[Valentine]

Recently in my efforts to become more stylish I started researching the topic and came across a very interesting perspective by Krauser on bad boy style.

He essentially proposes that the refined/classy style of suits/shirts/etc (which is the main style promoted on RVF) is K-selected, whilst a bad boy look is r-selected (also see this post for the comparison between r/K selection).

For example he also wrote:

Caption: "Boyfriend material. No chance of SDL"

Fellow London daygamer Tom Torero has also changed his style from suits to a bad boy look and said that he now gets better results:

(skip to 1:26)

After reading this I can now see how the bad boy look will, for most people, appear more r-selected than if they had gone for a refined look.

You're downplaying any Provider traits of status, connections and money to instead highlight your Lover traits of game, looks and sex appeal. Which can lead to faster lays because she doesn't put you on the boyfriend track with 3+ dates to close.

Now I critically look at any piece of clothing and think:
Does this make look like a good guy? A wealthy man? Someone who would impress her parents?
Or does it make look like a sex machine that doesn't give a fuck?

What do you think? Can the refined look be r-selected?

You may or may not agree with the premise, but regardless also feel free to use this thread to post your own examples of r-selected looks and style.

Here's some potentials:

[Travesty]

Low cut top

Open jacket

Tight dark jeans

Boots

Rough accessories

Conspiracy pattern?


Listen I just wear an orange jump suit and a bullet belt, but that's me.

[Spectrumwalker]

I think up to a certain age, like late 20's, men can pull off an r selected look. It's the look of youth and rebellion that will get you fast sex. Late 20s and on, even if a man only wants flings, he has to kill the inner boy and start dressing like a man who respects himself. If a man is past 30 and still trying to dress like a 19 year old "cool cat" like the dude in the last photo, it just looks pathetic and borderline homosexual. Rings? Bracelets? Give me a break. Unless it's proof of military service.

K selected is the masculine warrior trait. Most leftist men are psychology r selected (feminine worldview) and in a state of arrested development. Wannabe rebels trying to compensate for being weak. Physically, mentally and emotionally. We can not stoop to their level. As we get older, even if we don't have a fat bank account we can still dress with dignity. It makes you stand out from the crowd and puts a spring in your step.

If you're worried about "appearing" K selected, thats where your game comes in to let her know otherwise. But for Christ's sake seeing grown men dress like teens is no better than older women dressing like they hadn't hit the wall.

On a phone. I can't post pics of a good K selected look.

Slacks, good blazer, pocket square, overcoat, dress shirt, dark jeans, matching belts and dress shoes. A good pair of black boots. You get the idea.

[InsertNameHere]

(03-22-2016 04:14 AM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  

I think up to a certain age, like late 20's, men can pull off an r selected look. It's the look of youth and rebellion that will get you fast sex. Late 20s and on, even if a man only wants flings, he has to kill the inner boy and start dressing like a man who respects himself. If a man is past 30 and still trying to dress like a 19 year old "cool cat" like the dude in the last photo, it just looks pathetic and borderline homosexual. Rings? Bracelets? Give me a break. Unless it's proof of military service.

I think the country and social environment you're in matters a lot, too. I live in Paris, where being elegant is still a virtue. Thing is, the majority of French guys either dress like hipsters, or try to be classy and just come off as chodes. Dressing like in these photos *could* work in some places, but is more likely to get you pegged as an immigrant/refugee.

In that case, I think going for more 'rakish' style than 'bad boy' has the same effect, but is better adapted to the environment here (Tanner over at Masculine Style has a good breakdown of different style archetypes: rakish, rugged, and refined). Think of a more Italian style, with a little fuck-you attitude and sprezzatura (and it's no coincidence that French girls go nuts for Italians).

Same impact, but different execution. In short, you need to adapt to the environment as well.

A couple of examples of what I have in mind:




No one is going to peg these guys as boyfriend material, and they both scream "I am drowning in pussy."

[Valentine]

(03-22-2016 04:14 AM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  

I think up to a certain age, like late 20's, men can pull off an r selected look. It's the look of youth and rebellion that will get you fast sex. Late 20s and on, even if a man only wants flings, he has to kill the inner boy and start dressing like a man who respects himself. If a man is past 30 and still trying to dress like a 19 year old "cool cat" like the dude in the last photo, it just looks pathetic and borderline homosexual. Rings? Bracelets? Give me a break. Unless it's proof of military service.

Good point. I'm in my mid-20s still and I feel like I'd have at least another decade to feasibly pull it off, but in terms of long-term ROI it makes more sense to get acclimated and learn about the style that I'd wear for the longer period.

(03-22-2016 11:21 AM)InsertNameHere Wrote:  

In that case, I think going for more 'rakish' style than 'bad boy' has the same effect, but is better adapted to the environment here (Tanner over at Masculine Style has a good breakdown of different style archetypes: rakish, rugged, and refined). Think of a more Italian style, with a little fuck-you attitude and sprezzatura (and it's no coincidence that French girls go nuts for Italians).

-snip-

No one is going to peg these guys as boyfriend material, and they both scream "I am drowning in pussy."

Great article, I really liked his breakdown of rakish style. Mixing up the refined look with some more overt peacocking and sexualisation. I think that's the style I'll aim towards now, thanks guys.

[InsertNameHere]

(03-22-2016 09:18 PM)Valentine Wrote:  

Great article, I really liked his breakdown of rakish style. Mixing up the refined look with some more overt peacocking and sexualisation. I think that's the style I'll aim towards now, thanks guys.

After thinking about it more, using Tanner's categories I think the r-selected element in either case is rakishness. The pictures you posted are more rugged with a dose of rakishness thrown in, the ones I posted are more refined + rakish. That seems to be the common element giving the flavour we want.

[frenchcorporation]

wear a nike tracksuit with a rolex. job done.

[Nascimento]

R-selected and k-selected again.

Seriously?

[DaveR]

(03-23-2016 08:44 PM)Nascimento Wrote:  

R-selected and k-selected again.

Seriously?

Exactly. To the OP: see this post for an understanding of why the use of terms like "r/K selection" makes one look like a fool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

That terminology was introduced by a long-since-debunked theory of evolution from the '70s. Even if overlooking its debunking, the theory was intended to describe the traits of an entire species, not categories of individuals within one.

The London Daygame team picked up those terms as a marketing gimmick to make their videos sound more scientific.

Also better not to rely on anything by Tom Toero - he is a complete fraud.

[Isaac Jordan]

(03-23-2016 08:44 PM)Nascimento Wrote:  

R-selected and k-selected again.

Seriously?

"r-selected" and "K-selected" are probably not the adjectives the OP meant to use. There are far too many people here who haven't done their evolutionary biology homework, and when they see people like Krauser throwing these terms out they simply regurgitate them in a similar context without really understanding the concepts themselves.

Clichéd as it is, OP really would've been better off using "alpha" and "beta," as he's essentially describing women's biologically innate sexual strategy, which we frequently refer to here as "Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks."

While some may believe AF/BB is simply another heuristic invented by PUAs trying to avoid the pitfalls associated with buying a woman's affection, there is in fact strong evidence suggesting that AF/BB is literally built into a woman's genetic makeup.

Here's a clarifying quote from Matt Ridley's The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature:

Quote:

There has been no genetic change since we were hunter-gatherers, but deep in the mind of the modern man is a simple male hunter-gatherer rule: Strive to acquire power and use it to lure women who will bear heirs; strive to acquire wealth and use it to buy other men's wives who will bear bastards. It began with a man who shared a piece of prized fish or honey with an attractive neighbor's wife in exchange for a brief affair and continues with a pop star ushering a model into his Mercedes. From fish to Mercedes, the history is unbroken: via skins and beads, plows and cattle, swords and castles. Wealth and power are means to women; women are means to genetic eternity.

Likewise, deep in the mind of a modern woman is the same basic hunter-gatherer calculator, too recently evolved to have changed much: Strive to acquire a provider husband who will invest food and care in your children; strive to find a lover who can give those children first class genes. Only if she is very lucky will they be the same man. It began with a woman who married the best unmarried hunter in the tribe and had an affair with the best married hunter, thus ensuring her children a rich supply of meat. It continues with a rich tycoon's wife bearing a baby that grows up to resemble her beefy bodyguard. Men are to be exploited as providers of parental care, wealth, and genes.

I won't go into r/K-selection here (those interested should check out Anonymous Conservative's blog and his very excellent book), but suffice it to say that the OP is definitely on to something when he suggests modeling your look to appeal to the "Alpha Fucks" side of the AF/BB spectrum.

[Rhyme or Reason]

People take this r/k shit way too seriously. Does it make sense? Yes. It's still just a theory. Though I do agree with the Bill Whittle position that societies decline into R selection once they hit a certain point of prosperity, I think it's application in this context is a bit misappropriated.

Quote:

The London Daygame team picked up those terms as a marketing gimmick to make their videos sound more scientific.

Those guys always struck me as tools.

[Valentine]

(03-25-2016 10:58 AM)Isaac Jordan Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 08:44 PM)Nascimento Wrote:  

R-selected and k-selected again.

Seriously?

"r-selected" and "K-selected" are probably not the adjectives the OP meant to use. There are far too many people here who haven't done their evolutionary biology homework, and when they see people like Krauser throwing these terms out they simply regurgitate them in a similar context without really understanding the concepts themselves.

Clichéd as it is, OP really would've been better off using "alpha" and "beta," as he's essentially describing women's biologically innate sexual strategy, which we frequently refer to here as "Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks."

Yeah this isn't a term I would normally use, just used the terms in the linked content so the post would make sense.

I was more trying to hit home on the fact that it's easier to look like a Beta by wearing a suit than if you wore a bad boy outfit.

Though InsertNameHere made the excellent distinction of making it a rakish refined style to ensure that you're perceived as more of a Lover than a Provider.

[kaotic]

r/K revisted - alpha/beta noone uses google search on the forum do they

There's plenty of fashion threads already started.

Quote:

I was more trying to hit home on the fact that it's easier to look like a Beta by wearing a suit than if you wore a bad boy outfit.

So now wearing a custom suit, with some dope shoes, and your favorite pocket square is considered beta ?

[realologist]

I'm with kaotic on this one. This is a dead horse beating another dead horse.

In the end these alpha/beta and r/k terms don't mean a damn thing. All that matters with style is that it fits good, looks good, fits your persona and that helps you get laid. Anything outside of that doesn't matter.

Whether you are determined alpha or beta comes from what vibe you put off more than the clothes. A man can make a leather jacket look cool or look like a loser.

Cool


Loser


Same as a suit

Cool



Loser



It's up to the man inside of it.

[Valentine]

(03-25-2016 12:40 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

So now wearing a custom suit, with some dope shoes, and your favorite pocket square is considered beta ?

Not at all. That's a strawman if I've ever seen one.

The average suit wearer looks like a salaryman Provider - that's indisputable.

They're told to wear suits to look "handsome" but end up looking like chodes.

Thus it's clearly easier to end up looking like a Beta by starting to wear suits than if you went in the opposite direction with the rebellious bad boy style.

Thankfully we have great educational resources like Suits' latest datasheet and Tanner's blog posts on Rake style to ensure that we wear it in an Alpha way.

[kaotic]

Alright.

The average rebellious bad boy wearer looks like a try hard - that's indisputable.

They're told to wear rebellious bad boy wear to look "dangerous or mysterious" but end up looking like chodes.

Thus it's clearly easier to end up looking like a Beta by starting to wear rebellious bad boy wears than if you went in the opposite direction with the customer fitted suit.


I've seen plenty of betas try to rock the rebellious look who end looking like fag hipsters.

Clothing can only do so much, it's your demeanor that rocks whats you got.

I don't always rock a suit, hell sometimes I'll button up a flannel to the top button, rock chucks, and have a resting asshole face. Some girls told I intimidated them on a date.

I've rocked a custom suit and got nothing but compliments, a girls called me 007, which led into a great segway.

Demeanor and what comes out of your mouth counts alot more than dressing alpha beta.

Plenty of youtube videos of dudes wearing the most ridiculous things getting girls phone numbers off the streets.


Once again, recycled thread, and

[Valentine]

Considering the amount of people who wear suits every day I can pick out far less of them as a % who look Alpha compared to those who wear a bad boy style. But who knows maybe it's just the city I'm in.

Anyway, I feel that InsertNameHere gave a satisfactory enough conclusion to this thread to not need an extended debate about Alpha vs Beta clothes. The defining element is 'rakishness' and that's what we need to ensure our style contains, no matter if it's with a suit or a leather jacket.

[kaotic]

That's exactly what this was from the get go, another alpha beta clothing thread. One of many.

Could be location, could be proximity to a college town bar, or financial district.

Alot goes into play, mixing both and rocking both, you can never go wrong.

[Rhyme or Reason]

Quote:

Not at all. That's a strawman if I've ever seen one.

The average suit wearer looks like a salaryman Provider - that's indisputable.

They're told to wear suits to look "handsome" but end up looking like chodes.

So you accuse him of using a strawman and in the very next line you use not one, but two strawman arguments?

[DaveR]

(03-25-2016 10:58 AM)Isaac Jordan Wrote:  

I won't go into r/K-selection here (those interested should check out Anonymous Conservative's blog and his very excellent book), but suffice it to say that the OP is definitely on to something when he suggests modeling your look to appeal to the "Alpha Fucks" side of the AF/BB spectrum.

You shouldn't really go into r/K-selection anywhere, in my opinion. Anonymous Conservative does a good job of explaining female psychology, but using terminology from bunk theories of evolution to back up his points does nothing for his credibility. As I pointed out earlier, the use of that terminology is nothing more than a sales gimmick from the London Daygame people.

(03-25-2016 12:25 PM)Red_Pillage Wrote:  

Those guys always struck me as tools.

Feel the same way. Krauser, Toero, etc. - they're only interested in hyping their products. I see very little value in the majority of what those tools post.

[Comte De St. Germain]

Want to learn about some R-selected fashion choices? Join in on the Fashion and Style lounge.

thread-53940.html

Want to have an awesome R-selected crew on a night out and among your day to day experience? Read my Social Circle Game datasheet.

thread-34576.html

Am I doing this selfish self promotion schtick right while rehashing the alpha/beta discussion again???//

Oh right I forgot one more thing. Gib rep points pls or I repot u fo no recognize value. lozlozlozlozlozloz Kaotic is using strawmans lozlozloz