it may have been death sentance and how much of that old programming still exists.
Hopefully trying to learn isnt mentally masturbating?
Vermillion-Rx Admin 1d ago
The Red Pill is the worst thing some men can find. I firmly believe a subset of men who end up here would have had an easier and happier life blue pill dating the typical 3 dates and then happy wife happy lifing with duty sex than they do being trapped in a perpetual cycle of misunderstanding game and red pill
SwarmShawarma 1d ago
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
[deleted]
[deleted]
SwarmShawarma 1d ago
Children/stepchildren proxy: In 2021 example, 28% of victims had children under 18 (her own). DHRs: dependent children in ≈52% of households (victim less than 60). Many post-separation killings linked to shared children/custody. Stepchildren or prior relationships noted as risk in qualitative reviews but not quantified nationally in your exact groupings. Strangulation common (27% of 2,000 women 2014+).
Canada (Statistics Canada Homicide Survey + Canadian Femicide Observatory)
Period: 2014–2024 (10+ years; consistent national data). Reported female IPH: 963 total IPH victims (79% female → ≈760 female IPH, ≈76/year). Rate: 0.27 per 100,000 (population 12+). Gender-related homicides of women/girls (2011–2021 benchmark): 66% by intimate partner. Current vs. ex-partner: Similar proportions current (≈63%) vs. former (≈33–35%); separation/estrangement heightens risk. Children/stepchildren proxy: In broader domestic homicides (10-year review): 34% of victim-accused pairs had children together; 24% of child victims in domestic contexts were stepchildren. Many IPH involve mothers; shared children or custody disputes common triggers.
Many (often 50–80%+) of these victims are mothers, but no public breakdown exists by the exact child configurations you listed. Presence of the victim’s non-biological children (stepchildren to the perpetrator) is a known risk factor that roughly doubles odds in case-control studies (e.g., US data), as is recent separation, but this is not converted into category-specific rates.
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
Male-on-male homicide (vast majority of male homicides): UK ~1.3 per 100,000 males; US ~5–8 per 100,000 males (overall male homicide much higher than female); Australia/Canada/Netherlands ~0.8–2 per 100,000 males. Male victims dominate all non-intimate-partner homicides.
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
Male suicides: UK ~13 per 100,000 males; US ~25+; Australia ~20; Netherlands/Canada ~15–20. (Typically 3–4× female suicide rates.)
®®®®®®®®®®®
Female suicides: UK ~5 per 100,000; US ~6–7; Australia ~6–7; Netherlands/Canada ~5–8.
Musicgoon78 3 5h ago
Can someone please stop this kind of bullshit from littering our sub? This is about real guys giving real advice from their own experiences.
Typo-MAGAshiv Endorsed Contributor 1d ago
1) Evolution isn't some kind of divine destiny. It's just what happens to survive. Most of it is chance.
2) the consequences of unwed motherhood have been socialized away. Welfare, etc. The state is daddy beta bucks (safety net).
3) why care about this? How is this going to help you actually accomplish anything?
Farang131 1d ago
Yes I understand its what happens to boost survival odds
I understand that but its surprising that millions of years of instinct and evolution can be bypassed so easily. I mean the fact that women want masculine men / bad boys isnt socialized away so why would the other things be?
I find it interesting and I suppose it might help a little.
Typo-MAGAshiv Endorsed Contributor 1d ago
The instinct is to fuck what makes them aroused. That hasn't changed in hundreds of thousands of years.
What has changed is the consequences for unwed motherhood. It went from devastating to almost nothing.
It was never instinct to avoid those consequences. Throughout written history, women would fuck whom they wanted to fuck if they thought they could get away with it, whether it was by timing their cycle correctly or by tricking another man into thinking he was the father.
Farang131 1d ago
Thats an interesting insight I appreciate you sharing it.
Vermillion-Rx Admin 1d ago
It won't. Stop trying to be an RP sage and stick to the basics
Farang131 5h ago
I can still follow a basic strategy and learn other stuff out of interest without any practical application.
First-light 2 1d ago
Modern life does certainly add rocket fuel to women's sexual strategies with birth control but we should not forget that (less effective) birth control has always been around with pulling out and simply condoms of gut. This is not just birth control.
Look to the decadent aristocracies of the past from Rome to pre revolution France. Woman have always behaved like this when they have excess prosperity and freedom from the consequences of choice. Women's sexual strategies are optimised for standard conditions where life is harder. In fact I would observe that women really don't do too well mentally when life is too easy -as it is today. Its like easy conditions which would lead to a population explosion themselves trigger self destruct in weaker women, thus reducing the risk of a boom prior to a bust. Women have a lot of sexual partners and yet produce fewer children in decadent societies.
A lack of struggle ruins women. They are set to crave comforts as these things remove them from risk. Give them too much and they just overdose, just like many people do on sugar and fat, when we are hard wired to crave these things.
Basic female sexual strategy aims simply to get the best genes and best security for their children, which are a very large investment. This makes women tend to seek men of ideally higher quality than they themselves possess. Women seek healthy men of high status, strong enough mentally and physically to thrive in their given environment. They will accept less than these things but these are the aims, which will always be favoured when available.
If a man possesses enough of these traits and also shows a sustained interest in the woman -courts her- he can often secure a woman of lower or maybe even equal SMV. He will need to demonstrate that value passes to her in order to initiate and maintain the relationship -this is why men perform services in courtship and to an extent in LTRS. This is the default way that women seek mates. I will call it the Beta response just for the sake of what follows.
A women who is risk free will accept a male of higher value than her as a priority if offered one. Biologically she should aim to secure him, his genes and his influence. Just to have slept with a man, tends to make him help you. This will override the underlying constant desire for security and protection from risk that all women have in them. This is if you like the Alpha response. It fits perfectly with the interests of hypergamy.
If a man can replicate a large number of the classic tells of a high value man, he can probably trigger the Alpha response in a woman of lower perceived SMV provided that she is in a risk free scenario -like modern western western society where while women get anxious about everything, there is actually no risk of their freezing to death or them or their children starving or being eaten by animals or killed by enemy warriors in a raid.
I would add a caution to this. That the strategy of optimising the tells of high value tends to lend itself to short term relationships. You can't over value yourself for long before you are found out. A man would do well not to overstate his value in pursuit of a woman he actually wants to retain for a long time. Optimise his value yes, fake extra -unwise.