78
79

THEORYBack to the basics - the creation of TRP (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor

Important note - before I begin, it needs to be acknowledged that a post like this should really be ten miles long and riddled with links to the many studies, news articles and anecdotes that corroborate what's said here. However, this isn't possible for several reasons. Therefore, this post will be a summary of a summary of a summary of what can really be written on this topic, feel free to add whatever important points you feel are missing in the comment section. I also will not be adding any links. All the evidence has been covered extensively by others and can be easily found in the various RP, MGTOW and MRA subs, blogs and YouTube channels.

The olden days

Go back to before the industrial revolution and life was brutal and short. Poverty, starvation and serfdom were a way of life for most people. No one had rights, everyone had responsibility. Responsibility to your parents, your spouse, your children, your community and God. War and disease were real, ever present dangers that could strike at any moment.

In this context, the man was in charge of his family. He had to be, his wife needed him to be, his children needed him to be and his elderly parents needed him to be in charge of the household. As the strongest member of the family whose hormones don't yo-yo, it made most sense for him to be the undisputed leader. This was so out of necessity of life, not because men are tyrants nor because women are pushovers. There simply wasn't any other way to survive and raise the future generation.

Modernization

Massive, unprecedented changes swept over the world with the industrial revolution. The brute force of male muscle was being replaced by machines in factories. Sure, men still needed muscle to operate many of those old machines, but that was a step away from the back-breaking labor that preceded the invention of industry. Thus, men were slightly less needed in their traditional roles. The first seeds of feminism and rights for women soon followed. (Many other changes came to the world as a result, we will only focus on what's pertinent to this very specific discussion).

As society developed, the need for the husbands protection diminished due to communities being better protected against marauding bandits and the like. The need for the husbands provision was diminished because women can also operate many of the machines which required less and less brute muscle power. The idea of equality for women became more and more of a debate in its many manifestations. This was never a viable thought before the industrial revolution because there was no way a woman could survive in the world without a man in her life.

The birth control pill

The one thing that drastically changed the debate and was perhaps the main contributing factor to ushering in second wave feminism and the sexual revolution of the 60"s was the birth control pill. With the pill, a woman could have sex without the risk of pregnancy! This is when marriage took the bullet of death, the institution has been bleeding out ever since.

In the past, if a woman got pregnant out of wedlock, she was royally screwed. In the distant past, she had little chance of survival in the harsh elements even if she wasn't pregnant, nursing or raising a child. Since the industrial revolution, she could work in a factory, but that wasn't possible while pregnant and nursing etc. Getting pregnant had serious life altering consequences and that's why women were extremely selective about whom they had sex with. For this reason, women needed marriage as a form of security before you were allowed to even think about sex.

All this changed with the pill. Women were now free to have consequence free sex, and that's exactly what they did! Women "threw off" the old shackles of "sexual oppression" and were now "liberated". Men went along with it because what man wants to turn down free sex? Please see - [Women are the gatekeepers of sex](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/comments/8dgnhj/back_to_the_basics_women_are_the_gatekeepers_of/)

The Red Pill

As you can see, feminism evolved as a natural result of modernization. Various mini evolution processes within feminism can be traced to specific developments in modern invention that raised the standard of life and thus diminished the absolute need for a husband to a need that was less absolute and then less of a need. To discuss each specific step along the way is way too long and has been covered extensively by others. The point here is to observe that these changes coincide with ever shifting changes in the standard of living and the family dynamic.

All this led to greater and greater freedoms for women and unleashed female sexuality in a way the world has never seen. Never before was female sexuality unrestrained like it is today. At first, remnants of old values still existed and so it wasn't that bad for men. However, as time progressed and society continued to shift, the individual man became less and less needed to the individual woman while the collective man (via the government) became more and more the replacement husband. Women began demanding things from the government and the government husband began to fulfill those demands because women are the majority of the voters. Divorce laws, child custody laws, laws pertaining to domestic and sexual violence all began shifting in a manner that favors women and mistreats men.

Additionally, female sexuality is [hypergamous](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/comments/8fujkz/back_to_the_basics_hypergamy/) This resulted in more and more men being deemed undesirable and excluded from the sexual market place. Most of these men aren't objectively undesirable, they would have made wonderful husbands in the past. They have become undesirable due to unrestrained hypergamy.

Furthermore, men began to notice how much the game was rigged against them. Free love is only free if you're on top of the attractiveness scale, otherwise you have to pay. Even if you do take on a wife and happily pay for her, she can leave you at any time for any reason and take away most of what you worked for through alimony and child support. She can claim domestic abuse and she'll be believed, she can claim rape and she'll be believed. As a man, your life can be over if any of these things happen to you, how much more so is your life over if all of them happen.

A bitter, bitter pill

Thus, The Red Pill was born. Men began forming online communities and trading notes with each other. Some men were burned through divorce and/or false allegations. Some were burned through harsher trials and longer prison sentences for the same crimes. Some were excluded from the sexual market place. Some weren't burned at all, they simply watched others get burned from touching the hot stove and decided not to do the same.

The logical conclusion is to walk away from all women until the pendulum swings back to a normal, fair and sustainable place. However, this is not easy at all! Men have a tremendous sexual drive that is insanely massive and ever present. Forgoing women and sex altogether is nearly impossible for most men. So what's a man to do? How does one engage with the positive sides of women without being burned by the ever increasing negative side? This inner struggle is why taking TRP is so bitter for men. This is why most men don't take TRP, TRP is forced down the throat of men by women in most cases. Women instinctively know this, that's why the first question often is - who hurt you?

The answer to this question (how to engage without being burned) is a topic of great debate in TRP communities. The first thing many men try is the MRA route. This seems the most sensible way to restore equilibrium. However, the MRA has been around for quite some time with no real results. This is because feminism is the natural outgrowth of societal changes that released biological tendencies (as explained above). Therefore, while every RP man believes in the MRA, most aren't willing to engage in a futile battle. Instead, some will enjoy the decline through learning game and pumping and dumping. Some will incorporate RP ideas within their marriages. Some will go MGTOW. There's no objectively true answer as all the options are disgustingly bitter pills to swallow.

Conclusion

Feminism was a natural result of hidden/squashed biological traits of female sexuality being released due to modernization. TRP is male self preservation being unleashed as a direct progression from feminism. TRP is contrary to the core of male sexual desire and is therefore an extremely bitter pill to swallow, albeit extremely necessary.

Cheers!


[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (9 children)

I found TRP through research post divorce. I wanted to learn what went wrong and how to avoid the same thing from happening again. Honestly, I felt lied to by society. Everything I had assumed or was led to believe was a lie. "Their way" doesnt work. The truth was so obvious once you have eyes to see it.

So many people try to mold TRP truths to their lives rather than understanding the truth behind why TRP even exists. It is not a trend, or a way to 'lock down' an alpha man for women. I see so many female "personalities" advertising themselves as Trad-con, Red pilled, etc and behind the scenes they are attention whoring and sending pics to the top RP men in the manosphere. "Happily married" my ass. While he is at work you are chatting up alpha dudes online? It is disingenuious and proves they have learned nothing. They are simply parrots. Then number of genuine women out there with a blog or articles trying to help other women I can count on one hand.

Some men honestly want to help women become better but most women can't be honest with themselves and the harsh truth of female nature, modern day options, and their own past personal choices. Women internalize the male perspective of TRP too often rather than looking at their own role and how they can improve themselves.

I continue to look at older couples for guidance, watch how they interact, and emulate the best those examples can offer.

[–]stacysmom40 14 points15 points  (4 children)

I too came to RP post divorce. I was primed by Dr Laura and listening to her advice that was so opposite to everything I wanted to hear. And also it was truth.

The moment I felt LIED TO was when I realized that feminism morphed while I wasn’t watching. Maybe I wasn’t born when it happened.

Feminism initially: You CAN do ANYTHING.

Feminism now: You MUST do EVERYTHING.

Like... wtf? I can be a great mom or a great employee or a great wife. I can’t be all three. Why did “feminism” sign me up for all three?

Honestly, my grandparents (the older couple you look to perhaps) were very traditional and I HATED watching them. She was like his pet. When I was 16 I thought she was pathetic. Now I think she got the better end of the stick when it comes to my life v hers.

My mom put up with more than I would have in order to keep Dad in our lives. When I was 30 and leaving my husband I thought she was pathetic. Now I think she made the best choice for us, her kids.

Life comes at you fast.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Feminism used to be about equal rights. Now its taken on a payback theme similar to the pro black movement. "You owe us!"

"Women owned" is the latest marketing movement. Icons in commercials and google business listings.

All this, including the 'me too' movement is going to backfire on women big time. Just be good at what you do and be measured by your own merits. The toughness and foritudeness is gone.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Feminism used to be about equal rights. Now its taken on a payback theme similar to the pro black movement. "You owe us!"

Karen Straughn speaks about feminism from 150 years ago. It was never about equal rights. It was always about achieving female dominance over men.

[–]BewareTheOldMan 5 points6 points  (1 child)

If society ever reached a point where women are overwhelmingly dominant to men, it's doubtful women would have any respect for the men who allow this situation.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We've reached that point with regards to many men and many women. Indeed, these men are rejected by the women they worship. This is one of the drivers of TRP.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Responsibility is a predominantly male character trait. Women are capable of taking responsibility but it's more difficult for them.

[–]Xtinamina 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I would love to read more on why that is.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hopefully in a future post in the back to the basics series.

[–]Ok_Philosopher 16 points17 points  (3 children)

Go back to before the industrial revolution and life was brutal and short. Poverty, starvation and serfdom were a way of life for most people. No one had rights, everyone had responsibility. Responsibility to your parents, your spouse, your children, your community and God. War and disease were real, ever present dangers that could strike at any moment.

In this context, the man was in charge of his family. He had to be, his wife needed him to be, his children needed him to be and his elderly parents needed him to be in charge of the household.

Not entirely correct, actually. Among the upper class, perhaps, but not really the lower, even middle class. The idealized lifestyle was man being primary breadwinner but it's not been the reality in agrarian or industrialized countries.

I live in a poor country that still has the conditions which you describe: brutal, short, poverty, starvation, etc. In areas where those conditions are severe, women are out working. They're working the same jobs for a fraction of the pay (which admittedly may be because their output is less, since we're talking brick hauling, farming, and grueling physical labor). Women either have to work, or the family doesn't eat. Such is the stark reality.

This isn't in metro areas either. Go to any developing country and look out in the rice or grain fields. You're gonna see women out there tilling the crops. Just like you'll see women in major urban areas in the sweatshops.

Interestingly, during the 50s in communist countries were women were forced to work alongside men, they saw it as a luxury to be a homemaker. In the US and Western Europe, they saw it as a luxury to be in the workforce.

Anyway. Your assessment is true if viewed from the lens of white, upper middle class: a demographic which has been able to shape history due to highest economic earning power. It's this demographic that brought forth other cultural factors you describe like free love. But it's not exactly reality for other demographics that arguably make up the majority of the world (even perhaps the US).

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

In almost every society, men carried the responsibility, had the authority and did the heavy lifting. While women had to work as well in many societies, they were ultimately not responsible and therefore didn't have the authority and anything that was too heavy physically or too much of a responsibility was for the man to do.

That's the point.

These changes may have started by white people, but they're in no way limited to white countries. This has lifted many many countries and millions of people out of poverty. This may have been somewhat racial 150 years ago, but it isn't racial at all now or at any time in recent memory.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    What do you mean by "authority?" To do what? What do you mean by "responsibility?" In what context?

    I explained this in the post.

    My point isn't to debate but you're using subjective terms with no citations, so I don't find your statements very clear.

    These concerns are also addressed in the post.

    [–]ContemporaryBelle 16 points17 points  (8 children)

    I had not thought of it in terms of the government stepping to take the place of the husband but it's so true...there is not much risk anymore to being a single mother. It's a sticky situation though because not all men are good men so if a woman needs to escape a truly life threatening situation if she were treated as a social pariah for now being single it wouldn't be right. But, what's ended up happening is that what could be life saving for a few has been liberally applied to all women. Now marriage as an institution is completely in tatters and devalued. Functional two parent families are increasingly uncommon. And, a lot of men are bitter and hateful, full on embracing this deterioration of family values in the name of whoring it up. Society will be completely collapsing like Rome within the next few generations.

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    It's a sticky situation though because not all men are good men so if a woman needs to escape a truly life threatening situation if she were treated as a social pariah for now being single it wouldn't be right.

    Nor has it ever been right or acceptable to abuse women. What changed is how we define abuse. This change (like many others) transpired because of modernization as is explained in the post.

    Saving women from abusive men. Who can be against that? No one! Saving/helping the children. Who can be against that? Again, no one! But it's under these banners that some of the most disgusting abuses occur. Often times, solving one problem is an easy way to slip in an agenda but that's really a topic for another day when we'll cover gynocentrism.

    [–]ContemporaryBelle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    "Often times, solving one problem is an easy way to slip in an agenda but that's really a topic for another day when we'll cover gynocentrism. "

    I look forward to reading it. 😊

    [–]TheSelfGoverned 5 points6 points  (1 child)

    Much sooner than that, for scientific, economic, financial, AND cultural reasons.

    [–]ContemporaryBelle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    I'm trying to be optimistic. 😂

    [–]BewareTheOldMan 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    Well... the risk to being a Single Mother is that a woman will likely remain single and probably never obtain marriage (to a High Value/preferred man).

    SMs might be able to obtain marriage, but it's generally with a man who would never be considered as a first, second, third, or fifth choice for a life-mate based on lowering her standards and preferences.... basically "settling."

    Although I can support possibility for the rare exception, this scenario normally works out terribly for the unfortunate man who selects a SM as a wife. He gets saddled with additional burden, financial responsibility, and associated stepfather duties while receiving very little turn on investment.

    Currently, the out of wedlock birth rate is at 40% (USA) - many of these women will likely never obtain marriage.

    In most male-dominated conversation and spaces, many men express very little interest in assuming stepfather duties and responsibility for another man's child/children.

    Removing the government "safety net" will resolve this issue virtually overnight.

    I don't understand the reasoning for this behavior as many women are SMs either due to childbirth without marriage or initiating divorce for reasons other than domestic abuse, infidelity, or their husband's financial irresponsibility.

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Removing the government "safety net" will resolve this issue virtually overnight.

    The government safety net is the better evil. Removing it will reduce the numbers of single mothers but it won't solve the problem.

    We have an abundance of single mothers because of easily accessible birth control and abortions which removed the consequence of pregnancy from sex.

    Children of single mothers already commit much more crime than children of intact families. If there was no government safety net, they would starve. The result of this would be more of those children becoming criminals who will commit more crime per criminal. Government safety (as bad as it is), is therefore better than the alternative - lawlessness and crime flooding the streets.

    [–]BewareTheOldMan 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    ..it's possible children/kids would starve, but I doubt society would allow this situation as it's not the children who make these poor life-choices.

    An alternative is to decree after "X" date, government assistance for out of wedlock births is no longer an available option.

    The extreme version would be NO MORE welfare for anyone who is NOT pregnant within an existing 40-day window...starting now. Also - 16 to 17 year old teenage children can supplement a SM's income with part-time employment as an additional condition.

    Extreme...but effective. The requirements/conditions must be painful to facilitate resolution on this issue.

    In other countries I've seen where governments offer zero assistance and other family members pick up the (collective) slack. It's not favorable, but workable and places more emphasis on family to pressure young people into making better life-decisions.

    Either way - government(s) need to decrease incentive to produce OOW children.

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    When I said "children" in the last comment, I mean the children of single mothers. Not necessarily actual children. They can be adolescents or adults too.

    I agree with you that government welfare is bad and that the solution you propose can work. However, in order for that to work, there needs to be a strong family culture in place and that simply isn't the case in the west today where single mothers are concerned.

    [–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 13 points14 points  (17 children)

    I've hypothesized for a few years now that the natural next step for feminist activists to take is to swallow the red pill themselves while never openly acknowledging that they have.

    The form I think this is going to take is a strong push by the radical Left to first normalize polygamy, then push for legal recognition of polygamous marriage. How they decide to rationalize this is largely irrelevant - there is an infinite number of possible permutations for the feminist logical pretzel - but it simultaneously provides a reason for continued political activism while also addressing the "Good Man" (artificial) shortage created by unrestrained hypergamy.

    This should be a terrifying prospect for everyone, regardless of your personal SMV and RMV. It's been noted by sociologists that polygamous societies experience far higher levels of violence and instability resulting from swarms of disenfranchised men jockeying for status - just imagine Middle East levels of interpersonal aggression, only in a nation like the US, with a much healthier, higher IQ population possessing half the world's firearms. Forethought is not encouraged in women's studies programs though, so I suspect the push will be unavoidable.

    Personally, I love firearms, rather enjoy a good fight now and then, and will likely end up one of the few men benefitting as a result of government-backed harems - but the societal implications of this possibility still terrify me.

    Good post.

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 8 points9 points  (14 children)

    I've hypothesized for a few years now that the natural next step for feminist activists to take is to swallow the red pill themselves while never openly acknowledging that they have.

    I agree and I think it'll be a bitter pill that'll be forced down their throats the same way it was forced down the throats of men. To a degree, it's already starting to happen. There's some degree of panic from an increasing number of women who make it to menopause without a family and children. They end up alone and bitter and wonder where all the good men have gone. Thing is, there's no such rude awakening (for now) for girls in their teens and twenties who are still joyously riding the cock carousel.

    The form I think this is going to take is a strong push by the radical Left to first normalize polygamy, then push for legal recognition of polygamous marriage.

    They've already been stomping on every last remnant of marriage as much as they can. I'm curious to know why you think they'll choose polygamy. In their ideal world, they each have their own top dog and every other woman be damned.

    To a degree, we already have polygamy, we just don't have polygamous marriage. The violence you mention is already fomenting. I think we will unfortunately experience more attacks by incels like the one in Toronto. It's almost guaranteed that another incel will copy the last one.

    Personally, I love firearms, rather enjoy a good fight now and then, and will likely end up one of the few men benefitting as a result of government-backed harems - but the societal implications of this possibility still terrify me.

    Wanna move to my block? There's a nice house for sale 😉

    Good post.

    Good comment! I don't know what bitter soul would downvote this comment.

    [–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 2 points3 points  (13 children)

    Oh, I knew it would ruffle some jimmies. I mentioned this theory about a year ago to some friends - which included another poster on RPW the wife and I know - and the other RPW was outraged at the idea.

    It makes perfect sense, too. Sharing the high-value men when there aren't enough for everyone sounds great - to the women on TwoX, and r/whereareallthegoodmen, and r/datingover30. But to the women that actually put in effort to get a decent man, of course they're going to have a problem with it. Sort of how Socialism/Communism is unpopular with the working class.

    I think the push is coming though, because women are waking up to their predicament a few years past the wall, and the obvious solution to people brainwashed into leftist ideology is always "Redistribute the Wealth".

    [–]red_matrix 4 points5 points  (4 children)

    Sharing the high-value men when there aren't enough for everyone sounds great

    It's great for the women, until they hit the wall and get tossed aside like yesterday's trash. This system won't end well for women either. The things is - women, no matter what age, can always find a guy willing to bang/date, especially if we end up in some kind of neo-polygamy future, where 5% of the men have 10-20 concubines, and the bottom 50% of men will be neo-incels...women will become a commodity, and could probably sell themselves to the highest bidder. The future is going to be very weird indeed.

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    It's great for the women, until they hit the wall and get tossed aside like yesterday's trash.

    You're mistaken. Hypergamy is a female trait, not a male one. A man will only replace the woman when she becomes unbearable. If he can just add another one, there's no reason to ever toss out the first one if the first one is a good woman.

    [–]red_matrix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I'm referring to a man with 10-20 concubines, replacing post-wall ones with new ones if/when he gets tired of post-wall women (for whatever reasons). Wealthy royal family members currently do this in the middle east (they keep one wife though).

    [–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    There is no reason to believe this cultural change will not come with corresponding government coercion through liberal interpretation of the law.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/05/03/german-man-child-support-ivf/576077002/

    [–]red_matrix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    What? That's terrifying...but it also said it's not legally binding...what?

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (7 children)

    It makes perfect sense, too. Sharing the high-value men when there aren't enough for everyone sounds great - to the women on TwoX, and r/whereareallthegoodmen, and r/datingover30.

    But does it really?

    Logically, sure it makes sense and if someone is desperate, it makes sense. But what about female jealousy? And if you were the first wife, what are the chances you'd share your man? Most women would tell the other woman to go to hell!

    No?

    Unless they're self aware enough to realize they can't sexually satisfy their man, in which case a second woman would ease the pressure.

    [–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    I think you're forgetting one of those RP truths that doesn't come up here much but incels are painfully aware of:

    Women would rather share a high-value man than have a low-value man to themselves.

    How things would play out in practice won't follow the same kind of static script that a traditional marriage does. Each instance will be unique, will be an obviously bad idea from an objective viewpoint, and will be enforced by liberally interpreting laws in a way that ignores their initial intent.

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

    Women would rather share a high-value man than have a low-value man to themselves.

    I'm not forgetting that point. I'm well aware of it. I'm just skeptical of today's woman with her over inflated ego and sense of entitlement, ever agreeing to be the second wife or to allow for a second wife.

    But of course, if they're faced with these two choices, they'd rather be the tenth concubine than the first wife of an incel.

    [–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 6 points7 points  (4 children)

    I also don't think we're talking about a 10 concubine situation in the West (also: u/guywithgirlwithabike & u/red_matrix). It seems more likely to me that it would be the case of adding a second maybe a third wife into the mix.

    A Handmaids Tale lays out one possible rationale for this (ironically blaming ultra conservative Christians for the distopian world it creates). In the book, child bearing has become next to impossible and fertile women are given to wealthy men so that the wealthy family can have a child.

    Given our declining birth rates and women making it into their 30s with no man in the picture, it makes perfect sense to me that men would be encouraged to take on a second wife in the name of "the children".

    Now u/loneliness-inc to address women's ego under that metric - If I desperately want children, and my options are a low level incel type or a high value ceo who just happens to be married already ... Mistresses do that now.

    The harems you guys are picturing are too big. Keep them to two or three wives in your head and you can see how it becomes a more likely scenario for everyone to slip into.

    And then remember that they've already started to slip this idea into the zeitgeist when they made the HBO show Big Love which showed perfectly normal people where there just happened to be 3 wives. Look at those sorts of cultural markers to see what might be coming. It won't be 10, it will be 2 or 3.

    [–]red_matrix 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    When I said 10 concubines, I meant as an extreme example that is already happening for wealthy men in the Middle East, one wife, 10+ girls on the side.

    But I can easily see what you are saying, a married/wealthy (red pilled) guy could easily have 2 or 3 women. I bet a lot of guys like this are married and have 2 or 3 girls on the side/mistresses whether the wife knows it or not. This isn't even a new idea or thing. The new thing will be women wanting babies from these high value men, but I don't really see that taking off due to child support and possible alimony penalties (guys are hyper aware of these facts). These guys just want to get laid. So opening marriage to multiple partners could be a game changer, but only for a minority of men, but if this happens it would be a radical change in our culture and only accelerate the incel ideology.

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    The harems you guys are picturing are too big. Keep them to two or three wives in your head and you can see how it becomes a more likely scenario for everyone to slip into.

    No harem is ever too big in the male imagination. The male sexual desire wants an endless amount of women. As long as we can get it up for the next one, keep them coming! Ten concubines is nothing. Nothing I say. 😁

    Now to counter that, if it means we have to pay for them and put up with their drama.... Father in heaven, even one woman is way more than enough.

    And that's my point. There's conflicting needs, wants and desires. Women also have these conflicting needs, wants and desires. Case in point - her desire to have the top man all for herself and the fact that she'd rather be the second wife of a top man, than the only wife of an unattractive man.

    How exactly most women would reconcile this conflict? How exactly individual women would reconcile this conflict? That's a subject in its own right. Hopefully I'll be able to contemplate on it enough to be able to formulate my thoughts into a future post.

    [–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    No harem is ever too big in the male imagination.

    Yes I noticed this when you all started at 10+ wives. It's why as the woman, I had to bring you back down to reality. Gatekeeper of sex and all :-)

    How exactly most women would reconcile this conflict?

    Aw Lonely, are you trying to figure out how the female hamster works? Here are a few I can think of off the top of my head:

    • My best friend in the whole world who I think is absolutely amazing can't find a good man and she's reaching the point where she can't have kids...that's unfair...

    • I don't want to give up my career to raise my children, but with another mother in the house ...

    • It's difficult to live on one salary now, but if we lived on two salaries plus one SAHM we could have a huge brood of children...

    • I'll always be the first wife and his heart is mine because he told me so...

    • Even though I'm the second wife, he loves me best because he told me so...

    • Even thought I'm the third wife, I'm first in his heart because he told me so...

    • Several of my friends have engaged in this arrangement and it works out really well for them because of reasons ...

    • Having a second wife indicates to the world that our family has resources so it means my Husband is a top tier man ...

    • Men want so much sex and I can't keep up, having another woman would offset that burden ...

    I don't think it's a definite path that we're on, but certainly a possible one. In my mind, plural marriage would be legalized through the polyamory community (because fairness) and then non-poly couples will slowly opt in for their own reasons. My husband's prediction is that somewhere after a small number starts to opt in poorly written laws will be interpreted in a way that makes it enforceable on a wider level and it will grow. Once laws are being interpreted to encourage it, it stops being something that needs to be rationalized, then it's just the way of the world.

    The female social matrix likes fairness. So that will also encourage practices where if I'm not happy, then no one should be happy :-P ... or more specifically: If she has a husband then I should have a husband AND If I have to be ok with another wife, then why does she get to keep her husband all to herself.

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Yes I noticed this when you all started at 10+ wives. It's why as the woman, I had to bring you back down to reality. Gatekeeper of sex and all :-)

    Damn women always shattering our dreams with pesky gatekeeping and reality. 😂

    Aw Lonely, are you trying to figure out how the female hamster works?

    At least I can try or die trying 😉

    Here are a few I can think of off the top of my head:

    These are all very good and valid, especially what you write about the hamster thinking of the first, second and third wife each thinking that they have his heart because he told them so 👌 spot on!

    You and u/guywithgirlwithabike make a good argument here, there's a chance that it'll happen, there's a chance it won't due to all the problems. Time will tell.

    An important point in all this is that the definition of marriage fundamentally changed with the invention of the pill (as was explained in the post). You can say that old marriage died and a new - completely different - version of marriage took its place. How exactly to define this new version of marriage has been a debate for decades. There's the memory of old marriage which was based on practicality and the ideal of new marriage which is based on fairness (as you just explained). These two ideas of marriage are often in conflict with one another.

    [–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    I think this comment is going to earn you the most negative vote you've ever received. I'm going to jump in and agree with you and then go back to bed with my box of tissues.

    The form I think this is going to take is a strong push by the radical Left to first normalize polygamy, then push for legal recognition of polygamous marriage.

    The first part of this is already happening. HuffPo is never a bad way to see where the more extreme winds are blowing. There are plenty of articles (on the internet proper) about why polyamory is no good but there are just as many exploring the idea in a positive light.

    I think that legalizing polyagamous marriage will come after the trans issues are put to bed - just as the trans issues came up hard on the heels of legalizing same sex marriage - there will always be some progressive point to be pushed, that is the very idea of progressivism - keep pushing the boundary further out. At that point it will just be touted as compassion for a fringe group. Without getting into a political debate, the compassion that the left has for the Muslim faith will just speed up this process IMO.

    And once it's legal and common, well it's just there and people use systems that are there. I don't know how it will be rationalized by non religious, non-polyamous couples and jump into the mainstream, but I won't be shocked if it does. How many career women have complained that they "need a wife".

    It's been noted by sociologists that polygamous societies experience far higher levels of violence and instability resulting from swarms of disenfranchised men jockeying for status

    FWIW divorce is already effectively starting this process. In spite of all the men who get burned by divorce, there are plenty who marry a second time, removing two women from the pool of available women even though it's not simultaneously. (Certainly some women remarry and we'd have to look at stats to see how much of an impact this all has but I don't wanna look up data right now) But assuming that divorced men are taking ... let's call it "more than their share" from the dating pool - we end up with Incels driving trucks into crowds of people.

    I don't particularly care to share you with another woman...particularly a younger one :-P ... but that doesn't mean I can't see how we can get from where we are now to a society where plural marriage is much more common....and all the scary aspects of that sort of society.

    [–]red_matrix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    The form I think this is going to take is a strong push by the radical Left to first normalize polygamy

    This is already happening, I've met a few college girls who think they're in a poly relationship, but in reality they're just cucking their boyfriends. Girls can get laid far easier then men. I wonder if these men will ever wake up or stay in some kind of blue-pilled hell forever?

    [–]haku125 5 points6 points  (2 children)

    This is a really good look at the social environment that pushes a lot of guys into MGTOW or TRP

    I'm a young guy who's starting to swallow the pill, and I'm doing it out of agonizing desperation and loneliness because I don't understand what I'm doing wrong (based on what I've been taught). This post helps explain the origin of so many dynamics and between men and women so well, dynamics I've had and wanted to have with women before, and how those dynamics have changed and accelerated to where we are today. I hadn't even realized how much these different events affected me today until I read this. I guess in a way, we're living in historic times.

    Amazing stuff as always /u/loneliness-inc, I'm grateful I can even read your posts because they're all so eye-opening for me. Thanks for everything you do :')

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    You're welcome.

    [–]TheSelfGoverned 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    We always are living in historic times. In many ways, more now than ever. Truly uncharted territory, due to technology.

    [–]glitterchild 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    Great post. Should be required reading. Take all my upvotes. :)

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Thank you

    [–]stacysmom40 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    I came to RP later in life. It’s a long story, but suffice to say that I now see clearly.

    Earlier in my life I read Sex At Dawn which is essentially a polyamory manifesto. The book pointed out that a monogamous pair bond is really only important when it comes to inheritance. Once we converted from hunter/gatherer societies to agricultural societies, the ownership of lands and assets became paramount. Thus female virginity/fidelity and ultimately marriage evolved an importance where those things had never been important (or needed) before. (In a village where everything is shared, including parenting duties, physical protection, food, and sex... ownership didn’t exist.)

    I think it’s good to understand everything you stated above and ALSO understand that our ingrained sexuality evolved long before monogamous pair bonding existed. We lost the communal village long before the industrial revolution.

    No one is at fault for the situation we find ourselves in. Women are not inherently evil and men are not either. Change in society is happening so fast that it is ridiculously hard to keep up.

    I applaud each and every woman who ends up here on this sub. We can’t turn back time but we can leverage what actually works today.

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

    Christoper Ryan is great on podcasts.

    [–]Ezaar 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Thank you.

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    You're welcome.

    [–]StrongAffordance 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Good summary. Have an upvote!

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Thank you

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    What a great synopsis.

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Thank you

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    There was birth control in the 1920’s if downtown abbey is to be believed but it was for women who had kids and just didn’t want or couldn’t support more.

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    If there was birth control, it wasn't the highly effective, readily available version that is the pill. It therefore did not have the societal impact that the pill had.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I would add that TRP or red pill PUA is second wave pick-up art. Movements that exist for a long enough amount of time have waves. For example, feminism had three waves, its on its third wave; a smaller group of people say its on its fourth wave, but I see it as being on its third. I discovered the MRM and MGTOW and "the red pill" concept in MRM and MGTOW, before I discovered TRP and red pill PUA, but it was equally brutal in MGTOW and caused me a lot of pain and trauma over the course of years.

    Before I discovered any of these I read a book called "The Game by Neil Strauss", this is like the original PUA book and while it doesn't account for early PUA internet communities like what I believe Rollo Tomassi was a part of, I think it gives an example of first wave PUA. For instance "IOI's" or "indications of interest" and "game" are both term still sometimes used on TRP and existed in this book. Though I am not a PUA, I'm just a virgin MGTOW autodidact mystic that knows some of its history. =P