TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

116

UPDATE: discussion is pretty much over, my view was not changed but I also feel it was not really challenged by anyone. Perhaps I failed to make my point clear enough of perhaps readers misunderstood me on their own. I’ll update if any late passers change my view.

I'm attempting to present a good faith CMV here, meaning that I'm actually willing to have my view changed. I'm not sure what exactly would change it so go ahead and try anything! I understand that the blue pill in general dislikes "market value" analogies but I think I'm actually arguing a point blues on this sub have been making for a while, through a red pill lens, using redpill terms. Bear with me this time, blues!

One view frequently expressed by redpillers in their anger phase is that women are delusional about their actual value, holding out for guys well above their league, cluelessly believing they are in a league far above their own. I'm not actually convinced this is true. Rather, I'll make an analogy of renting vs owning that currently plays out in my home states of CA and is probably vaguely related to how dating plays out as well. Again, bear with me blues, as this is "objectifying," as you would put it, but I'm trying to make a good faith argument here, not just rage bait you.

Renting = SMV (sexual market value)

Owning = RMV (romantic market value)

Right now in CA, people can afford (barely, sort of) to rent in areas they know full well they would never be able to own in, most notoriously the SF Bay Area but also lots of other lesser known, desirable towns. This is analogous to women having casual sex with guys much hotter than them, who probably won't commit to an LTR/marriage. I don't think most women really expect an LTR from these men anymore than they expect to own a home in the neighborhoods they expensively rent in, its just that their alternative is LTRs with guys who are not necessarily terrible, but not as good as casual sex with hotties (owning a home in an either dangerous neighborhood or a lackluster 3 bed/2bath with a long commute to work). Further, renting homes is easier than owning, the property owners are responsible for maintenance, and there is no property tax or homeowners insurance. Owning a home is a lot more work than renting one, and you are much more stuck with it than with a rental. That's also true of an LTR vs casual sex. Most people/women would rather rent in a nice/cool area close to work than own in a dangerous/boring area far from work, especially with the costs and effort of maintenance.

This is whole post is based on another argument TRP makes, that average women's SMV is far higher than their RMV. I also think this is somewhat an issue of women having a hard time going back to "average" for an LTR after having "hot" for short term, but in actuality is more a deeper symptom of economics shifting the balance of work/effort vs life fulfillment/reward in such a way that lots of people will find what a modern, western family model not worth it.

TLDR: most average women know full well their SMV is higher than their RMV, they just feel being single offers a better (even if sub optimal) lifestyle to being in an LTR with their RMV match. The order of preference goes: LTR with hot guy > single possibly with casual sex with hot guy > LTR with average "RMV match" guy.

I don't think "the Wall" (more accurately called "the mild tilt") will actually affect millennials/gen z much in this regard, the women will either have one baby from one of their casual sex partners and "go it alone" or just straight up stay single and take care of aging parents, sisters/brothers/besties kids or seek other social outlets.


[–]Orange_PaisleyOrange pill is best pill65 points66 points  (42 children) | Copy Link

I really would rather be single than be with the wrong person, but I am old by PPD standards.

[–]goatismycopilotJohnI'monlydancing36 points37 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think if you have a decent job, some friends, and some enjoyable hobbies at a certain age you're like nah I am good. The right person adds something to your life, something intangible not material and the wrong one feels like jail.

[–]Herbivore4Life16 points17 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I have yet to find someone who is better than silence. I am super independent and think I will stay single forever because of that.

[–]pizza_tron5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm not saying this is a guarantee, just testing your theory. What about extreme loneliness long term? I assume you are at oldest, in your 30s. At some point, most friends family up and there are less social outlets.

[–]Herbivore4Life5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I am just in my thirties. It could happen, but I have more or less been single my entire life and never felt lonely yet.

[–]the_cucumber3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Worst case scenario I'll move back to where my best friend is and live out our golden years together or help her raise her family if she has one by then.

Not sure I could ever manage to settle for the wrong person. In theory it sounds logical to, but when I put faces to that abstract and imagine my life with one of those guys I've rejected I can only think it'd be miserable for both. I respect them enough to let them keep searching.

[–]pizza_tron0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm am in a similar boat. Part of me thinks that just maybe, all women are all imperfect and will disappoint me on some level. I need to let go of my perfectionism and just pick one.

[–]the_cucumber3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

That is not the boat I'm in at all, skipper

[–]pizza_tron1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorry, I thought I was still talking to OP.

What boat are you in? ...skipper

[–]the_cucumber1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There's a lot of nuance between finding a perfect person with no flaws at all, and "just picking one"! You just have to find one whose flaws pale in comparison to the positives she brings to your life. Which is still a lengthy process, captain!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So, still holding out for the Good Looking Good Man. Well, Good Luck! :)

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

It baffles me that some users here cannot grok this.

[–]Zippo-Cat7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Some users here are men who don't get infinite attention and validation just by existing.

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Do these men like... have no friends for that?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (27 children) | Copy Link

I can grok this.

But having men who will spend some time with you (even if non-exclusively) doesn't make a woman "single" in my book.

Now I'm not condemning choosing to stay a "plate" or having random casual sex, but don't say there are no "good men" when you actively reject them to pursue "renting" hot guys.

Many women view themselves as "single" even as they have Friday and Saturday night booked for dating.

[–]Freethetreees5 points6 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

A “good man” from a woman’s perspective is a hot guy who wants commitment from her. Not “good” morally.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

Proof that women really don't care about "morals" or kindness from men.

[–]azngirl76892 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lewis you shouldn’t generalize. This is a debate not a rant.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not ranting. I can generalize all i want, particularly since generalizations are generally true.

You shouldn't lecture me. This is a debate and discussion. You are not my teacher and I am not your student.

[–]Freethetreees1 point2 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

They care, but it’s not the first priority. A good looking man who’s kind to her and to the people she cares about is the ideal.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

If they cared about "morals" or kindness, it'd be the first priority. They CLAIM it's the first priority. But they lie about it.

[–]Freethetreees3 points4 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Why should it be the first priority? Men don’t prioritize it in attraction, either.

Who cares what women claim? People claim things that make them look good to other people. Women in general have every reason to protect themselves from sexually scorned men who may very well turn violent when they realize their genes are shit and nothing makes up for that. It’s better for society and women’s safety if unattractive men believe they can overcome their genetic inferiority through pro social behavior.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (19 children) | Copy Link

Eh. Sounds like justifying lying and dishonesty to me. Sure, some men's genes are shit. Women should just tell the truth about why they won't fuck some guys, and let the chips fall where they may. Women are strong and independent, and so who cares if some unattractive guy turns violent (which happens almost never and is a product of women's fevered imaginations)?

[–]Freethetreees1 point2 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

I’d rather be a living liar than an honest dead woman. Stop using phrases you don’t believe in in bad faith. Women are strong and independent in feminine ways, not masculine ways. Trying to be strong exactly like a man without the muscle to back it up would be foolish. Take away a man’s physical strength and he’d resort to all the same manipulation and lies that women do.

If you think men never turn violent after being rejected, you need to do some research. Women are killed all the time for turning men down. And imagine how angry men in aggregate would be if they found out about A/B or the 80/20 rule? If the red pill’s anger phase is any indicator, simps need to stay in the dark for the good of everyone.

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil32 points33 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

I think the problem here is that the assumption is that women just want to fuck a hot guy, even if that leads no where, and is ok with just that moving forward. I find the number of women truly doing that to be only a subset of women. They may be the subset actively prowling dating apps, but thats to be expected in a virtual meat market.

My belief is since you don't encounter women in a LTR the assumption is they are not there, when in fact they were simply taken.

So the ones that stand out are "on the cock carousel" but most got off a long time ago.

In short I think your view is based on confirmation bias.

[–]goldmedalflower6 points7 points  (29 children) | Copy Link

I think the problem here is that the assumption is that women just want to fuck a hot guy, even if that leads no where, and is ok with just that moving forward.

This was so wonderfully portrayed in Bridesmaids. Average Jane Kristin Wiig meets perfectly reasonable nice guy Irish cop Chris O'Dowd, definitely a looks-match except she doesn't want him. Instead she throws herself at Chad Thundercock Jon Hamm who repeatedly pumps and dumps her and yet she keeps coming back for more and more, all the while utterly disgusted at the nice guy gestures, especially when he showed interest in Cockbaby bakery.

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil10 points11 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

After her boyfriend husband whatever cheated on her. I tend to not look to Hollywood fiction as fact.

[–]pizza_tron-1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

The fact that's it's in a relatively unrejected popular movie means there is some resonence with the general population. While it doesn't confirm it as fact, it can add credibility to an argument.

[–]Barneysparky4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It really doesn't.

It happened to the third cousin of one of a team of writers more likely.

People's lives just aren't as exciting as people with aniexty and depression tend to think they are.

[–]pizza_tron4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The fact that people emotionally resonate with that portion of the movie, is a clear example it is a reflection of the human experience. If it wasn't, they would reject it. I'm not saying it's flawless. I'm saying there are relatable aspects and those aspects can add weight to an argument.

Relatability is the reason movies work. If there wasn't a shade of truth to them, people would not feel the emotions they do toward them and wouldn't go.

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Relatability is the reason movies work.

I am not a movie goer but I actually saw that one in the theater, and it was billed as basically the chick version of the hangover. Funny thing was all the funny bits were in the trailer, it was just a standard chick flick.

That whole bit with the chad dude was the least believable bit in the movie. It really didn't make sense, chad dude was a feminist cliche of a man, nothing at all believable. He was a straw man to show how desperate she was and to be a foil to the literal "good cop".

Much like the trophy wife was also a caricature of what a trophy wife was, with lot of money but absolutely no respect from the husband or his kids from his first marriage.

It was directed by the same male feminist who made the new Ghostbusters, and that dude is a cliche himself.

Its not reality. I live in upper middle class America, when there is a divorce almost everyone, male for female, is in a new LTR almost instantly. Guys who say "I'll never get married again" do. Women who say "men suck" quickly have some new LTR boyfriend.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

There's some really popular Batman films too, doesn't mean they have any relevance to the lives of the general population (much to my dismay).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Superhero films don't purport to represent reality. They're fiction, they're fantasy, and everyone knows they're fiction and fantasy. Everyone knows there's no such thing as a tortured billionaire who works out his issues by getting into shape, adopting the persona of a giant flying rodent, and fighting crime.

Films that depict romantic attachments and the way people select each other for sex and relationships, and the way those people conduct those relationships, DO purport to represent reality or some part thereof. The reason they resonate with people is because they've seen those things play out that way; or because others represent these things to others less "in the know" as "reality" or "the way you should do it".

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Superhero films don't purport to represent reality. They're fiction, they're fantasy, and everyone knows they're fiction and fantasy.

Same goes for romcoms.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No

Romcoms are represented as reality. I explained why in detail.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Romcoms are represented as reality in the same way James Bond is.

[–]themanmohr7 points8 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Can confirm women do this all the time I remember a girl who I had rejected several times stopped dancing with her date in the middle of homecoming just to come talk to me I actually feel really bad for the dude because a similar thing happened with another girl he was dating who was constantly chasing me and this isn’t a rare occurrence shit like this happens all the time I probably shouldn’t complain though because I’m not the one getting the short end of the stick but I can’t help but feel bad for my fellow men

[–]WhatIsTheMeaningHere1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

What do you have to do to get in this position? Is it all just what you're born with and what comes naturally to you?

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Go to the gym and lose the fat. Keep carbs and sugars to a minimum.
The uglier you are, the more fat you have to lose.

Wear dark, slim fit clothes as they make you appear taller. Get shoes with the tallest (reasonable) soles you can find. Especially in winter when you can get away with thick-soled boots.

Go to a pro barber and pay him whatever to get a good styling that fits your face shape.

If you have major flaws like a crooked nose and can afford to, get surgery for that.

And finally, yes, don't be a beta bitch.

There will always be more attractive men out there and there's nothing you can do about that.

[–]Aufbruch4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

All the women that you get as a result of having done these things...are the women you deserve. Of that, I am sure.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, there's nothing else a man can do to become more attractive to women.
To women, jokes sound better coming from a fit, well groomed guy looking his best.
Even philosophical musings sound better coming from a hot man vs a plain looking or ugly man.

Even a homely looking woman can get a decently hot guy "to rent" as long as she's not a complete mess.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's funny how self-righteous bluepillers love to pretend as if true quality women would be willingly ignore every physical flaw of yours, and if you aren't accepted by women even while not looking your best, it is because you must be a terrible person.

[–]shonenhikada3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't be a beta bitch who chases women and act like your less than them. Understand their hypergamous nature and use it to your advantage.

[–]themanmohr0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Well honestly I wasn’t like that for most of my childhood things didn’t really turn around for me until high school because I was a late bloomer and was a year too young for my grade because I fairly intelligent I was bullied a lot as a kid because I was small since developmentally I was basically 2 years behind(physically not mentally) and then I hit puberty joined a few sports teams I started growing a lot and I’m still growing actually but I worked out and got a good muscular frame my face matured now I can’t deny my genetics did play a factor because I have a very good facial structure and nice hair but there’s a lot more to it when I got into high school I decided to put more effort into social interactions I made a lot of friends and to be honest I’m a very odd character my personality sticks out which makes me a very polarizing person some people hate me but most don’t and those who don’t love me and are usually ecstatic to see me and I had rapidly developed this sense of confidence(probably too much confidence) partially because of everything going on at the time and although my social status wasn’t the best with my grade because I previously had a reputation as a bit of a nerdy kid but my body and personality were rapidly developing and the upper class men took a liking to me which made the people I’m my grade change their opinion on me it’s probably also important to note that I’m extremely extroverted although that too was still developing at the time and I’ve always been extremely disagreeable which probably contributed to the bully when I was younger because I was very argumentative but it also made me a very dominant figure once I was older I also began to participate in about every social group because I had interests in about every social group now I never acted fake I always presented my real self but I only explored the parts of my character that were appropriate in that situation so if I’m hanging out with the preppy kids I talk about the intellectual things that interests me and if I’m hanging out with the jocks I talk about the sports I like and if I’m with the nerdy kids I talk about the video games I like or memes now of course a lot of these topics overlap but nobody on the football team cares about philosophy they care about whether or not you won that wrestling match last night and if you listened to logic’s new album yet but no matter what you do don’t act fake be the real you don’t pretend to be something your not but at the same time don’t try to engage in activities that aren’t appropriate for that setting also no matter where you are or what you’re doing always find a way to insert your own style of comedy into it and never exclude someone as a friend even if they’re “uncool” or have been a dick to you in the past if someone is being mean to you don’t let it get to you and you can screw with them back but if some day they decide they like you now and want to be friends don’t turn them away now it is important to just chill with the guys sometimes but you also need to go make friends with girls(bonus points if they’re hot) and join their social circle but don’t chase them don’t put them on a pedestal don’t try to get with them unless you’re willing to take the chance of losing them and or their whole friend group if things happen that’s cool but let it be natural don’t try to force it let them chase you if there is a connection having girl friends is great you’ll gain a lot of experience talking to women you’ll know how to flirt you’ll be comfortable around them and if they’re not into you they’ll probably try to get you together with one of her friends(hot girls hang out with other hot girls) plus have girl friends is different than having guy friends it’s a different type of relationship but that’s good also women are generally more attracted to men who are surrounded by and sought after by other women as long as they’re not taken it’s a bit of a compounding effect but no matter what don’t be the “nice guy” friend women are surrounded by these type of men and nobody respects them including the girl you can find them attractive but don’t let them know that if there is any interest it should be coming from her which will probably happen sooner or later because men and women can rarely be just friends without one party having interest in the other and it’s important to just chill out don’t be a stick in the mud be open to trying new things have an open mind and always be learning new skills anyways one of the first things I started doing around this time was develop a fashion sense so I got a nice well needed haircut began to style it and started to dress differently I didn’t really know what I was doing at first so I just got whatever looked good and was at a name brand store so I started to pay attention to what it thought looked cool in pop culture in movies on Instagram and I even began to look online for advice and as I saw styles I liked my sense of style slowly evolved to what is it today and although it will probably evolve a little more it’s pretty much in its final form I think everyone needs a personal style so it’s really all about what you like and what makes you feel good in it just pay attention to what people wear and figure out what you find to be aesthetically pleasing and wear whatever makes you feel good about yourself when you look in the mirror personally I find it’s a bit of a mix between modern fashion and a classic style I enjoy many business casual and business looks but I’m not in the environment where that is necessary so I usually wear casual clothes and it’s usually a lot of bomber jackets leather jackets hoodies waffle shirts henleys t shirts and jeans I’ll occasionally wear a button up possibly with a coat sometimes I’ll wear joggers and in the summer I’ll wear worn jeans with holes in them for air flow and a t shirt sometimes I’ll wear a button up or flat fronts but I’m trying to stay away from shorts as for my hair I get it cut really short on the back and sides with a high taper and I get the top cut long enough to slick back but short enough so that I don’t have to do anything to it and don’t have to worry about it bothering me or or hanging in front of my eyes and for shoes I really like a nice pair of leather boots or Chelsea boots when it comes to warmer temperatures or more casual setting I find Adidas originals are very comfortable and I really enjoy the style of their shoes which is nice because I had a hard time finding shoes that fit for a long time because my foot is weird but for some reason all Adidas shoes fit me very comfortably anyways moving on so I also taught myself how to break dance which was very difficult at first but once I figured out how to do it I would practice it a few more times and it was muscle memory I decided to focus on this because I always really liked to dance and had a natural feel for the rhythm when I was young I would just feel the beat and freestyle a bit anyways whenever the opportunity came up I would try to show off whatever new moves I learned and maybe some people don’t like to be the center of attention but I absolutely love it I don’t get stage fright and if I mess up it’s no big deal nobody will remember but people will remember an amazing performance and any worry you had goes out the window when a circle of about a hundred people or so around you is cheering you on alright let me get to the point it’s a mix of things it’s about have a presence a lot of confidence social status skills and traits that make you unique it’s about having connections and making women chase you it’s about making women think all the other women want you to and it’s important not to appear desperate it’s about having a bit of charm and a good sense of humor it’s about having a personality that draws people to you it’s about dressing well and appearing smart having a fit body and if you’re older than I am it’s about making good money and being smart with it(I do have a nice sports car but not because I think women will like it because I like it because I enjoy looking at it working on it and driving it tbh women don’t seem to care about the car you drive as long as you take care of it) and although some of it isn’t in your control most of it is you don’t have to be perfect yeah I’ve got a good face and good hair but even if you’re balding just shave it off bald isn’t bad just gain some muscle think about vin diesel he’s old bald and doesn’t have a good face but you know what he’s buff and has an attractive personality or at least the characters he plays do and I’m not 6ft or anything I’m about average height and although I do have a 6 pack I didn’t for a long time and it didn’t seem to matter women want men who are men be unapologetically you and constantly improve yourself have drive and draw people in with your personality and find things you enjoy find a passion don’t worry about women worry about yourself and once you’ve bettered yourself they’ll flock to you

I hope you made it this far and I hope this helps I know this was a ridiculously long post and I know it probably took a long time to read it but it also took a long time to write I apologize for the lack of grammar and punctuation but I usually don’t worry about that when I’m casually posting on Reddit although now that I’m looking back it probably would have made it much easier to read anyways although this took a while to write I enjoyed it because it allowed me to reflect on myself

[–]mild_animal8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Man you've really got to be feeling real good to right so long and without any punctuations although now that I've started writing this comment I do think it's far easier to ramble than it is to give concise helpful advice but hey no worries anyone who is really that distraught will go through that puddle of mud and find the lost pieces of wisdom drowned in your deluge of words and while it honestly was a bit of a rant gotta give it to you man atleast you tried

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Holy shit. Paragraphs are your friend.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

And punctuation.

[–]Xemnas810 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Speech to text, maybe?

[–]OGNinjerk3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You should be getting a call from the President any minute now.

[–]Barneysparky1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

She stoped dancing with him to come talk to you. Dude... Another possibility. The other guy said something that freaked her out enough to not want to be around him anymore.

Or she had really been into you, dating is not a life commitment. It actualy isn't.

She came to you......

She might not be a branch swinging harpy horrid person.

She may have been into you and darn well messed that up.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm pretty sure u/themanmohr has no issues getting dates. Don't think he messed up by rejecting a girl who LEFT HER DATE to come chat with him.

If you're not OK with how your date is going, tell that to your date.
End the date with gusto, don't just up and leave and then throw yourself at another man in full view of your date.

It was homecoming, the poor guy promised the girl's parents to bring her back.

Now he has to stay around like a beta bitch while she's trying to get with Chad until the night is over, and then still has to take her home.

What's he going to do, call her house and tell her dad "Sorry Mr. Smith, Jenny left me here and went to talk to Josh. Last I saw them, they were sneaking to the gym closet."? XD

[–]themanmohr1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You explained this a lot better than I could have

[–]Xemnas810 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The funny thing is that Mr Smith will probably beat up the poor kid for not taking better care of Jenny better.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Guess who's going to be blamed if Jenny gets pregnant?

[–]themanmohr1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m not saying she’s a bad person I’m actually friends with her but that’s not the point the point is that it’s just what women do she’s been into me for a while she overtly flirts with me constantly and she was there with a guy she wasn’t that into she was more attracted to me and I think she was hoping that conversation would have led to us leaving together but I didn’t want to do that to the other dude I would’ve felt really bad I’m not saying she’s wrong for it I’m just saying that’s what women do they won’t stick around with a man they’re not completely sexually attracted to and when a man that makes her wet just by looking at him comes along you know she’s gonna try and get with him it’s just human nature and it’s not the first time this type of thing has happened plus I dated one of her friends and I’m pretty sure she told her that I had a large member I mean she practically eye fucks me every time we talk and I couldn’t help but feel bad for her date who was standing over there looking sad and waiting for me to leave so she would come back and dance with him also if she just wanted to get away from the dude she would’ve said that to me and would have helped her but it’s pretty obvious that wasn’t the case especially when you understand the context of our relationship

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here16 points17 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I think it’s both. The average woman around me certainly believes they deserve a certain caliber of man and will typically remain single until he appears. They are absolutely delusional thinking they match the caliber of women these men typically date and are serious with.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 12 points13 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

See it’s hard for me to tell what these women really believe about how hot they are vs how much of this is female posturing amongst each other. I feel like manospherians and especially incels are taking things thots say in twitter wars with each other at face value when in reality men aren’t even part of the equation .

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I’m not on twitter so idk. But if you polled the average woman and asked her what her preferences were, I bet they are in the 80th percentile in terms of height and status and whatever other laundry list of desirable traits.

[–]antariuszRed Pill Man5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Only 80th? Try 95%

For example only 4% of men are 6’2” or taller. Less than 5% of men have a 6 figure salary. And while around 30% of men have at least a bachelors, that number drops to 10% for a masters... No kids (that chad knows about) is another important one...

And while there is some correlation between those numbers (tall men are more successful men, on average) it’s likely that at least among her stated preferences, and especially online, 95% of men are going to have some kind of “dealbreaker” for a women. So it’s important not to have any one of those, if you’re trying to bed the most number of women possible.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Texastentialismshe's got a tattoo and two pet snakes5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

💯

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Does this need its own post too?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think there are roughly three groups of women: Those who...

  1. have casual sex just for funsies
  2. have casual sex but long for a relationship
  3. don't have casual sex

And I'd argue that 2 is larger than 1.

Sure, maybe some of these women are aware that Hotty McDreamy is a bad partner but a nice placeholder until she finds Mr. RightTM , but I'd wager that these women are more likely to go for a guy they'd also date and hope that the things fall in place at some point.

[–]Xemnas811 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You could argue that most of hypergamy is just about female intrasexual competition tho

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I’ve considered that argument before

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Also I’d like to add that the fictitious abundance mentality of the female perspective when online dating must have some sort of impact on their standards. Surely it would be logical to assume so even though most women I believe are smart enough to know these guys just want to get their D wet.

[–]HonestyOverCivility 1 points [recovered]  (6 children) | Copy Link

First off, I compliment you for the content and tone of your post; this is definitely what your average post on this sub should look like.

In terms, of your argument I’d argue that the more appropriate analogy is that your average “renter” has the money to buy, but the landlord isn’t willing to sell because he feels that renting it out is a better long term investment.

In plain English: A women who meets a man that she deeply desires is more then happy to stick with him...the problem is that a high value man often understands his value and has no incentive to settle down with any one woman.

I’d also argue that women often do have an overinflated sense of their SMV in their younger years due to things like getting attention on social media and the fact that they can easily sleep with men whose SMVs are greater than their own. Women assume that if they’re a 6 and they can pull 8’s that 8’s are the standard. In reality a man who is an 8 will readily sleep with even an average looking woman below his SMV because for men it’s quantity over quality. Conversely women, will rarely sleep with a man below her own SMV

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 12 points13 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Thanks very much , I tried hard to make a post focusing on discussion content because I’ve been very frustrated with ppd lately. This is not my best post or deepest most original topic, I just wanted to put something out there with the tone and content style I want to see more of even if its quality is mediocre , you know?

MPPDGA

In the case you described of the landlord not selling, that just means the price point at which he would sell is beyond what the renter can afford to pay. Obviously he’d sell for a billion dollars, and probably much much less would still make it worth it, but that’s more than anyone has. “Alphas” are obviously the landlords in this analogy.

Tbh, I think women’s SMV is just higher than men’s , but they confuse SMV for RMV. They are very different

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think women’s SMV is just higher than men’s , but they confuse SMV for RMV. They are very different

I think PPD does this in general for both men and women. A lot is said about SMV while RMV is frequently ignored.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Probably true

[–]Xemnas810 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I see bluepillers inflating baseline female RMV all the effing time.

[–]themanmohr1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

although the SMV for women is inflated the RMV for men is also inflated so a man who is an 8 will not settle down with an 8 because he can still consistently bang 8s and below he will however settle down with a 9 because he cannot consistently bang 9s women can and will have sex with men at or above their level but they can only have a LTR with men below their level unless they are virgins in which case they can have a LTR with a man at an equal attractiveness level because it effectively makes them more desirable in the romantic market men will only enter into a LTR with women who are in a caliber that they would not be able to consistently have casual sex with

[–]N0blesse0blige2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

First off, I compliment you for the content and tone of your post; this is definitely what your average post on this sub should look like.

It’s more civil than honest, yet you compliment it.

[–]GradualDecomp 1 points [recovered]  (91 children) | Copy Link

I agree.

I'm in an LTR right now, but when I've sought out casual sex in the past, it's because I have been unwilling or unable to invest in a committed relationship but still wanted to get laid. Something is better than nothing.

I have never had a casual sex arrangement with anyone I actually wanted to date. That's just a recipe for disaster. I've never used casual sex as a method to gain a relationship. Seems risky.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 15 points16 points  (50 children) | Copy Link

I think the “women using casual sex to get an LTR “ meme is less attempts at manipulating and more lack of both interpersonal and cultural clarity on the definitions of relationships and courtship rituals.

[–]CatchPhrazeRed is For Rudolph11 points12 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

The only time I hear this is when a man lies or obscures his intentions, she wants to date, he wants to hook up, but says hes open to dating, she catches on eventually and leaves. Very few (but is does happen as with anything) times do woman i know try to go from casual to committed when casual was on the table from the start.

Any time a woman has come seeking casual sex that I know about, it's often with someone who she would not be willing to invest long term in either.

[–]storffish8 points9 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

give her the ol' "I'm not ready now but I don't want to lose you"

[–]goatismycopilotJohnI'monlydancing4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Does that really work? If I heard that I would think somebody was okay being with me until something they really wanted came along and hit the exit sign or start dating other people.

[–]storffish6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

not on every chick but enough to keep your dick wet consistently

[–]goatismycopilotJohnI'monlydancing1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So it is a percentages strategy.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just like everything in life.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It works if you're a Chad!

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I do too. Although if you don’t put out immediately you’ll be accused of manipulating/playing games too 🤷‍♀️

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

By TRP , not the average dude

Also, it is manipulative , but who cares

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think it’s manipulative at all.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 5 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Neither does mittens, he’s just meowing weirdly 🐈

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS-1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

what's about naming a cat Mittens?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It’s not his real name lol. I just don’t wanna doxx him here

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I just had to think of this

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don’t get the relevance

[–]DespisedByWomen 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Isn't a ww1 gasmask just plaid/cloth dipped in water?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Idk it’s left over from the purge before the last one lol.

Attn mods pls change back to “75% redpill core ideas”

[–]GradualDecomp1 point2 points  (29 children) | Copy Link

Certainly. I'm a pretty upfront person, so to me casual arrangements begin with a discussion and agreement that we are not going to pursue anything further than sex and maybe some fun stuff like a movie or show.

But a lot of people consider anything other than monogamous relationships "casual". I like to date someone for some time before we agree to be an exclusive couple, usually at least 3 months. I dont consider sex in that time as "casual", because we have the intention of moving on to commitment, whether or not that works out in the end. Usually does for me.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 4 points5 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

You are a rare exception . Most people get stuck with ambiguity

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (25 children) | Copy Link

He's good looking.

Most men will get a slap over the face for bringing it up.

The average man has to choose between a dry spell and tricking women he only wants to hook up with that he actually wants more than that.

[–]Freethetreees0 points1 point  (24 children) | Copy Link

Then men should choose dry spell. If the choice is be poor or steal from people who worked hard for what they have, the choice would be obvious to anyone with moral decency.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

steal from people who worked hard for what they have

Women don't really work for their SMV, they're born with it. As for makeup, it's an acquired skill but closer to deceit than hard work.

moral decency

Tell that to the starving man who steals food. The need for sex and affection is a basic one. Just as some people will steal food, some men will "steal" sex.
Unless you want to argue that "tricking" a woman into sex by projecting the image of an alpha male is somehow rape. In which case you need a shrink.

If women had moral decency they wouldn't buy breast implants, push-up bras and stilettos. Of course it's a lot harder to find a man taller than you when you're wearing 7 inch heels.

Then again of course you'd say "Then men should choose dry spell.". It makes total sense for a woman to prefer that betas go under their rocks and leave her with the choice of alphas.
Women are the premier sponsors of self-censorship. Whether it's about words, feelings or sex, women prefer others self-censor themselves rather than they have to exercise caution and maturity.

Funny thing is, if all beta men went MGTOW, women would realize how rare alpha men are in a few years at most.
Right now women suffer from too much choice, FOMO, sunk cost short-term bias, sunk cost and loss aversion.

I wonder how women would react if they realized they have to share a genetically desirable man, a true alpha from birth with 5-7 other women (if not more).

[–]Freethetreees1 point2 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

You will die without food, you will not die without sex. I don’t think lying to get sex is rape, but I do think it’s close to it and sexually fraudulent. Immoral but not illegal.

Men know women are wearing these things. If men truly believe women’s breasts are naturally spherical, gravity defying pseudo buttcheeks and their faces are naturally poreless and flawless, THEY need to see a shrink because their grip on reality is loose.

Women would rather be alone than be with a beta or share an alpha. Women want betas and disloyal alphas to go under rocks. The only good man is an ltr oriented natural alpha.

[–]boomcheese441 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Women would rather be alone than be with a beta or share an alpha. Women want betas and disloyal alphas to go under rocks. The only good man is an ltr oriented natural alpha.

Definitely agree with this. Not many of these men exist though. Women either have to 1) Find a beta that manages to transform himself and gain some alpha traits or 2) Wait for the alpha to "age out" of only wanting casual sex.

[–]Freethetreees1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Truth

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

You will die without food, you will not die without sex.

No you won't die, you'll just become mentally unstable and unable to have a proper relationship if the occasion ever arises. :)

I don’t think lying to get sex is rape, but I do think it’s close to it and sexually fraudulent. Immoral but not illegal.

Well sexuality is amoral. I mean women lie to men and themselves all the time.

Men know women are wearing these things.

Women also have an inkling, but they choose to entertain the fantasy, like men do.

If men truly believe women’s breasts are naturally spherical, gravity defying pseudo buttcheeks

Man until now I only ever saw 2 women with naturally round breasts. They exist but they are veryn rare.

and their faces are naturally poreless and flawless

No but a lot of women have relatively clear skin. It's not all genetics, there's meds, product and diets that can help your skin clear up.
Few men expect perfect porcelain skin.

Actually fewer men expect round breasts and great skin than women expect 6'+ height and a big cock.

Men generally "shame" women over things women can control to a degree like weight and hygiene.
About the only thing men shame women over they can't control is age.
And even then it's usually when a late 30s-40s woman thinks she can still snag a younger hot guy to give her a kid in her last years of fertility.

Women generally shame men over things they can't control like age, height, penis size, mental health, virginity (try telling your date you lost your virginity with a hooker).

Women would rather be alone than be with a beta or share an alpha.

Nah, a lot of women are fine sharing an alpha as long as they know who they're sharing with.

Women want betas and disloyal alphas to go under rocks.

Yeah, feminism has said as much. They often advocate for every 9 out of 10 men to be... removed. Guess who the lucky 10% remaining are.

The only good man is an ltr oriented natural alpha.

Obviously, now good luck sharing a few dozen million "LTR-oriented natural alphas" among a few BILLION women.

[–]Freethetreees0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think all priests and monks throughout history were mentally unstable, sounds like you have a low opinion of men.

Yeah yeah men care more about fertility than genes, that doesn’t make them any less shallow than women. Women care about genetic quality and who the man actually IS at the basic biological level. Men just want a working womb with legs.

It’s a male fantasy that any woman would be ok with sharing her mate. It’s just untrue. Harems are inherently full of drama and strife and resentment.

No one wants the majority of men “removed”, they’re still needed and useful. They just need to get out of the way of sexual selection.

Thankfully there are also billions of men :) and women are more sexually fluid so a lot of women would rather be lesbian than alone or with a beta male or a disloyal man.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

LOL you’re implying that women lose their vaginas after men fuck them??!!

sexual strategy is amoral

[–]Freethetreees0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

No, but they do lose something very valuable: time on their fertility clock and an opportunity to find a long term mate.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s not like these flings last years lol

[–]GradualDecomp-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's a choice

[–]decoy88Black Male in London1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

soo much a choice. At any point one person can sit down and ask directly for clarity... but they don't

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

lack of both interpersonal and cultural clarity on the definitions of relationships and courtship rituals.

Yeah a lack of clarity in courtship rituals... hahaha

Damn incels always misinterpreting...
Chad treated me like a princess and gave me gifts before he turned out to be an asshole.
Melvin? Who the fuck is that?
Oh wait I remember! Ewww!
He was that creepy guy who asked me out last year. He even tried giving me a gift!
So gross! What a fucking loser!

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost3 points4 points  (38 children) | Copy Link

have never had a casual sex arrangement with anyone I actually wanted to date. That's just a recipe for disaster. I've never used casual sex as a method to gain a relationship. Seems risky.

What seems risky about it? This is my preferred way to get into relationships, especially with girls who thought that could never happen.

It always seemed like women loved that particular narrative

[–]storffish12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is my preferred way to get into relationships

Well yeah you're a dude

[–]GradualDecomp4 points5 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

The criteria for hookups is much lower than my criteria for LTRs. For casual sex, he really only needs to be attractive, nice, and good in bed.

For dudes that I consider "boyfriend material", prolonging the courting process and taking more time to get to know one another pretty much always pays off. By the time we fuck, he's already invested.

So basically if I sleep with you on a first date, it probably means that I like you, but not enough to date you seriously.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh so you mean you want to have the upper hand

Seriously same it’s why I like the opposite dynamic

In my experience if she’s sleeping w me the first night she almost always wants more, that’s the one thing I don’t really get , lots of girls here always say it’s not that way for them.

[–]GradualDecomp3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I get that with guys a lot too. Hard to say if they're lying when they say they're cool with NSA, or they develop feelings later. Either way, I prefer to be as clear as possible so my side is honest and fair.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeh for me it just seemed like a switch flipped with a lot of girls after sex, suddenly they don’t test anymore and instead are super super accommodating. For some it wasn’t that obvious tho

What i would always say is “hey I like you let’s get to know each other better and see what happens,” it wasn’t insincere or a way to write them off, but, like you, I preferred to date for a while (3+ months) before making it official and really much longer before they get super deep into knowing me

[–]decoy88Black Male in London1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

what about developing feelings over time? does that never happen? For me it can be start off as a fuck buddy, then moves to FWB, then feelings catch on as I discover I really like their personality and want to commit.

[–]GradualDecomp0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

There was one dude I had a FWB arrangement with over 6 years that I occasionally thought "why dont I just date him?". He's one of the coolest dudes I ever met. After consideration, I repeatedly came to the conclusion that things were better the way they were, for several reasons. We became very close friends and were both totally upfront about our feelings and intentions throughout the whole relationship. We stopped sleeping together about 4 years ago, but remain friends. I have been accompanying him to jewelry stores to help him pick an engagement ring for his wonderful girlfriend. He and my boyfriend are in a band together now. I'm very grateful we remained friends instead of dating. I'm sure we would have broken up and wouldn't have what we have now.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I had the exact same thing with an ex-FWB, it went from "This sex is great" to "She's cool I really like her, gf material for someone, but not me" to now we're just friends.

Meanwhile I had a similar thing where it went from "She's cool I really like her" to "Shit fuck, I REALLY like her, I want more" which turns into LTR (if she feels the same way).

I feel that any other method risks me getting into it with someone who has too differing attitude about sex from me, which I am not into.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah ime it is hard to do FWB without catching feelings. Where it gets difficult is if it only happens to one of you.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It is difficult. But when both people are mature and honest about handling feelings enough to say “I feel this way, I need to step back for a bit” and the other person goes “okay no worries” allows that time, respect for each other to not take the piss and be kind. It can work.

A year and a half on I’m still good friends with a former FWB. Pretty much everyone else couldn’t be emotionally mature about it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep you're right the problem is most people can't be grownup about their emotions.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

The criteria for hookups is much lower than my criteria for LTRs. For casual sex, he really only needs to be attractive, nice, and good in bed.

So your criteria for LTR are:

  • must be in the top 20% of men

  • a whole host of other qualities

Where are all the (Good Looking) Good Men?

[–]GradualDecomp1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Do you think its unreasonable to seek out partners that share your values, have compatible lifestyles and future goals? Do you think it's wise to have rock bottom criteria for LTRs?

That shit doesn't matter for casual for casual arrangements. For example, I don't really care if my FWB smokes a lot of weed, but I wouldn't be in a serious relationship with anyone that does.

Let me guess. A woman that is picky about who she dates is a stuck up bitch, and a woman who dates a loser is an idiot, right? Pretty much any woman who won't date you is wrong.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Do you think its unreasonable to seek out partners that share your values, have compatible lifestyles and future goals? Do you think it's wise to have rock bottom criteria for LTRs?

No, I think it's unreasonable to expect LTRs to be "Hookup+" (or "FWB+").
Few men out there provide "The Full Package" and are in very high demand.
So if a woman is looking for an LTR she'll often risk becoming a plate for eligible men who are bachelors.
Let's be honest here, after 30 most eligible LTR-minded men are taken.
So if you want a partner who "shares your values, has a compatible lifestyle and future goals" you'll likely have to be a bit more forgiving in the looks department.

That shit doesn't matter for casual for casual arrangements. For example, I don't really care if my FWB smokes a lot of weed, but I wouldn't be in a serious relationship with anyone that does.

Which is why it's so easy for even ugly women to have hookups with men well out of their league.
You're not the only one who's overlooking some things.
Your weed smoking FWB is probably overlooking things he doesn't like about you too.

Let me guess. A woman that is picky about who she dates is a stuck up bitch,

Only if she's not self aware. A woman is entitled to be as picky as she desires, as long as she's grounded into reality.

and a woman who dates a loser is an idiot, right?

Nope, losers are people who need love too. If a woman can find something to love in a loser more power to her.
As long as she's not the one holding him back, sometimes to become the General's wife you have to marry an Officer.

Pretty much any woman who won't date you is wrong.

No, I'm not even actively looking for a woman to date.
I mean if it were to happen I'm open to seeing where it goes.
But my experience with women (at least women my age) is that they don't want what I have on offer.
And they can't offer me what I need from a relationship either.

In fact, I think pretty much any woman who would date me would have something "wrong" with her. XD

[–]GradualDecomp1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you think its unreasonable to seek out partners that share your values, have compatible lifestyles and future goals? Do you think it's wise to have rock bottom criteria for LTRs?

No, I think it's unreasonable to expect LTRs to be "Hookup+" (or "FWB+").
Few men out there provide "The Full Package" and are in very high demand.
So if a woman is looking for an LTR she'll often risk becoming a plate for eligible men who are bachelors.
Let's be honest here, after 30 most eligible LTR-minded men are taken.
So if you want a partner who "shares your values, has a compatible lifestyle and future goals" you'll likely have to be a bit more forgiving in the looks department

That hasn't been my experience at all. Low value men often want to believe that attractive high quality men are rare and difficult to find, but they really aren't. Women should be picky about who they end up with. it's the most important decision one makes in life.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That hasn't been my experience at all. Low value men often want to believe that attractive high quality men are rare and difficult to find, but they really aren't.

Where do you live? Big city or a small, nearly rural community?

Unless you live in Goodmansville here's the game.
You have a high concentration of people, that means a higher NUMBER of eligible men.
But the PERCENTAGE stays the same.
In a village 1000 strong you'd have, say, 70 eligible, high value men.
In a city 1000000 strong you'd have 70000 eligible, high value men. Sounds like a lot, until you realize you're competing with 1000 times more women over the same men.
So, you tell me just how easy to find, eligible, high value men are. :)
Also, getting 100 matches on OLD, doesn't mean you have 100 guys who are single and want to have an LTR with you.

Women should be picky about who they end up with. it's the most important decision one makes in life.

Just don't be too picky, or they might end up as the "cool" aunt who drinks wine, has 5 cats and gets used as a "practice girlfriend" by good looking young men that don't have good game.

EDIT: Also, most women see the vast majority of men as low value.
When their own effed up standards paint every 6-7 out of 10 men as low value how can you call those women "down to earth"?
If 60% of men were low value our society would literally cease to function.

[–]Freethetreees0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Low value genetically is not the same as low value in societal usefulness.

[–]themanmohr0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

I do a similar thing I only consider a LTR if a woman: a: wants to have sex with me now and considers me extremely sexually attractive b: shows restraint and doesn’t sleep with me despite wanting to because she is the type of girl who waits until a man is permanently invested no matter how bad she wants to So basically we should have a passionate make out session but she should stop me before it gets to sex because she is set rules for herself when it comes to dating it shows self discipline forethought good values and it shows me that although she he hasn’t slept around she is very sexually attracted to me it’s the best of both worlds

[–]decoy88Black Male in London3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

this just sounds like you like teasing and games. And that RP "anti-slut defence" lol

[–]themanmohr-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

No if she does want to have sex that’s fine too she’s just not LTR material she’s fuck buddy material and if I’m going to have a long term relationship I want someone who sexually desires me but hasn’t had many previous sexual partner my logic goes if she’ll sleep with me now she’s slept with other men like this too I’m not teasing or playing games I’m just determining their value system based on the choices they make I’m not influencing them or messing with them I’m fine either way it’s just an easy way to figure out what type of girl they are and what type of relationship we will have

[–]decoy88Black Male in London1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

that's not logical. At all.

It is a strong attempt and systematising and categorising people tho. Despite the hypocrisy.

[–]themanmohr-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Can you explain why I’m open to having my mind changed if someone can show me why it’s a bad idea and offer a better strategy and although I know it is a bit hypocritical I really care about the psychology affects past relationships have on people I know that I won’t bring any baggage but I can’t be sure about the other person and if they don’t want to get into a relationship with me because of my sexual past that’s fine with me and I understand that I don’t have an issue with that but I’m away of the fact that a woman who has had one previous sexual partner is an equal divorce risk to a man who has had 19 and I just wouldn’t feel comfortable marrying a woman who has been with many other men but I don’t think women tend to have that issue not to mention my dad was a 30 year old officer in the military who had been with several women around the world and from what I understand he had a vetting process of his own he met my mom when she was 20 and in college and they’ve been together 27 years they’ve endured hardships that would’ve torn others apart and they’ve always been faithful to each other

[–]decoy88Black Male in London2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The truth is there is no way to predict whether someone will be a miserable partner on surface level information.

I really care about the psychology affects past relationships have on people I know that I won’t bring any baggage but I can’t be sure about the other person

It’s refusing to offer the same benefit of the doubt that you yourself would rely on to be accepted as relationship material. At a larger level, you’re essentially saying “it’s different when it’s me because I’m better/smarter/mature” which is not true.

Also someone who would refuse to behave has you do likely has different values regarding sex than you. So even though they might accept you initially, it’s more likely that incompatibility will cause problems down the line.

The best strategy is one that can’t be put in a statistic. It’s assessing and vetting a person on an individual level, their entire personality and history not just snap judgements on one or two data points. Especially for behaviour that mirrors yours.

Tbf, I’ve seen most guys with these ‘rules’ setup usually ignore them anyway when they come across a woman who is truly exceptional otherwise. It’s just posturing after that.

And tbf, if your mum did sleep around back in the day I doubt that would be shared with you (or maybe even your dad), pride is a thing.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Tbf, I’ve seen most guys with these ‘rules’ setup usually ignore them anyway when they come across a woman who is truly exceptional otherwise. It’s just posturing after that.

Yuuuuup. When a guy falls for a girl all the "rules" go out the window. Same is true vice versa too.

[–]themanmohr0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You make a good point but what I meant by saying that is that I know I’m not carrying issues from previous relationships but I also wouldn’t be bothered if someone didn’t want to be with me because of my previous relationships I’m fine with being held to my own standard I just don’t think those things matter to most women as much as they matter to most men although you’re right if I find a woman who really is my match I might not care about her previous partners but in my experience the more partners a woman has had the more neurotic and difficult she is I find that they tend to play more games and be more manipulative mostly because of the baggage they carry

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Because it may not get what you want. It’s less hurtful if you haven’t slept together even if you don’t end up dating when you really like someone. Sleeping with someone too soon whom you think you might really like seems like it would just get your hopes up before you have a solid basis to believe it’s going in the direction you want it to go..

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I guess that makes sense if you’re trying to play it safe

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well if you define not wanting to get hurt and vetting appropriately for that playing it safe, sure.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

This is my preferred way to get into relationships, especially with girls who thought that could never happen.

You must be good looking then. This almost never works out for the average man.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Are you just intent on copy/pasting this everywhere?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Nope. It just looks like a lot of men here don't realize how good looking they are.

Show me how often the average guy (the dudes in the pics, for example) will be able to hook up / have casual sex / be FWB with a woman, ANY woman (other than prostitutes), much less get in a relationship.

Average Guy 1
Average Guy 2
Average Guy 3

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

First guy could easily have regular casual sex. The second guy doesn't look too bad either. The third guy needs to fix his hair and get new glasses and he'll do fine as well.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

LOL, those are just 3 random photos of actually average guys.
It's not about those specific guys.
Basically none of them are even a 7/10 in looks.
The first guy is a 6/10, the second is a 3/10 and the 3rd is a 4/10.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

All of them would get casual sex just fine assuming they don't have autism.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

assuming they don't have autism

Shit! :P

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hehe.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m not good looking I just really dialed into a few particular things that work for me. For example I have kind of a mean looking face, well with a certain type of girl , that’s what she’s into, I just play into it

I look just like your average guys that you posted maybe even a little worse, except that I’m much more fit

[–]PPD-Angel[M] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This post was tagged as a CMV. All top level comments must challenge the OP’s view.

[–]Uncommon_Sensed_1234 1 points [recovered]  (28 children) | Copy Link

All of this is observational but from observing the average women in my immediate family there is a certain level of delusion there about what their SMV and RMV will get them.

My sister just turned 39 but she has been dating around forever, with the exception of a very brief marriage and divorce.

Every decent guy was passed over for her handsome "bad boy vibe" choice, which never worked out until now because she knows her looks have tanked due to weightgain and she feels stuck with him.

Once she gets on a diet and losses the weight he will be gone and she will once again pass over the decent guys for her player vibe guy.

I see the same thing with other women in my family. They seem to think they deserve better than what they can pull in because they are delusional about their SMV and RMV. All decent guys, who unfortunately come off as boring because they are stable, get passed over.

And then they rewrite their dating history and will start that they can't find good men and forget all the good guys they passed over for the STR guy they tried to turn into a LTR.

[–]kandyapplezincel larping as a thot11 points12 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

at 40 if she's continuing to choose casual sex with hot guys over relationships with less hot guys its because she just prefers the casual hot flings. she obviously isn't going to express that to her freakin brother

[–]Uncommon_Sensed_1234 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm her sister. She is not chosing casual sex buy trying to turn "bad boy" player types into stable LTRs. She married one and then divorced him because she couldn't handle him and is now living with a heroin addict who is now abusing his methodone(?) in lieu of heroin.

[–]kandyapplezincel larping as a thot3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

but if she's been trying for decades and it hasn't worked she clearly still prefers the flings over relationships with the other type of man. unless your sister is genuinely low IQ, she's not a young girl and being naive isn't excuse after 20 years of being in the same cycle

[–]Uncommon_Sensed_1234 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

She is not having flings but chosing years long relationships with guys only suitable to have flings with. She married and divorced one and is with her current druggie for five years. Hardly fling time.

She thinks that she is "the one" to tame them because she believes her SMV and RMV to be way higher than what it is in reality. Now if she were a model she might accomplish her goal of taming them down.

[–]kandyapplezincel larping as a thot6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

oh wait, she's actually in relationships with these men? her rmv must actually be on par with them if they're choosing to partner with her above a fuckbuddy

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

When women say good guys they are talking about something entirely different than what the listening betas hear.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is true. And where have you been??!!

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

New years left me with a 3 day hangover and I missed the purge! grrrrr

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost10 points11 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

l decent guys, who unfortunately come off as boring because they are stable, get passed over.

I mean this has really been my takeaway. Women love crazy drama and if you’re too nice to them they start calling you boring. So you have to act fickle and in a way kinda be an asshole toward them, it’s like girl crack , I don’t understand why they like it, it really doesn’t make sense to me

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It probably drives those girls crazy in a way that is exciting for them and leaves them guessing. Some guys seem to be into that sort of thing too, I don’t really get it either. Seems exhausting.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I used to have problems w it but eventually I realized that it isn’t my job to tell people what they should like

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well yeah what are you gonna do you can’t change them

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup

[–]goatismycopilotJohnI'monlydancing2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Your persona here does not come off as too nice so I assume you were talking in general.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeh I guess so idk I’m pretty soft

[–]goatismycopilotJohnI'monlydancing2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hmm not at all my impression.

[–]boomcheese440 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women want something to work towards...I think men do to. If everything is all peachy, ALL the time...it can very well get boring.

[–]mistresswhat13 points14 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

All decent guys, who unfortunately come off as boring because they are stable, get passed over.

They're not boring because they're stable. They're boring because they're boring. If it makes them feel better to tell themselves stories about how they're single because ladies can't stand their lack of drama, fine. But it's usually just because they're not actually fun or interesting, and literally no one wants to spend their lives with a person they don't find fun or interesting.

[–]killallthenarcs4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

They're not boring because they're stable. They're boring because they're boring. If it makes them feel better to tell themselves stories about how they're single because ladies can't stand their lack of drama, fine. But it's usually just because they're not actually fun or interesting, and literally no one wants to spend their lives with a person they don't find fun or interesting

Yes. Also, if they really were thoroughly decent, would they be expecting another human being to put up with a boring partner their entire lives or would they do something about how boring they ar? They are boring as batshit but usually they want a woman who interests them. Having had one such relationship in which I was the smarter one, the one with all the interests, the one who started projects and made plans... it gets wearisome. I mean seriously, in some ways this is a matter of not being a free loader. an entire lifetime, 40+ years of being with someone who is tedious is not a small ask.

We see guys here all the time complaining about fat women who still want husbands, and maybe if the guys those women are after are themselves are in good shape with no major other deficits they've got a point, if you're going to expect someone's entire sex life forever to be you maybe the you that you trouble yourself to be is kind of a big deal. This applies to a man being boring probably even more than it does to being fat. I mean no-one is really expecting you to be James Bonds, but have a few opinions that are interesting but not so strongly held and contentious they are tedious, have a few hobbies, know how to chat with friends, have a few friends etc. You're expecting someone's emotional life to be mainly you for the rest of her life ffs.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

you're ignoring the existence of drama-loving women. They exist. Clearly uncommon sense's sister is likely one of these people.

Everyone's interpretation of 'boring' is different.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I was the smarter one

I'm wary of people who say shit like this. Dunning-Kruger...

[–]killallthenarcs0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You should be wary of humans who don't say that too, humans are scary shit.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They're boring because they're boring.

This lol, i had a chance to date someone for 3 weeks who agree to everything i say.. and its not fun. Someone who just yes to everything is BORING idk if theyre born boring or just jaded but i cant live withsomeone who cant even have his own opinion or wants

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

They're not boring because they're stable. They're boring because they're boring. If it makes them feel better to tell themselves stories about how they're single because ladies can't stand their lack of drama, fine. But it's usually just because they're not actually fun or interesting, and literally no one wants to spend their lives with a person they don't find fun or interesting.

Yeah but it's not like the women turning these men down are super interesting themselves. Women can be boring AF and still gain a man's interest. The average woman is about as interesting as the average man. Sure, no one wants to marry a bore, but women aren't exactly falling over themselves to be interesting in a way that is appealing to men while men are criticised for not being interesting to women.

There's also the view that, if she cannot get more interesting men to stick around, she may not be that interesting herself. Turning down boring men means she does indeed believe she's worth more, especially if she's not willing to be the kind of person interesting men desire.

[–]mistresswhat1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Prob for the best that they're turning each other down then -- can you imagine how depressing it must be to be one of two very boring people in a relationship? If one of you is an instigator at least you do something interesting occasionally.

[–]darudeboysandstormSoup on the stove, bread rising, apple pie1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

IDK some people like boring, nothing wrong with two nerds reading books together.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If an instigator finds boring okay, then sure, though most exciting people would probably seek exciting partners. Your previous point was that stable men are being turned down for being boring when most women are not doing much to be exciting to men either. Women seem to believe it's men's jobs to entertain them, keep them interested and show them a good time. But women hardly ever offer the same. Therefore, it's rather rich for boring women to complain that they don't like boring men. A boring woman turning down a boring man is just delaying the inevitable as she'll probably settle for boring eventually, even if she misguidedly believes she's worth more.

[–]xiaodre7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

what if you purchase a home so that you can rent it out... you say no pets, but one of your deadbeat renters secretly had a dog with fleas

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

😂

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So I think you're pretty correct for 'experienced' people - folks in their mid-late twenties and beyond with ample dating experience.

However I think theres a bit more delusion present with younger women, early 20s or before, because even though it's easy for us on PPD to draw a clear line between "casual sex" and "LTR" the distinction between the two is much more fuzzy in real life. Especially when you're party to the situation and your emotions are involved.

There are several times where I've dated girls and the intent of our thing - the "what are we" question - was never really clear. One time I was on the losing end, thinking I was on an LTR trajectory when she was just looking for 2 months of dick. Another time basically the opposite happened.

So I think it's easy for younger girls to inflate their own value because they find themselves hooking up with higher value guys, but the distinction that they're ONLY hooking up with these guys and that an LTR wasnt on the table AT ALL isnt exactly made.

I think how averse a woman is to this mindset and how long she holds onto it is a matter of upbringing, social experience ect. so you stop seeing it as women get older and are more down to earth.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is actually a point I was going to make but cut due to brevity. A certain type of mostly college aged chicks definitely overestimate themselves, but I’d argue social media is the greater culprit than hookups.

I just didn’t feel it was necessary to “cover all the bases” and just let the discussion take its course

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man18 points19 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

you're describing the rationalization that comes after the fact when a woman gets fuckzoned, not actual cause. she doesn't really want a casual relationship, what she wants is the LTR with the hot guy. but when the hot guy doesn't want and LTR, she convinces herself that she actually wants a casual relationship because that is less emotionally painful than accepting the fact that she got rejected.

the reason they are choosing a casual relationship with a hot guy over a LTR with a lower quality guy is NOT because they prefer the casual thing. it's because they're hoping that eventually the casual thing with the hot guy will turn into an LTR with the hot guy.

it's really common for women in these situations to try hooking up with other dudes but not enjoying it at all (because they really just want to be with that hot guy) they end being voluntarily monogamous even though it's officially just a casual thing and she could easily be fucking other guys.

the women who actually want to be casual and fuck around have no problems fucking around with lots of other dudes

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I mean I said in my post the order of preference is LTR with hot guy > casual sex with hot guy > ltr with average guy.

What I’m saying is that these women know they are average and the chances of an ltr are slim, but that single > ltr with average

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

yeah i mostly agree with you, I just don't think most women are thinking about it in terms of casual relationship with hot guy vs LTR with less hot guy. it's more like stay in this casual relationship with hot guy hoping it will eventually turn into an LTR vs breaking up with him so she can try to find some other hot guy to LTR.

the option of finding a lower quality guy who is desperate enough to LTR her right away isn't even a serious consideration due to female hypergany.

even those women who start worrying about getting too old to get married and have kids and find a beta to settle down with are still ruled by hypergamy. it may seem like they are lowering their standards and settling but really their criteria for "best possible man" is just changing from "sexiest most AF guy" to "reliable provider beta bucks who can be roped into marriage/kids." she isn't lowering her standards to find an LTR, she is changing to a different set of standards that prioritize LTR/marriage/kids over sexual attractiveness

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with /u/blackedoutfast.

She isn't fucking the guy because she wants to be in a casual relationship with him, she does it because the off-chance of that FWB-relationship converting into a romantic one is more attractive to her than dating a normie.

I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that if women knew beyond a doubt and in advance whether a relationship has long term potential or not (for example, they were automatically aware if a guy just wanted to fuck them and literally nothing else, and also couldn't be swayed), there would be far fewer casual relationships.

Case in point: As I've mentioned a few times, I use a casual dating site (which was awesome for my love life, but I digress). And an awful lot of the single women looking for casual sex with men still reject those already in relationships by default.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

you're describing the rationalization that comes after the fact when a woman gets fuckzoned, not actual cause. she doesn't really want a casual relationship, what she wants is the LTR with the hot guy. but when the hot guy doesn't want and LTR, she convinces herself that she actually wants a casual relationship because that is less emotionally painful than accepting the fact that she got rejected.

You just described what one of my FWBs did to a tee.

it's really common for women in these situations to try hooking up with other dudes but not enjoying it at all (because they really just want to be with that hot guy) they end being voluntarily monogamous even though it's officially just a casual thing and she could easily be fucking other guys.

And here you just described what the LTR of a buddy of mine did - she was effectively monogamous while being in a casual relationship with him, and he still slept around (though he kept the whole thing DA;DT). Granted, it worked out for her in the end (they lasted around 9 years or so, 2 of them in their casual/open relationship), but that was far from the rule.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You can't compare it to the housing market.

It's as if lots of people offered you cheap, good, cozy, well insulated, fully furnished housing, with subway and bus access. You reach work in 30 min tops.
But you reject all those offers and choose the $3000 / month rent because it's in the close to all the socialites and nightclubs are nearby.

Women choose to "rent" the asshole, hot badboy because they want drama and "fun".

The ordinary man is too bland and boring for the average woman, who is, at the same time loathe to look in the mirror and see the truth:
Bar her vagina, long hair and makeup, she's just as boring and bland. If not more so.

Doing drugs & going to bars and clubs to be picked up does not make you an interesting person.

Being spun as a plate by a guy with money, status and exotic hobbies doesn't make you an interesting person.

[–]nevomintoarcePurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

cheap, good, cozy, well insulated, fully furnished housing, with subway and bus access. You reach work in 30 min tops

Doesn't exist.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure it does. The building might not be the newest or most modern-looking in town (as new buildings are generally built to the edge of the town).
And that's unacceptable to most women.

The man is either the full package (at least initially) or he will only get a "no" from her unless baby rabies and desperation strike.

[–]lifeisasongyouknow3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm in a happy realationship now but I spent a long time alone. I would much rather be alone then with someone I didnt like.

I actually really liked it. Having a good partner I think is best but I dont get why people settle and etc when you could just have a great time on your own. I also dont get why people attach shame to it.

Granted I'm a bit of an introvert

[–]organicfluxx4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You claim your position is different from trp but it isnt....with a twist.

You accept women have a smv and a rmv. You accept their smv is higher than their rmv. But here is the kicker:

You think women are knowingly sleeping with men beyond their rmv on the grounds of them preferring a short term alpha than a long term beta. This is incorrect. Most women are not rational thinking players like male PUA's are (10% of em are). They arent collecting notches as a means to an end. The cock carousel is not them thinking to themselves:

"gees i cant lock down these alphas, so i will sleep with em and forget about the betas".

Instead its them thinking:

"If i sleep with him, maybe he will commit to be because that's what i deserve and ive always been raised to believe i get what i deserve."

But hey, your entire game is about exploiting the self doubt of men who dont know any better and have anxieties and low self esteem.

[–]CainPrice7 points8 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

There's no view to change here or really anything to argue. Unless a woman is very, very significantly below average, she can find -someone- who wants to be her boyfriend. It just might not be someone she wants.

And companionship with a guy she doesn't really want to have sex with has very little value to a woman. It's 2019. Women have jobs and money. They don't need to marry the ugly blacksmith's apprentice to have food on the table.

I would argue, however, that this is very definitely due to the fact that all women, each and every one of them, has a higher SMV than RMV. Even when a woman hits "the wall" and gets kind of old, the men who are willing to have casual sex with her but not date her seriously will -still- be better than the men who are willing to date her seriously.

Women in their 30s might not be fucking the same studs they did when they were 23, but they're still fucking better guys than the ones who would marry them. And when they turn 40, the quality of guys willing to have casual sex goes down, but so does the quality of guys willing to marry them. Same at 50, and so on.

The quality of guys willing to have casual sex and only casual sex will always be greater than the quality of guys willing to marry a girl.

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Looks, not quality.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Quality meaning social status and success

Not quality meaning character/values

[–]CainPrice7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It's interesting that when a guy is describing what he considers to be a high quality guy, he means sexual quality. Which can include looks, social acumen, being fun and interesting, having high social status (which could arise from a variety of factors), and so on.

But when a woman hears a guy say high quality guy, she thinks marriage quality. A confident, loving, respectful man of character and integrity.

Men and women value different things. Guys want to be the kind of guy a girl will blow in the parking lot on her lunch break or in a bar bathroom then never see him again, not the kind of guy who dates her seriously and wonders what the hell his girlfriend was thinking when she did that with another guy.

Girls want the kind of guy that's hot enough that she might have blown him in the parking lot if he asked, but who doesn't ask because he thinks dating her is a bigger prize than a blowjob.

[–]OfSpock7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Girls who will blow a guy in the parking lot on her lunch break do so because of the type of person they are, not they type of person the guy is. But I also like guys who are fun and interesting as well as confident and loving.

[–]sketch1620001 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Guys want to be the kind of guy a girl will blow in the parking lot on her lunch break or in a bar bathroom then never see him again, not the kind of guy who dates her seriously and wonders what the hell his girlfriend was thinking when she did that with another guy.

Guys want to be whichever guy the girl wants, which they eventually find more often than not isn't the kind of guy that wants to date her seriously unless he's also hot enough to blow in the parking lot. That is the main understanding behind taking the red pill.

Despite what they tell you, girls want the hot guy as a priority. She will compromise heavily on the commitment or marriage quality piece, at least until she gets to the Wall. But almost never the reverse without some major alternative compensation. The mainstream will swear up and down that it isn't the case but when the rubber meets the road, raw attractiveness >>> commitment.

[–]antariuszRed Pill Man3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well according to https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=895442

Looks are roughly twice as important as income.

In order to be a 95% guy, you can either make 120k each year, or be 6’2”

If you make only 50k a year, you’d better be over 6 foot tall, because if you’re only 5’7” you’re not getting laid on the regular.

Some things can be changed by a guy, others can’t. Work on those things, that is advice that works to get laid, far older than TRP.

[–]maplehobo-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And companionship with a guy she doesn't really want to have sex with has very little value to a woman.

Yes. For a while. But as she ages and cats and wine are the only prospects in her future the value of that companionship starts to go up. Nobody wants to be alone forever.

[–]Taipanshimshonhere for the downvotes4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What do you mean by “average woman”?

Are we filtering out those that have stopped looking for a relationship?

Even those that have stopped looking want a relationship and will try to forge one if a guy comes along to play the right game ( offering a surface relationship).

Meaning , that those women who recognize that they can’t “afford” an ltr they want still will jump at the chance if one seems available.

They aren’t necessarily happy ( or happier ) being single.

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship4 points5 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

"A cynic is a person who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing"

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Strong quote

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

It really gets at the heart of what a lot of miserable people in the dating world talk about.

More directly related to your OP, though, it's well established in the literature that both men and women have far different needs for an LTR and an STR and an ONS. However, your conclusion is off: Gen-Z appears to be a bit more traditional and realism-oriented than Gen-X and Gen-Y. They are abandoning the lofty idealism of Gen-X and Gen-Y who went to universities, trending more towards trades and community colleges. They are not as promiscuous as the previous generations.

You make a good point about people readjusting after going from an ONS or STR kind of life to an LTR. "Men can't go backwards sexually, women can't go backwards in lifestyle," captures that view really well.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Well my conclusion is: single women who fuck above their RMV league are aware of the low chance of a hot guy committing.

How does gen z having less sexual activity change what I’m saying?

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't think "the Wall" (more accurately called "the mild tilt") will actually affect millennials/gen z much in this regard, the women will either have one baby from one of their casual sex partners and "go it alone"

I'm not sure they're gonna be hoe-ing around like us, the data doesn't indicate that's the case, so the above prediction seems less supported than the view that they may well stay single. We already see more asexuality among their gen.

If women are aware of all of that, why would they choose that route anyways if it makes them unhappy?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, staying g single is still the outcome that’s relevant whether they bang hot dudes casually or not.

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I meant to show that your second statement looks more probable than your first. I wasn't denying the whole sentence was true. P or Q. Not P. Therefore Q. Ya know?

That doesn't answer my question though

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

They would choose single/casual because they think it wil make them less unhappy than in an LTR with their RMV match

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What you're describing seems like they have to choose between the frying pan or the fire

[–]3vilg0dAbsolution0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What about price?

[–]swiftexistencePurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

None of this applies in terms of a spiritual connection. I appreciate the analogy but these are basic generalizations.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I am the woman who stays single: primarily because she doesn't trust anyone.

I wonder what percentage of women are like this?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

100%

[–]MGTOWtoday3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think the OP overly strained the housing metaphor. And the OP differentiating between SMV and RMV doesn’t mean that SMV doesn’t exist.

But the OP is onto something that I discovered a while back. So here goes:

Men and women both have different mating strategies. For women, there are basically two strategies, which we can call Short Term and Long Term.

Women seek Short Term mating by trying to bed hot guys. The evolutionary reason is to have a child with the strongest male genes available.

Women also seek Long Term mating strategies with a provider. The provider may not have the best genes, but is willing to provide.

This in no way negates the concept of SMV. And quite frankly, if blue pillers are in denial about SMV being a thing, then I don’t know what else to tell you. It’s so obvious it’s right in front of your face.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think op strained the housing metaphor

Yeah you are right I think

[–]Manny14003 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

While some of this is correct, you are assuming that women think the way men do. They don't.

There is something called "Mimetic Desire", and it is fundamental in understanding female psychology, especially in reference to sexual and romantic matters. A women doesn't decide who she wants to date or have sex with based on her own, rational desires. She makes decisions based on what other women in her peer-group are doing. A woman thinks socially, not individually.

Ever ask out a girl, have her turn you down, and later on date one of her friends? The original girl becomes furious and jealous, and begins desiring you romantically. She wants you because she is imitating the desire of her friend. If her friend wants you, you must be desirable.

Attractive men who might not be good LTR prospects are desired because other women desire them. This is where the market value comes in, but the selection process isn't rational UNTIL a woman matures emotionally and intellectually in her late 20s (typically).

In other words, Jennifer casually dates some hot dude who is a total schmuck with good abs, an empty wallet, and no professional prospects. In so doing, she overestimates her own SMV because she is imitating the desires of women who have much higher SMV. She also feels entitled ("if they can have him, why can't I?").

Mimetic desire works in other areas of life too, and can affect men. A guy could go out and purchase a fancy BMW he can barely afford, simply because his neighbor has one. He is imitating the desire of the neighbor.

Most women think socially and collectively. They are not making decisions in isolation, like some economist looking at financial data.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I might believe this if i hadn't heard women screaming to high heaven that they want men for sex and relationships but:

1) Cannot get them

2) Cannot find them

3) Can have sex with quality men but can't get them to stay in a relationship

i don't think these women have decided being single is better than what they can afford for a relationship. They hate being single. They hate that they can't get relationships with high value men. They hate the emptiness of the pump and dump. They're not saying "being single is better". They hate being single AND they hate that they don't want what they can afford.

And I'm not just talking about the bottoms of the barrel at That Other Sub That Shall Not Be Named Lest It Cause Great Screaming, Crying And Gnashing of Teeth.

[–]Mattcwu 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

If I understand your argument, then I should be able to summarize it in my own words.

Some women choose to remain single and have casual sex because they realize that they cannot get a long term relationship with the guy that they want. These women value sex with a hot guy over a relationship with with a less hot guy. In effect, these women are choosing to be single.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It’s partially correct. I would also add that the relationship with the average guy comes with some degree of work not existing in the casual hot guy scenario, and that most importantly my point is that women are aware the hot guys are out of their league just like Bay Area renters are aware they can’t afford to buy there.

[–]Mattcwu 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh ok, so it's a question of " what are these women thinking internally". You say, some women are making an internal decision to not chase LTR's with guys who are out of their league when it comes to LTR's. They'd rather do hookups with hot guys instead.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m basically saying they are aware of their RMV and the low chance of an LTR with a hot guy in the same way they are aware of their income and inability to buy homes in expensive areas but rent there anyways

[–]couldbemage2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not under the impression that there are many women that really want to rent. Or choose to.

I've known many that complain that guys just want to fuck them, but won't ship them. They seem genuinely unaware that they could get a relationship by adjusting their requirements.

[–]beachredwhineCongratulations!2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This post makes me very sad. Owning used to be defined a very different way then it is now.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

True

[–]NeedingAdvice862 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This doesn't square with reality...in the vast majority of communities.

[–]NeedingAdvice862 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In the vast majority of communities in the US outside of trailer parks and ghetto urban areas, having a spawn from some quick fuck behind the local dive bar is still signified of low value trash.

The number one indicator of a life of poverty and of low economic prospects are single motherhood and having children which you can not afford....at an early age....so your entire premise is utter bullshit.

We already have an example of this exact premise in the US in the low income inner city slums loaded with single mothers gave up on men as partners and who turned their children's living cost over to welfare and the state....while jumping from one dick to another until they aged out of the fuckable market...and NOBODY will claim that these women are the epitome of "happy".

If the destruction of your communities just as in the minority communities of the USA, then continue on your path but I can guarantee it isn't the life of bliss with a endless series of big dick Chads beating down your door every couple of days that you want to dream....it is a life of broken despair waiting on the monthly check from the government to pay for the extraordinarily huge cost of raising a child in the modern West, then either coupling with a low value RMV mate to share expenses in order to live or having even more children with what ever loser will drop a load into a trice birth harpy to increase the size of the check from the government.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

Right, seems to make sense. But what happens if/when they want to have kids?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 3 points4 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

Lots of them just won’t imo. Somewill just randomly have a baby by one of their casual sex dudes at some arbitrary time .

[–]LilQuackerz1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It seems ridiculous that women would just start to want a baby. With the older women that I’ve spoken to they have told me that they only want children when they meet a man that they want to have his kids. That you only get ‘baby fever’ when you have someone in your life that you want a child with not because of their biological clock. Who would want to raise a child alone especially if the father is someone who is just a casual sex friend.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I’ve seen it frequently 🤷‍♀️

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Ok I was wondering because it seems like you are talking from a younger person's point of view. Seems you did address that:

"go it alone" or just straight up stay single and take care of aging parents, sisters/brothers/besties kids or seek other social outlets.

So then who looks after gen z when they get old ?

What you're saying might be true but again, I say it seems like a younger viewpoint. There's a clock on when you can have a family. In my experience, most women are aware of it and still want one.

[–]Wandos7naproxen sodium4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

So then who looks after gen z when they get old ?

They've probably seen their parents throw their grandparents in a nursing home and visit twice a year when they remember they're still on the will. A lot of what our elders are experiencing aren't ringing endorsements for having kids to take care of you when you're old when a lot of middle-aged people aren't willing (or able in the case of severe disability) to actually take care of their parents.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I work at a subacute/rehab/long term care facility, can confirm

[–]Wandos7naproxen sodium5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You're a hero, man. Seriously, thank you for doing what you do.

We had to put my grandma in a nursing home after she went from dementia but functioning to dementia and not functioning at all after a stroke and a fall. My mom felt really guilty about it and visited her twice a week for 6 years before she passed. But there were people in there who were a lot better off physically than my grandma (my grandma didn't speak at all after the first year there due to the progression of her Alzheimers) whose children rarely came to visit them. It was really sad.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Nope nurses aren’t heroes or angels were fallible emotional human beings who make specific choices for various reasons. We feel stress and pain and lose licenses over dumb shit and embarrass ourselves on social media and get angry with patients and each other.

Hero worship = bad for nurses long term

[–]Wandos7naproxen sodium4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I understand. We're all humans here. But it's still a job I'd never do so I'm glad you don't mind it.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t like it I’m trying to get into the hospital

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey I just re read this comment and I hope I didn’t come off as aggressive or snarky that wasn’t my intent. Have a nice day

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ain't that the truth, my uncle lives 3 hrs away from my grandmother who is barely holding onto life and he visits her for like 2 hours twice a year lmao

There are a couple good examples I know of people taking good care of their elders, but I think it's an increasingly bad bet in today's society of individualism.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

LOL nobody looks after gen z. Immigrants maybe .

I agree most women are aware and still want a family, but aren’t going to do it without certain circumstances, and will eventually compromise with one kid out of wedlock imo

[–]unaccompanied_sonata4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Not every woman wants to have a baby.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I never said or implied that they did

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In the end I think there isn't a great deal that is different "these days", it's just people are leaving it later or as you said, they don't want to compromise as much on certain things.

I was ready to settle down in my twenties but really struggled at times, and then now in my thirties the idea seems less attractive.

There are too many options for us now. What it amounts to is an extended youth.

[–]themanmohr1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

How will we support the debt based monetary system government social programs and social security with a declining population then? Ahh third world Islamic immigration with a patriarchal value system, yeah that’ll work. It will destroy the culture safety and political system and you’ll be importing a much worse version of the thing you just spent a century dismantling but hey at least it will work

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but we have another group mass migrating, they’ve already taken over: the Hispanics. The future of America is a war between Mexicans and Muslims with Mormons representing the last of the white race to help drive out the scourge of Islam from North America.

I’ve definitely chosen my side 🇲🇽

[–]darudeboysandstormSoup on the stove, bread rising, apple pie1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

VIVA LAS TRES!

[–]themanmohr0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Mormons don’t stand a chance and Mexicans are really just a mix of white people and Native Americans who speak Spanish which is pretty much what I am I don’t have a problem with them as long as they come here legally if they do that they’ll probably assimilate within a generation or two and start identifying as white so I’m on their side but Islam is an evil ideology that needs to be purged from this great nation

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

💯

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Don't forget Catholics! At least in the White-Bread Midwest, large Catholic families are very much the norm.

I'm the oldest of 6, my dad's one of 7, my mom's one of 5. I went to Catholic HS and it wasn't weird to know families with 5-8 kids. Hell, my aunt and uncle have 9. I've got something like 50+ first cousins, I've lost track.

[–]darudeboysandstormSoup on the stove, bread rising, apple pie2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What do you think Mexicans are?

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

... They were mentioned in the previous comment by /u/cxj so I thought they were already covered?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They will interbreed with Mexicans and become Mexican

[–]welcometothejlRed Pill Man3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think online dating has skewed things in favor of women. For men, dating is so competitive they date downwards to just feel good about themselves without ever intending to be in a long term relationship. Women have so many options they date upwards because why wouldn't you? So the relationship eventually doesn't work out because for the guy it was just a temporary sex bandaid. For the girl, there's always another guy waiting to play the part for a while. A girl might not date the best looking guy that messages them, but they still date upwards. So if a woman doesn't want to be in a relationship and she can support herself, she really has it made. I think you're kinda right.

[–]mgtow_12 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I don't doubt this at all, but you got a whole group of men making the same conclusion who don't have the SMV bump that females get just for being female. What happens to society when men and women both say fuck it and do their own thing?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Society becomes more atomized and people get depressed, immigrants with old world values replace the population then suffer the same fate down the line.

[–]Aufbruch1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Like those damn Irish. And look at us now...

[–]mgtow_12 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

So basically this society is not sustainable.

[–]themanmohr1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yep a pre 60s America is probably the most successful and sustainable society to exist(excluding the racism of the time) but that entire society was destroyed and replaced with the shit show we have now

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That society was not sustainable either. The sixties was perhaps the biggest contributor to the "shit show" we have now.

[–]themanmohr1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s what I’m saying the the 60s started this I’m saying if we could have a society that was similar to a the one we had before all the changes that happened in the 60s

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Correct

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't say women are delusional, but some women are awfully wrong in their assertion of their own value, the biggest offenders are usually what TRP calls "Post-wall women".

Your way to express it is correct, but you forget something, We are talking about a barter economy here. Currency is not (majorly/normally) used in the transaction, but goods and services which hold value. And technically, women are almost never really "out of the market by choice".

Lets make an analogy shall we?

  1. Imagine you have an woman in the local barter market.
  2. She is trying to sell her farm for goods and services. Everyday she goes there, paying the entrance fee, talk to possible buyers, make advertisement etc....
  3. Various men make offers. Some of high quality wood, some of service, some of precious metals, some of produce made on that farm... but she refuses all, and only accept high priced goods for limited amounts of time, or rental, as you say. They used the farm to make a profit them passed to another new place when she asked for more.
  4. She keeps refusing most of the offers. And sometimes change the person who she is renting the farm on a whim because a better offer showed up.
  5. As years keep on going, potential buyers or renters keep diminishing, and so does the offers. As better farms are still up and with less of a price tag. But she keep on going. She also do not accept lesser prices for her farm.
  6. The farm start losing value, everyone sees and know it, but she keeps refusing the offers. thinking they are too low for her precious farm. Her farm was worth way more than that.
  7. After decades, she kept going for the barter market, she did not advertise as much, or talked with potential buyers as much, she was less willing to sell after so little interest was being shown to her farm. But never left the barter market either. Nor did stop trying to sell the farm.
  8. Many decades later the farm was barren and she died. farm still unsold.

I ask. Is the woman mistaken on the value of the farm? in market terms, yes.

She kept the farm in the market, making sure to be open to the possibility of selling the farm... even if kind of unwillingly... Yet... she could not find someone to sell to her AT HER PRICE. Thus the price was too big for the market.

You know? The price of the product can be anything. But the price for trading is the one that is acceptable for a market. The woman price for her farm was too high to the market, thus there was no trading. They are mistaken of what value a market has for her farm.

The same can be said for some women and their mistakes considering the value a relationship with her has for a market. They keep trying to meet men, keep using makeup, keep using dating apps... yet none shows up. Because they ask for too much... or have something of too little value. If she improved the value of what she had or accepted lower prices (aka. lower valued men) she would find a trading partner.

Thus some women quite literally do not know the value they have.

[–]Willow-girlProud 2 B an American farmer8 points9 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

A lot of women would rather keep their farm than sell it for a suboptimal price, though. If a suitable bid comes in, great, but if one doesn't, they'll just go about their business.

[–]boomcheese440 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A lot of women do this. Some people assume that any relationship is better than being alone. I've learned that is definitely not the case. A lot of women are choosing cats over a relationship for this very reason, and are at least content with that.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

There is a balance between two resources in economics. Money and time.

You can refuse all you want to sell something but each day not being sold is a day in which you could be investing in something more useful. This is called opportunity cost. in the analogy, each day you go without selling the farm, is a day in which you are not investing in that business of your cousin or following that dream.

That is why we say that if you let something for selling for too long and cannot sell it, and it is depreciating, it is a rotten asset. You are trying to gain money at the cost of time, which is a net loss. That is why I say some women are woefully wrong about their value. If you cannot sell in a timely fashion, each second becomes a lost or resources. Oportunity cost.

Like a farm which loses its micro nutrients with time and thus its value, Women are a depreciating asset. As most of their value diminishes with time (some more, some less but all do). Each year you lose looking for a husband you could use that resources or even time into something more useful like a dream, or solving a problem. All because you could not put an acceptable price tag into a your farm.

[–]OfSpock4 points5 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

If she doesn't rent out the farm, she can live in it, which provides a 'base price' for her. I'd become a nun rather than marry some men.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Yes. Technically you are always living inside yourself and getting something for yourself out of it. Like buying an ice cream for you alone.

If you never go to the male market them I cannot say you are mistaken about your value. As without trying to sell the property, we can never be sure if the price is low or high in the first place.

But unlike lesbians, most women like the idea of heterosexual relationships. Thus almost never leave the market. Which shows a mistaken sense of value.

[–]OfSpock4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't matter if the price is higher or lower than it should be. If she gets an offer from a guy she can ask herself "Is this better than being alone or not?" Maybe it's the best offer she will ever get but it's from a guy who believes in traditional gender roles and wants her to be a SAHM to four kids. She'd rather pursue her art even if it means not making much money and maybe have one child as a single mother later in life.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't matter if the price is higher or lower than it should be.

Like I said, If the price is too high for the perceived value to a market, it means the seller do not understand the market's value or her own. That is the whole point of price making.

Sure, you make any price you want, but it only means you have no idea what the value of the item being sold holds in the market in a timely fashion. Considering it is a depreciating asset.

If she gets an offer from a guy she can ask herself "Is this better than being alone or not?"

That is the thing we have been talking. Opportunity cost. Between indecision of not getting out of the market for good and not using the "non-perfect guys" resources. It just shows a great lack of understanding of value.

Lets say she really focused in this art-y thing you talk about and did not interact with any male. I would understand that her understand of her value is bad. but there would be no consequences. But that is not the case when you are in the market.

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

The post is saying that she does understand her market value fine. She looks at what she can 'buy' and isn't interested.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It is a barter economy. If she did understand her value. She would not be doing that.

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Doing what? Not participating because she doesn't like what she can get?

[–]3vilg0dAbsolution-3 points-2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Nun means slaving your life to some vows which can't be broken unlike marriage. It means living life of poverty and celibacy. So, You should say goodbye to your farm if you become a nun.

[–]OfSpock3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Like traditional marriage but without having sex with some guy you don't like?

[–]Nodoxxintoxin1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh my god, best comment yet😂

[–]3vilg0dAbsolution-3 points-2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you really know anything about being nun? It's way different than cat lady. I believe you meant I rather be a cat lady than marry some men.

[–]OfSpock4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I have watched the Sound of Music.

[–]Willow-girlProud 2 B an American farmer3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Well, this analogy is only useful to a point, then it begins to fall apart. The bottom line is that women generally choose men who will be net assets, who will improve their lives in some way. What qualifies a man as an asset varies from woman to woman, depending on her individual tastes and preferences. But most women aren't going to settle for a man who is a net liability just to have a man in her life! Better to be single.

Men today often are not competing against other men so much as they are against the attractiveness of a womans' single life. To return to our analogy, there is no pressing need to "sell the farm." If the right buyer comes along, great, but if he doesn't, NBD.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

, this analogy is only useful to a point, then it begins to fall apart.

Actually this is a old part of economics and behavioral psychology called game theory. (As in video game, not relationship game) I was using a farm analogy but everything else is just economics and game theory 101 (I admit I am not good at it, I prefer prediction theory). Economics is the study of the use of resources. Any resources. For any kind of transaction. We just normally shy away from relationships because it has little to do with currency.

The bottom line is that women generally choose men who will be net assets, who will improve their lives in some way.

As a personal observation. Almost any men will give their resources to women. So technically almost all men are net profits.

But most women aren't going to settle for a man who is a net liability just to have a man in her life! Better to be single.

I know women have to avoid bad company, but most men would be happy to be a improvement to a woman's life. In most cases they improve a woman'scase. Just not enough, right?

Yet women still stay in the market. Constantly refusing many offers with a rapid depreciating asset in hands. This is by market standards having "too high of a price" for a market.

Sure you can have a conservative view and take a while to make a decision. But if you continue going to the market and refusing even when the interested parties dwindled. Well... it is a bad economic practice.... i am not saying you can't do it. I am saying that if you do it you are overevaluating the assets value.

If you only got men which are real liabilities, like drug addicts, psychos and alcoholics, it would make sense to not find someone quick. But that is not the case is it? There is the old good man, the ugly caring nerd, the fat friend, the stupid colleague,... all them are net benefits. Just not enough... right? Then, the woman's perception of value that is incorrect.

Men today often are not competing against other men so much as they are against the attractiveness of a womans' single life.

In economic terms. You are telling me buyers for long term investment are not giving enough for compensating continuous short term rentals. For a depreciating asset. This is to not know the real value of an asset.

If the right buyer comes along, great, but if he doesn't, NBD.

Opportunity cost. How much resources will you continue investing to understand that you could be doing something else?

Lets say you have the same dream as me, living out of your country. Each candidate you meet, each hour lost. Each volt of energy invested, each sex had, each dollar spent to meet with him, is not a resource in your dream.

If you chose someone of a lesser value but still above average, then you'd be working on your dream and maybe out of the country by now. I made a mistake and gave too much value to myself too and had girlfriends and now I am 5 years behind schedule, if I really left the market or married the first one, I would already be in Canada or New Zealand. That is what I am talking about .

[–]Willow-girlProud 2 B an American farmer2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Lets say you have the same dream as me, living out of your country.

Actually I do (or did). And wasted a lot of years trying to make it work with men who weren't up to the task for one reason or another. I would have been better off staying single and putting my resources into developing my own place (at least then I wouldn't have had to leave or sell it due to divorce).

My story has a happy ending; I have a good man now and I'm living the life I had wanted. I hope you get your place in the country too, and someone to share it with!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Actually I do (or did). And wasted a lot of years trying to make it work with men who weren't up to the task for one reason or another.

Like I said. You had a incorrect evaluation of your value. And of the market. Double costs. I for example just participate in the market enough to keep my sexual drive in check. I as a man know my value and what I have to gain. Close to zero. So I just do not even try "going into the market" more than each other month and only for casual sex.

I hope you get your place in the country too, and someone to share it with

I am grateful for yoyr kind worda but I only want a place to stay. I do not see a reason to participate in the market in any near future.

[–]Willow-girlProud 2 B an American farmer0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

If you're gonna live in the country, it really helps to have a partner. Who's gonna feed the livestock when you're down with the flu? Plus there are a million tasks like fencing that just go more smoothly with two people. The key is to find the right partner. I discovered there are plenty of men who dig the idea of being a gentleman farmer until it's time to get their hands dirty. Luckily I've got one now who has lived this way all his life ... I don't have to worry that he'll decide to pack up and move to town.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you're gonna live in the country, it really helps to have a partner. Who's gonna feed the livestock when you're down with the flu?

I said leave the country. As in leave Brazil, this hellhole of a country. Not live in the countryside. I take care of my chickens just fine with flu or not.

Plus there are a million tasks like fencing that just go more smoothly with two people.

I prefer solitude to someone making me do it alone anyway. Men help women. Women are sustained by men. I cannot afford another expense.

The key is to find the right partner. I discovered there are plenty of men who dig the idea of being a gentleman farmer until it's time to get their hands dirty.

I tecnically am a farmer in the city already but because I cannot afford meat with my wage. So I plant beans and grow chicken for protein. I want to be able to afford meat without having to have a PhD. (I only have a incomplete masters). Or afford to have money without having to worry about the government or some other kind of criminal organization or family taking everything away from me.

I want a life a western city. Where I can live fine without worries and able to afford survival without worries. A life of ease. A woman is the opposite of this.

[–]Willow-girlProud 2 B an American farmer0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh sorry, I thought you were an aspiring homesteader! Brazil sounds awful though. Best wishes for your escape!

[–]themanmohr1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What you’re missing is that is that every time they engage in the sexual market their RMV goes down by a lot so when they are young and haven’t had causal sex they could have a relationship with a hot/good guy but after they enter the sexual market their RMV goes down exponentially and the type of men that were available to them before are now way above their caliber it’s not that they expect to date the type of men they are banging it’s that they expect to date the type of men they were dating before women don’t understand how much their previous relationships impact their value to men and they don’t realize the psychological impacts it has any man who marries a woman who has had previous partners will always harbor a bit of disgust for her because there is no way of getting around the fact that she has slept with other men it almost feels as though she has cheated on you even though you weren’t together and I don’t believe that is the case for women not to mention women who have only had one previous sexual partner are an equal divorce risk to a man who has had 19

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to Littleknownfacts[M] 0 points1 point  (41 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You know I already agree with you on a lot of this!

One thing I think bears mentioning in the post is that, for survival, even single women were dependent on men in many ways in the US until as recently as 50y ago (the last laws about a woman having to have a husband on her checking/credit card/loans were overturned in the 70s, I think). In many countries this is still the case. Women really only achieved the option for full financial autonomy in the recent history.

I also think you're onto something with the cultural expectations of a relationship, but I don't know that you go far enough. With the achievement of financial independence comes a shifting of roles. What place does a man really fill in a relationship if she's not totally financially dependent on him (even without kids)? She's still doing most of the cleaning, cooking, and home care. Maybe he does the handyman stuff, maybe not. He probably wants sex more than she does. Aside from tradition, what's the incentive to get married anymore? Casual sex is easy enough to find.

I think a lot of the friction that gives rise to TRP and Feminist thought in general is caused by this new shift in roles and the idea that masculinity is kind of in flux now. Not even to mention the shift from trade jobs to service and technology, and its impact on the male role and expectations.

I don't have any real answers other than to say most of these things aren't going away any time soon, and I'm not sure what the end result will be.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Came here to say this - I think between the two of you, this very effectively sums up 'what's going on'. Friction between the stories we tell or have told ourselves and each other to justify relationships, which used to be a different kind of deal than they currently are, and the different kind of 'deal' presented by relationships today.

A lot of people are trying to figure out a new mythos to make sense of what they see, but paradigms aren't done shifting just yet and not all of the information is in as to what exactly we need to do as individuals or as a society to keep ourselves afloat. A lot of resentment can come out of change that outpaces a digestible explanation for change.

[–]themanmohr2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The only reason you should get married is if you want kids or are religious if you want someone to be with you in your old age and if you want people to take care of you both you should get married and have kids otherwise there is no reason to get married unless you really believe in love and think you found a unicorn but that feeling will probably go away eventually

[–]Nodoxxintoxin10 points11 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Everyone is different, but I see two distinct patterns with my single female friends, all much older than typical reddit demographic, but I’ve seen their attitudes about sex and love over many years.

First single woman I’ll call one and done. These women almost always filed for the divorce, sometimes after being cheated on. One marriage, one divorce, usually no other LTRs after. Some still mildly sexually active, most just don’t care. Wouldn’t cross the street to talk to the greatest guy in the world. Less bitter and salty than one might imagine, get along great with men, (but if they were cheated on, don’t mention the ex)

In your analogy these would be women who are happy to be homeless I guess, lol. Prefer their tent in the woods and their cats.

Second is out there looking. Say they would love a LTR. Have lots of STR’s, some with guys they want but the guy won’t commit. Others times, “he just wasn’t right”. Some have orbiters who adore them, but they prefer single to settling. The question waatgm often followed by “maybe I should just get a dog”.

This women would take a house if you handed her one, but isn’t willing to get a second job and eat ramen everyday. As trp loves to say, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

This. is what I have observed too. Either they are just done with men completely following a divorce, or they don't want to settle and find singleness to be just fine.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin9 points10 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

I’ve have friends who dropped out of pursuing romantic relationships in their mid and late twenties, almost always after a bad experience.

I think we have a lot of rage phase guys on here in a similar situation, with one huge difference...women don’t really need the sex and when they want it they can easily find it.

They always say that women crave security and men crave sex. Most of the women make enough to live comfortably without a male for security, but the men are still frustrated by a lack of sex.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

This is one of those truths that is hard for some men to accept. That a woman would rather be completely alone than be shackled with a jerk...and that she is actually happy.

[–]unaccompanied_sonata5 points6 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I'd really like to know why men can't accept it and instead try to come up with lots of theories as to why. What's wrong with being single by choice and why is it okay for men to GTOW but not women?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You can lead a perfectly moral and blameless life and still have people cast aspersions at you.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

We would accept it... if women really did act happy and really did show they're happy being completely alone. But they complain about it. Complain about the lack of men. Complain about shitty men. Complain they can't date. Complain that the men they do date won't commit. Or are fat. Or are out of shape. Or his dick's not big enough. Or he's too much this, or not enough that.

Constantly. All the time.

[–]unaccompanied_sonata2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I guess we run in entirely different circles then. I always get really stressed whenever I seriously date anyone. It's a lot easier and more enjoyable to just do what I want whenever I want.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yep. You do you.

[–]unaccompanied_sonata1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for your permission lol

[–]azngirl76896 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are a lot of work. It was so much easier to be single, luckily I love my guy so he’s worth it. But I would defo be single if I wasn’t with him.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs3 points4 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

This is true for both men and women. A lot of men would rather spend their time with videogames (or whatever their interest is) and/or banging prostitutes than pursuing the fatties in their league. When the sexbots come, a lot more men will prefer to spend time with their bot than with the women in league. It's also me btw, I don't really need a woman. I'd rather be single and bang whores than have somebody not wildly out of my league.

It's just that spending time on videogames/sex bots - as well as renting over owning has no future. There is no wealth savings in renting, and there is no future direction in the string of flings with hot guys out of their league. At 40 they're still going to end up single, alone and childless.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin6 points7 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

“At 40 they’re going to end up single, alone and childless”.

Not always childless, some have a kid or two from the husband or LTR that cheated on them. For the one and dones I described above, single and alone is exactly the freedom many are looking for. The happy homeless tent ladies.

They often band together with groups of other post wall women, drink wine and watch movies. I know a few different groups of them. I honestly think they just prefer the company of other women in a non sexual way.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs1 point2 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I honestly think they just prefer the company of other women in a non sexual way.

Yes. Like the guys prefer to play video games. But what I meant is that there is very little personal development in no-strings relationships (like the ones sketched out by the OP). Relationships (& children) are difficult because they are demanding of you. The same kind of demands which makes you grow as a person.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Women get those needs met with their relationship with their children and other women.

Aren’t you the “all women are interchangeable “ guy? Just drop one when she ages and pick up another? How does that make you grow as a person🤷‍♀️

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

> Women get those needs met with their relationship with their children and other women.

Those are not needs. People don't need to grow. You can stay infantalized from cradle to grave and the state will look after your needs and protection. Relationship with children is of another kind, and relationship with other women is not intimate or binding enough to provide the same challenges.

> Aren’t you the “all women are interchangeable “ guy? Just drop one when she ages and pick up another? How does that make you grow as a person🤷‍♀️

That is what I'd tell men to do if the relationship they have is shallow or merkantile in nature. In any case, I wouldn't date me either. Broke, flaky and emotionally unavailable. Although plenty of women have wanted to over the years, I guess there's just no accounting for taste of women.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

“Those are not needs. People don't need to grow.”. Ah, okay...you are the one who implied in an oddly moralistic tone that these women were avoiding demanding relationships which would make them grow. Since you state people don’t need to grow, I guess no harm no foul.

“You can stay infantilized from cradle to grave.....”. Huh? I’m in the US and this scenario doesn’t apply to my personal friends. You realize I didn’t literally mean they live in tents right? They are middle/UM class women with middle/um class jobs, they pay taxes and aren’t on government benefits. This bizarre assumption that they somehow receive government benefits is out in left field.

If a relationship is “shallow and mercantile” in nature then men should just bang hookers? Lol okay. Cause paying hookers isn’t shallow or mercantile!

Btw, these women aren’t broke, flaky or emotionally unavailable. Since you are, maybe you should be grateful for whatever nanny state raised your kids then.😂

[–]unaccompanied_sonata2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

People can choose which ways they want to personally grow. We are advanced enough in society now that our goals and paths can go beyond just having relationships and children. Marriage and kids are not at all on my list of things I want to "accomplish", so if I went through with it, I would not be growing as a person. However if I through hiked the PCT which is difficult and demanding, that would personally make me feel stronger and happier.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs-1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

> People can choose which ways they want to personally grow.

No. They can not. As I wrote. I don't think for instance playing video games, or watching Netflix, or indeed travelling alone through difficult regions (which I have done plenty of), or banging your sexdoll, offers the same kind of challenges or speaks to the basic human nature. Especially, the parts about being intimately dependent on and having people being dependent on you.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

“Especially, the parts about being intimately dependent on and having people being dependent on you.”

I guess being flaky, broke, and emotionally unavailable has taught you a lot about being intimately dependent on and having people dependent on you. The cognitive dissonance and superior moral stance you take on other people’s life choices is hilarious.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

That's not a "superior moral stance". That's a value statement. If someone came and said they aspired to become a 24yo toothless meth whore, I'd advice them against that, not because I think drugs or prostitutions is morally bad, but because I don't see that as a path which is likely to lead to a qualitative good life. If I saw a friend descend into a life of video games and online porn, I'd try to get him straightened out, again not because I think video games or porn are morally bad. And if someone was dedicated to a life of short non-committed flings I'd consider that to be morally fine but unlikely to lead to a good life.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Is being broke, flaky, emotionally unavailable, leaving a wake of fatherless children and banging hookers your personal path to enlightenment?

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Your odd obsession with me and your moral grandstanding not withstanding, I have not left a wake of fatherless children. Being broke is neither here nor there. I used to be pretty rich. Now I'm broke. Soon I'll be pretty rich again. Banging hookers is great. Do you have a problem with it?

[–]unaccompanied_sonata3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Well I guess my life will never be "challenging" then. I'm sorry you don't feel that there's more to life than getting married and having children. It's pretty close-minded thinking that people can't choose any other path in life when people do all the time.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So you think a life dedicated to video games and wacking off to porn is choosing another path just as valid as any other?

[–]unaccompanied_sonata2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If that is what makes someone happy, who am I to judge? It's not my desired path, and neither are babies.

[–]_Neon_Shadow_2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This is a good post, but ultimately incorrect about how women view themselves, act, what they expect, and how they behave. I'll address all your points once I'm out of the gym. Good post though.

[–]Xemnas810 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Did you comment back? I didn't see it when looking through.

[–]SirNemesismary cucked joseph1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup. I think it's pretty clear that women do not value having a sexual / romantic relationship with a man nearly as much as men value having a sexual / romantic relationship with a woman.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Instinctively, I wanted to disagree, because I am a misogynist, but you're sort of right. Deep down women probably know their real market value, but all of their behaviours and mental gymnastics would indicate otherwise. Most women probably feel the need to convince themselves on a daily basis that they're not completely worthless for a relationship, and they express that outwardly. They're complete trash. Let's be real, these women who no worthwhile man really wants to marry or have a relationship with are trash, but that doesn't mean they're going to want to pair up with a worthless man.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If men could be more like that then women would have no power.

[–]olliethegoldsmith0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

This is all interesting to me. Been in LTR most of adult life. Both SMV and RMV are short lived. What really counts IMO is PMV or partner market value. As couples progress in SMV and RMV hopefully they determine PMV of each other before they become bound by contract. With high divorce rates, obviously most of us became BBC before we truly determine PMV.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

How would partnermarketvalue differ from relationship market value ?

[–]olliethegoldsmith2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe I was mistaken. I thought RMV was Romantic Market Value.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

RMV = who you can get to commit to you

SMV = who you can get to have sex with you

[–]Xemnas810 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

RMV seems identical to PMV to me. Basically RMV with oxytocin as glue.

[–]PanderjitSingh_k0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Who would know their SMV better than they do?

[–]wtffellification0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So what you're basically saying is WGTOW?

[–]GearheadNation0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

And...it’s a very rational strategy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why not both?

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 19930 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

women would rather be happily single than miserable with a subpar male (that's like 99% of modern males). males know that and hate it so they rationalize it. so sad...

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter