Red Pill TheoryUrbanism, Ruralism, and Dunbar's Number (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by TRP VanguardWhisper

Take a good look at this picture. (Be careful, though. Erections that last longer than four hours can be damaging.)

But I am not here to gloat, and TRP is not here for "saving society", even if it actually proves possible after all. (I'm still a little skeptical. SJW tears are tasty, though.) TRP is here to empower the individual, and nothing empowers like understanding.

So examine the picture closely. Come on, look again. See anything enlightening?

Yeah, the title gives it away. This picture explains what liberals and conservatives really are. Liberalism is urbanism. Conservativism is ruralism.

Political views are a direct function of population density.

Both groups see the other as fundamentally insane because their different surroundings lead to completely different notions of what society is. The difference, in this context, between "rural" and "urban" is that a living situation becomes "urban" when the number of people they must directly get along with in their daily lives exceeds approximately 148.

This special ~148 is called Dunbar's Number. It's an approximate limit to the number of people the normal human brain can sustain individual psychological models of, for the purpose for maintaining a functioning social relationship.

When that functioning social relationship is maintained, elabourate and formalized rules for social are not necessary. Each relationship can be negotiated on an individual basis using communication both subtle and overt. Overarching rules are unnecessary, and no one uses them, because they lack precision. One size fits nobody.

But when there are too many different individuals around for every single person to have a mental model, not only of that person, but of how they relate to the others, then something breaks. Relationships can no longer be negotiated, interactions can no longer be personal. Suddenly, people start needing rules, and rules means authorities to make them, and praetorians to enforce them.

I'm sure intelligent readers can see plenty of other ramifications at this point.

Thus, ruralists have relationships, not rules and urbanists have rules, not relationships. The implications for sexual strategy are numerous, but the most important is this:

Slutty behaviour is an inevitable result of urbanism. Giving free rein to hypergamous instincts and AF/BB strategy allows a woman to satisfy sexual instincts and maximize resource gifts from males, but its drawback (from the female point of view) is that it destroys relationships (both with men, and with the social network in general). In an urban, and urbanist, environment, a woman can replace damaged relationships with new ones, as there are plenty of strangers around, and people are social networks tend to be wide, but shallow (many, but weak, bonds).

Ruralist environments, by contrast, restrain hypergamy. Women in these environments are dependent on the social network not only for status, but for survival, and social networks tend to be sparse, but deep (few, but strong, bonds). This means damaging relationships with hypergamy is unsustainable, because those damaged relationships are more valuable, and cannot be easily replaced.

So what's good for men?

It depends what you want. Unchecked hypergamy is good for you if you are looking for sex with as many different women as possible with as low as possible an investment of time, effort, and money... but it sucks if you want an LTR. If hypergamy is kept strictly in check, then there are more good candidates for LTRs, but a critical shortage of sluts.

This matters because opportunity rules everything. No matter how tight your same-night-lay game is, you're going to strike out with the Amish. No matter how alpha-male you are in your relationship, hoes gonna ho. To get what you want, learn the skills you need, but also place yourself where those things happen.

[–]MEpicLevelCheater[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (1 child)


[–]ReddittFeist 196 points197 points  (47 children)

Sigh ....

Yet another attempt to claim that NAWALT

@Whisper, have you ever actually lived in the countryside?

I've been there, done that. And I'll be the first one to tell you that the chicks are still fucking the Chads in rural areas.

And even the fukking Amish, who you think "keep their girls under control" do not! Even they can't stop the female impulse. Amish girls fuck before marriage, get knocked up.

And wives married to rural beta dweebs are having affairs to scratch the itch. As well as the number of married guys I've met in my country days who are in sexless marriages they hate ... ? And the Chads I knew who were fucking several local married plates? LOL- one was even married to a 6 himself, but prowled the local sexual market more easily because his plates knew he wouldn't get attached. His W knew what was going on, but put up with it because ... what else was she going to do? Divorce him and then get no sex, or marry some local beta?

Here's the fatally wrong theory you hold:

If hypergamy is kept strictly in check, then there are more good candidates for LTRs, but a critical shortage of sluts.

Perhaps we should call this the Amish/Islamic Theory of Female Contol (AITFC)

It's a male fantasy. It doesn't fukkin work!

Stop kidding yourself.

You can't bin women into 2 categories, i) "sluts" and ii) "LTR Candidates" as though these are deterministic categories, like picking yellow apples instead of red ones.

AWALT is real. You can't make it go away.

And write this on your forehead: No guy can change his environment to some place where there will be an abundance of chicks who will magically behave the way he wishes they would.

What can be done do is work on oneself, to become the man who women submit to, and who understands how to inspire and dominate a woman so she becomes all the woman she should be for him.

In other words Build a Better Girlfriend rather than wasting your time on unicorn hunts.

[–]2awalt_cupcake 41 points42 points  (16 children)

I half agree with you. It seems that the message of his post is that population determines the social script, or how people perceive and value relationships. Not necessarily how non-slutty or slutty women are. I want to know if this social influence is strongly attributed to men. As someone who grew up in a rural area the OP accurately described my understanding of people-relationships, my father's, and his father's. Where as my city friends were more like the other set: focused on rules not the relationships itself.

This post could have been written in the direction of "game calibration" and would fit the narrative of AWALT. I'm back in a rural area and it author is spot on. These women want a more 'relationship-like' interaction before getting their pants off. Doesnt' mean they don't put out, just not with the same routine when I was out in the city.

[–]1PantsonFire1234 23 points24 points  (12 children)

Women will be women. But cities enable them so much more. It's easy to get lost in the masses. To much temptation, to much drugs and alcohol. No one knows anyone. It's easy to be a slut in the city. Being a slut in a small town will ruin you because every man will know.

I know girls that party like a whore in the city and pretend to be virtuous little girls in their small towns. Cities enable low value behavior in women. That doesn't mean country women can't be whores, just that they are less enabled.

There's more balance there and this makes it easier for a guy to LTR some girl. I would never bother a serious LTR with a girl in my city because I know that she will encounter 132412 attractive guys in her way to visiting me. All it takes is one slip up and no one will ever know.

[–]2awalt_cupcake 5 points6 points  (11 children)

I'm sure with the right attitude and look a rural woman could be seduced into a ONS with a guy with city game, but the setup has to be right-- e.g. the adventure bubble has to be primed and ready to go and the man "won't be in town long" to defuse immediate ASD.

But at the same time, someone with rural-man game would have a ONS with a local woman just as easily. He needs a strong sense of local norms to give her plausible deniability.

It's a different approach, looks different, same goal, same results.

[–]1PantsonFire1234 9 points10 points  (8 children)

Obviously everything is possible. It also depends what the distance is to the closest city hub. How often the woman/guy visit that spot. What kind of cultural upbringing they've had.

City guys can swing both ways, you are either a gigantic beta cuck who gave up or you've seen more competition that the average town fella. When I've dated girls that live in small towns I was always shocked at the passivity of the males. They were more masculine than the guy in the city. But they didn't look hardened like a high value urban man does.

It's hard to explain, it just produces different males. Those outside are often more natural and masculine, more in tune with their instincts. Those in the city are often shattered and dead but some rise from the ashes and turn into something horrifying (sociopath).

Personally I embrace the city for it's opportunity but I despise most of the people that live in mine. I respect town folk much more but I don't view them as competition often.

Women can fall for either guy, but I am certain that a girl who has to answer to her entire family down the block when the lights in her house are on after dark or moaning was heard from the neighbors that talk to her parents, will be less likely to do a ONS than a girl who lives all alone in a big city with zero repercussions.

[–]2awalt_cupcake 8 points9 points  (3 children)

They were more masculine than the guy in the city. But they didn't look hardened like a high value urban man does.

It's hard to explain, it just produces different males

No I follow you completely. I was once of those men. I'm tall, broad shoulders, grew up in a rural area with family who grew up on farms. Those men are strong in all areas except with 'love' and 'virtues'. Prime weakness for a religious core that drags them to the BB state.

Those city boys are better at appearances and mind-games which is mostly what you need for women; women being the shallow creatures they are.

[–]1PantsonFire1234 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Those city boys are better at appearances and mind-games which is mostly what you need for women; women being the shallow creatures they are.

Well said brother. There are so many lessons you learn and adapt to in the city. Lots of challenges you would never face in rural life. It literally begins at high school. They are much tougher and harder to navigate in the inner city and it breeds a certain type of man.

However it also breeds lots of losers who can't handle it, more so than ever. These are the cucks, beta's, shitlibs, nu-males etc. Who are protesting around the United States like now, frustrated little children.

Those men are strong in all areas except with 'love' and 'virtues'. Prime weakness for a religious core that drags them to the BB state.

They are to trusting and I always found that the women had all the men by the balls playing games with them for kicks. None of them ever wiser, strong and manly as they were they weren't killers. It was like no man around me knew power talk but most women did.

It's a shame though because I really like country men because of their down to earth demeanor. I've rarely come across a white man from the country side I didn't end up liking. Though odds are often driven between us and they end up hating us because we're from the city.

It's good for a man to adapt to the city though, learn a thing or two and perhaps one day return home.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]2awalt_cupcake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't believe how well you guys all see it

bruh I'm just trying to study, learn, apply, and get more ass

[–]1Soarinc 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I came from a small town and had to say your story was fun to read. Nice perspective & interesting. Just curious -- would you agree with my assessment that "city folk" are more "needy" and insecure in comparison to small town folk? Small-town guys are usually much more integrated into society at a more entrenched level, which conveys typically stronger stability and hence, stronger frame. Do my observations align with yours or are they different?

[–]1PantsonFire1234 12 points13 points  (2 children)

They are, most city peeps are losers who gave up due to the fiercy competition that goes on here. Those who ascend are sociopaths gods like Donald Trump. It's really one or the other. You are either a predator or the prey in the city. Town life allows for much more leeway.

Those who live in rural areas are more natural, understand natural law better and generally embrace their masculine side much more. They are always much more confident but this can be explained due to the lack of competition in towns. A.k.a. you might feel insecure to if you gad to compete with 1000x more men.

Which concludes my original comment. Town folk are more blessed with natural instincts and stronger frame of mind and masculinity. City folk are more evolved mentally and are capable of becoming emotional predators (sociopaths) which women wet themselves for.

You will always be a reflection of your environment. I'd say human beings are more fortinate in rural areas rather than the orgy of debauchery that goes on in the cities. Even if this produces a mentally 'superior' being

I'd much rather be a real human being with morals and values than some lifeless daemon that preys at night time. Sadly we don't get to choose our fates.

[–]FrameWalker 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You have no fucking idea. Go travel the world. I spent half my life on a farm and the other half in the city. The rural America is a recent fiction dreamed up to sell Budweiser and jon Deere hats. It's as artificial as modern cities if not more so because most cities were designed before modern marketing.

The American way is pragmatic and pioneering. Sticking to "safe" rural areas is antiethcal. The good old days are a rumor. Men need to explore to grow and with the exception of the ones running family farms they will stay man children if they don't leave.

[–]1PantsonFire1234 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I live in the main capital of my country. I've known urban life all.. my life. And I've also been to towns often, I know people who live in towns. I had girlfriends who lived in towns and those who lived in cities. I've seen the differences all my life.

I agree that men need to constantly adapt and learn new things, it's better to broaden your horizons. But no I don't think that requires traveling per see. Definitely not the 'travel' version most modern tourists consume.

My comment described it perfectly, town folk are more natural but city folk (those who mentally survive) are evolutionary 'a step up'. A.k.a Dark Triads.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Game is game, rural, city, whatever. Been there done that in both, everything that works in one works in the other. Why? Because girls are going to do girl things.

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

This is correct. Anyone who goes expecting a unicorn because he's looking in Lolo, Montana instead of New York City is missing the point.

The women aren't different. Women are water. They assume the shape of the vessel they are poured into.

What's different is that vessel.

[–]1Dis_mah_mobile_one 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That's the way I see it, calibration. Poker is a game of the player's skill but the luck of the draw determines how that skill need be used. Same with location and Game.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Rural girls have now the same possibilities as city girls thanks to the internet and dating apps.

Slut shaming still works in the country but not as much as it did before as the old generation was replaced by dgaf baby boomers

[–]infiniteslinky 17 points18 points  (3 children)

Ding ding ding... we have a winner. As if there were less sluts in the country... They just guard their secrets better.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

... They just guard their secrets better.

Yup. Just because some cultures are better at keeping their mouths shut about what goes on behind closed doors doesn't mean things are not happening.

[–]jav253 9 points10 points  (1 child)

I don't think you fully appreciate how gossip spreads in small towns. Women can't help themselves. They have to tell that messed up thing they did to at least one friend. And said friend fails to keep it secret because she can't help herself either. Then everyone in town knows. This does not stop slutting in rural areas but does make it less prevalent. However drug abuse is increasing an Women on drugs will do anything sadly.

[–]1Soarinc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This does not stop slutting in rural areas but does make it less prevalent.

This is 100% correct. It also leads to hilarious incentives for sluts to randomly spread slutty stories about virgin "good girls" just to draw attention away from their own behaviors. High school isn't complete without "gang bang rumors" and ensuing drama about some random hot high school chicks, lol.

[–]1Soarinc 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'm an engineer and I agree with you qualitatively but the truth is it's a numbers game. If you do ANYTHING to shift the behavior of ALL women, you nudge maybe 2-3% of the entire female population from the middle of the bell curve (AWALT 95% of women) to the left tip (unicorn status, LTR material)


In a qualitative sense, you are 100% correct; but, in reality, it's more like my chart.

[–]watcher45 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Ofcourse Amish girls fuck. Ever seen Banshee?

[–]manelsen 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Is it a movie? I may be willing to watch.

[–]watcher45 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It's a TV show that just ended earlier this year. Excellent, fun and has the absolute best fight scenes ever made, fucking crazy. I recommend it.

[–]1Paid_Internet_Troll 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TV show. Extremely red pill in it's characters and situations.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Build a Better Girlfriend rather than wasting your time on unicorn hunts.

No amount of theory or anecdotal stories of high school valedictorian devout Christian girls cheating on their beta husband of 30 years are going to convince me that AWALT means you don't need to heavily vet your women.

All women are hypergamous. Some women are more hypergamous than others. All are hypergamous enough to want to leave you if they think they can do better. The quality you'd vet for, if you were stupid enough to enter an LTR with the intention of becoming emotionally attached and making it last, is impulsiveness.

Otherwise, yes, rural vs. country makes literally no difference, because nearly everywhere aside from the hills of North Dakota has enough people around to make hypergamy relatively free of consequence. Ultimately, the size of their environment isn't the size of the city, it's how connected their social circle is. Everyone in the small town isn't going to know that Sally is a big 'ole slut, but her entire friend group might, and that doesn't change from city to small town. Grew up in a small town, live in a big city. Sluts are still sluts.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Women still slut it up in countries where they can be executed for doing so. There is no containing it.

[–]NietzscheExplosion 4 points5 points  (3 children)

You need to visit Saskatoon Sask. Canada. It will blow your mind how ridiculous olde school young women are.

I actually find it annoying, because it's not real, just strongly ingrained.

[–]ReddittFeist 2 points3 points  (1 child)

LOL. I just looked up Sakatoon, Saskatchewan in Canada on the map.

Yikes, man. That place has to be seriously cold in the winter. And it's filled with prudish women?

I think I'll take a pass on visiting, but props to you for being a tough mutherfukker able to survive in a hostile environment like that!

Are you gonna move somewhere more friendly to human life down the road?

[–]NietzscheExplosion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am farther North...

Even Black people turn into the colour of the Inuit within a generation, where I am.

My ancestors enslaved other white people. My NATO visits to JSOC were paid holidays. War is fun. Outcome independent: Keep peaceful democracy going - good. Chaotic barbarism - even better. Winter is always my friend.

[–]TruthInArt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aren't they racist as fuck over there?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children)

OP makes valid points but this rebuttal really kills it. AWALT can't be removed. It's built in their programming.

However OP shouldn't be dismissed.

He's right in that location affect your chances of finding a superior LTR. You're not going to find a relatively clean girl in a big city. You're mad if you want to LTR a girl with a 3+ notch-count.

[–]sunsetriser 1 points1 points [recovered]

Doesn't the science say somewhere between 5 and 12? "3+" isn't all that damning with regard to LTR potential.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Based on studies, with each notch count she's something like 17% likelier to cheat on you. I'm paraphrasing the amount but it isn't too high with a single partner. However it all adds up with several previous partners.

With more partners, a girl will shit-test you more, will have a deteriorated ability to pair-bond and is likelier to have BPD issues. There's a reason why religions praise chastity as a virtue for women. It was to keep them fit for monogamy.

For me at least, unless the girl is completely my type then 5 is pushing it. I can guarantee you that 12 is a high number. Such girl will be slotted into ONS or FWB with no hope of further commitment. When I think LTR, I think of having a family (whether its achievable or not) and a girl that had 12 other dudes dicks in her will never fit the requirements of raising my offspring.

Don't wife up a slut bro, even if you don't intend on legally marrying her. Your commitment is more valuable than her vagina. Use it wisely.

[–]sunsetriser 1 points1 points [recovered]

Well said. I have to say on one hand I agree with you and share your philosophy but I have to wonder if it's realistic. These days I am more interested in a LTR than plating as it simply works for my schedule and lifestyle better. My question to you is: don't you think aiming for below 5 is somewhat unrealistic (in terms of actually having a nice handful of options to choose from)? Because while I agree that a potential LTR having had 12 or more other dicks in her could qualify as a deal breaker, at the same time I feel like an attractive girl has to be somewhat restrained and "chaste" to keep her number under 15 (let's say by her late 20's) at all considering how easily she could've let 56 different guys fuck her.

In that sense isn't a girl with a partner count of 12 far more suited for a long term relationship than the average girl? I don't suppose that there are any truly reliable stats out there but I've got to think most attractive women we meet have been won at LEAST 15 or 20 by the time they're 28.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

This is a problem most people in the West have. The culture has deteroriated so much now that it's difficult to find relatively 'chaste' girls. So yes, realistically it will be hard to find a girl with an n-count below 15 by late 20's.

But note, I say it's difficult but not impossible. I've met a few of those 'chaste' girls myself. They're hard to find but they are there.

I mentioned this in another post, you need to screen hard for a few things...

  • Beauty: She's desirable as a high-quality mate
  • N-count: Low counts means she has testifiable signs of loyalty
  • Feminity: Submissive to your authority and follows your frame
  • Mental health: Her propensity for shit-testing is low
  • Lifestyle: Has low inclination to feminist 'empowerment' narrative, has few 'guy' friends, rarely goes to bars/clubs, has strong ties to family

Put it this way, you're much more likely to find these things in a younger girl than older one. She's also more likely to be a virgin. Unless you like 'em older, go for the 16-21 age range, you'll find low n-counts much more easily.

On a personal note, my LTR was a virgin personally de-flowered by yours truly. She's so far been the best LTR to date. Extremely submissive and very low hassle. Unless I lose my frame or she herself does something to fuck it all up, I can see myself going all the way with this one.

[–]sunsetriser 1 points1 points [recovered]

Good find, and great reply, but I'm 29 (basically 30) and going for 18 year old girls probably wouldn't work for me in terms of seeking LTR. Girls that young see 29 year olds as 49.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For sure man. You're a little older than me but I'll tell you it's possible. It's all down to how you frame it and her upbringing.

If she's from a traditional background, you may find she's the one pushing for LTR!

[–]vagbutters 0 points1 point  (2 children)

No guy can change his environment to some place where there will be an abundance of chicks who will magically behave the way he wishes they would.

I slightly disagree with this. AWALT is true, but the one decisive factor here is societal restriction. You won't find too many cheating non-virgins in extremely strict, conservative societies. Women in such societies would need to have massive balls to fuck Chad before marriage, and you can guarantee that they'd take that shit to the grave.

[–]p3n1x 0 points1 point  (1 child)

that they'd take that shit to the grave

You should see your own logic fault here.

If the above statement is true, then your assumption has no base, as in you have no 'factual' data because its all in the grave.

[–]vagbutters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you say is specious-- that is, you have poor reading comprehension, so let me emphasize something.

Women (who fuck Chad before marriage) take that shit to the grave

A small subset of the population. And good luck finding any sort of data on this shit. Even in the west women constantly lie about the number of men they've slept with, hymen reconstruction is a thing, and virginity is up in the air.

All you can do is make logical inferences based on cultural restrictions. I doubt you'll see too many women from conservative Muslim countries sleeping with any men before they're married off, for example.

[–]Doctor_Ethics -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Amish people are a terrible example has they have a tradition that includes being a degenerate before committing (some German word, spring-something).

Yes, there are medians that define a pattern but outliers exist, there is no such thing as writing off 100% of 3 billion people as being exactly as you think without any evidence other than biased anecdotes constructed around an insignificant sample size. MWALT might be true in a liberal-leaning society, but the absurd assumption that not a single woman over 3 billion has standards or dignity isn't any more true just because you keep dating liberal degenerates instead of raising your standards and dating tradcon women.

I know at least 50 women who are stunning but virgin until mid twenties because I live in a more traditional society that heavily shames degeneracy, and yes there are still whores but you are the retard if you go after them. Build some fucking insticts and learn to tell the two.

[–]Ifuckinglovepron -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You totally missed the point. Women respond to the rules they are given. Your argument would extend to say that given a Chad and a beta, because AWALT the relationships would be the same. This is clearly wrong.

In rural areas, female status involves chastity. In urban areas promiscuity is seen as status by other women. AWALT, women seek status among their peers. Change the criteria for status and you change the behavior. Obviously not 100%.

[–]Senior ContributorNightwingTRP 29 points30 points  (7 children)

This picture explains what liberals and conservatives really are. Liberalism is urbanism. Conservativism is ruralism.

Please stop conflating leftists and liberals. An actual liberal has more in common with a libertarian than they do with a leftist "liberal." The left has hijacked the term with illiberal behaviour and you really shouldn't legitimise their doing so by not pointing out the difference at every opportunity because it perpetuates their bollocks. It's a bit like "oh you believe in equal rights? That makes you a feminist." I'm sure /u/CopperFox3c will pop up to plug his blog that covers this topic very well.

Obviously the rest of the piece is solid. I have no criticisms on the Red Pill theory, it's the same conclusion I'd come to. Give women more options and they'll behave more hypergamous, hence more sluts and fewer decent LTR options. I just needed to point out the liberal conflation because part of the reason we've ended up in this modern shitshow is because the left has hijacked a whole bunch of terms and warped their meaning... and people have either stood silent or been suckered in. This has then led to the warping of legal definitions of things like rape and conflating of stats that turn "feeling uncomfortable" into rape and ka-boom! We've got the 1 in 5 bullshit stat. Essentially it's the start of where Canada is now going with enforcing what you MUST say, which is a significant step further from simply banning what you CAN'T say. Eventually the bullshit conflations become socially accepted norms and then they head towards legal changes. That's where the serious damage comes and from what we've seen time and again on the sub, we really shouldn't be ignoring these.

My point is a sidenote, but I believe I've shown why it's an important one. If we can't even stop ourselves from making these conflations when they're inaccurate then why are we questioning it when they do it?

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 15 points16 points  (3 children)

No plugging today. I do agree with /u/Whisper 's general point about differences in rural and urban environments creating different cognitive realities for people and influencing their political views. Although /u/Nightwing also has a good point, in that we're conflating terminology here. The term Liberalism in the OP is really referring to modern Progressivism, not the classical liberal principles of Voltaire, Hume, and John Locke.

It's all kind of semantics. But I think it does really highlight the common tactic Progressives have of redefining words in order to win arguments (for example). It's a clever ruse ... you can see it even causes us problems over here at TRP.

[–]Senior ContributorNightwingTRP 11 points12 points  (2 children)

I think we need to stop saying classical liberal so much. We need to stop playing by their rules. If we shift the discussion to authoritarian vs liberal, we see precisely where they sit. The entire reason they've redefined liberal is because it was something EVERYONE agrees with. Having your basic individual freedoms, your basic rights, your equality with all others before the law etc. This is why it has been so successful.

It's a bit like "social justice" as a phrase it sounds like a positive thing based upon your knowledge of justice. The way the Overton window shifted was because of our unwillingness to get down into these nasty, boring, picky semantics discussions. I am convinced at this point that we can't shift the Overton window back properly unless we're willing to take these fuckers to task on it. And if we take them to task on this and use our language, our freedom of speech most effectively to shift discourse back where it should be (e.g. islamic terrorism is a problem, fuck your cries of islamophobia... let's actually discuss the several reasons that word is retarded) then to remain consistent we've got to remind each other of this principle in order to push that window back where it belongs.

Voltaire said that you can take away all my other rights, but with my freedom of speech, I can get them all back. He failed to point out it would be bloody difficult and time-consuming.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Voltaire was a smart man. Yeah, you know someone was saying something was sexism a few weeks back, and I pointed out that it really wasn't sexism (they were just upset cause someone disagreed with them in debate they were having) ... and the immediate response to me from one of the white knights nearby was "do you know what sexism is, CopperFox, what do you think it means?". A question I ignored, and simply finished my point and left.

There is a dictionary definition of words, and we all have to agree to use that meaning, and if someone wants to try to redefine words, then you simply say "I'm not playing that game".

It's a lot like dealing with women, interestingly enough. When they start acting up and trying to play games, you ignore that shit and refuse to play.

[–]Senior ContributorNightwingTRP 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It's a lot like dealing with women, interestingly enough. When they start acting up and trying to play games, you ignore that shit and refuse to play.

Precisely. I said as much in responding to another guy in this topic. I've come to the conclusion the new Overton window that's being used by society (that is obviously inaccurate when looked at objectively) is just a mass-scale loss of frame by western men. Whether this was out of politeness or not, does not matter. As part of the teachings here, we tell everybody to hold frame with both women and with beta men. No fucking about, this interaction happens on the right terms or not at all. Between two alphas the frame is basically implicitly agreed without words... and that frame is reality.

If you're already holding frame for women, I fail to see why we should not extend this principle to compensate for the damage the SJWs, feminists, manginas etc have done to the Overton window. I can't think of any other way it'll get moved back to reality... and with the election of Trump... we are not the only ones who want this window moved back. I would say the silent majority do.

We hold frame with women because they silently want us to. I'd say this applies to all population outside of the SJWs, communists, feminists etc etc. Since they're in the minority... we're going to win. It's just a matter of time and pressure. Taking back the word liberal starts now. No more letting them conflate it with leftists. "What you're supporting is not liberal, it is authoritarian. Please learn to use language to describe yourself properly."

[–]Hillarysdilddo_2016 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Please stop conflating leftists and liberals. An actual liberal has more in common with a libertarian than they do with a leftist "liberal."

Respectfully, I disagree. Classical liberals are more akin to libertarians. However modern (radical) liberalism is progressivism which is globalism.

Liberalism (progressivism) < Marxism < leftism < globalism

Republicans and democrats are both liberals.

The left has hijacked the term with illiberal behavior

Yes. This is a tactic that globalists use. This was outlined extensively in George Orwell's 1984. they understand intimately that thought can be controlled by controlling the lexicon to express it.

For instance in dictionaries from less than 10 years ago marriage would be defined as a union between a man and a woman. Modern dictionaries will define marriage as the union between two consenting people.

Did the definition of marriage change? No. Words have meaning. But to change your thought they attempt to co-opt and redefine words to infiltrate and subvert your mind.

Now I'm sure that is what you mean when you say liberal. Yes, that is the root definition. Unfortunately, as "liberal" has been co-opt'ed you must now specify if you mean classical liberal or modern (radical) liberal.

[–]Senior ContributorNightwingTRP 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Now I'm sure that is what you mean when you say liberal. Yes, that is the root definition. Unfortunately, as "liberal" has been co-opt'ed you must now specify if you mean classical liberal or modern (radical) liberal.

No. I'm not playing by their rules. That's why they're winning. Because we didn't hold the god-damned frame of interaction.

I will push them towards the discussion of liberal vs authoritarian. The only way to beat these people is forcibly move the Overton window back where it should be. The loss of the Overton window is basically a mass-male loss of frame.

[–]1Soarinc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the left has hijacked a whole bunch of terms and warped their meaning

They have Midas touch... except they turn everything to shit they touch rather than gold.

[–]HWstartup 52 points53 points  (14 children)

Having plates in rural areas can turn dangerous. But you find many LTR worthy.

I knew a dude who tried to game plates the way he did in the city. Guess what happened ? He had angry relatives kicking his ass over a girl he betrayed. This is in Canada where folks are supposed to be passive.

Everyone knows everyone in a small town, it's tougher to hide stuff if you ain't smart.

[–]LittleWindowpane 21 points21 points [recovered]

Canada has rednecks. Southerners are famously polite warriors.

[–]Stationarity 12 points13 points  (0 children)

My family is from the south, but I was born and raised in Michigan. When I was little my dad told me "son, rednecks are everywhere".

[–]jimmy_toes 7 points8 points  (4 children)

I wouldn't say polite. They have larger egos and more pride so it's easier to piss them off. Been living in South Louisiana for 3.5 years now; raised in Michigan. Southern hospitality is bullshit.

[–]LittleWindowpane 19 points19 points [recovered]

Southern hospitality is a veneer. They're polite because they've got that warrior mentality and don't want to piss each other off. If they did, they'd be bound by "honor" to fight each other, physically or otherwise.

[–]jimmy_toes -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yes a "polite" veneer. Dishonesty. It's slimy and it bugs the shit out of me.

[–]Atticus_Crowley 7 points8 points  (1 child)

People are assholes everywhere. Where I live we're all supposed to exhibit "Minnesota Nice". Reality is more like "Minnesota Passive Aggression", and that's pretty much across the board for most MidWestern states, except maybe the Dakotas. People over there walking down the street will ask you how you're doing and mean it....it's really unnerving.

[–]BENDERisGRREAT 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Moved from New Mexico to Houston and people act like Im about to kidnap them if you ask how there day is going.

[–]norealitythrowaway 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I'm still scared of this girl from my hometown that I used to.mess around with's redneck older brother.

[–]aznredpill 8 points9 points  (4 children)

You're Engrish es atrocious

[–]rrroberto 5 points5 points [recovered]

I thought his English was fascinating here... he was able to turn "girl from my hometown that I used to mess around with" into a noun.

[–]1Paid_Internet_Troll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seems like a normal sentence to me.

[–]norealitythrowaway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That was typed from my phone. I'm from ol' Virginny though

[–]uniquevoid 23 points24 points  (0 children)

As a very close muslim friend of mine used to tell me (conservative and family man):

'Avoid cities as much as possible, it's the worst influence your woman and your kids can experience'

[–]AsianZ1 81 points82 points  (14 children)

Excellent analysis. Many guys here from small towns complain about their lack of game with women. It's all about location. Being in a big city exponentially increases your chances. So go to those cities, and show those soft city boys what men who have to rely on themselves are like.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Yes, less relationship accountability with women in urban areas can directly translate to more plates and more ONS.

This is why so many of them are broken leftist feminists that can no longer respect men.

[–]AttackOnKvothe 8 points9 points  (0 children)

that can no longer respect men.

I don't think it's about respect, more than about "affinity".

Women can't find affinity in somebody who knows how rotten and putrid they are in their morals and ethics, and women know men will ignore or just use a shallow girl, because that's the only value they have.

So instead of increasing their value, they try to make men not look at their real value.

They try to sell the biblical story of angels vs demons, but in women vs men, where we are a tyranical group of evil.doers who won't respect women, where in truth respect is gained or lost, and women lose it with each action they do and each word they say.

I think feminists are low SMV women who are too obnoxious and self-centered to realize that it's THEM who is the problem, not the world.

[–]RedEyesBlueShades 48 points49 points  (10 children)

Bring it on, buddy. Those city boys, and the city hoes, are ready to laugh at your "manliness".

Instead, be prepared for a system shock. Where your tight game is as lousy as it gets, because the game in a city is played by different rules. Which you don't know, and will have to learn first, if you want a chance at getting laid.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I've lived in both areas, large east coast cities and small rural farm towns, hell I lived in Europe and did quite well. Your posturing is amusing. Your assumptions are equally amusing and not entirely based in reality. Thinking you're better than others because of where you live is laughable, however the experience required to survive in bfe. The thought process involves thinking farther ahead, years even, not just tomorrow or this evening. It's a complete paradigm shift you can't appreciate until you've lived it.

Are farm boys better? At some things, but I know plenty of incel rural dwellers. I know far more soft city kids, that can't handle life outside Starbucks on every corner.

[–]xinihil 22 points23 points  (7 children)

No. I'm from a farm. The city is easy mode. Just don't be a social retard. Urban college students generally have no capacity for taking dominance socially.

[–]PowerVitamin 12 points13 points  (2 children)

People are stupid everywhere. Don't get too cocky. It all comes down to SMV, looks, and frame. These laws are universal. All you have to do is drop the idea that you are self-sustainable, or you hunt and her hamster wheel will spin off into infinity. Being from butt-fuck nowhere gets you no points on the SMV scale. A city slicker who climbs mountains and goes hunting every month will still outshine your ruggedness and crass mouth.

[–]xinihil 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yup. This is an important qualifier. Ego must be subdued.

[–]RedEyesBlueShades 6 points7 points  (2 children)

No. I'm from a farm. The city is easy mode. Just don't be a social retard. Urban college students generally have no capacity for taking dominance socially.

Right, because all the CEOs and most influential people are clearly from farms.

[–]xinihil 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There are quite a few other variables at play here. This is just really bad.

[–]p3n1x 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have found that being from the city, farm girls are easy mode. There are no 'one way' streets with this material.

City Boy = potential escape from farmland. The Grass Is ALAWYs Greener somewhere else!

[–]iLLprincipLeS 35 points35 points [recovered]

Yup. The whole Sex and the City bullshit came from this. Females go to university to be indoctrinated and move to the city to ride the cock carousel. Later, after they're done, the more crafty ones (MGTOW & Feminism recently fucks them up) will get their hands on a betabux and move to a more suburban area. Basically, the TRP fuck lesson would be that cities are great places for plates, but you won't find any LTR material there, only broken females that sold their soul for degeneracy.

[–]rztzz 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Piggy backing off of this and OP's post, there's a mathematical model to select the best option of anything.

Say you are given 100 random numbers, ranging from 0 to ? and you are trying to pick the highest number you can. You aren't told what the number range is, and once you pass on one you can't go back to it. The mathematical best outcome is to simply observe the first 40% and don't select anything. Just observe their value. Then, after you've seen 40% of options, you select the next number that exceeds or matches the highest value you saw in the first 40%.

In relationships in urban environments, this means it is nearly impossible to mathematically select the best romantic partner as you would have to date 40% of the entire city.

[–]1Soarinc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This only works 60% of the time, right?

[–]RabidLibertarian 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If you are trying to find the absolute best mate in the entire city, then yes. Obviously that's impossible.

I heard a mathematician explain a better strategy he called "satisficing". You spend the first 40% of your dating life just "observing". Then you choose the next partner who is at least as good as the best so far, to settle down with. He estimated that it would take about 12 relationships. Though obviously that depends on the individual.

[–]rztzz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol that's literally the exact strategy I was saying

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children)

How do you think Suburbs with Cities near them be classified as? Lets say you live near a major city like Toronto but aren't quite there. Would that fall in between?

[–]Luis_McLovin 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Imagine it as a scale, not as two binary values. The denser the population the greater women's tendencies to be whores. The sparser the greater the tendency to be LTR.

[–]Luis_McLovin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Medium sluttyness. They can still easily travel into the city to get that chad in the club.

[–][deleted] 44 points45 points  (4 children)

Can't agree more originally from philly moved to columbia county the biggest city here is 20k I commute to philly where I run a business but live outside of my rural town and live like a millionaire. I am an amateur ifbb physique competitor and can boldly proclaim I'm the fittest and by far best looking dude in town. My wife would never do better then me around here and hopefully if I keep donating to the local pd and fd the mayor may cut me some slack on the zoning for my statue.

[–]LOST_TALE 1 point2 points  (1 child)

How does it feel to ''hope'' bribe to avoid attacks on your freedom?

[–]1Soarinc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

At least he won't be blindsided. Government employees with power are the scummiest sacks of shit I've ever seen or heard of.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Slutty behaviour is an inevitable result of urbanism.

At best, it amplifies it or perhaps makes it more visible through a bigger number of potential males to "slut with" and bigger number of people (men and women) to see and label her a "slut".

When you have a population density of one Billybob per square mile it's pretty hard to "slut" and be judged as one vs (for an extreme example) NYC with 27 000 people per square mile.

IOW it's not like being "rural" changes something in her brain to make her a "good girl" or make her have less hypergamous "programming".


To follow up on the last sentence (and clarify): OP is right BUT do not treat this a solution to hypergamy or artificially trying to make her cheating less probable ("I'm gonna move to rural area to isolate my wife from other males, so she won't cheat on me"). The statistical, lower probability of her cheating or divorcing in rural areas should not be used as a form of mateguarding.

[–]bigcitytruth 26 points27 points  (15 children)

This is bullshit.

The greater majority of feminist sluts in the city are TRANSPLANTS who were born & raised in the country! The more rural their backwoods hometown is, the more sex&the-city-sluttier they are.

The reason these transplants are so slutty is that they hate their parents, due to bad upbringing or childhood trauma, and then they move to the big city to "find themselves." And because the city has a higher population, and a larger amount of places to meet men, their sluttiness is simply enabled. Notice how Tinder sluts are always "new to the city" and "want to explore all there is to offer."

Nice girls who aren't damaged never venture far from their hometown. The native-born city girls are just as demure and mildmannered as their bumpkin counterparts. This may be surprising to some of you who don't live in a big city, but it's true.

The city itself doesn't cause sluttiness; it's just that sluts move to cities. It's a fine but important distinction.

[–]1ItsTheHomeWrecker 18 points19 points  (4 children)

deleted What is this?

[–]bigcitytruth 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Not so. My point was, a transplant will be a slut in the city and live there just a short time. A native raised in the city will likely not be a slut, yet has lived her whole life there. Why the huge discrepancy? It has to do with the reasons I outlined in my previous comment.

[–]1ItsTheHomeWrecker 11 points12 points  (2 children)

deleted What is this?

[–]bigcitytruth 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Which city are you in? Mine's New York. Nearly 9 million residents. 20+ million metro area if you include the 'burbs. New York is the Mecca of the modern independent woman's Sex & the City lifestyle. The sluts come here from all corners of the Earth. The sluts are 9 times out of 10 from Farmville, Flyovertown. Or from Quirkyland, Tinycountry. The girls born & raised in the Bronx or Queens or even Manhattan are surprisingly chaste. Both the transplants and the natives live in the same city, but their promiscuity levels are very different, bigtime. It's the truth. I wouldn't have even posted it if I had not seen this pattern consistently repeated year in and year out.

[–]1ItsTheHomeWrecker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

deleted What is this?

[–]stawek 9 points10 points  (2 children)

When they move to the city they are yanked from their hometown support network. They desperately need protection and will sleep with any man who comes by. If they are lucky enough to get a man who cares they might stay in an LTR, if the guys she happens upon pump her and dump her (and this is more likely to happen, as she will be more attracted to Chads) it will rewrite her mating process and turn her into a slut in no time.

Out of town colleges are the best way to destroy femininity. Why do you think feminists focus on education so much?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

as a non US native but currently resident, don't you think your out of town college system destroys a shitton of what would be labeled conservative values?

I like the general idea of this post about countryside v city however I think it's more a question of going from one comfortable social circle to a totally foreign one. People tout this as being the best thing to do, go travel the world bznj and all that jazz. I did fall for it, although no regrets, but a bunch of struggles. Not everybody is built for this. If you're lost, you start doing shit. No one knows and cares, repeat, collapse.

[–]1Soarinc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

don't you think your out of town college system destroys a shitton of what would be labeled conservative values?

Yeah definitely! Parents live several hours away and pay for your living expenses so you don't have to get a job -- you just fuck a lot.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Actually you're proving the theory correct. When the girl moves to a city from a small rural area, she is forced to increase the number of individual psychological models (think of this like a set of rules for interactions with each individual person)for each person she interacts with. This causes strain, and the breakdown results in needing rules (common courtesies/manners if you will) to govern how she interacts with people in society.

Where before, in a small town, she was well behaved because it was essentially tribe-like. She is now in an area where all human beings can treat each other as disposable. This causes a breakdown in relationships across the board.

Where in a small town everyone knows everybody, and relationships govern interactions. In a city where new people are replacing old people every day, the need to treat those people well diminishes, often due to the impression that the person acting nice, is really acting fake.

[–]bigcitytruth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This does not explain why city natives are no more slutty than their country counterparts who never left. I was saying that the transplanters simply exploit the city to enable their sluttiness, because their sluttiness was determined before they even booked that one-way airline ticket. The city itself doesn't cause sluttiness, hence the much tamer native-born girls.

[–]LaRedPill 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Nope, they do that because they are virtually invisible, they can date whomever they want and the chance that anyone in their social circle finds out is nil.

It's like the internet but in real life, you see people online spouting incredible things, because there is no consecuence for what they say.

[–]AttackOnKvothe 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Unless it's on reddit, where they can track your comments history.

Seriously, they should totally disable that function.

[–]LaRedPill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So? you can track my comments and? You can become anonymous again by creating a throwaway.

[–]AttackOnKvothe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The city itself doesn't cause sluttiness; it's just that sluts move to cities.

Why not both? The ambience of the city also allows this sluttiness to happen, thus we can agree that both are the correct statement.

Possible sluts go to the city, because in the city, they have the possibility to become sluts, and it's the city with it's enviornment which causes the "metamorphosis"

[–]1Soarinc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi, after reading your post, I'm curious as to your current outlook on the meaning & value of dating/relationships? (you sound jaded and disillusioned but I don't know from what...)


[–]JourneyofSeas 14 points15 points  (9 children)

Isn't this basically the r /K selection theory?

[–]Luis_McLovin 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Kind of. The easier it is to mate, the less effort invested in offspring, a la city. The harder to mate, the more effort in child rearing, a la rural towns.

[–]LOST_TALE 0 points1 point  (2 children)

That wasn't the theory. It's not based on how easy it is to mate. It's based on how much children you should have.

[–]Warren_Bates 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It's based on resources, which can encompass food, other necessary materials, and viable mating partners (all of which are precursors to actually having children).

[–]LOST_TALE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

and on predation and danger.

[–]Avskygod0 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's it i found the way to save the world

Limit settlement population to 150

[–]1PantsonFire1234 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You're post is so thought provoking, so concive, so true that I can't help but applaud you for the original content you are providing to this echo of a sub. The posts lately have been much more original than the dribble we had some time ago and people like you are the reason for that, have a shekel.

Chiming in on the point you already made, urban environments are pest to both sexes. Simply said, the shallow opportunism of a woman really gets exposed when she views thousands of potential mates and doesn't understand the value of commitment. Women like that can't bond..

.. now you already explain this in depth so lets leave this aside for a second. Lets look at what happens to men in the Urban enviorment. Where women turn into the biggest low value betraying sluts around it is the men that also turn. Because the inner cities are heavy in competition allot of males simply give up. It takes extreme levels of fortitude and sociopaths tendencies to survive the mental pressure of overburdening competition. Competition which their cunty women happily exploit. And so no one is happy.

Every man that has understood the 80/20 rule has experienced this in the city

Whenever you are at a quiet place in town, you are almost certainly close to the top 20%. Even if you aren't then the way to improve is clear and you proceed. You are comfortable in your masculinity and place..

.. in the cities this all falls apart. Whenever I enter large crowds in the central hub of the capital in my country I am completely dazed. And I fucking grew up here. Every guy you walk past is better than the next, you figure you know where you stand. Suddenly the entire numbers are hustled again and you dropped from 20% to bottom 40%. It really depends of where you go and how many high value males gather.

This wouldn't matter for a man if he didn't buy into the true nature of female attraction. Which is a shallow calculative thing (who's the biggest, best connected, richest, most stuff guy). Which is why allot of guys choose to ignore this horrible reality. And they suffer for it.

In the city no one can be top dog for long. No one has a clear position in the social hierarchy and no one is certain of himself

I dated a girl from a small town once and she just couldn't take it. Couple months in and she had seen more hot women than she ever had and she knew she couldn't compare. Worse yet, she started being more hypergamous herself and looked at all the nice males open for shopping.

Cities are a pest and it takes a very strong man with good genes to survive in it. Few women will ever. It's a place of harems and constant infighting. Beta slaves pushing the tractors forth.

[–]norealitythrowaway 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Grew up in Appalachian Virginia and there was casual sex and girls slutting it up but not as much as when I moved to the city. They were more likely to be shamed for it (mostly by other girls) and most girls tended to look for LTRs. Religion has a lot more influence over the culture as well. Agree that relationships and social networks are more important there too. More people get married young there too (often times because the girl got pregnant).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Think of religion as a framework for society, Christianity for example, has the 10 commandments, rules for keeping a community safe and preserving the peace.

[–]KriegerAleks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Religiononly helps when people know and follow it. Sad to say but some are more than jusst a little destructive

[–]wanderer779 12 points13 points  (1 child)

I grew up in the country and sometimes regret leaving it. However girls in the country are still sluts. Dudes still get divorce raped. Maybe it's not as bad though. I'd have to see some data.

There is a huge difference though. When I first moved out on my own I got hustled out of money a few times. I find my neighbors are as likely to steal from me as help me with anything. And I feel like people spend a lot of time whining about bullshit and making rules about things that don't matter.

On the other hand, in the country there are a lot of ignorant people. I'm talking about people who have never been anywhere and just don't understand things. They're racist. They gossip like crazy and form cliques and look down their noses at each other. It's not some idyllic paradise. Probably most importantly, there aren't very many good jobs.

[–]onepill_twopill 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This works for some countries not for others. In France for example, the denser areas vote conservative iirc (feel free to correct me though). I know of a few other voting maps where this rule won't work. That said though, it works real well for the anglosphere i'd say.

[–]LaRedPill 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Before my awakening I was already seeing this pattern.

In spanish we have a say "Small town, big hell", it means that you are not "invisible" in a small town, and every flaw and mistake you make in your life stays with you.

In the city, not so much, you can go around walking the street, pull up a gun, headshot a guy, holster the gun, stop a taxi and leave, and no one will ever find you.

We had such a case here, and the culprit was found, because a police officer stopped him to ask for a lighter, he panicked and ran, only to be apprehended, with the murder weapon on him.

My instincts tells me that any population over 50.000 inhabitants becomes likes that.

You live in a flat and don't know the guy next door, while people living in small neighborhoods know the whole block.

Cities are hard for us humans.

[–]NietzscheExplosion 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Rural VS Urban has been the way of politics since cities started. They just change the names every few years.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Cities are fucked in terms of morality, literal Sodoms and Gomorrah's.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (6 children)

Do you think an individual who lived in a dense area, yet only chose to maintain a strict daily interaction w/ a select few could offset this?

A man who is so strict with his time and attention that he is capable of retaining his Red self in the sea of Blue attention whores thus allowing him to maintain his ruralism in an urbanistic atmosphere?

[–]BENDERisGRREAT 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Id say it is. But Im from a rural area so I still dont understand Houston. Im not an intimidating guy. But walking up to a group of people to try to talk to them and the whole group can manage to avoid eye contact like youre going to slap the next person to look at you.

Making friends is difficult here...

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

If she goes she goes, there's millions of fish in the sea.

I'm just saying, to get the best chances would it be beneficial to limit those whom you keep in daily contact to the highest of standards.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The people around him though would think in an Urban mindset so if he is going for LTRs, it will not make a difference.

[–]SuperduperCooper23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, because attractive women get approached all the time. It may work for a man.

[–]alvlear 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Good for you to understand Dunbar's number. It is a key piece for my knowledge systems as well. You do understand we have no choice but overcome it, right. We need larger, more sophisticated social organizations if we are to survive this universe. I would like to see humans reach 10 trillion.

[–]Katavasis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Very fascinating. Dunbar's number also indicates that for someone to form a new relationship need to 'delete' an existing one if he is to stay in the normal range of social relationships. That raises the point,did we ever really surpass the elusive 150 people mark,or we just keep deleting and re-arranging the people in our lives? This could be a complimentary explanation about the hypergamy of women and how easy it's for them,to leave behind the lesser man,in order to 'fit' a superior male into her list. Could also explain the form of cliques and gossiping.

I want to go beyond that and put this theory into the micro-social interactions between men and women.It is said that the 150 does not include the people you don't have persistent social interactions.An aqquintance,a guy you see in your class but don't talk too much etc.These people go into the long-term memory terrain.Meaning they are not 'checking in' as memories in your everyday lives.

How can we manipulate this?How can your register yourself in someone's working memory,thus being in their head?

Creating a 'micro-event'.A joke,a funny incident,a funny name,a question to be asnwered etc. Generally,forming an inside conversation,which only you and a girl/friend ,whatever,can participate to and understand,will register you in said memory.

Finally,i want to point out that Dunbar's number was heavily researched among animals and Neolithic humans.It was linked to the capacity of feeding the group and therefore the size of their brains and the need to have aggriculture.Could explain a lot.

Question to op:Do you think there is some correlation between dunbar's number and Miller's law?

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorFieldLine 2 points3 points  (5 children)

You touch upon the idea that a woman who racks up a high n-count essentially destroys her ability to pair-bond. Because relationships have been "cheapened" in her mind, she can never truly form a strong emotional connection, even when she wants to settle down. This is why TRP discourages pursuing an LTR with a slut.

Yet I can't help but wonder how true this is for men as well - namely, if a guy is notching many sexual partners, wouldn't he then be unable to really develop a strong emotional connection with a partner?

To quote Archwinger (noting that he is more sexually conservative than most here):

Sex doesn't make you less able to love, the way it does with women.

But lots of sex with lots of women does predispose you toward seeing the worst in women, noticing how basic most of them are, and not treasuring intimacy with your wife...

Promiscuity isn't harmless, but some would argue that numbing yourself to women is actually a positive move.

You (Whisper) are in an LTR. Would you say that your many sexual conquests have had any impact on the dynamic there, whether negative or even positive? I'm not so sure that "numbing yourself to women" is really a positive move, unless your goals are simply to get as much pussy in life as possible.

In any case, you make some interesting points, sexual strategy aside. It's a shame you didn't post this in a more neutral context, I'd have sent it to some of my friends.

[–]Hillarysdilddo_2016 2 points3 points  (4 children)

I'm not so sure that "numbing yourself to women" is really a positive move

It's an extremely positive value-adding move. No one likes a weak-ass bitch man.

You touch upon the idea that a woman who racks up a high n-count essentially destroys her ability to pair-bond. ... Yet I can't help but wonder how true this is for men as well

Can't tell if you're concern trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Yes, it affects men but remember men and women are fundamentally different. A man has high SMV to bed many women. A woman just opens her legs for the same result. A man who beds many woman will have a more discerning taste towards a high value female aka LTR.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorFieldLine 1 point2 points  (3 children)

It's an extremely positive value-adding move. No one likes a weak-ass bitch man.

I'm arguing that being emotionally numb to women doesn't correlate with how much of a man you are.

Can't tell if you're concern trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Yes, it affects men but remember men and women are fundamentally different.

Men and women are fundamentally different, yes, but that doesn't mean we can't make certain generalizations that apply to both sexes.

[–]Hillarysdilddo_2016 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I'm arguing that being emotionally numb to women doesn't correlate with how much of a man you are.

And you'd be wrong. Being stoic and steadfast is the sign of an alpha male. Go watch YouTube videos of men lashing out or crying into the camera. Your vagina will dry up like the Sahara.

but that doesn't mean we can't make certain generalizations that apply to both sexes.

True. We both enjoy sex. But our sexual strategies are different.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorFieldLine 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Ok, let me spell it out for you:

The man I want to be != the guy who gets laid every night and feels totally apathetic towards other people. Having an emotional connection with your girl and being in control of your emotions are not mutually exclusive.

Any loser can get laid. Maybe you'll settle to be the douchebag player, an "alpha male" or whatever who no one actually likes but tolerates; I'm not interested in being your brand of alpha.

[–]Hillarysdilddo_2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The man I want to be != the guy who gets laid every night

Good. Every man should have his own desires and goals.

...and feels totally apathetic towards other people

Not sure that even logically follows unless you subscribe to some very simplistic thinking.

Any loser can get laid.

Patently false.

"alpha male" or whatever who no one actually likes but tolerates

Andddd? Who cares what others think? Should I feel shame? I'll let you feel it for me.

I'm not interested in being your brand of alpha.

You do you bub. No one really gives a shit.

Good job trolling.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 10 points11 points  (18 children)


It goes deeper too.

The urban environment combined with Blue Pill brainwashing (and constant attachment to smartphones) creates an entirely dissociated human.

In other words the brain gets "broken" by the constant disruptions in the urban environment and your mind becomes dulled by this brokenness.

Country living has a constant calm. Each thing in your environment gets noticed.

In my little small town I ride my bike on trails where the birds chirp with very specific sounds. I've been learning their languages (different for each species) and can imitate their communications. The deer are so used to people I ride within 10 feet and the mature ones don't even get scared anymore. I look right into their eyes and they can sense I'm not going to be a threat to them.

So generally in the urban setting everyone is overwhelmed with too much input.

The rural setting requires you to amplify and expand your senses to pick up everything. You actually do "return to your senses".

An urban person who visits a rural location thinks:


"Wow, this is boring... nothing going on..."


...even though a deer could be nearby and they just don't see it.

Family is better in a rural setting assuming you can make a living. (getting difficult)

Agenda 21 seeks to destroy the rural and cram all humans into "Smart Cities" where the overcrowding will discourage children.

It's the depopulation agenda.


[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (15 children)

With all the advertisements going on, the traffic, other people talking, can't really blame a city guy for having his brain shut some of his senses off else be overwhelmed.

You know, that may be another reason kids these days cannot pay attention too.

[–]NeoreactionSafe -1 points0 points  (14 children)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (12 children)

More insane conspiracy theory garbage. How the mods tolerate this crap being posted is beyond me. If there really was an illuminati group making such plans they already would have shot you for revealing their agenda. Wake up and stop reading and posting this insane asylum gossip. You sound like one of those mutterers you see in cities with signs written on cardboard in bad handwriting.

This is a wonderful post and you are trying to drag it down into something which plays to your conspiracy theory confirmation bias. Please stop it and start posting your nonsense in a conspiracy theory sub.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, no illuminati group would kill some random talking about their plans on the internet, seeing as they already dealt with that problem. The CIA coined the term "conspiracy theorist". There is no need for them to do anything when people around such conspiracy theorists shame the latter for being "crazy" or "mentally unstable". Moreover, if they killed everyone who called them out in some way, people would notice a lot more quickly and would be more likely to call out their bullshit.

[–]NeoreactionSafe -1 points0 points  (10 children)

From the same source:


...no, it's really happening.

Trump will end all this "conspiracy theory accusation" bullshit and the truth will be told and you will not be able to stop it.

The Globalist Tyranny is now openly being attacked as a negative.

It's over guy... you lost the election.

The people rose up.


[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (8 children)

Umm, are you talking to me? I am a card carrying Trump supporter. Trump does not believe in your illuminati theories either. You speak in idiotic parables that only you and David Icke understand. You rave on about 555 being "beta". What the hell are you talking about or are you making it up as you go?

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

are you making it up as you go?

Not always, but often enough for it to be noticeable. Something new comes up in the media and he starts churning posts and replies linking it to TRP, regardless if the link is legitimate or not.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Trump is openly against the Globalist Tyranny.

What the hell are you talking about?

"Nationalism not Globalism is our credo..."


[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Trump will end all this "conspiracy theory accusation" bullshit and the truth will be told and you will not be able to stop it.

  1. Is that why he has people on his staff that worked previously with the "usual suspects" of your "globalist conspiracy"?

  2. What happens if, despite Trump (or maybe through him), the conspiracies will turn out not to be true or existing?

[–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's real simple now.

"Nationalism not Globalism is our credo..."

...the age of "conspiracy theory accusation" has ended.

Trump openly defies the Globalist Tyranny.

Many people seem to have not known what Trump really said.

He's for real as far as anyone knows.

Until he proves to be deceiving us we let him continue speaking the truth.


Five years ago if you said "Globalist Tyranny" they would call you a "conspiracy theorist".

That's all gone now.

The truth defeated the lies... we win.




[–]Ovadox 0 points1 point  (3 children)

If the globalists are so evil and so powerful, then Trump will not maintain his power for very long by opposing their interests. He would either be utterly discredited, impeached or assassinated.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point  (1 child)


We might see the Dark Luciferians win.

But as they say "Satan can be thrown into a pit" and if that happens we might see the Age of Aquarius realized.

Either the Globalist Tyranny gets taken down or humanity is made slaves in a prison planet.

The EU might break apart too... Brexit was the beginning.


[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Give it some time instead of jerking off Trump. You're assuming too much, like the Bernie fanboys did.

[–]LarParWar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The globalists have never gone up a man as intelligent and devious as they, and they have certainly never gone up against a man as intelligent and devious as they who is also the President of the United States, the sole world superpower.

In the next 6 months or so we are going to see some serious shit.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Family is better in a rural setting assuming you can make a living. (getting difficult) This is what sucks. I would love to move back to my hometown but jobs are scarce.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is why the Trump victory gives some hope.


Expect the Revenge of the Globalist Tyranny.

They might crash the economy to undermine Trump so be prepared for that.

They will seek to get control back any way they can.

It might get rough... but it's a fight worth having.


[–]GentlemenMindset 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well-thought out analysis. Just like location has an influence on your political view, location will have an influence on your ideology if sex and relationships.

These numbers don't lie. Urban area individuals are shaped to think liberally and equality hence why the major feminist movements and neck beard white knights all populate the larger areas.

In that same vein, liberal thinking has given women the sexual freedom they so much crave and desire.

u/Whisper doesn't post to justify that women in rural areas are NAWALT. The rationality is that if you want opportunity to take advantage of hypergamy and the more likely scenario of AWALT tendencies, go to urban areas.

If you want your shot at an LTR, you'll have a better chance in rural areas with conservative thinking. Hoes will hoe and AWALT strictly applies regardless of the area, but chances are reduced in rural settings.

[–]Neo_Natal 1 point2 points  (2 children)

From my experience, there are places that have a balance of traditional hoes and city hoes. I live in a medium-small sized mid west city with ~300k people. It's basically a giant suburban town with little tidbits of city life. I go to a Uni here with about 15k kids and while there is an absolute abundance of hotties, at least 50% of them are already married. Most girls here settle for the first guy they fall for at a young age so it has a very conservative feel.

I do find more and more branch swinging sloots but for the most part, the 8's and up don't ride that much carousel and just settle. I doubt this town is unique in this way, so there are definitely places that have a healthy balance of the more loyal hoes vs. the dick collectors.

[–]LarParWar 0 points1 point  (1 child)

while there is an absolute abundance of hotties, at least 50% of them are already married

That sounds pretty unique to me. Very unique, to be honest. Do you mind sharing the city?

I love your phrase "dick collectors". I'm going to use that one.

[–]Rub_Lowe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even the bible talks about adultery. Hoes been doing hoe things in deserts.

[–]poopcasso 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Damn bro, you found something new and great here. Good job man.

[–]ASAP_Bickle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is false and completely retarded. Conservatism isn't caused by ruralism and liberalism isn't caused by urbanism. Correlation not causation. The reason for the causation is that the rural areas are mostly white and urban areas are full of blacks and Hispanics. People vote in their ethnic tribal interests. therightstuff.biz

[–]stoutdevildawg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Having been raised/lived in both rural and city environment I will say this. If you want to find ass and get laid without any effort if you're already somewhat alpha hit the fucking city. Rural areas suck for having side girls, friends with benefits, anything sensual in nature. Girls in rural areas seek traditional LTR. In the city however it's like a wildlife preservation of hoes and sluts. If you're the slightest bit alpha you WILL get laid.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Solid explanation why Seeking Arrangements works so much better in NYC and Miami than rural Kansas

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Out of the few months I've been on this sub, this is definitely the best analytical best yet. Great fucking post OP.

[–]coffee_and_lumber 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a solid, solid post. Thanks very much.

[–]suske127 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This post is a fantastic insight from a point of view that has never crossed my mind, and that surprises me as I personally consider myself a person able to see every side of a situation. Thanks for sharing.

With that said, looking at the map of the US you linked, I can't help but feel slightly let down looking at my state MA. I live in Western MA and my town, as well as 6 surrounding towns, all voted Republican. However the nearby cities (Springfield MA for example) voted democrat. I saw it coming, it's simple politics.

Brilliant how you have been able to apply this concept to other areas of use however

[–]idiocraties 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thought: Autonomous cars will allow for much more dispersed living due to the lessened time and fatigue (and possibly price) cost of commuting. Will this see a re-population of rural areas and sub Dunbar number behaviour patterns?

[–]Fulp_Piction 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you're describing is changing the rules to make the game easier, but you're still trying to reach a beta goal with rp strategy. Hypergamy is the way it is, it's supposed to be there so we work hard for quality women, and the resulting children are the best genetic combination available.

Hypergamy is hard wired, it's lazy and hypocritical to try to control it, you can't force nature.

[–]Rocky_Bukkake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

well, these relationships can be formed in urban areas. there's just more, and overlapping, webs. perhaps there are more rules and regulations because there are more people and more webs and more complexity involved. i've been down rural areas and cops still stop you..

although, in a rural area, with there being the same exact cop over and over, i could most likely form a closer relationship to that cop, and thus have a personal basis with the law. this would be easier than in the city. i like the idea, i'll play with it for a while!

[–]LOST_TALE 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Political views are a function of biology is even better.

[–]efrp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Slutty behaviour is an inevitable result of urbanism.

No. By that logic, the biggest and largest number of sluts would be in cities in India and Asia, but that's decidedly not true.

[–]1Soarinc 0 points1 point  (0 children)


"The Genetics of Politics | Liberals vs. Conservatives"

Title of the video says everything,

[–]esperanzablanca 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Slutty behaviour is an inevitable result of urbanism

I have seen with my own eyes many small town girls with a small dick count move to the city and become massive sluts

[–]Drenzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what's good for men?

It depends what you want. Unchecked hypergamy is good for you if you are looking for sex with as many different women as possible with as low as possible an investment of time, effort, and money

That only applies to the top 20% of men.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Although sluts are everywhere, the lack of anonymity in smaller towns or groups has an obvious influence.

It's similar to how women will behave more slutty when only somewhere for a short time, like vacation or 1 year exchange program. Also women that have ruined their reputations will also move because they know how they are viewed and men are only going after quick bangs with them. Big red flag is a woman that lived many places for short periods and does not keep in touch with those folks.

[–]Ricardo_Machista 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Girls are also sluts in rural areas. The difference is in small towns you and your friends have all fucked the same girls and new pussy is rare. I do like the christian conservative agrarian culture of middle America but could never live the lifestyle and you can find these type of girls in the city too.

[–]kanyewost 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so thats why facebook has ruined society

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

How do you think Suburbs with Cities near them be classified as? Lets say you live near a major city like Toronto but aren't quite there. Would that fall in between?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Suburbs at least in Canada are usually more conservative than the downtown core, like the GTA for example is where conservatives like the Fords get their votes.

For example, alot of young families as well as retired ones move to the suburbs, and realize they want lower (property) taxes cuz they own their homes, and have high paying jobs or pensions, thus their prime concerns are lower taxes and less government debt. That's just one example of why conservative appeals to suburbs but there are many more reasons.