My comments over at Rivsdiary, where Riv questions why Krauserpua didn’t correct the interviewer for saying that women who hold out for sex sometimes do it because they view the man as being of higher value – Riv posits this is wrong, and that the holding out is only for “providers” who all by definition are of lower value.

Riv, are you operating under the mental map that alpha strategy and provider strategy are distinct? Always Either/Or? Never AND?

There has never been, nor could there ever be, an alpha provider who pair bonds? And there has never been and could never be a woman who seeks out such a man, and makes him wait as her strategy?

Daysofgame said:

We should escalate… we should lead… we should be a sexual threat… but I think for “most sex,” we’ll fuck more if we go 2+ dates… and then sex… and then drop her into rotation.

I’m not sure that there is any rule of thumb about number of dates and the likelyhood of a girl sticking around.

I think it has more to do with vibe, and sexual connection. The type of vibe and sexual connection – does it include love and comfort – no matter how rough or S and M style it is.

It’s hard to really know what it is that works when things work, but I think girls can bond fast – on the first date, and during first date sex. And of course more sex gets better each time, and more bonding.

But the idea of alpha non-bonding R selected sex – even having that mental map at all in your head, could likely be sending a vibe that could scare girls away.

Vibe over technique.

I’m going to assume Riv that you viewed my question as rhetorical, but it still would be useful to clarify to get a reply.

I asked Rollo this years ago, and he replied that it was only possible in theory, but pretty well never in practice.

I consider it psychologically impossibility for the long married Rollo to both consider being an Alpha Provider an impossibility, and to consider himself to be one.  In other words, he doesn’t consider himself alpha in his relationship, and blames it on his provider status, and proclaims that therefore no other provider could be alpha either.

I talk from first hand experience a lot, and that doesn’t always go over very well, so I’m not really sure whose reference experiences I’m supposed to use in that case.

But from my experience, I can be a really lousy lover sometimes who hardly gets into sex, and can’t provoke much feeling out of my lover, and then on a different day or later the same day, after some chi-kung, or maybe smoking a little pot, or simply paying more attention, I can feel a great deal more energy and emotion and power in my own body, and arouse a hell of a lot more out of my lover.

So I know from my own body that there are gigantic differences in what sex can feel like. And what sex can be aroused out of me by sympatico lovers, and what my part in that dance is.

I honestly think that you have it completely reversed as to who the high level men are.

Your version of Alpha bad boy is the low level man; the man who can’t arouse the full sexual potential, and therefore fully love-enslave and get the full Alpha treatment out of a woman.

It’s only the romantic bad boy, the romantic libertine, who can get the best out of a woman.

The pure love em and leave em bad boy won’t be able to even begin to get the beginnings of half way decent sex out of MOST girls, who actually need to be at least somewhat in love first, before fully opening up their best sex.

Or look at it another way. The women who can’t pair bond, do you view them as superior, because they are so hot that they simply don’t have to?

No, you view them as fundamentally broken.

Dark triad traits are traits of people who are fucked up. Not normal. Broken people.

Those are not the highest level men, by any stretch.

People who can’t pair bond are fucked up and broken – not the highest level, and they won’t ever get 1/1000th of the treatment that a woman will give to a man who has ALL of the attractive traits going on, which absolutely include love and pair bonding.

It’s such incredible bullshit to keep repeating over and over and over that women give up their assholes for the R selected pump and dump thug, but only give tepid sex to boyfriends.

So so so incredibly WRONG.

When are people going to learn?!!

How many more years will it take?

In other words, much of the theory that is red pill was created by men who started out as sexual underdogs, and then took a video-game approach to getting sex – which will NEVER arouse the best sex out a woman.

Sex isn’t about technique.

It’s all vibe. And personal power – or mojo – or chi-kung.

The idea that “provider-betas” get shitty sex was created by betas that get shitty sex.

It wasn’t created by men who have their shit together and have extra-ordinarily devoted love slaves who they in turn love and care for. The guys in great relationships never bothered to get into the conversation.

Or when they did, they were shouted down by the know-it-all know nothings, who wave in their fists at blasphemers their copy of the Rollo certified sexual marketplace map, and have spent years debating the finer points of the map, and know all the rules of it, inside and out. And who have never had a good relationship, and so blame it on women for viewing providers as betas.

The map, the diorama, is more wrong than right, and so I think it is much better to simply flat out call it


Regarding always using the strategy of opening with the bad boy and letting her tame you, again, I don’t think we find any one size fits all answers.

Sometimes the girl will quickly be very, very, very into the guy, and the sex can quickly become the best of her life, by orders of magnitude.

That makes her feel incredibly vulnerable – panicky even. It can really throw her off balance – she’ll not only obsess over the guy, but will get paranoid thoughts about if he’ll leave her, and for girls that means jealous fits.

So the rule of thumb to not appear clingy and supplicating is correct, but at a kindergarden level, the same way 2 plus 2 will always be 4, even in high school.

It’s very simple, but there is much more to math then that.

A better rule of thumb is “say I love you about 1/3 as much as she does”, and then take that attitude and stretch it out.

But she will need reassurances, the more she’s into you. And if the seduction is going well, that could be very quickly.

So again, taking the idea of that bad boys are the higher value guys to emulate is completely ass backwards.

Girls will literally go to jail for their men. Sacrifice everything. You can own a woman’s heart, mind, body, and soul.

But what will a pump and dump guy own?

Actions speak louder than red pill memes. The actions of girls to betas who have no skill in bed or in life or in domination are nothing to base a philosophy of love on.

Provider =/ Beta.
Alpha =/ pump and dump expert

So, when are we going to stop saying and thinking provider-beta?
When are we going to stop saying and thinking that the one night stands go to the high value men?

I had a model handsome intern out here, who was a dating coach, and considered himself very well versed and practiced in game.

Girls would approach HIM at the bar.

But he couldn’t get a girlfriend if he wanted one. He was always singing the refrain “these ho’s ain’t loyal”. Because no matter his game and looks, he could never inspire loyalty out of a girl.

And I never saw him with a single girl who was as attractive as he was.

What about shooting way out of your league and getting fidelity and devotion in all actions, and 100 times better sex? Would not the man who did that be, by the woman’s own actions, MUCH higher value?

Bad boy R selected game is pretty well a waste of time, when compared to getting the most out of women. It’s fast food – a few times a month. Instead of top level feasts 5 times a day. Guys who rely on pump and dump for sex barely get laid at all, and they have shitty sex, relative to chi-kung sex with a woman in devoted full blown love.