One of the readers over at CH asked a question that strikes to the heart of a lot of what I’ve been thinking about recently, so I wrote it up here:
Dad game is a topic of great interest to me, and I think it’s as misunderstood by the community as Cad game is by mainstream betas. In evo psych terms, there is short-term and long-term mating strategy, and everyone pursues some mixture of both. I’ve written before that I believe game represents a society of men teaching themselves to pursue a short-term mating strategy. The common misconception, however, is that mainstream betatude is the only alternative to this short-term strategy. It is not. Successful long-term mating strategy is every bit is as different from mainstream gender relations as its short-term counterpart. It simply has different methods and aims. To reword it, “being a man” in the traditional sense of the phrase (a husband and father) is not synonymous with being a beta provider. It is simply adopting a long-term mating strategy, and it is up to you whether you do this successfully (like a man) or unsuccessfully (like a beta.)
So what is the chief difference between short and long term? It is a question of how much you invest. The mistake most guys make today is to think that the dichotomy is between being alpha and beta. Being an asshole and being a nice guy. Being hard and being vulnerable. Not true at all. The men who think this did not have devoted fathers who were hard, asshole alphas. The west has little model for this personality type, which is why commitment is associated with being a pussy. This is not the case.
Evolutionary biologists make the distinction between k-selection and r-selection mating systems — societies with high paternal investment and low paternal investment. This is the fundamental difference between dad and cad — not strength and weakness, but simply how much you invest. We all know the cad approach. Women come and go, they chase you, you show comparatively little interest, and their pussies melt until they cannot resist your mercurial, high status cock. The dad approach is different. It is high commitment, long-term, and high investment. This is the game you adopt when you find a girl worth keeping, and it requires even GREATER levels of alpha-ness to keep up. This is because you must become a central part of the girl’s life and you must fill the figure of a leader to her. You must be actively involved in her life. You must take care of her — and contrary to popular opinion, girls don’t all want this all the time. In fact, I have always found that girls frequently resist my attempts at providing for them, because they know it will come with strings attached. Men don’t understand it as well as women, but if you provide for someone, it gives you room to have power over them.
The key thing to focus on, in my opinion, is that investment from the right man is what all women are looking for, and investment is very different from what men think women want. It is not being nice. It is not being emotionally open. It is not giving her gifts or doing what she tells you to. It is literally just caring about someone enough to make them a central figure in your life, and then demonstrating it through action. In my experience, sex is the currency that men seek in relationships, and attention is its female equivalent. Your level of investment is most strongly communicated through the attention or inattention you pay to her, and this this attention signifies investment whether it is positive or negative. Expressing jealousy is expressing investment. Calling to see what she is doing is investment, especially if it is in a Big Brother way. Knowing her schedule and reminding her of what she has to do today is investment. Making rules for her like telling you where she is going is investment. Telling her to meet you some place and telling her exactly what to wear or not wear is investment — as is buying clothes for her specifically because you want to see her in them. Does this make sense? These are things that are not weak or beta, but they all communicate commitment in a different way. If they are with strong men, I do not hear women complain about things like this. Only if they are with insecure men.
I believe the central failing of the manosphere at the moment is its common inability to see that acts are not beta in themselves, but can be alpha or beta depending on context. This reflects a very male mode of thinking that does not apply to the world of women. I am exploring long-term strategy on my own, and do not see many other people talking about it. So I will continue to post about it, but here are a few short posts I’ve made in the past. I would also recommend reading Franco’s stuff because he is still the best relationship guy out there.