Toggle Dark Theme
logo
235,172 posts archived

468
469

Red Pill TheoryThe Red Pill is Pro-Woman (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by TRP VanguardArchwinger

There’s a post floating around one of the other subreddits telling the tale of a 17-year-old girl and her controlling, manipulative, abusive 23-year-old boyfriend who took great pains to isolate her from her friends and family, demand sex on every occasion they would meet (and threaten to dump her or kick her out of his house if she didn’t comply), and some other really shitty behaviors, like physical violence and driving off and leaving her in another state. Needless to say, this guy isn’t the “alpha male” a Red Pill guy strives to be. He’s a sniveling loser who had to resort to insecure, jealous, and controlling behavior because he didn’t have options with other women, wasn’t an attractive or valuable man, and was desperately afraid of losing this girl.

Somewhere in this story, the woman tosses in the fact that this shithead she was dating was obsessed with reading The Red Pill, which, of course, led to the usual Reddit bandwagon about The Red Pill being a haven for virgin loser sexist rapist abusers. Conveniently brushed off was the fact that this woman, for five years, stayed with her boyfriend, had sex on demand every time, came back to him after every breakup, and put up with all of his crap. Everyone simply concludes, obviously, that this woman had psychological issues, was young and naive and inexperienced, and that her boyfriend “took advantage” of her and “manipulated” her. Because of the way he “made her feel,” she was forced to stay with him, forced to have sex with him on demand, and prevented from leaving him.

This standard surfaces again and again, in various examples--I’m just pulling this one because it’s recent.

If a man were to approach a “normal” woman he was dating, with no deficiencies, no issues, no perceived power disparity or significant age difference or anything like that, and if that man were to say, “Have sex with me or we’re through,” the assumption for this baseline, normal case would be that the woman has two choices: have sex with him, or end the relationship. Also assumed in this normal, baseline case is that the woman has the capacity to make whatever decision she feels is best for her. Maybe she wants to have sex anyway and likes sex with him. Maybe she doesn’t, but gets something else out of the relationship she appreciates. Or maybe she’s offended by this kind of demand on principle and dumps him. But it’s her choice, right? She has agency and makes the best decision for herself.

The modern, anti-Red-Pill viewpoint is that no woman would ever put up with that garbage. The only correct choice is for that woman to dump the “abusive” shithead she’s dating (because any attempt to coerce a woman into sex is automatically “abuse.” You’re supposed to buy her jewelry every weekend, not say a word about sex, and hope she fucks you out of the goodness of her heart). If a woman does agree to sex when demanded like that, that’s obviously the wrong choice, and it is clear, simply due to the fact that the woman made this wrong choice, that she is psychologically impaired and not responsible for her bad decision. Her abuser somehow had power over her and she couldn’t see the truth.

That’s the standard. Essentially, if a woman makes a choice our detractors agree with, she’s responsible and made a great choice. If a woman makes a choice they disagree with, then she was clearly manipulated, controlled, abused, and not responsible for her bad decision – blame the man.

That’s the blue pill, feminist, anti-Red-Pill way. “The choice I would have made is the only correct choice. I’m so right that anybody who does differently is mentally incompetent by definition, and any man who causes a mentally incompetent woman to make a bad choice is an abuser who should have recognized that the woman he’s abusing is mentally incompetent simply by virtue of the fact that she did what he wanted.” That’s the standard. It’s on you, the actor, as a man, to recognize whether or not a woman is competent to make a decision on her own behalf. It’s up to you to know everything there is to know about her and the totality of her circumstances, and to assume that women are mentally incompetent and can’t make good choices unless their circumstances are absolutely ideal. And even then, maybe not.

Ironically, the Red Pill is much more pro-woman. We assume that women are reasonably intelligent people, capable of making reasonable decisions that are best suited to them. That’s where the whole hypergamy thing comes from – we assume women are smart enough to make the decisions that get the best possible outcome for themselves. Likewise, when a man gives a woman a choice: put out or get out, we assume a woman is intelligent enough and responsible enough and reasonable enough to decide which of those two choices is the best one for her. If she walks, great. If she stays, then maybe she wanted sex, or maybe she’s getting something else out of the relationship that she appreciates. But it was her choice based on what she felt was the best outcome for her.

The Red Pill gives women the benefit of the doubt. The Red Pill believes in a woman’s ability to make responsible decisions for herself. Our detractors assume women are idiots, and therefore, it should be a federal offence to ever attempt to coerce a woman into sex, because women that agree to be with such men are apparently, by definition, mentally impaired. You can’t put women on the spot like that! They can’t be expected to make the right decision in those circumstances!

That’s the world of “feelings.” If you pick up a woman at a bar, and she goes home with you that night, but tomorrow morning, she regrets the encounter, then you “manipulated” her into sex. It wasn’t her decision, it was your abuse.

But even if she doesn’t regret her decision, our detractors don’t take her feelings into account at all. They only consider their own. They never would have gone home with you. The only correct decision was to turn you down. Because she made a decision they disagree with, by definition, you abused and manipulated and controlled her.

Thankfully for women, we assume better of them. We’re far more pro-woman than most feminists.


[–]Modredpillschool 101 points102 points  (31 children)

Take note of precisely what women/feminists typically claim to be a bad imbalance of power that causes said "mind control." Any factor that boosts a man's sexual value. It's so engrained that sexual value for men is evil and wrong, that even people here on TRP tend to get shamey when it's brought up.

For instance, the age gap. As it turns out, being an older, established man is just preying on insecure, weak women. Think about this for a second- women are naturally turned on by and attracted to older, established, successful men. But if a man takes advantage of this -- he's wrong. He's bad.

It becomes politically incorrect to use your advantages to attract women. You should date somebody your own age.

What about beauty? If age and status boost men's SMV, then beauty and youth are women's equivalent. Feminists don't seem to care that a young beautiful woman has such an enormous amount of power, they can make a living off of just having tits, control men, get men to buy them things, and a variety of other things.

Women can leverage their SMV without any backlash- it is strictly when men do that it becomes wrong. Because how dare men attract women!

It's just standard fare for the hypoagents. When faced with somebody of significantly higher SMV, they actually cannot resist. The guy should know better than allow a woman to be attracted to him.

[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger[S] 59 points60 points  (15 children)

Take note of precisely what women/feminists typically claim to be a bad imbalance of power that causes said "mind control." Any factor that boosts a man's sexual value. It's so engrained that sexual value for men is evil and wrong, that even people here on TRP tend to get shamey when it's brought up.

This is key. If you're rich (and she knows it) and you proposition a younger woman for sex, you're a pervert. ("You should have known why she was pretending to be interested in you!")

If you're hot and you proposition a woman for sex, you're a player. ("You're just a vapid pretty boy preying on innocent girls!")

If you're super-buff and you proposition a woman for sex, she was probably just afraid you'd beat her up if she said no.

Power is attractive. Power comes from looks, professional success, social aptitude, and so on. Women like men with power and status. So by definition, anything that makes you attractive to women is "using your power" over her to "manipulate" her into sex.

[–]Modredpillschool 35 points36 points  (5 children)

So by definition, anything that makes you attractive to women is "using your power" over her to "manipulate" her into sex.

Precisely.

[–]Upvote Me!trpbot[M] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Confirmed: 1 point awarded to /u/Archwinger by redpillschool. [History]

[This is an Automated Message]

[–]LadyLumen 24 points25 points  (8 children)

Pretty much every social interaction is a subtle manipulation. If a young woman uses her looks to get free drinks, she is in effect manipulating the men around her - but no one is claiming that this behavior should be banished - or should be illegal.

If a man is using his nice sports car to pick up chicks, all of a sudden he is a shallow perv.

[–]cray-cray-cray 15 points16 points  (7 children)

If a man is using his nice sports car to pick up chicks, all of a sudden he is a shallow perv

... with a super tiny dick.

This is usually said by girls who aren't candidates, or guys that drive crappy cars.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (5 children)

If a man is using his nice sports car to pick up chicks, all of a sudden he is a shallow perv

... with a super tiny dick.

guys that drive crappy cars.

Hey, I like a good sleeper car .

Sure you can have your 2013 Mustang GT Shelby, but, I'll take my 1998 Buick Regal with only $513.00 investment and smoke ya on the 1/4 mile.

As being part of a sleeper mod community, I can see the logic of both of these statements having a lot of validity.

A lot of these kids/guys out here are overtly macho so much they reek of being insecure in the most horrendous way possible.

[–]maderail 4 points5 points  (1 child)

.

[–]johngalt1234 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Focus on actually becoming powerful yet keeping a low profile. That way not only are your more capable but you are less likely to paint a bullseye on yourself.

[–]LadyLumen 11 points12 points  (4 children)

This also extends to the recent movement of shaming men for not being attracted to fat women. Women aren't allowed to be shamed for simply not being interested in a guy. But if a man expresses that he isn't attracted to over weight women, all of a sudden he is a shallow, sexist pig. Only women are allowed to have standards, men should just be happy for whatever they can get and treat any woman in their life like a princess for simply having a vagina/sarcasm.

[–]Mintaka7 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Only women are allowed to have standards, men should just be happy for whatever they can get

The reason for this is very simple. Most girls really believe that when they like a guy and are willing to sleep with them, they are in fact doing the guys a favor by letting him touch her.

This means they truly think girls are the ones doing the "chase" and guys should feel grateful because she chose him. After all, she could have chosen any guy, and chose him, so she is allowed to be picky, whereas the man is not, he should accept the girl and stfu.

[–]LadyLumen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The reason for this is very simple. Most girls really believe that when they like a guy and are willing to sleep with them, they are in fact doing the guys a favor by letting him touch her.

Yeah this is very true. It's a common complaint in r/sex that men have. Many women are terrible in bed because they just lay there like a log and act like the man is lucky for simply being able to touch them. And in a way, women can justify this mentality because of the artificially high SMV that society gives them via Feminism.

If prostitution were legal and easily accessible, women who are fat/boring/bitchy/lazy in bed/ would suddenly be treated the same way that low SMV males are, instead of like prom queens for simply existing.

[–]Cyhawk 2 points3 points  (1 child)

There's a difference between thick and fucking fat. While modern media has started the starving thin is beauty crap, I can see how the movement started. But it soon encompassed the 'fucking fat' women too because they haven't been told the difference between the two. Since men aren't allowed to even have normal standards (I get shit all the time for my preferences. I like em thick, not uncontrolled snowball round or rib showing thin, pretty sure I'm fucking normal here) these land whales who could lose 150 pounds and still be considered a whale get included in the movement.

It's fucking stupid all the way around.

[–]LadyLumen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Definitely. I agree that there needs to be a difference between the two. Most of the women on television and models are so thin that I can see a perfect outline of their collar bones and other bones. Even back in the day when I was 95 lbs, I could never see a perfect outline of my collar bone.

This standard has caused many self esteem issues for girls who are a normal and attractive weight. Many of these girls develop eating disorders and other weird psychological issues. People say "oh, stop being so affected by what you see." But it's only human to be effected by a media world that is all around you - and becomes more real than reality itself.

Yet at the same time, this has turned into woman (who are fucking heart attack fat) prancing around in their underwear, showing how proud they are of themselves (and this is applauded). Yet if some fat hairy guy did the same thing, people would probably call the police on him.

The 1950's curvy pin-up girl is attractive, a 300 lb woman in a walker with diabetes is not.

We need to understand the difference here.

[–]1PaulRivers10 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Take note of precisely what women/feminists typically claim to be a bad imbalance of power that causes said "mind control." Any factor that boosts a man's sexual value. It's so engrained that sexual value for men is evil and wrong, that even people here on TRP tend to get shamey when it's brought up.

Oh man, that is just a great post. Since I started reading and watching certain Game work, I crack up every time I read someone online claiming that a relationship is wrong "because of the power differential" - it's almost literally saying "it's wrong because it's sexy".

I don't have a problem saying women shouldn't be able to basically trade sex for grades or something like that, but they're always trying to apply it in any situation where the man has more power than the girl. It's like saying "It's wrong to sleep with women who have big boobs".

As many posters have said, these people are often great sources of advice - you just need to realize that you need to do the opposite of what they say.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

The feminist issue is that what's attractive to women are coercive traits. Women want a man who intimidates them. One who is older, more aggressive, wealthier. It flies in the face of the "equality" they want.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I would like to refer you to watch the movie LIMITLESS with Bradley Cooper on how basically the mindset of his ex-girlfriend is,... intimidated by him and extremely attracted to his successful lifestyle he's created as a stock broker

[–]sfg6 3 points4 points  (4 children)

A woman who denies sex to the man in a relationship is seen as empowering, a man who denies sex to the woman is seen as the abuser.

[–]Cyhawk 1 point2 points