"Manipulating" beta billy into thinking you like him if you have a hole for a crotch is the simplest thing in the world. Just send him one of the 1,000 lewd pics you've sent to your psychopathic Chad bf, and flirt with him a little, thus getting him to do your homework or whatever else you want.
Then ghost him once he comes to collect on his sexual arrears.
This is not rocket science. Foids are easily able to leverage their social privilege to their advantage, even the most stupid ones, and what does not come naturally to them is learned over the course of their relationships with psychopathic Chads.
I watched a show a few days ago where a Black foid (Black foids being renowned for their extraordinarily low IQs and extraordinarily intense hybristophilias) was texting what she thought was a hot Tyrone. But it was actually her grandmother, who she was living with, and who has chadfishing her, JFL!!! Anyway, she got grounded by her grandmother and straight up told the "hot Tyrone" to come and kill her grandmother for it, and run away with her. Why was she that audacious? Because that's literally how easy it is to be a foid. Despite the fact that her grandmother was pretending to be a nice guy personality-wise while Chadfishing her, the Shaniqua considered it not only possible but likely that this persona would straight-up commit murder for her, after impugning his masculinity a little and calling him a "pussy" for being reluctant. This is the power of the smelly roastie slit. The "manipulation" is so visceral and founded on inherent privilege that it is not impressive in the slightest.
I will yield to the point that the act of manipulation itself is much easier for women. This is true. But by your own admission, the black roasties are extraordinarily low IQ. If she successfully convinces a man to commit murder for her, it generally means the man is even more stupid than her. It would be very rare if she could convince a smarter man to go through. The point is an obvious one, but should be mentioned, regardless. A person has a much easier time manipulating somebody who is dumber.
If you were to plot IQ and thirst on a graph, the ratio of thirst level to IQ will determine the manipulation index. High IQ individuals who are thirsty as fuck are still much harder to manipulate than lower IQ ones of equal thirst. You could even add in another variable - gender politics and views on women - to modify this manipulation index. This is all spitballing, but let's say the manipulation index would be increased by a factor of >1 for anyone with progressive views on women (in other words those whose views are more sympathetic towards women) and would be decreased by a factor of <1 for those with more traditional views (wife should stay in the house and raise kids etc.).
We could set up an experiment to test this in a controlled setting with the working hypothesis that a combination of IQ and views on women determine different manipulation indices, which then translate to different thresholds for willingness to commit certain types of acts.
@HowCanSheSlap.
As a relevant side note, the cases of e-cucks (instathot and twitch whore donors), findom, and the like are abnormalities. If we're being frank, there's almost zero manipulation occurring in those domains.
And on this note, spare me your capitalist idealism. If you're a CEO and have all the privilege that entails, including social connections and insider information, decisions are hardly difficult to make. You and I are both qualified to succeed in either the role of a foid-bloodsucker/Chad in the parasitic "sexual marketplace," or their counterparts in the capitalist economic cesspool.
And spare me the anti-capitalist indignation.
That's the reality, friend. I've explained to you how the difficulty of decision-making positions are not as trivial as those on the outside of such positions who caricaturize CEOs as smoking cigars, while laughing and counting fat stacks in their office. You do with that as you will, be it cynicism or otherwise.
That isn't to say that there aren't greedy, exploitative CEOs who are psychopaths willing to strangle kittens and puppies, if it meant their company valuations took a steep climb. The density of psychopaths is much higher in power positions than in the general population, because you have to be willing to ruthlessly stomp on your competition. Having that mindset as an empath, for example, is not possible.
The same goes for other positions of power, like an army general who has to make a strategic decision to sacrifice his own troops for a long-term gambit in a war. When the decision goes favorably history is sympathetic and say things like, "they had to make a tough call, but we're all better off for it," or they villify them and place blame when it all goes wrong.
This is why people like to have leaders, rather than be one. It is dimensions of reality easier to abstain from high level responsibility and point a finger when things go to shit, than it is to be in the spotlight of having to make tough decisions and risk receiving all of the hate and blame for even one bad decision.
