MetaThe "Real" Red Pill: If we're not getting them pregnant, is sex just a fancy way to jerk off? Existential crisis (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by ebaymasochist

Natural selection fascinates me. Recently I heard that soon, the only factor that will decide "survival of the fittest" is choosing to have children or not. This is fucking depressing, but we see it in action all the time.. Smart, fit people deciding not to have kids, or to only have one, who might not have turned out so well.. Physically repulsive people breeding like rabbits..

Do I think people should just have as many children as possible? Fuck no. Absolutely not. I don't care if anyone here has kids. The world doesn't need more people.

Do I think casual sex has no value? Couldn't be further from the truth.

Do I think "nature" decides winners and losers based on passing on our genes? Yes. We all die eventually and the only way to "win" is if your particular combination of DNA is out there somewhere.. (According to nature)

We can say that the red pill is understanding evolution and psychology and building sexual strategy for men, but if you're drawing the line at getting laid, and not actually spreading seed, are you actually following your natural "alpha" programming or just finding a really fun way of faking it?

"Everything humans do in life is just to have sex".. Yes and no.. I mean that's kind of like saying "every job exists just to have money to go to the grocery store" and leave out the part of actually eating the food. Everything humans do in life is just to have sex, because sex makes more people. (I hate the word babies)

Is "fuck a bunch of women, but don't get anyone pregnant" the blue pill of TRP? Is it just an elaborate of jerking yourself off?

I am thinking about this because I am in my late 20s, have one son, will not be able to have another kid with his mother, but we live together.. I don't want to fuck around for too long and look back on it and think "I really let society decide this huge part of my life.. I really chose having money over having more kids. I chose one night stands over my true biological imperative."

I mean maybe it comes down to "choose your illusion"

Mods, if this belongs in another sub or something, just let me know and I'll move it

[–]modSlyGradient[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (8 children)

While this post is borderline, we're gonna leave it up for now for the interesting discussion below. It is a worthwhile endeavor for any man to question his purpose. Or to quote Plato: For a man to conquer himself is the noblest of all victories.

The post unfortunately has been cross-posted to the Drama sub, so for any visitors from there, we will be reporting any brigading.

[–]The_Phoenecian 51 points52 points  (16 children)

Fantastic discussion topic in my opinion. Hormonally speaking, I know that having sex with a real woman releases a plethora of endorphins and neurotransmitters in the brain that are not released when you jerk off. That being said, I think the vast majority of sex that is had is a masturbatory endeavor, in the sense that it is solely engaged in for the pleasure of the two (or more) individuals involved. It's an expenditure of large amounts of energy for personal gain with no real tangible benefit to society or to the individual long-term. Having a bunch of sex doesn't get you any further in life, it just makes you more sexually experienced and (hopefully) better at sex. It doesn't get you a better job, it doesn't make you smarter, it doesn't make you better looking. If it doesn't end in the conception of a baby, It's essentially masturbatory.

I believe very strongly in human beings' propensity to transmute their sexual energy and utilize it in other endeavors. Mike Tyson didn't have sex for 5 years when he was at the absolute top of his game. Nikola Tesla was celibate and swore that his lack of sexual release contributed to his mental acuity and mathematical capabilities. Isaac Newton was celibate. Steve Jobs wouldn't cum when having sex with his girlfriend because he "needed that energy to generate wealth and power." Many great men throughout history have shunned sexual conquest in the interest of dedicating their time and energy to something they deem more important. Getting girls in bed regularly takes a lot of time and energy. Having a girlfriend takes a lot of time and energy.

Here's my potentially un-popular opinion: Society is so oversexed because the powers that be want men to be sex addicts whose sole purpose in life is to have as much sex with women, or men, fleshlights or donkeys as possible. They want men to jerk off as much as possible. They want there to be a fuckton of porn out there, and they want it to be as accessible as possible. It doesn't matter how men get their release, so long as they are addicted to sex and orgasm and forever unable to harness their sexual energy and transmute it to something else. I believe sexual transmutation can give men the ability to cause severe civil unrest and social disruption. It can also give men the ability to create great and amazing things.

For reference - Kundalini Yoga & Tantra.

[–]ebaymasochist[S] 10 points11 points  (11 children)

This is always something I've tried to practice, but never get past a week.. I see big results and then throw it away.

I agree with your opinion about TPTB benefiting from over consumption of porn. It can't just be a coincidence that online porn went from unobtainable to free within a couple years.. Really how are these people making any money when everything is free? Escort and cam shows?

Porn is the opium for the masses right now.

[–]The_Phoenecian 8 points9 points  (1 child)

The scale of porn use in the modern world is mind-boggling. What's really tragic is how young people are indoctrinated into using it pretty much in sync with their burgeoning sexuality. The fact that it is so ubiquitously preached as "normal" is sickening.

If you have issues making it past a week, you should do your damndest to get over them. I've caught a lot of flak for touting the benefits of staying away, but I can't deny the benefits that it's brought into my life. I am a completely different person than I was when I was PMO'ing every day. Different for the better. Many people who knew me back can attest to this. Porn fries your dopamine receptors. For many guys who've been using porn since their early adolescence, abstaining from it for a long period of time - I'm talking 30+ days - feels like waking up for the first time. Your dopamine receptors recalibrate to become more sensitive to normal stimuli. This yields more motivation to succeed and a feeling of general happiness. I never had either of those things until I stopped.

[–]ebaymasochist[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I've known about it for a long time, it's just a big coping mechanism for me.

[–]greenlittleman 1 point2 points  (8 children)

This is same question as "how people making any money from TV if everything is free?". Free sites make money from adverts and porn itself is created on paid sites where you could get full version of videos and earlier access. You could get mostly short videos for free and 80% of porn is paid product. And, funny enough, people pay for it and pay a lot. For example site of brazzers is one of the most profitable sites in the world. This has nothing to do with society - there a lot of people who wants to jerk off and ready to pay for that (either for paid porn or for cum/cam shows) and this creates large market to satisfy those people (and take their money, obviously). The only thing people in higher echelons of society care is status and money, no one gives a fuck about "restricting male nature" and so on, main objective is always profit everything else is consequences about which people don't care, same way as large companies don't care when they destroy nature.

[–]ebaymasochist[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Except television isn't free. People pay for the majority of programming monthly.. And there are no boobs on television Brazzers puts out higher quality stuff that I could see someone paying for.. But there's a reason they don't attach names to their ads. Once you know the names you can find the same videos for free.. And I could easily point out that there are hundreds of thousands of 20+ minute videos out there for free of various qualities and every genre. The only ads I ever see on porn sites like youporn and pornhub are for other porn sites, viagra, fuck milf or fuck asian or fuck bbw sites, cartoon porn, grow your dick to ten inches pills, and tutorials on how to fix porn induced ED... Maybe I'm wrong but no one in their right mind is clicking on these ads. How much can they charge for not getting clicks?

I'm not against population control but a lot of people are. They can't just come out and say they want less people having real sex, and more people fucking their hand, or a blowjob machine or sex robot, because they want less people to breed. The rich care about money and status but they're not as preoccupied with it as some people here are.. They have enough free time, power and money to try to influence people in other ways. Sometimes there are two motives, profit and a social influence. The upper echelons are travelling the world and see the bigger picture. Some of them may be willing to destroy nature, but there are groups who mention over population very often and think there are too many people junking up the planet. I don't think they are the type who sees a problem and feels powerless to stop it. That's just my opinion, not like I can do anything about it. I'd probably have to stop watching the stuff myself before anyone would take it seriously. Look up "Club of Rome" quotes if you've never heard of them before

[–]ETRossier 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I've never seen Kundalini and Tantra mentioned here on TRP. Have you had trouble blending the two ideologies (for lack of a better term)?

[–]The_Phoenecian 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It can be challenging to find harmony between TRP and Kundalini/Tantra, because in some regards the two are contradictory. Whereas Kundalini and Tantra preach the benefits of a conservative approach to sexuality, TRP preaches maximizing your attractiveness and thus your chances to have sexual encounters with women.

Personally, I've been able to find a balance. In my eyes, the benefits of Kundalini and Tantra are very real. When you go long enough without sexual release, you learn to channel and redirect the energy within you. Do that long enough and that hyper-energetic state becomes your new normal. Then, if you do have an orgasm, you feel the benefits recede. It's subtle, but it happens. Mind you this is all just based on personal experience, I'm sure everybody differs.

The benefits of following TRP are far more tangible than those of following Kundalini and Tantra. You can count the number of women you've slept with, you can see the number rise/fall on the scale after months of hard workouts and conscientious dieting. To quote Travis Scott, you can count up the 0's in your bank. The self-improvement side of TRP is what originally drew me here, and it remains the aspect of TRP to which I am most closely attuned.

I'm at a point where fucking as many girls as I can is not my priority. It hasn't always been that way. Since following the lessons of TRP for the last two years, I've had more success with women and in my career than ever before in my life. As cliche as it is, I've had those moments of "holy shit, I'm Chad," and I'm glad to have had them because when I was a young teen those experiences were all that I had to strive for. But I now have creative endeavors that are my main mission, and I feel drawn to Kundalini and Tantra as a means of bolstering my creative energy. Hope that answered your question, I love talking about this haha.

[–]ETRossier 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply! I've definitely struggled with finding that harmony, and I know that Kundalini without balance can be dangerous, so sometimes it's hard to know how to proceed, especially as someone who is still a novice to both. Just hearing that someone else HAS been able to find that balance is helpful to me.

If it's a subject of interest to you, it might be worth making a post about it. I'd love to hear you go more in depth about that balance, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds trouble blending spiritual practice and mindfulness with TRP.

[–]zyqkvx 100 points101 points  (9 children)

existential dread is like feeling suicidal. They make sense in their own bubble but is universally seen from the outside as a shortsighted petty pity party of one. It doesn't take much of a mission to stay clear of that. We don't know any of the things we demand ourselves to know, like the afterlife, or the importance of offspring.

Eat clean, go to the gym and do sets awhile you figure out your existentialism so 3 months from now the world is your oyster instead of 3 months of wasting away. Keep it simple: 3 months from now will come. Take a trip to the mountains and you will realize you are anywhere you put yourself.

[–]Wolveryn 53 points54 points  (2 children)

you are anywhere you put yourself.

This is some Alan Watts stuff right there.

[–]iheartrms 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Sounds like "Wherever you go, there you are." from Buckaroo Bonzai to me.

[–]3d_truth 6 points7 points  (0 children)

So many people fail to grasp its true meaning. Or they think they understand it, then they realize their wildest dreams only to discover that they are the same person.

[–]dpgproductions 24 points25 points  (2 children)

you are anywhere you put yourself

This is some refrigerator magnet quality stuff. I like it.

[–]warmbutteredbagel 15 points16 points  (0 children)

If you're on the fridge, you just might be a magnet

[–]RightWingKing69 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Good comment I gave a few question. 1: what do you mean by this “We don't know any of the things we demand ourselves to know, like the afterlife, or the importance of offspring.

2: and this “realize you are anywhere you put yourself.” what does it mean you are anywhere you put yourself, are you speaking mental state wise? Like if you think existential dread you are there I’d you think pokeitive you are there?

Overall I agree though. Existential dread really is a short sighted pity party, you make your own life meaning and exactly like you said, once the world becomes your oyster after hitting the gym and being redpilled you start to realize that and don’t feel existential dread anymore like you use to when you wasted away in your room playing video games. You find a purpose in life and your goals when you go outside and experience the world

[–]SeedThrownAway 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Wherever you go, there you are.

When you move old habits follow you.

Subjective reality holds a lot of relative weight.

[–]Seaghan88 160 points161 points  (9 children)

Sex is good. Sex is fun. It's hardcoded into us as men to desire sex and make the steps to fulfill this desire. So of course when there's an opportunity for casual sex, without the repercussions of the past (procreation), we're going to want it.

But this only goes so far. Personally, I want to have sons one day. I have a lot of respect for my father and the fathers who came before him, so I'd see it as letting them down if I didn't continue this tradition. It's more cultural than anything.

I can see why some men don't want children. Perhaps they prefer maintaining 100% control over their own lives, and you relinquish a bit of this control when you father children.

If you don't want children, and you still feel unfulfilled, why not seek out some other interests? Why not build a business or go travelling? TRP is a means to an end, not an end in itself. A man can take what he wants.

[–]BurnDownTheMission68 123 points124 points  (7 children)

You lose more than a bit of control when you have kids

It profoundly changes everything, forever in ways you can’t even consider now

[–]ebaymasochist[S] 89 points90 points  (1 child)

It really does. I went from not wanting my son to even exist to having extreme anxiety about his well being all the time.

But for any man to think he has 100% control over his life is delusional. You lose control over the 30% you had control of in the first place

[–]nyuuji 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can relate to this so much

[–]PinkPilledRed17 40 points41 points  (0 children)

And you might not even have sons, so there's that risk too.

[–]Rene-Girard 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Depends entirely on if you choose to be a father.

[–]Psychocist 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Yup. Many people parent, ironically, due to the existential crises we're discussing on this page. They lack true meaning or purpose in their lives and need to pass on their legacy, have someone to look after, someone who needs them. Look what happens to those parents when their children grow up and leave.

I'd rather learn how to happy with nothing but the clothes on my back.

[–]futterwackenformed 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I don't know..it is supposed to happen. we are meant to father our kids, pass our knowledge, pass the genes and wait for them to leave so they create their own complications... chaos. there wouldn't be any point in the evolution of complex organisms if it were not to change it's surroundings. should've stayed as simple RNA/DNA organisms that has a life span of million years that could reproduce on its own. we developed into beings that reproduce sexually, to beings that build packs,families and herds like lions,wolves and cattle, we developed into us capable of building marvelous structures in this planet and traveling across worlds. may be we should pass our DNA/knowledge so that ubermensch shall create their own universe. or may be there's no point. we'll live and die and rot.

[–]Psychocist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, yeh, we wouldn't be here without procreation. But we don't all have to procreate; plenty of human to go around.

What I have found difficult to reconcile is that if we (RP men) don't procreate, then we leave it to the weak to raise weak children to perpetuate the dreadful societies we've created.

It's a tough one. Either way, I'm not invested in the past or the future. Live forever or fall into extinction, it makes no difference in the grand scheme.

[–]fifi508 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think modern men today are living in a new age and sadly devolving. Just think, from the existence of man, most men had to always go to war/kill and it was expected of them. I think this is why woman have lost complete respect for men. It’s new to humanity for men to stay home, take care of kids, not kill, clean and all this modern day bullshit.

Before industrialization we were going to war and hunting to eat. If you’ve ever killed an animal that shit takes all day just to prep, skin, clean and cook! It Doesn’t even include the hunt. We were forced to connect with nature or die. Our sole purpose was fuckin survival. Now, we have too much life and no stimulation. It’s driving us nuts and driving us to video games, social media or some crazies just shooting up some shit because it feels fuckin right.

It’s imperative that Men find ways to channel this survival energy engrained in us to something purposeful like saving the planet. We need to connect back with nature and feel that survival energy again.

[–]LowSpecTea 181 points182 points  (15 children)

This really evolves into a more "what is the purpose of anything we do in life?" for just about all our actions.

And that is a different rabbit hole altogether.

From a surface level:

You are a human being and thus a part of a society. Society has said that having sex with women is not a fancy jerking off-it's a separate activity and rightfully so- it involves so much effort and understanding power, game, and bunch of other little nuances. Jerking off is deriving genital pleasure from yourself, the sheer inclusion of another person in the activity would make it something for both of you..no?

Hence it's not just you anymore and thus not jerking off.

From your deeper perspective:

I could say the exact same thing about becoming a pro athlete-isn't it just a fancy way of playing games?

About becoming an actor- isn't that just a fancy way to lie about who you are?

About politics- a fancy popularity contest of sorts...


Sometimes you gotta step back from being too meta and take the frameworks of society as they are. not all frameworks that society gives are bad- you just have know what they truly are and play the game accordingly to your own desires for said framework.

[–]KnightestKnightPeter 55 points56 points  (11 children)

Sex is rewarding. Sex is conquest. You conquer a woman's mind and body, you establish dominance in the act, you feel good, your brain rewards you in more wholesome ways than whacking off does. Having sex inspires you to better yourself and achieve greater things.

[–]aflyingshoe 49 points50 points  (8 children)

That’s all true, but I think the point was all of that is self serving, it’s masturbation. We are but vehicles for our genes and not procreating is “failing”.

[–]Turkerthelurker 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Exactly. One could argue that sex feels good and your brain rewards you BECAUSE it was beneficial to reproducing. It's your body rewarding you, because some time way down the line those that didn't get that chemical reward had less desire to reproduce.

[–]useyourmouth 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeah, evolutionarily speaking, you don't completely conquer and dominate a woman until she swells up with your genes, delivers, and spends the rest of her days ensuring your offspring goes on to dominate.

[–]PlastIconoclastic 27 points28 points  (5 children)

“Self improvement is masturbation” -Tyler Durden

[–]lipidsly 9 points10 points  (4 children)

In a world with no purpose, sure. If you have a purpose, self improvement helps you to succeed.

[–]JcHgvr 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The only reason sex is rewarding and pleasant is to give incentive to have it. It's literally evolution luring you into making offsprings with pleasure.

[–]lipidsly 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Shortsighted view of sex outside of marriage, tbh. If you enjoy the conquest and reward or whatever word you choose as the main objective, thats perfectly fine. But its just a hobby.

Personally, i have a goal to get married and have a ton of kids with the best partner possible and “conquering a woman” or whatever keeps me sharp

[–]MakeMenGreatAgain44 8 points9 points  (1 child)

You hit the nail on this one

[–]Endorsed ContributorThotwrecker 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Weaker men need to have sex to build confidence. Building confidence will make them stronger men in the long run.

Stronger men can take or leave sex, and when they do have sex, they actually are doing it out of wanting to fuck the girl, to enjoy the act of sex. Not out of a desire to validate themselves, feel cool, look badass to male friends, prove that they "got revenge" on the bitch cheerleader in high school, or defeated their inner demons.

Sex for weaker men is an opportunity for exorcism. Slowly and painfully, by learning how to be a man of abundance, you exorcise the inner bitch in you.

Now, when you combine the traits of a weaker man with a lack of sexual success? A lack of sexual validation AND sexual satisfaction? You have either a rare case like Tesla who can channel sexual energy into amazing pursuits. Or you have the 99.9999999% of guys like that - guys who just live kinda sad pathetic stunted beta lives. The dude who comments on girls on instagram like "I'd eat that ass all night" like.... that guy. There's millions of that guy, but there's maybe 1 Nikolai every century.

This is why you need to be fucking hot young pussy, or at least pussy that means something to you. Pussy always becomes pointless when you go far on this journey, because it is. But there's understanding that conceptually, and then there's realizing it for real through your visceral experiences. The first leaves you jerking off to fetish porn and donating to some twitch thot's amazon gift list, and then posting on nofap like "fuck guys I ruined my 8 day streak, I hate myself." The latter is freedom.

[–]HierEncore 18 points19 points  (1 child)

mods, you can delete this if you want, but I'd recommend if you want to have children, don't fuck around and waste time. Seek a woman who you believe would make a good mother and move her in and impregnate.... I can't tell you how many of my friends grew up with this illusion that they'll find a young girl of fertile age and decent mind for mothering when they get old and frail... never happened... they are childless and not likely to ever have children unless they move to a third world country and try to take on a disingenuous relationship.. also how on earth do you think you're going to raise a teen when you're 50 or 60?

[–]ebaymasochist[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My father was in his 40s when I was born.. He wasn't a player or anything. His dad was in and out of his life, so I have to give him a lot of credit just for being there my entire life. That said, there was a huge gap between us in a lot of ways.

[–]curiousdude 18 points19 points  (1 child)

The real winner of this generation is that British dude who ran a sperm bank, but it was all him. Link

[–]ebaymasochist[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

oh holy fuck hahahahahahaa

[–]Viking_RnP 15 points16 points  (2 children)

I think having children is simple in that all it does is enable another "soul" to journey through this life.

I see this reality we live in as hell. Things that comprise the "human condition" for lack of terminology are our tools in this trial of life.Tools being emotions, instinct, physical needs and such. I see all these things as conflict with peace. Peace being, in my mind, a kind of "end goal." A state of mind that is free from the constraints of the human condition.

We notice that the more educated and understanding people tend to be the ones who produce less children. This can be interpreted many ways. One way could be through some kind of understanding that they subconsciously know they do not want to subject a presumably innocent being "the child" into a life they know is quite hellish. As through their education in life they learned how truly horrific their human condition can be, and choose to opt out of their biological wiring and lead a life that does not serve the laws of nature but the wisdom of spirit.

[–]Demiurge_Decline 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Me. now. It is Hell. I had kids before I realize. There is an old saying. You should cry at birth and celebrate at funerals. Now i know why. Nope not depressed. Just when you hit an intellectual spiritual place things that made sense dont and what you assumed was bad may be good and vice versa.

[–]Viking_RnP 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You must pay for all your actions and that's ok.

[–]BillyRedRocks 28 points29 points  (3 children)

Why are you replacing God/society/anything else with "Nature" "DNA" or anything else? The fact that reproducing worries you makes me thing you've kicked something that was controlling you and now you want to replace it with something else. You want to follow something - nature is dis so I must do dis or I lose according to nature.
Dude, this is The Red Pill, you get to chose what you want to do, you get to define what winning is. IF winning is playing WoW 24/7 while drinking dr pepper - have at it. If winning is fucking as many women as possible - have at it. If winning is making a football team of kids - please stay away from me, and have at it. Stop looking for Nature or God or your wife to define what "winning" is for you.
You're God - you decide what winning is.

On another note - fucking girls is not just elaborate jerking off. I like how they giggle.

[–]ebaymasochist[S] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

For a very long time, I was consciously aware of how we are programmed to breed and said "fuck that".. I will make life how I want. The typical dream life we talk about on here.. Money, cars, plates, etc.. But like others have said, having kids changes the fuck out of you.. Once they get past annoying ass baby stage and turn into fun little bad asses that make you laugh all the time, it is like night and day. And when you don't have energy like before, it starts to make you feel old, like you know you're just tired now but there's gonna be a time when you just feel this way all the time. So you think about building this empire and who will take over for you? who can you trust? Who will take care of you IF you get old? Don't let anyone tell you having kids isn't selfish. It totally can be. But that's okay it's reallly fucking hard and there should be some fringe benefits

[–]BillyRedRocks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying it isnt't selfish. I'm saying you get to pick the life you want - if you want to build an empire to leave to your little rascals and have fun with them and teach them shit - fine, great. What I'm trying to say is - you have to pick that, because you want it, not because NATURE wants it, not because "life was meant to be like this" or any other external factor. You do it because you want to. nothing more, nothing less.

[–]Koryphae_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes!!!!!!! One response out of hundred realises. If one needs to find 'reason' they are not red pilled, just hopping from one programming to another.

[–]GodOfDinosaurs 81 points82 points  (15 children)

You're committing the "naturalistic fallacy" by associating 'is' (evolution, natural selection) with 'ought'. There's nothing about nature that can tell us how we ought to live our lives. You must choose. Some people want pleasure, some want money, some want to fuck as many bitches as possible before they die. A man who dies without any offspring did not "fail" in any real sense unless producing offspring was his goal. You, not nature, are the author of meaning in your own life.

[–]aflyingshoe 24 points25 points  (11 children)

If you give up the “ought” to simple individual choice, that’s moral nihilism. A billionaire who owns charities and a bum who robs people for crack money are no better than one another: they’re just doing what they want.

I say this as a moral nihilist myself and I struggle with it.

[–]ultramagnum 4 points5 points  (2 children)

The thing is, you can be a moral nihilist or moral relativist and still believe your worldview is the right one; without being a hypocrite.

Humans are designed to worship something. What you choose to worship will determine a lot of your outcomes in life. Money, power, drugs, religion, or nihilism, it doesn't _matter_ to the universe either way. The problem is that you're stuck with yourself, and you're going to worship something.

So you can be passive, reactive, or proactive regarding your choice of what to worship. Most people are passive or reactive, and their outcomes can range from hedonism and addiction to religion, fandom, and politics. Choosing proactively means finding the things that most align with your unique preferences and the internal compass that seeks satisfaction and fulfillment, and worshiping that.

Listen to that gut, align your actions with it, and not only will you be doing the most virtuous thing you could as a man, your philosophy will follow suit. The moral compass that's inside me is more objective than all the others because it's mine. For me, non-productive value systems like existential nihilism and moral relativism are no longer attractive in light my being the center of the universe (from my perspective, innately). Instead, I've grown to love the Stoics and appreciate the existentialists for ringing the warning bell about the danger of losing purpose.

[–]aflyingshoe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Of course, it’s essentially impossible not to. Evolution has selected for me to feel revulsion or anger at certain stimuli and happiness at others, that’s how you live. But this is because it just happened to have been selected for and it’s in my genes.

[–]GodOfDinosaurs 5 points6 points  (4 children)

There are moral theories that don’t commit the naturalistic fallacy. Or it could be the case that moral nihilism is correct. That doesn’t mean conflating ought with is isn’t a fallacy

[–]aflyingshoe 8 points9 points  (3 children)

All moral theories have fallacies, at least in scale. I’m a moral nihilist but I still can’t fault naturalism because there’s at least biology and objective standards behind it, but that doesn’t equate to morals itself. Eg; it wouldn’t be “wrong” to not procreate, but it would be failing as a gene vehicle.

[–]GodOfDinosaurs 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Right, so it’s not a valid moral theory. There’s no way to make a logical connection between “we are hardwired to procreate” and “therefore, we ought to procreate” without another premise like “we ought to do what we are hardwired to do”. But what could justify this third premise? Maybe because it increases happiness or something. But then we’re really concerned about increasing happiness rather than valuing our instincts in themselves.

Of course, this is the problem with all moral theories. When it comes down to it, you can’t really justify valuing things in themselves. There’s no universal objective standard. You just have to make a choice.

[–]aflyingshoe 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I thought I made it clear, but I wasn't proposing it as a moral theory, I said I was a moral nihilist. And now with "make a choice" you're getting into free will, and we don't have free will, we are nothing without our genes and memories and environment. When you remove true agency and choice, what else are you left with? A flesh container of genes that follow what they're hardwired to do. Seek pleasure and avoid pain.

that doesn't equate to morals itself.

[–]GodOfDinosaurs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know you weren’t, I was reiterating that it can’t function as one.

If you want to talk about free will, compatibilism is actually the dominant view among philosophers. But that’s getting off topic for this thread

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

If you give up the “ought” to simple individual choice, that’s moral nihilism.

This is still within the fallacy. If we assume that "moral nihilism"="bad" then your sentence is basically the definition of the naturalistic fallacy. If it comes from nature it must be good. A lot of venomous and poisonous life comes from nature too. A tiger eating a baby b/c it was left unguarded. And don't forget cancer.

[–]aflyingshoe 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Why are those things inherently “bad”?

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They are not bad or good, they just are. You ate a poisonous berry and that's it, no morality there. The berries are not intentionally trying to kill you thus is neither moral or immoral.

[–]Brixylian 9 points10 points  (1 child)

This seems relevant for men to discuss, because the ugly truth is that the maternal/nurturing/parental skills of younger women have been in steep decline for years.

These same beings with their endless trivial addictions to attention via social media have in a large part lost the ability to love and nurture anything on a primal level beyond masturbatory validation from selfies.

Having a child becomes an exercise similar to obtaining a puppy. Often ill prepared, thinking that it'll be cute, with zero forethought to what it really takes to successfully rear a child.

Consequently, if men want to produce worthwhile children it's up to us to pick up the slack.

I have two sons' 18 and 16, and have been raising them since the ages of 5 and 3. You hear people bitch about their kids' all the time. It's so hard blah, blah blah. Fucn. Disgraceful. What it is duh, is a process in which you create the family that you always wanted. You're the maestro, the leader... and the end result is something beautiful. A bond, a family unit, closeness and kinship beyond compare. It's awesome. And it's up to us. In the long run...

[–]hearse223[🍰] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

You have to ask yourself what your destiny is.

At the end of the day, your money wont be shedding any tears for you at your funeral.

[–]ebaymasochist[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That's the uncomfortable truth

[–]PR0JECT_XIII 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Sex is the social lubricant that has allowed humans to survive this long.

It is suggested that one of the reasons why tribes stayed together was because everyone was fucking everyone, so the men never knew who was the father.

The "unconscious" existential crisis in Western society is we are concerned about our SMV so much that those with in the medium to high range are increasingly more likely to focus on their "careers" than find a partner to reproduce with.

Japan is a perfect example of this as it's population is declining.

[–]chauncy_popperstein 7 points8 points  (1 child)

There is more to it than just an orgasm. There is the thrill of "the chase" and excitement of meeting new/interesting people.

Achieving goals that work toward your "mission". Sex gets 99.99% of the attention on this board simply because most of the people are bad at getting it.

Smart, fit people deciding not to have kids, or to only have one, who might not have turned out so well.. Physically repulsive people breeding like rabbits..

Because smart fit people have options. Dumb ugly people are desperate.

[–]ebaymasochist[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The chase is thrilling for a reason, to encourage you to do it.. What you say is true, but when you ask "Why?" enough times, all roads lead back to the same destination.

[–]1roadmaptonowhere 8 points9 points  (2 children)

The process that leads to casual sex has intrinsic value for a man. Everyone thinks it is something you chase just because you want to feed your ego - in fact, it is exactly the opposite. Meeting random women and seducing them forces you to put your ego on the line - everyone who doesn't agree with this statement has never cold approached a woman.

If you master it, you master yourself - because you will get all your flaws exposed, so you better have steel confidence and frame.

So, casual sex itself has no value per se, however the path you have to walk to reach your final destination will give you the most important lessons as a man.

[–]kEEWAIT 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I love this sub

[–]-uftw- 45 points46 points  (68 children)

I agree with you. I'm planning on having a bunch of babies. I'll also donate my sperm.

The book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins explains exactly what you're saying. In short, we're in fact extremely complex tools designed to assist our genes to reproduce and win the competition of life. I read it 15 years ago and it changed my life.

So many people on this sub swear never to have kids. To each his own. I know where I stand on this.

[–]GodOfDinosaurs 46 points47 points  (62 children)

This is a perfect example of the naturalistic fallacy. I mean, if having kids is fulfilling to you, that's one thing. But it seems pretty silly to organize your purpose around something you think you're "supposed" to do because of nature.

[–]TFWyourWaifuDies 34 points35 points  (4 children)

But it seems pretty silly to organize your purpose around something you think you're "supposed" to do because of nature.

That's what this whole sub is, though.

So much of this sub is about sex and being more of a man. That sounds exactly like organizing yourself around something you're "supposed" to do because of nature.

And that's not a bad thing. Because guess what. Nature has designed these things with rewards at the end of the tunnel.

It's only when you deviate from nature that you actually become unhappy.

[–]GodOfDinosaurs 4 points5 points  (3 children)

No, that's not what this sub is about. This sub is for guys who want to increase their success with women and become happier and more fulfilled. By OP's logic and yours, being a sperm donor would achieve your 'natural purpose'. Obviously guys are not here for that.

You are thinking from a teleological perspective which was put to rest by Hume centuries ago. The existentialists developed a counter narrative to this in the 20th century. Things don't have an inherent 'purpose'. We create it.

[–]KnightestKnightPeter 15 points16 points  (2 children)

In this sub we align our goals with our biological drives, to better succeed at both. Our 'purpose' is a clusterfuck of base drives conglomerated into one preferably beneficial and worthy idea.

Edit: Speaking of existentialists, philosophy isn't science. One philosopher's narrative isn't refuted by another's, because it, while often representative of psychology and the workings of the world, is ultimately mental gymnastics that to some people is enjoyable, but is presumptive at best. If you somehow believe existentialism is the 'answer', take a look at any of its leading icons and see where their existentialism brought them.

Misery, early death, madness, bitterness. Nietzche was a cuck, plain and simple, begging the slut of the times to marry him [Lou Salomé]. She turned him down and went on to screw the more carefree players of the era, like Rainer Maria Rilke and Sigmund Freud, while Nietzche sat at home crying and jerking off about nihilism and what it meant to be the Ubermensch.

[–]GodOfDinosaurs 1 point2 points  (1 child)

In this sub we align our goals with our biological drives, to better succeed at both.

Wrong. In this sub, we compare notes on how to best achieve goals we’ve already decided on. Self-improvement, women, etc. There’s nothing about TRP that suggests producing offspring is the meaning of life or should be our purpose. We discuss biology to aid our goals, not the other way around.

[–]Rene-Girard 8 points9 points  (14 children)

So silly that every one of your ancestors has done it since 2 billion years back.

Almost as silly as breathing, eating or drinking water.

[–]MrInternetDetective 4 points5 points  (40 children)

You wouldn’t be here without silly people doing exactly that.

[–][deleted]  (27 children)


    [–]MrInternetDetective 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    I certainly agree with you. It’s even more obvious for women as the inch closer to menopause.

    [–]dpgproductions 4 points5 points  (6 children)

    Everything you do, I stress everything is inadvertedly in an effort to have successful offspring, and many of them.

    What if my main goals in life are to 1. learn as much as I can about my mind and how it works and 2. to live a life of as much leisure and as little stress as possible. Neither of those goals lead to me wanting offspring.

    [–]Lego_My_Alter_Eggo 4 points5 points  (5 children)

    that's fine, I've got no problems if that's your life's goal - but you have to admit that it's a completely selfish goal. You're basically saying that you're fine with sentient life ending in this generation. If every organism operated this way, it would be extinct within a hundred years or so. The universe doesn't exist without consciousness. If all consciousness ceases to exist, then the universe does as well.

    [–]KarmaKingKong 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    But his action will not impact the operation of other organisms.

    Sentient life will not cease to exist just because he doesn’t have a child.

    If there was a shortage of reproducers then you could make your argument.

    Calling not having children selfish implies that you think that having children is selfless.

    Do the majority of parents have children because of some moral ideology (selfless to an extent) or because they want to have them (selfish)?

    [–]GodOfDinosaurs 1 point2 points  (18 children)

    The biological drive to reproduce is strong, sure. But people choose all kinds of life missions which have little or nothing to do with sex. Some people dedicate their lives to art, philosophy, politics, a sport, god, whatever.

    The idea of deriving purpose/meaning from nature is the fallacy I'm knocking down here because that's what OP seems to be struggling with.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)


      [–]GodOfDinosaurs 4 points5 points  (2 children)

      Yeah, you can draw tenuous connections to anything. I figured you would reply with something like that. Just because you can construe any passion to show how it might help future offspring doesn't mean reproduction is what drives that passion. Some people really care about philosophy because they actually love knowledge. Whatever unconscious biological motivators exist pale in comparison to that.

      Even assuming your point, OP is asking "What is the Meaning of Life?". The commenter I replied to said he read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" which he thought showed the Meaning of Life is to spread your seed as much as possible. This is a terrible misreading of the book and, again, a classic example of the naturalistic fallacy.

      Dawkins' book is descriptive; claims about the Meaning of Life are normative. So far, we don't know how to reconcile the two. This has been true since Hume pointed out the is/ought distinction.

      The reductive biological fatalism I see on TRP worries me. Evolutionary psychology isn't the ultimate form of knowledge.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)


        [–]GodOfDinosaurs 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        I think you’re missing the point to a degree. There’s clearly some truth to evolutionary psychology, but it’s also not the whole story. Evolutionary psychologists themselves don’t even claim that evolution fully explains all aspects of human behavior.

        In any case, the point is our natural motives or instincts don’t translate to “meaning” or “purpose”. This is the classical Aristotelian teleological view which was overturned during the enlightenment and by modernists thereafter. Aristotle believed an acorn’s “purpose” is to become a tree because that is its nature. We don’t speak in those terms anymore because our views on purpose and physics are more sophisticated now.

        Dawkins’ theory in “The Selfish Gene” describes the biological process of genetic self preservation. The commenter commits the naturalistic fallacy by taking Dawkins’ descriptive theory and interpreting it as a prescriptive theory. You cannot derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.

        If the commenter decides he wants his purpose in life to be creating as many successful offspring as possible, that’s perfectly fine. That doesn’t mean The Meaning of Life is to pass on genetic material, and Dawkins never claims that. The commenter’s mission to produce offspring is meaningful because it’s something he chose, not because nature has inherent meaning.

        This is a pretty common fallacy and leads to a lot of confusion. Part of the reason I wish philosophy were taught in grade school.

        [–]Alfred5150EVH 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Idk... too many gods to choose from. In my country's religion, priests tell you to have families they don't have themselves.

        [–]ebaymasochist[S] 0 points1 point  (8 children)

        Hey Pal, you don't have to try to knock down any fallacy. It's something I've thought about for a long time and have been on both sides of the debate for at least ten years. It's only recently that it's come together after having real experience.. I have plenty of reasons to have more kids than just thinking I have to because of some moral argument.

        [–]GodOfDinosaurs 1 point2 points  (7 children)

        There are lots of good reasons to have kids. OP just thinks the meaning of life is to have as many kids as possible because we have some biological motivators that encourage that, and that's a fallacy. That's all.

        [–]ebaymasochist[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

        You should realize that not once did you actually ask OP if that was his only reason.. And maybe that's because you just want an excuse to talk about "naturalistic fallacies" and other concepts instead of understanding another human being.. Do you really think people live 28 years one way and then just find out one day out of the blue that animals breed as much as possible and decide "hey I should change everything about me to do that?"

        That's not how people work.. That's not the point of the post, either

        [–]GodOfDinosaurs 1 point2 points  (5 children)

        Dude, you can have as many reasons as you want to have kids. That’s awesome. I love it. There’s just no such thing as “winning” or “losing” at life according to nature. Those words have normative connotations to them. You either pass on your genes or you don’t. That’s it. There’s no winning or losing. One is not more redpill than the other.

        [–]ebaymasochist[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

        If a gazelle gets eaten by a lion, another gets away, you really wouldn't say that the one who got away is the winner?

        [–][deleted]  (10 children)


          [–]MrInternetDetective 5 points6 points  (9 children)

          Sure, but compared to extending a family lineage that goes back to the beginning of humanity, I dont think any other goal really compares.

          [–][deleted]  (8 children)


            [–]TFWyourWaifuDies 5 points6 points  (4 children)

            Even if you left behind great knowledge or something, it only matters because people exist to read it.

            These people that exist are the children of others. If everyone thought like you, humanity wouldn't exist, and whatever you left behind would mean nothing.

            [–][deleted]  (3 children)


              [–]Rene-Girard 5 points6 points  (2 children)

              We have nothing but competitive tribalism.

              [–]GodOfDinosaurs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I'm not saying having kids is silly. OP is confusing facts about the way the world is with how he 'should' act. This is a classic logical fallacy and it is leading to OP's "existential crisis".

              [–]life_is_dumb 11 points12 points  (0 children)

              I personally couldn't care less about that. If your genes beat out my genes generations from now, oh well. I'll be dead and buried by then.

              [–]alexjhargreaves 4 points5 points  (0 children)

              Yes friend, I’ve had a similar change inside me. Once I realised I was a strong capable man, suddenly I’m less interested in mutual masturbation and more interested in raising a child in this world. God knows there’s enough children raising children.

              [–]Zirealeredin 3 points4 points  (0 children)

              Yes. If the woman isn’t completely committed to you it’s a waste of time

              [–]Compeliminator 4 points5 points  (0 children)

              Ive thought about this a great deal over the years. I am by all accounts a successful man except in the area of offspring. I didnt want kids for all the reasons this sub espouses but i cant help but secong guess myself at times. my brother was killed in a car accident over 30 years ago and i was the only kid left. i am now 54 years old. my lineage will become a genetic dead end because of my decision not to have kids

              [–]1Zanford 4 points5 points  (5 children)

              Do I think people should just have as many children as possible? Fuck no. Absolutely not. I don't care if anyone here has kids. The world doesn't need more people.

              Now...what if the most productive and intelligent people follow this advice, and no one else does?

              [–]ebaymasochist[S] 4 points5 points  (4 children)

              I think we are seeing it now

              [–]1Zanford 6 points7 points  (3 children)


              Remember all that "have fewer kids for the environment!" propaganda when you were a kid?

              Notice how in its place is now 'we have to import people to replace your aging population. They will totally have your values, skills, and same levels of IQ and attractiveness. Don't you dare question that.'

              [–]ebaymasochist[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

              Hey that reminds me.. don't forget to upgrade your light bulbs to the more efficient ones.

              [–]1Zanford 8 points9 points  (1 child)

              Oh and don't you dare use plastic straws

              After all, only 90% of the plastic in the ocean is accounted for by 10 rivers in Africa and Asia


              Now don't you want to donate to feed some starving kids in Africa, so they can grow up big and produce more starving kids for you to feed?

              [–]ebaymasochist[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

              Eh I gotta say fuck plastic straws.. Global warming is nothing compared to what is happening to the oceans.. Garbage is the US's biggest export to China. I say we just burn all garbage for electricity right here in the states until recycling actually starts to work

              [–]xenigala 11 points12 points  (2 children)

              In the near future babies will be genetically engineered with prime-quality genes. (China is already working on this, without the Christian unease about messing with human reproduction.) So, it probably doesn't matter so much if you pass on your particular genes.

              Consider how it will impact your current kid's mental health if you leave their mother and start another family.

              [–]ebaymasochist[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

              Consider how it will impact your current kid's mental health if you leave their mother and start another family.

              I have done this since I found out she was pregnant. Now it's like I am missing a huge part of myself, and a big reason she found me attractive in the first place.. She's literally said "go out and fuck some other girl" before.. In a way that I believe she probably wouldn't care.. The problem is if I did, my fear would be finding someone better and wanting to leave her. Knowing what else is available would make me hate her

              [–]1Revo_Luzione 9 points10 points  (3 children)

              Great post, this is a topic I've been thinking about a lot.

              I agree with what OP is saying here. I've been in the game for a decade, and went from wicked one-itis to having sex every week for years on end, often with different women. Spinning plates, soft harems mixed with longer relationships, sometimes overlapping the two.

              What I've noticed: I look at fathers with kids, the ones in good relationships with healthy sexual dynamics, and see that as a desirable end state.

              I look at my father, who had three sons and has been married for almost 50 years. Desirable state.

              I look at the last few women I've dated--the n+1 with a random, unless she's super hot, doesn't add any value to my life. Even then, if she's promiscuous, which many are, the value drops for me.

              I look at men who've been playing the game for two and three decades. I can't see doing it in my 50s and 60s. I will if I must, perhaps, but I think having a family increases life satisfaction in one's older years, and the research supports that.

              For me, the desire to procreate is mostly selfish--I see it as deeply meaningful, a profound source of joy and happiness as one gets older.

              The reproductive imperative is as strong as it is for precisely the reasons OP states--it's an evolutionary drive.

              [–]3whatsthisgarg 5 points6 points  (2 children)

              I look at men who've been playing the game for two and three decades. I can't see doing it in my 50s and 60s.

              you're right about that. And maybe you have no idea what kind of effort it takes a man in his 50s to get quality pussy. All the hot women are taken, the ones in their 30s don't want an old man unless he also wants kids with her, and the ones in their 20s don't want anything to do with a man in his 50s unless he's their professor or something. TRP mythology be damned.

              My single friends in their 40s and 50s have to scratch and scrap for middling results. It's depressing. The alternative is just denial, or reduce your sex drive somehow.

              I was thinking about making a post about "I want to have sex for the rest of my life". I figured out how to do it.

              Oh, yeah, incidentally, I'm married with 3 really great kids. That's a big part of this.

              [–]Imboni 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              A serious question: what's yours and your friends' socioeconomic level? lower, middle, upper middle, high net worth? Are they in good shape or average shape? Without those distinctions, I can't make sense of your comment.

              I also want to see the impact the monetary part has on guys' lives when it comes to getting girls as an older guy. EC VasilyZaitsev says he doesn't have trouble getting girls as a 50 year old, though he does select from a pool.

              I do not want to get married, but I do want kids later. Its either surrogacy or bust right now for me.

              [–]3whatsthisgarg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Without those distinctions, I can't make sense of your comment.

              I'm talking about a wide range, so it amounts to an average, but skews higher, so more like upper middle class, men who own more than one house, professors, contractors, photographers, former athletes. I'm not including anyone who is more than a little out of shape or ugly.

              These guys get laid 3 or 4 times a year, and can go six months without anything.

              I'm married to the hottest chick I know, and I get laid 2 orders of magnitude more than that, with NO effort whatsoever.

              That is NOT an endorsement of marriage, because the married guys I know probably get laid twice a month at best. That's really their fault though.

              [–]MortalSisyphus 11 points12 points  (1 child)

              If you decide to have kids simply to "win" the "evolutionary game" you are still doing it just to stroke your ego. Nobody wants to be a "loser" and if you equate being a genetic dead end to being a loser then it's still your ego pressuring you to have kids.

              It's ALL just "jerking off" if you want to put it in those terms.

              Unless, of course, you are living for something bigger and more important than yourself, your pleasure, and your ego... People will rationalize and say you are still doing that for selfish reasons, but being selfishly altruistic is still better than being selfishly non-altruistic, not just in itself but in the consequences your behavior has on others. But I'm on TRP so I'll just stop this train of thought now lol

              [–]ebaymasochist[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

              I agree. Often I say "it's better to do the right thing for the wrong reason than] the wrong thing for the right reasons".

              On your first point, maybe the ego only exists to guide us along while we fulfill these biological missions that were chosen for us millions of years ago. Maybe the ego was a trait that gave an advantage and was rewarded in the sexual marketplace.

              [–]Wolveryn 6 points7 points  (1 child)

              You should fuck as many women as possible as practice: Probably the biggest proponent for ptotected sex for fun to me is about getting experience. If you fuck enough women you subsequently really start to understand how to seduce women better and how to pleasure them. So when the day arises that you see the women of your dreams you don't start sweating profusely with a double speed heart rate and screw up the interaction due to going all in like a novice at a poker match.

              And plus its fun, and no matter what the scenario, life should be about fun as well as legacy... and given the current world population... not reproducing is a revolutionary act.

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

              given the current world population... not reproducing is a revolutionary act.

              Yes, but if you're an intelligent person with good genes for physical and mental health, the 'revolution' you're speaking of is leading to idiocracy. A literal dumb revolution.

              [–]NomBok 8 points9 points  (1 child)

              What really gives me conniptions is the idea of the movie idiocracy. I really think stupid people breeding is a problem. You see it in islamic culture where an insane percentage of them are literally inbred, yet have a dozen kids. Which is bad enough, then you add on the whole terroristic koran.

              Personally, I'm a nihilist. I also have enough fucked up genetic mental issues where I've decided to never have kids (and got a vasec, so worth it). I simply wouldn't do that to anyone, life is just overall not worth it imo (dont worry not suicidal, i've been very fortunate and am in a good position). Too much bullshit and boredom with such little payoff.

              [–]the-dan-man 5 points6 points  (0 children)

              Yep, and that is the problem. And perhaps that is the crisis we are experiencing currently. On some level, we as a species are realising that we need to do our part.

              Most educated and inteligent people that think like you do, not wanting to have kids, you dont want to subject life to the chaos of life etc. I have heard plenty of people say stuff like that. But if we all start not having kids, meanwhile all the uneducated and low IQ masses keep having kids at faster rates. Plus the government supports that, to keep the economy going.

              So idiocracy will be a real thing. And perhaps people like OP wants to do his part to prevent that, and contribute to a future, because it is natural, and our biological purpose. Not everyone can stay a nihilist forever. And besides it is a matter of cultural conditioing that you even think like that. I can guarantee you if it was not for porn, birth control etc, society would be very different right now. Probably less fatherless families and more responsibile childrearing and definetly less nihilists.

              [–]Pepethe1stofHisName 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              how are the lives we lead anything more than a fancier life similar to that of an ant? The Galaxy is BIG AF, the Universe is probably infinite... you've got no infinitesimally small lasting power compared to the vast expanse of the cosmos (both in space and time).

              Too meta for me. Keep it simple stupid.

              Do things that add meaningful value to your life: establish friendships and acquaintances, know God, find something you can be good at and can be passionate about: do it well, take good care of yourself, get women, have fun

              buy a boat, drink a beer, call your mom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Along_(Kenny_Chesney_song)

              [–]ShellInTheGhost 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              We all die eventually and the only way to "win" is if your particular combination of DNA is out there somewhere

              No, that’s your genes winning. The only way to “win” is to live a life that makes you happy whether you reproduce or not.

              [–]Odins-left-eye 3 points4 points  (0 children)

              If you really want to get down into the weeds, even having kids is "meaningless." Nothing in the universe has any innate value on first principles. We have evolved to take pleasure in things that cause us to be more likely to survive and replicate our genes, but really all we notice is the pleasure part. So why not let us revel in that, even if we are short circuiting the path?

              [–]CC_ee 10 points11 points  (0 children)

              We all die eventually and the only way to "win" is if your particular combination of DNA is out there somewhere.. (According to nature)

              Perhaps, but that's as an individual. We are a collective, we are the human race. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter as long as the human race continues. It is in our nature to pass on genes regardless but it won't affect anything if you don't.

              How can you consider it "winning" if you pass on your bad genes? Nature doesn't care if you reproduce because others will. The only relevant contribution you can make is by passing on good genes (if you have them) or impacting the human race significantly whilst you are alive. Passing on bad genes is meh and passing on good genes is only slightly less meh.

              [–]InsideEquation 2 points3 points  (0 children)


              But that doesn't mean you won't have it to have a good time.

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

              I mean, I have a son, and crossing the reproduction barrier changes an enormous amount of things. But relevant to this sub, it effected both how I view/treat women, and how they view/treat me. Idk. There's a lot more to life than getting laid, and there's a lot more to understanding/dealing with women than just how much you can get laid.

              I've had more variety since becoming a father than before, and I didn't do anything to try and make that happen. I'm not saying "knock a girl up so you're real red pill." that would be really fucked up. Creating life is not a thing to take lightly, unless you're sociopathic or something.

              And as a few others have said, you're treading much more into existential questions or the purpose of all things. You might get a much less polar view elsewhere tbh.

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)


              [–]BiteAndThrow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Morale of the story?

              Top 20% is not enough, shoot for the 1%.

              [–]eclectro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              I mean maybe it comes down to "choose your illusion"

              Very good OP. Actually excellent. Let me help with that mind blowing just a bit with the theory what the red pill really is;

              You are still stuck in the Matrix red pill or naught.

              [–]Redagogue 2 points3 points  (2 children)

              As someone who has a biology degree, viewing sexual reproduction as a legacy of the individual is simply not true. Your kids are half you, your grandkids are one quarter you, and their kids are one eighth you. Also, genetic recombination means that your chromosome gets shuffled with everyone else's, to the point where grandkids can have more DNA from one grandparent than another.

              However, with the need of the ego to feel important, I'm sure none of those details matter.

              [–]Senior Endorsed ContributorRian_Stone 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              They aren't you, that's what soccer dad's who live vicariously through their kids think.

              [–]radiantoscillation 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Considering that there’s no emotional connexion in casual sex and that most of it is quite cringey, yes Call me BP because I said the e-word, but yeah I think casual sex is fancy jerk off For me RP isn’t about getting girls and fuck, it’s about being in control of yourself, gaining assurance and respect from others, being a better version of yourself and getting girls is kind of a consequence of this

              I think you are kind of right, and while I’m at it, I’d say that every stuff you’re reading here you should take it with a pinch of salt, because there’s a lot of stuff talking about how2get laid how2hold frame etc, but in the end, in all of those thread, they just show that they care about that the women think, that the women still gatekeeps sex, to me rp is about not caring about this, be confident in yourself, if you manage to fuck some women, fine, but using rp to find and seek women is monkey-level to me

              I don’t think I fully replied to your questionments, though, sorry

              [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              This is a sexual strategy group, not an impregnation group.

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

              Their Venn diagrams overlap. One must have sex to impregnate, thus sexual strategy is a part of impregnation strategy, if one desires to do so. People have sex for many reasons, impregnation is one of them.

              [–]Avskygod0 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Eh, that's another redpill

              This one is to acquire sex, what you do with it is another thing. Only a module in a bigger redpill. If this one is unpalatable to normies, then the actual redpill would kill them immediately

              [–]Pittbullbill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              No dont have anymore kids, horde the money, horde the pussy, make an awesome life for yourself. You deserve it.

              [–]wss5112 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Real men don’t adhere to theories and the authority. Natural selection is the way biologists explain things. Social Darwinism is people trying to backup their stance. These relying on authority is to persuade the crowd that they are right. They are not real men in this sense.

              [–]111Dx 1 point2 points  (2 children)

              Lemme think: So if I had a five sons, I am a winner. What IF none of them wants to have son then again I am a huge failure.

              The question is : What is life about?

              Is it only about saving your data through passing your genes? Is it only a battle of these data between humankind OR between different species?

              Well, you will never know. You can try but you will never know. You will never understand what life is about. You were never meant answer this question. You were meant to live it.

              [–]ebaymasochist[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              Theres more advantages than just genetic material.. This sub likes to talk about evolutionary psychology and how certain traits are selected for, ie facial aesthetics, etc.. But we never really talk about following through with it 100%.

              [–]111Dx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Yeah we mostly talk about how to get better at something but we rarely go into why factor.

              [–]pmmedenver 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              There is no inherent meaning in life so you best give up searching now. The best we can do is make an arbitrary decision that something is important and roll with it. Things will matter to you because you've invested in them, but at the same time there's no reason to take anything too seriously because its all arbitrary.

              [–]ChiLongQuaDynasty 1 point2 points  (5 children)

              One problem with this winning in life shit by having kids is that at any point in time, future generations of your genes can just say fuck that narrative, or have an unfortunate accident and your legacy ends there. You sacrificing your personal enjoyment and happiness will end up being all for naught. You "winning" right now isn't a forever thing, that win can change into a loss in the future(whether you're there to see it happen or not doesn't matter) and I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Also think about it anyways, when you have a kid, that kid is 1/2 of you. That kid has kids and they're 1/4 of you. And then the same thing happens and they're 1/8 of you and so on, until your genes get dispersed to irrelevance(probably naturally selected out if anything via epigenetics) and whether or not you bred or "won" has no significant impact on future generations(especially if you're not passing any genes that can IMPROVE the genomes of society) with simple math. Like other people have said, winning and losing is determined by your own choice, personal beliefs and goals, you shouldn't be cucking yourself into thinking that winning/losing is dependent on OTHER people's choices in the past(which may not even be optimal or logical and it changes all the time like what you said in your second sentence).

              [–]Demiurge_Decline 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              Great topic. I totally understand why smart people have less kids. The condition of the world. The uncertainty. The leaderships and the decline of civilization. When you weigh the pros and the cons, it truly is a hard pill to swallow. Much harder than the red pill. Do I live free or follow my biological drive? Do I ignore my drive and pursue happiness selfishly? Do I really want to bring a soul on this planet that I will definitely leave one day? is this Hell I am offering? They will suffer as I have... OR do you flip this on its head and say - Well, the world needs more good smart people. I can produce that. What is the best gift you can give the world besides curing hunger, cancer, etc but to have a good human? Why let the earth fall to the lower species? Should I really end all of the hard work of my forefathers and ancestors who fought tooth and nail and Ijust opt out the life battle or gene flow? All their work, sweat and tears and I jump off the genetic bridge? That little sperm that beat all the others and that little egg that hung in the balance... What if they failed?

              [–]ebaymasochist[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              You can flip it even further and say that life is suffering and happiness is just a feeling we get by relieving suffering temporarily. And that life is a burden we pass down to the next generation because we will need them to lessen our suffering later. Death is one of the motivations to enjoy life while we can because if there is no end in sight, we will put enjoyment last. We see it now anyway, "I am working 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, save every dollar, invest in the market, and ONE DAY I will be happy!" It's like saying "I will spend my entire life building the greatest business ever, and when I am 65, I will have sex"

              [–]Icarus663 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Fully disagree on your view of losers and winners depending on your will to reproduce. You are not your genes. If you decide to not reproduce, your genes are losers. But if as a result you have a more fulfilling live, you are a winner. Evolution makes mistakes sometimes. It gives us a sexual drive to fuck any available woman as a means to reproduce our genes. But since birth control exist, fuck is not linked anymore to reproduction.

              I say, fuck your genes. If you think you are going to have a more fulfilling live with a bunch of childs, by all means, do it. If you think you are going to have a more fulfilling live without childs, also by all means, don't have it.

              [–]BostonPillParty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I spent so much time thinking about this before considering getting a vasectomy.

              [–]CanAm10004 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Fundamentally, we exist to reproduce. That is life itself. I have done my duty in that regard. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy life the rest of the time, but if we don't reproduce, we are an evolutionary failure. 50% of males throughout history have not reproduced.

              [–]AllahHatesFags 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              This sounds like some tradcon bullshit. Would you want to have a kid with every THOT you fucked? I think not!

              [–][deleted]  (7 children)


              [–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 6 points7 points  (1 child)

              The problem with this is that specific genes matter. There is a huge amount of your DNA that after recombination will pretty much behave as it did before, unless there is some sort of genetic disorder in play and those are pretty rare (relatively speaking when it comes to live births, etc). Those that matter seem to have a way of persisting which is why certain beneficial mutations can spread across a species (again relatively) fast. Not everyone gets to leave a legacy and your legacies probably won't look like you, but that doesn't mean you didn't permanently mark the race.

              Not like that really matters.

              [–]ebaymasochist[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Also gene expression is just as important as gene presence. Why they were unable to clone cats who actually had the same appearance. Just because the gene is there doesn't mean it shows. I am not worried about my kids looking like me.. Even though my son looks exactly like I did at his age

              [–]Dr_Doctorson 6 points7 points  (0 children)


              [–]UshankaDalek 6 points7 points  (3 children)

              The math does not check out.

              You: (1/2)0 = 100%

              Your kid: (1/2)1 = 50%

              Your grandkid: (1/2)2 = 25%

              Your great grandkid: (1/2)3 = 12.5%

              Fourth generation: (1/2)4 = 6.25%

              Fifth generation: (1/2)5 = 3.125%

              [–]ebaymasochist[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              What I don't understand from this equation is if we have 99% of the same DNA as a chimpanzee, how does 97% of my DNA disappear after 5 generation of breeding with other human beings?

              [–]3LiveAFTSOV 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Sex with a woman as an intimate need which is the third tier of maslows hierarchy, and is far different from simple orgasm through masturbation, which is a basic tier one physiological need.

              Sex is different then masturbating. Hookers are a step up from jerking off.

              Even if you bang body pillows and real doll sex doll flesh lights, your subconscious mind screams at you for not actually fucking real woman.


              Also, you're trying to be sadomasochrist

              P.S. Edit - Just count every time you've had sex with a real woman as a potential pregnancy. That's what makes fucking with a condom / birth control different from jacking off - your body and mind know you are wasting cum, but you NEEED to cum to survive- next step to the top is to put it in somewhere

              [–]sciroccomindrape0087 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Lol, nice attempt to mind rape. Anyway sex is about fulfilling every lust or natural desire. It is like eating food. It is not about planning to father a bunch of fucking brats. If you want to get a modern western women pegnant you might as well flush half your wealth down the toilet, or gamble it in Vegas.

              [–]The-Somberlain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Yes, it's just a fancy way to bust a nut but what is the issue with that? Human sex drives are absolutely through the roof probably because early humans dropped like flies and had to reproduce that much. We no longer need to do that. It won't change because we still fuck as much as we ever did, we just found ways around actually reproducing because sex is fun. I really think that constant urge we have is outdated because it is no longer necessary for our species and if you realize that and just use it to have fun, then it's all good.

              [–]freew33zy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I've actually thought about this a lot myself. I am in a one-way open relationship, and the chick is amazing--so I've thought about this from the standpoint that I could make a smoother relationship, reproduce with her eventually, and have a better long-term goal than continuously making waves by fucking other chicks. In my scenario, the two are pitted against each other just like in yours.

              So, what have I determined? I determined that the other sex is honestly pretty worthless. If you're ever having sex and thinking "I don't want this girl pregnant" you're wasting your time, honestly. That said, it does feel good, so I plan to indulge for a bit more... then probably transition into having a smoother relationship with threesomes now and then because, long-term, it's better. You're actually achieving something. Sex that isn't to reproduce reminds me of books like Brave New World or that one book about clones who are destined to die and fuck all the time but can't reproduce but can love or something (forget the name). In those books, it's some futuristic society where sex is separate from reproduction, but people still love to have sex--honestly, it's a lot like the world today even if we don't realize it.

              But yeah, I wouldn't say chasing sex is BAD, but reproduction goals should be put ahead of sex goals. Often times, sex goals can be used to achieve reproduction goals (i.e.: you plate a hot as fuck 9/10, she falls for you, you now have access to top tier genetic material to reproduce with) but the two are not the same, and a truly conscious RedPill man should note this.

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)


              [–]Swan_in_a_Cage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Sex isn't a fancy way to jerk off... it's just a more meaningful way to connect with our primal natures as men.

              Jerking off is more a mental or visual connection, while sex is multi sensual and involves establishing dominance.

              Sex therefore has many facets to it that make it inherently more meaningful and beneficial.

              And because it involves maintaining a healthy masculine ego, sex plays a part in advancing a man's existential understanding.

              [–]Atolla2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              This is an excellent question.

              I've considered going deep into sperm donation to counter this: as long as you fit the height, intelligence & health requirements. There's something about that primal urge to reproduce that is so difficult to ignore.

              [–]OfficerWade 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              I’ve wanted to multiply my seed as much as possible since I was 13.. there’s a horn dog archetype personality in all men we just need to own it. By having boundaries we can separate it from the man inside us so we don’t have 4 or 5 kids on welfare. We can provide for these kids by getting a job. And so on, you’re the prize remember that.

              [–]BeeLow0519 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              However in the time of TRP taking place it is very minuscule in comparison to the grand total of time of people reproducing. Therefore, TRP is nothing to worry about until like 500-1000 years before natural selection even does a hint of change.

              [–]Superspick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              It’s a valid question dude. It’s definitely well-beyond trp and is more about defining your purpose proper than you might realize.

              For example, everything you’ve posted is unrelated to the purposes of trp because trp is not concerned with anything beyond the conquest and embracing masculinity, in my opinion. In fact, if our “genes” wanna procreate but we just smash, that’s pretty alpha.

              But while “applying” trp in your life, everything you’ve touched on comes into play. But it’s up to one to decide if procreating is what one defines as winning; it’s not what I define as winning, for example, but it’s 1000% valid in its own right because, objectively, a part of being human and male is forging your own way, fuck what others think (within reason lol).

              Like if you ask me, our imperative as humans would be to ‘elevate’ our species, not procreate because unlike our primal ancestors, we rewrote the food chain and have propagated our species thoroughly. But we don’t do that because reasons - reasons being that we’re human lol.

              [–]rmandan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Very interesting

              [–]MrTrizzles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              You're confused about the nature of RP.

              RP did not form to get men closer to their evolutionary purpose. RP is not for men to learn about evolution.

              RP formed to help men get more sex. Evolution is only valuable to RP in that context.

              But if you're concerned about evolution doing it's thing, don't be. It's still the high value men who are reproducing, and the low value men who are complaining. Same as it ever was.

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

              No. The physical intermix/creation is just a (small and representative) part of the act.

              [–]Aestheticcunt1996 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              Why don‘t you go to donate your semen brah... then your genes are out there in nature as well and you don‘t have to do or pay shit for it... in fact you even get paid

              [–]ebaymasochist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              I don't meet their criteria, for one.. two I don't know if I really want my swimmers going into some 48 year old lesbian. If I could put together a team of 10 or 12 women over the next five years and start dropping bombs into them, that would be ideal. I would settle for 3 though. If the economy stays the way it is...

              [–]tchower 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              Huh, I’ve never heard of someone having a disease that prevents a virus, I’ve only heard of external factors and environment effecting genes and inherited traits being passed down effecting resistance to a virus. In terms of being born with the right proteins or genes to resist a virus, it could also be that their body was able to resist the virus and then develop anti-bodies ect. so applying Dawkins that way makes sense, but resistance could be inherited or environmental, it just depends. However, my point was that applying Dawkins selfish gene theory to people deciding to have kids or not doesn’t really match up very well, it’s a mistake similar to Social Darwinism.

              [–]ktr0n3 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              I think we are becomig overly obessed with leaving a legacy that will be remebered for generstions to come. It's just self serving and you may have loads of children as a result but the more children you have, the lesser the care, supoort, love each individual child will receieve so you are in fact doing a disservice in the present to maybe leave your gene floating around for a bit longer?

              [–]ebaymasochist[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              That's not really true because I was an only child and you may get more attention from the parents, there's times you don't want anything to do with them.. You want to be with a brother or sister.. And if you teach your oldest child well, they teach the smaller ones in ways that we can't. And caring for the younger ones makes the older kids more responsible..

              It's only in severe poverty when quality of life goes down because of more kids

              [–]stuub7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              a friend who had already given up on life once told me ”it’s just a luxury jerk off” and i disagree

              [–]ratpoison987 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              nice step back... good prespective.

              [–]Ramp_Up_Then_Dump 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              You are giving too much credite to hibd brain. Even the simpliest animals have urges to reproduce and survive. These 2 are most important 2 thi gs at evolution.

              When an animal sex, all the catch is pleasure. Thats why having sterile sex is "alpha programing". Normaly this would make a lot of children but our hind brain wants to have sex rather than reproduce.

              When animals get castrated, they dont sex. The operation does nothing to "wanting baby". When an animal's hunger node in lower brain is damaged, they starve themselfs to death. They wasnt eating to survive in first place, they eat because they are hungry.

              Trp is selfish, passing genes is not important unless you want kids.

              load more comments (42 replies)