TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

86

The whole power trip about who can act like they care the least is completely counter-intuitive and adolescent, and only insecure people that are afraid of vulnerability participate in it.

Quality men express their interest like an adult, don't get bent out of shape if it's not reciprocated, and are never insulting. They treat people with respect, both men and women. That means you don't neg, you don't intentionally wait X hours to respond to a text, you don't act disinterested to "game" women. None of that. Men that latch onto these cynical "tactics" are the exact opposite of "alpha." They're weak, emotionally immature, and not worth your time.

Quality women don't go after the loudest and rudest men in the room. Women that do (and this includes women that fall for PUA bullshit on Tinder) have low self-esteem and are socially retarded. Physically hot or otherwise. They're attracted to cocky, seemingly "unobtainable" men, because they mistake that bullshit for genuine value. It's a sign of emotional immaturity and a shitty personality, just like the men they go for. These women aren't worth your time.

Discuss.


[–]Kittennoodle32 points33 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

My brother is probably one of the most aloof people I know and he's still a virgin at almost 30. I agree with this to an extent.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Literal incel ouch

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

Unfortunately.

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

He's had plenty of dating opportunities and never goes for them.

Volcel is more like it.

It's unfortunate that he isn't being taken advantage of by some stupid cunt? GYOW, guys. Women aren't even worth talking to.

[–]Kittennoodle0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

What is volcel? Hard to keep up with all these terms.

[–]DriedUpPlumBlue Pill Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Voluntary celibate. Often guys that don’t want a sexual relationship because they are too afraid of the effort but still want it.

[–]ActionSage1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Why else do you think that is?

[–]Kittennoodle3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Maybe aloof isn't the best description, maybe he's just dense? I mean once he starts talking, he goes forever. He's had plenty of dating opportunities and never goes for them. He even told me that he had a girl in his room once and was annoyed that she didn't want to talk.

[–]ActionSage1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Hmmm. See I don't understand that. I'm the same but I don't talk a lot and try to read if the person is interested. If he's that social does he not go for girls that show him interest? High standards or afraid of rejection..?

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

Women aren't worth dating, dude. Fuck them or don't. But they aren't worth your money or time.

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

He's had plenty of dating opportunities and never goes for them.

MGTOW Chad

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol

[–]CainPrice42 points43 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

"Quality" is orthogonal to "aloof" and orthogonal to "asshole". You can be a high quality man who's aloof, a high quality man who's an asshole, a high quality man who's both, or a high quality man who's neither.

Some men get a text from a woman and sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting 15 minutes to respond to appear less interested. Other men have shit to do and end up responding to a text 15 minutes after they get it because they're actually busy. These two behaviors are -indistinguishable- to women. You can't tell if a guy is a quality guy or an asshole based on this.

Some men are loud and cocky and physically hot but suck at life and suck as a relationship prospect. Some men are loud and cocky and physically hot and also work at the hospital delivering babies and would make a great partner in life.

Some men act disinterested to game women. Some men are quality men and have 12 women interested in them, so they really aren't that interested in any one particular woman, so they act disinterested because they are disinterested as a byproduct of being a quality man.

Quality is completely independent from all of this. A quality guy can be genuinely nice to you and a great, respectful guy. So can a loser "nice guy" who's being nice to try to get in your pants. A quality guy can be an aloof cocky asshole because that's what he's really like. So can a loser who's trying to play games with women.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

“Quality” is always measured by what you do, how you act; not some made-up notion of who you think you are inside. You are what you do.

[–]CainPrice14 points15 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Quality is measured by what you do, but not always how you act.

If you own a multi-billion dollar company that cures cancer, and you're also an aloof asshole toward women in a bar, you are a high quality man. You cured cancer. You can act however the hell you want.

If you're an unemployed ugly video gamer who lives with his mom, but you're really, really cool to be around, an upstanding guy, kind and respectful to women, and in general a real man of honor who treats people well, you're still a loser who just happens to be nice.

The idea that a guy who's aloof and disinterested and doesn't treat women with a lot of interest and investment is automatically not a quality man because quality men are good to women is some just-world bullshit.

[–]Ubermensch332 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well said, both times.

[–]larrythetomato20 points21 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

What you are touching on is the meta-debate that turned PUA into redpill/manosphere.

PUA noticed that if you pretend to be a high value man, you can sleep with women.

But there is many problems with this:

Many men do not want one night stands with strangers, many of them want longer relationships (ironically they want short-term relationships instead of ONS). And also high self esteem women do not sleep with men who they think are lying to them. Once you drop the charade many women will leave.

There are two solutions,

  1. learn how to lie better (PUA method)
  2. actually become a high value man (RP method)

I think there is a decent amount of evidence saying that 2 is easier than 1. An advantage of telling the truth is that you don't have to remember your lies.

So a lot of the points that you bring up have been done on a 'meta-level' many years ago.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But red pill does encourage men to be aloof.

[–]legaladvicequest1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

High quality men deserve high quality women. "Easy" men get "easy" women.

[–]WhatIsTheMeaningHere6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

"Easy" men get "easy" women.

Lmao no they don't. Everybody is easy for hot people.

[–]legaladvicequest1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There's too many quality hotties for shitty hotties to get the quality ones. "Hot" and "quality" aren't mutually exclusive.

[–]azngirl76898 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No sane woman with her shit together likes emotionally unavailable weirdos. I agree with you. There is a reason they run into AWALTs all the time.

[–]bostezo22-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, there is: the acronym explains this reason by itself.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The fact they’ve created an acronym does not - in and of itself - prove the concept behind it is correct.

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Aloof is the opposite of thirsty.

Thirsty disgusts women, so don't be thirsty. Be aloof instead.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

That’s the biggest problem with red pill. It’s all black and white. It’s either 100% up or 100% down. You can show interest without being needy. You can be a man who has his own shit going on and isn’t desperate but still show somebody that you care.

The problem is that you have to change how you feel on the inside. If you truly don’t feel needy, your actions will reflect non-neediness. I tell my girl I love her every day. I cuddle with her and respond to her texts when I see them. But I also feel like her breaking up with me wouldn’t be the end of my existence, and I have enough going on in my life that if we broke up, I could find somebody else. I don’t NEEED my gf. I want her, and care about her, and genuinely feel like she’s an incredible positive force in my life...but I don’t NEED her. I don’t get bent out of shape and worry if she doesn’t respond immediately.

Develop a truly non-needy mindset, but also don’t be afraid of connection. If you want somebody to fall in love with you and stay in love with you, you need connection, but also need to be non-needy.

[–]RedForEducation 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

That’s the biggest problem with red pill. It’s all black and white. It’s either 100% up or 100% down.

This sounds more like a reading comprehension problem, not so much our content

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Care to clarify?

To be clear - I was into PUA for years before anything like “the red pill” ever existed. I was into it during the peak “The Game” years. I know what you guys believe, and I know why you believe what you believe. I am confidently telling you that there are much better ways to consistently get women you are attracted to.

[–]captaindestucto0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

But I also feel like her breaking up with me wouldn’t be the end of my existence, and I have enough going on in my life that if we broke up, I could find somebody else. I don’t NEEED my gf. I want her, and care about her, and genuinely feel like she’s an incredible positive force in my life...but I don’t NEED her.

How could you NOT feel cut up by the thought of losing someone you love after invested years into building a life with this person? It's simply not possible to avoid caring in a way that could come across as needy... that is without actually avoding emotional attachment (the red pill mindset). Sure, life would go on, but you'd be devastated.

If you genuinely love her, she has a great deal of power over the way you feel whether you want to admit this or not

Why can't we just acknowledge the majority of women hate vulnerability in men without trying to frame that vulnerability as if it were equivalent to an adolescent crush? The same emotions aren't judged this way inwomen. They can relax and lean on their partners, we can't, there's nothing fair or equal about it.

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

oP is talking about a few dates, not the love of his life. Being broken up with is not the same thing as being rejected.

I do agree that if you’re going through a tough breakup, as much distance as possible is very necessary to get over it, but if you’re taking a rejection after 1-2 dates the same way you would take a LTR breakup, you have some serious emotional issues you’ve gotta figure out.

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

A better way of looking at it is that if you are going to err one way or the other it is far better to err on the side of aloof if you want casual sex.

Develop a truly non-needy mindset, but also don’t be afraid of connection. If you want somebody to fall in love with you and stay in love with you, you need connection, but also need to be non-needy.

Easier said than done, most men need a degree of success with women to be able to do this, that is where being aloof comes in handy.

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

I still disagree. This is what the red pill guys don’t understand. There is so much confidence to be displayed in showing active interest, as long as it’s shown with the mindset of “I’m interested you, but also secure enough in myself to handle rejection if you aren’t feeling it.”

Women can sense desperation. There’s nothing bad about interest. Desperation is what’s bad. Don’t act anything. Just do what you feel. If you find somebody attractive, pursue them. If they say no, no big deal. Say what you want. Talk about what you want. Polarized people into a yes or a no instead of trying to live on the line.

I was into PUA for 10 years dude. I know why you think how you think. And I can also tell you that the sooner you stop trying to play a game and just roll with the punches, the sooner you’ll notice that the quality of women you sleep with will go up. If you want casual sex, do the same thing, but make it clear you’re only into casual sex. You can still form a connection with people who you’re only seeing casually. Women are a lot more comfortable sleeping with somebody they have at least some kind of connection with.

I’m not single anymore, but I met my current gf while I was ona date with a different girl. The girl was drinking more than I liked, and I made the decision that I didn’t want to see party girls anymore, so I chatted up my current gf who was sitting at the bar. I told her I was on another date but wasn’t feeling it, and told her she was cute and I wanted to see if we got along.

We just talked. We had normal ass conversation. It was flirty and fun, but no “routines” or games were played. We talked about our home lives, music we liked, and just genuinely got to know each other. We had a lot in common. When she said she liked Les Zeppelin, I complimented her - not because I wanted to get in her pants, but because I genuinely thought it was cool.

I never pretended to be aloof or uninterested. If something else caught my attention, I payed attention to that, but it was never superficial or with an ulterior motive.

She’s smoking hot. She is applying to be a model right now. She is an excellent singer, and she’s cool as fuck, loves dogs, and our sense of humor is identical. She’s a high quality girl, is gorgeous, and she liked me because we connected, not because I pretended to be aloof.

Don’t pretend to be aloof. Show interest how you feel like showing interest. If you are consistently coming on too strong, you need to work on yourself by picking up new hobbies, getting in better shape, and finding things to do that improve your own sense of self worth.

And if a girl truly only likes guys who are a huge “challenge”, she’s immature, and you should be the one nexting her because she’s a drama queen who will always cheat on every boyfriend she ever has. Those girls are in the minority of women, but if you only do Red Pill shit to get women, those are the only girls you’ll ever have success with. The hot girl that’s a paralegal at a large law firm doesn’t gofor that bull shit because she doesn’t have time for that bull shit. The hot girl that is the lead singer of a punk rock band doesn’t have time for that bull shit. The gorgeous 9 that is working on starting her own consulting business doesn’t have time for games and bull shit. Losers who have nothing else going on with their lives have time for bull shit. They need that drama to fill the shit ass empty void that is their pathetic life.

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

I was into PUA for 10 years dude. I know why you think how you think. And I can also tell you that the sooner you stop trying to play a game and just roll with the punches, the sooner you’ll notice that the quality of women you sleep with will go up.

I’m not single anymore, but I met my current gf while I was ona date with a different girl. The girl was drinking more than I liked, and I made the decision that I didn’t want to see party girls anymore, so I chatted up my current gf who was sitting at the bar. I told her I was on another date but wasn’t feeling it, and told her she was cute and I wanted to see if we got along.

I think you underestimate how valuable going through that phase was for your development, it isn't supposed to last forever.

Your advice doesn't work for neurotic, inexperienced guys. Btw I don't follow that advice anymore. I used to, it worked, I got experience and moved on. I still recognize that it was something that helped me get my foot in the door and get over my insecurities.

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

I see some benefits and some negatives, and while I’m glad I found the community because it helped me seek the answer, the community itself was not the answer. The stuff they teach does not help you become a better person. You don’t ever get girls you’re actually interested in. You can get some hot girls, but you have to be extremely fake, and those hot girls are all toxic, insecure party girls who are filled with drama...that’s the only kind of girl you ever attract by learning how to be a bull shitter via PUA.

Since getting away from the PUA, I’ve joined a group that teaches vulnerability and connection. I’ve become more of a blue pilled person, and I’ve had better results more consistently, and with girls that I actually enjoy talking to and being around. My current girlfriend is almost exactly like me in personality. She is a full time student, works a full time job, and Models, does yoga and lifts...she’s a badass professional chick with goals and ambitions who pushes me to better myself. I NEVER would have gotten a girl like her just running scripted routines and acting aloof. She would have seen through that bull shit because she doesn’t have time for games. I got her by being genuine, talking to her like she’s a normal ass person, expressing my interest exactly as I felt it, and being real with her. I did so much that TRP tells people not to do, and it worked because I’ve spent the last two years in-doing what PUA engrained in me while working on self acceptance, meditating, reading and learning about connection and vulnerability, exploring life and pursuing interesting experiences and adventures, etc.

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

That’s the problem - you don’t need success with women to feel secure about yourself. You just think you do. Basing your sense of self worth and self acceptance on whether or not women are validating your attractiveness is the most needy mindset you can possibly have.

I’ve been doing BJJ for 12 years. I’ve won competitions and am close to receiving my black belt. I get validation from that. I explore the world around me and pursue interests that look appealing to me. In the past year, I’ve taken salsa dancing lessons, hike all over NC, jumped out of a plane, cornered a UFC fighter...I seek experience in life.

Do that shit. Seek experience. Work towards something. Don’t make your existence about women. Be a man who pursues everything he wants. The best game is lifestyle change and attitude change - it will naturally change your behaviors and mannerisms to exactly what most PUAs try so hard to fake. And it gives you a better life.

I spent 10 years doing PUA before I had this revelation, and the past year has given me more success with women and in other areas of life than any other year of just doing pickup.

Just trust me, as somebody with years of experience, I know what I’m talking about here.

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

Certainly that is all important and necessary and shit I already do. However I've known people that have been highly competent in other facets of life but haven't seen that success translate into success with women, I'm sure you've seen that yourself. Sometimes you just need to fake it a bit at first; again, I think you're discounting how much your pua years helped you. I wouldn't recommend spending 10 years doing pua though, maybe 2.

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

It is important to develop social skills, I do agree - but faking confidence isn’t the way to do it. Of all the things TRP screws up the most - avoidance of vulnerability. Vulnerability is key to connection. TRP creates these “rules” based on observations that they don’t fully understand. They confuse “aloof” with “non-needy” and then guys miss out on opportunities to hook up or form a relationship because they’re pretending to not be interested when they should be just straight up conveying interest.

If somebody is exploring life the way I described, and still not seeing success, I would suggest just stepping up to the plate and telling women you’re interested. You don’t need to pretend to not be interested. You just need to accept that some will reject you and not get butt hurt if they do. There are definitely some social behaviors to work on, but for the most part, lifestyle changes and positive attitudes will fix the social issues over time. Your behavior is usually determined by your attitude.

[–]HostileErectile3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Im thirsty as all hell and im constantly being told how obvious it is... I get laid all the time. Just be pleasing to look at, that's all.

[–]KikiYuyuPurple Pill Woman15 points16 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think quality people aren't assholes, just as a general rule.

[–]reluctantly_red3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

True -- and they aren't needy either.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This. Anyone sitting at home, practicing on not being aloof, or not appearing to be too needy, probably needs to just work on themselves and their confidence.

[–]TheLongerCon26 points27 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Quality according to who? You? Why would anyone care what you think.

Quality women don't go after the loudest and rudest men in the room. Women that do (and this includes women that fall for PUA bullshit on Tinder) have low self-esteem and are socially retarded.

Speaking of emotionally immature, what's a good phrase to describes someone who called someone with differing preferences from them "socially retarded".

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Calling out certain groups of people, whose choices have obvious, recurring, negative (to them and other involved parties) consequences isn't immature. It may be "mean" but it has nothing to do with the observer's maturity.

[–]orelon 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

If you're going for loud and rude men, then you are insecure, and you are socially retarded. Suggest a better term and I'll edit the OP, just for you.

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

Daddy issues

[–]_Neon_Shadow_11 points12 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

There's some truth to what your saying and some things that are wrong. I just got off work. So I'm too lazy to write a book so I'll pick one thing:

Women do want the aloof guy that doesnt care.

For two reasons: Psychologically people want what they cant have and women are turned off by needy men. Not being invested in her makes her 100x more attracted to you.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You can not be needy and not be aloof. It’s called being centered. A confident person is neither needy or aloof.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia9 points10 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Women do want the aloof guy that doesnt care.

That's not "women". That's "insecure women with a anxious-preoccupied attachment style".

And that's also why TRP is a self-reinforcing cycle.

AWALT doesn't describe women in general, it simply describes the kind of women that doesn't see TeRPy behavior as a red flag.

[–]Ubermensch331 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The basically, 99% definitive statement to be made here is that women absolutely do not like needy men.

Anything else is probably specific to the individual. Some like aloof, some like a middle ground.

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

It works with the majority of women. Or at the very least, enough of them.

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

But which ones? Not all women are created equal, and there are more factors besides how hot a woman is that determine the quality of a woman. And different men will evaluate a woman differently, as well.

But my point is that selecting for women who like "aloof" men might land you with women who tend to have characteristics that are not desirable. I think that's the point /u/BiggerDthanYou is trying to make.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that's the point /u/BiggerDthanYou is trying to make.

Yeah.

It's my "TRP is a self-reinforcing cycle" theory.

It's based on the fact that AWALT actually describes women who are attracted to TRPy behavior, but not women in general.

Here is it in more detail: https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/9svmcy/quality_men_arent_aloof_assholes/e8s0rn7

[–]_Neon_Shadow_0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

But my point is that selecting for women who like "aloof" men might land you with women who tend to have characteristics that are not desirable.

How so? It's no different from selecting for anything else. You guys are just assuming TRP only works on broken women with no evidence, but this is not the case.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

AWALT is the evidence.

TRPers generally do not realize this, but the things you believe about women tell us something about which type of women you get into contact with.

Plus there's lots of research into attachment types and such.

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

/u/BiggerDthanYou has made a lot of extremely detailed and well-cited posts about this that haven't gotten proper responses. There's a lot of evidence there and it's easy to find. It's not a bulletproof argument but I believe it merits a much better response than it's gotten.

In a similar vein, TRP assumes AWALT, but this is not the case -- or, I have at least as much credibility in just saying "this is not the case" about this as you do about our hypothesis. The fact that TRP believes that women so commonly have whatever undesirable qualities that it's worth making a blanket assumption that all of them do, and operating on that assumption in the socio-romantic marketplace, has many possible reasons. One possible reason is that AWALT. Another possible reason is our hypothesis. But when enough people (myself included) have seen plenty of women who don't have these qualities, it leads us to search for an alternative to AWALT that is more compelling. TRP sees one thing, we see another, the anecdotal evidence suggests some selection bias. Of course TRP often refutes this by saying that the women we interact with are AWALT too, we're just blind to it or unwilling to accept it. This I find to be particularly uncompelling, because it's a generic argument that could apply to basically anything and really doesn't amount to anything more than saying "I'm right and you're wrong about an experience that you personally went through, even though all I know about it is what you told me." I don't know -- it just doesn't lead anywhere.

I also definitely think there might be yet other explanations for this discrepancy. People here often come from dramatically different social environments, and I think it leads to a lot of disagreements when people derive a belief from the experiences they've had.

[–]_Neon_Shadow_0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You guys are misunderstanding. When TRP says women are a certain way: like all women are hypergamous. It doesnt mean every woman will branch swing. It simply means there's a spectrum and some women fall along it at different ranges.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

TRP isnt about getting "quality women". Well, your definition of quality which is pretty much "woman who guys ideally want to LTR". The goldilocks zone for a TRP is an attractive woman who is insecure and either a slut, or naive and easily "manipulated" into sex. TRP is more like quantity over quality, but that's not saying it's impossible to have a good quantity of attractive short term relationship compatible women. Anyone using a short term sexual strategy to get a long term partner is a fool. Plenty of sexually sucessful guys arent "quality men". But your definition of "quality men" is more like a definition of "Guy women want to LTR".

[–]DareyFathom5 points6 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

RP encourages exhibiting the broadest appeal traits. It's just a tool. It doesn't define how the person uses it. It's an unequivocal fact that there are widely popular relative traits such as being more outgoing, physically fit, conversationally engaging, confident, well dressed, financially stable, etc. Now if someone wants to use that to get a wife and kids or a ONS is up to them.

[–]MattcwuJust sticking up for the oppressed and voiceless women2 points3 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

I agree with all of that, but there are way more posts about getting laid than there about getting a wife, right?

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man6 points7 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

if a guy figures out how to be sexually attractive to a lot of women, then figuring out how to get a wife isn't very complicated. basically just upgrade one of those women to a legit relationship and then let it happen.

[–]PennnyLameMY VAGINA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION!! ✊🏼7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No. This is exactly what RPers get wrong and why so many of their marriages suck by their own testimony.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

the comment i was replying to only mentioned getting a wife, not keeping a wife or finding a high quality wife or having a good marriage or anything like that.

[–]PennnyLameMY VAGINA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION!! ✊🏼6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s the whole point. RP is shit for anything like that.

[–]reluctantly_red3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

basically just upgrade one of those women to a legit relationship and then let it happen.

Exactly -- her willingly fucking you is a prerequisite for a LTR.

[–]Esk1mOz4mb1kFormer Nice Chad2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If she doesn't want to fuck you (anymore), then it's a matter of time before the LTR crashes and burns.

Being and remaining (sexually) attractive is one of the most important thing to do in a LTR.

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

Get a wife is very different to keeping a wife. No wonder TRP ends up divorced.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

the comment i was replying to only mentioned getting a wife, not keeping a wife or finding a high quality wife or having a good marriage or anything like that.

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

You have it backwards. First comes the divorce, and then the Red Pill.

Seeing how awful women can really be when they decide they don't want you any more is a big step in that direction. A divorced man doesn't have to unlearn the women are wonderful effect, or to stop pedestalizing women. He sees that one-itis landed him a woman with two- or three-itis, and it didn't work out so well for him.

[–]MattcwuJust sticking up for the oppressed and voiceless women1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, you probably don't to upgrade a one night stand into a wife. You probably want to set really high standards when you start looking for a wife.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

if you are a completely single guy who decides "i should get married" and go out with the primary goal of finding a wife and looking for high quality wife material, you're probably going to fail hard because you're doing things out of order.

that's an older, obsolete courtship model that is no longer how things work. there are a lot of dudes who do try to do it that way, and they generally struggle with women. if you try to find a "high quality" girl and win her over and don't worry about making sure you are sexually compatibe until later, it's going to bite you in the ass. either she won't be sexually attracted to you at all and you end up friendzoned or catching oneitis. or worse, she tolerates you enough to get married but then it quickly turns into a dead bedroom situation.

the way things generally work now is that sexual compatibility is established first and then you upgrade the relationship to a more serious romantic relationship. no, obviously don't just upgrade a random ONS to marriage. but what you should do is casually date multiple girls, spin plates, friends with benefits, etc. and once you're fucking them regularly, start vetting them and try to figure out which ones are damaged goods and which ones are decent girls. figure out which girls ARE very compatible with you even when there isn't a serious LTR keeping them with you. and after a few months/years of this, when you find a girl who is completely addicted to your dick and also seems like a quality girl without any redflags, you consider upgrading that girl to a more serious exclusive LTR.

that's how you vett them and find high quality girls who are very compatible with you.

[–]MattcwuJust sticking up for the oppressed and voiceless women0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

the way things generally work now is that sexual compatibility is established first and then you upgrade the relationship to a more serious romantic relationship.

I agree. I actually agree with everything you said.

[–]MattcwuJust sticking up for the oppressed and voiceless women2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Wow, this is very accurate. Most blue-pillers use crazy hyperbole to strawman TRP, but you pretty much got it right.
Since we agree on what TRP is about, what's your biggest criticism of TRP?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I dont have too many criticisms, the main problems I think mostly have to do with monetization and some leftover bluepill tropes that havent been filtered out because of monetization and to an extent "just world" fallacies. They seem to sell low SMV males false hope by saying things like "Looks arent that important" "Confidence is everything". The biggest problem is that TRP isnt a fix for everyone, it's just generalized advice that is most applicable to average males. Attractive guys dont really need TRP. They can do pretty much whatever they want and still have pussy falling in their lap. That's why I think "game" is flawed in a lot of ways. If you're a low SMV Male, you can do everything right and still fail. It all comes down to a woman being attracted to you and giving you openings. If you're unattractive, you wont get those openings and will just get shut down and theres little if anything you can do to change that.

Yes you can up your SMV and TRP preaches that, but some people are genetically disadvantaged enough that even If they looksmax careermax and statusmax, women still wont find them attractive. There comes a point where you hit diminishing returns hit a "soft cap" and it becomes infeasible/unrealistic to continue to raise your SMV. Another thing they dont factor in is aspie/autism spectrum guys, which is actually a lot of men CDC says 1 in 59. A lot of guys looking for dating advice are people that just cant follow social cues, and for the worse off of them no amount of trying to teach them "game" is going to help.

[–]Aaren_AugustineWants a Cookie2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They seem to sell low SMV males false hope by saying things like "Looks arent that important" "Confidence is everything".

Like a school house, TRP SHOULD have a high turn around rate. It should be a first of many steps a lot of men need to be functioning adults. And most of the unsuccessful guys will be unsuccessful at anything other than the confines of a relationship; which is against TRP.

Jordan Peterson, Jocko Willink...there's other goals that need to be addressed, learned, integrated and improved in order to up the 'capacity' a guy has.

[–]MattcwuJust sticking up for the oppressed and voiceless women0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ya, I think there are some really unfair genetics that make it much more difficult. And you're right that there is a sort of soft cap to how attractive some men can become. Looks are very important, but a lot of decent looking guys are missing out for a lack of confidence. Confidence isn't everything, but it's so often the difference between success and failure. I think it benefits the majority of guys that we oversell confidence.

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

All of this sounds like Slave aka Christian morality to me. It has a Puritan Anglo Centric vibe too. Next plenty of African and Arab women have children in their teens. In fact for most of human history women have had children in their teens. So to use adolescent sexuality as an insult is shortsighted.

Romeo and Juliet is a tale of adolescent sexuality. So I guess by this definition shakespire is stupid to write about something like that.

Perhaps if we listen to this Neo Puritan white woman we're supposed to rate each other like commodities and then apply the sterile passion-less logic of capitalism to sex.

This is raw unadulterated Neo Liberalism and as sexually appealing as Hillary Clinton.

[–]OfSpock2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So I guess by this definition shakespire is stupid to write about something like that.

No more than Steven Spielberg is a Nazi. Romeo and Juliet are the stupid ones.

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

Juliet was 12 and Romeo 18 btw.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice15 points16 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Another appeal to just world morality.

Boooring.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Not even remotely close, which isn't surprising given your lack of elaboration. OP's point is more closely aligned with "likes attract likes" and individual choices/consequences than anything to do with morality (good vs. bad).

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice4 points5 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

It sets up "quality" as someone who doesn't like the things that OP doesn't like and pretend that the world we live is one where the things you don't like and the things that are successful are never the same.

yawn, it's standard just world fallacy.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

That has absolutely nothing to do with the "Just World" fallacy/hypothesis as there is absolutely no morality involved.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

It's the pretense that "morally good" characteristics make someone sexually successful, that manipulation only works on "bad" people, etc

It should be obvious

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

No, there is no morality (right vs. wrong) here at all (what I called good vs. bad initially, where I was using the latter terms in a general sense).

Merely point of view on what is "attractive" vs. "not" .. or "good for attractiveness" (vs. not).

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

If you honestly don't see the appeal to morality in OP?

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

Do you honestly see morality there? Where is the "right vs. wrong" aspect of it? Do you understand what morality is? It's good/right vs. bad/wrong in a GENERAL, MOST socially accepted sense (like murder/lying is almost always inherently "bad" or simply "wrong" .. for example).

The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias (or assumption) that a person's actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, to the end of all noble actions being eventually rewarded and all evil actions eventually punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of—a universal force that restores moral balance. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, or order, and has high potential to result in fallacy, especially when used to rationalize people's misfortune on the grounds that they "deserve" it. (wiki)

His entire argument is about what is good/bad for attractiveness (nothing to do with social right/wrong) from his POV (and I agree with it, and I'll also wager we're far from alone there), it has nothing to do with any generally accepted principles of right/wrong for society.

There is no cosmic justice or anything like that making anything happen. People are merely reacting to someone else's traits in his argument.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

The paragraph you quoted describes OP's post perfectly.

It's wishful thinking. Insisting that the qualities you agree with make sexually successful, insisting that people who are inmoral fail or end up with other "bad" people.

He doesn't have to explicitly admit to it outright. Read the subtext. It's right there. All it takes is some reading comprehension.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

It has nothing to do with his agreement vs. not.

It has to do with the actual qualities he's describing. He's also taken a side (of those qualities) and stated it is superior. His agreement or wishful thinking does not drive how people react to the traits he's for (or against).

If 51% of people think assholes or aloof dudes are idiots, he is essentially right. That's all there is to it. Nothing to do with right/wrong or wishful thinking driving anything.

You're just complaining about his style of writing (rhetoric, basically) and then failing to write if off with your one-line attempt (calling it a "just world fallacy" when it is nothing of the sort).

The real argument is what traits is he describing and what % of women find them attractive vs. not. That is the only argument here which need be debated.

[–]NotMeUsee4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's true though

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That means you don't neg

Making fun of women flirting does work a lot of the time.

you don't intentionally wait X hours to respond to a text

No, but if you always respond right away you look needy.

you don't act disinterested to "game" women

Never heard of "play hard to get"?

[–]hammerhauntsbread pill8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

What a quality man actually is is an aloof asshole who warms up for the heroine alone. That's the entire foundation of romance novels.

[–]Kittennoodle5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't forget that she somehow "fixes" him or opens him up to all his potential.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes.

[–]boredthenyoureboringMr. 668 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agree, aloof assholes aren't quality men

but aloof assholes get laid more than the alternative

hence literally everything about the world that led to this sub being created

[–]Themdubsup2somethin2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Quality men have square jaws and are 6’2+

[–]Khiv_2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll have to agree here. The aloof asshole guy is certainly better than the needy loser, but I think that the real "alpha" is the genuine guy. The guy that is completely transparent about what he wants and is not ashamed of it.

Going after what you want is different from being thirsty. Immediately telling a girl you are into her or making an effort to show that throught actions in different from chasing the girl repeatedly and desperatly, or from sending her a million texts even when she is clearly uninterested.

I have lived a great part of my life trying to be the aloof asshole, and I found that his is counterproductive. First because most chicks won't approach you unless you are super hot and they are super brave or grew up learning to be different from the standard social rules for females.

Second because it conditions you to not be active, to not approach. After a while I realized I was using this as an easy escape. I could forgive myself for not approaching and not showing interest because this way I was "showing power". After all, the most interested party is the least powerful in a relationship, right?

This kind of behavior can cause a constant reinforcement of avoidance. You will learn to avoid going after what you want, because it is easier than acting, and you will become less and less of an "alpha".

The best results I've had in my life were when I simply went after what I wanted. I've gotten bad results out of that, too, but that shouldn't be a reason not to act.

[–]plentyoffishes2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Most women (and men) suffer from low self esteem, so the games "work" on them. Both sexes play games to try to attract a partner, and they wind up with damaged people who think lowly of themselves. To attract a healthy partner, it's best not to play any games and just act how you want to act. Naturally, a healthy dude is not going to over-text a woman, so there's no need to "wait to return texts".

[–]VDKay2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

These "cynical tactics" are called social acuity. Women People neg, wait X hours to reply to messages, shit-test all the time. It is not about maturity. It is about social competence.

People neg because getting the attention of a hot girl by just asking for it is not efficient. (sort of the way you use sparkling fish-looking baits to catch fish instead of miniature signs saying "Come here so I can eat you")

People use pick-up lines and canned material because they want fast results and it is more efficient to start off calibrating your interactions from a good and tested baseline than start doing it from scratch. (is is also saving women from having to deal with creepy ugly awkward dudes when they go out - canned material leaves them only creepy and ugly)

People intentionally wait X hours to reply to messages because it communicates indifference and leaves the other person wondering. Psychologically, the more time a person entertains a thought, the more he attaches to that. Not to mention that answering straight away communicates over-availability which, psychologically-speaking again is unattractive. Side note: I've personally known MANY women who intentionally have dozens of notifications waiting on their phone and the method for dealing with them is cynical AF.

People shit-test because it is a lot better method for poking for for insecurities as opposed to asking directly "are you insecure about your height?". Learning about an insecurity is important, but most important is learning how people react to shit-tests because it is a strong indication of core confidence, and confidence is hot AF (some say even more so than abs)

As a bottom line, being "alpha" mature is not about only using hard cold logic and transparent interactions, but instead, moving through social situations in the best and most efficient way possible. The successful businessman is not the one who is always nice and straightforward all the time, but the one who knows when it is the right time to be ruthless, to coerce and to manipulate as well.

[–]AFuzzyMuffin2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You sir are correct as far as the current state of the world goes.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man8 points9 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

no, because most people (and almost all women) aren't autistic logic robots.

being an aloof asshole is extremely effective when done correctly because it bypasses the logical thinking parts of the brain that you're using right now and going straight to the deeper, more subconscious and instinctive parts of the brain that control sexual attraction and mating behavior.

most men really like a woman who has nice breasts. but they're really just unnecessary lumps of fat on her chest. even the whole "they're good for feeding babies" thing is kinda BS because most of it isn't necessary for lactation, it's really just extraneous fat. and babies can drink formula anyway.

but despite all that, men are still strongly attracted to a nice looking set of tits. and being an aloof asshole works in the exact same way.

your theory that it only works on low self-esteem, insecure, socially retarded women is also completely incorrect.

it often works best on smart, confident, rational "quality women" because those women are over confident in their ability to not fall for stupid PUA tricks.

if anything, it's the dumb, insecure, low quality women who it doesn't work as well on because they get fooled enough that they eventually learn to not trust their instincts.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia9 points10 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

your theory that it only works on low self-esteem, insecure, socially retarded women is also completely incorrect.

It's well studied and has more empirical support than any TRP fantasy.

That's just basic attachment style theory.

TRP encourages men to act like they have a dismissive-avoidant attachment style and AWALT perfectly describes women with an anxious-preoccupied attachment style, but not women in general.

And to no surprise those two are attracted to each other.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/compassion-matters/201307/how-your-attachment-style-impacts-your-relationship

For example, the person with a working model of anxious/preoccupied attachment feels that, in order to get close to someone and have your needs met, you need to be with your partner all the time and get reassurance. To support this perception of reality, they choose someone who is isolated and hard to connect with. The person with a working model of dismissive/avoidant attachment has the tendency to be distant, because their model is that the way to get your needs met is to act like you don’t have any. He or she then chooses someone who is more possessive or overly demanding of attention.

In a sense, we set ourselves up by finding partners that confirm our models.

People with a dismissive avoidant attachment have the tendency to emotionally distance themselves from their partner. They may seek isolation and feel “pseudo-independent,” taking on the role of parenting themselves. They often come off as focused on themselves and may be overly attending to their creature comforts.

Pseudo-independence is an illusion, as every human being needs connection. Nevertheless, people with a dismissive avoidant attachment tend to lead more inward lives, both denying the importance of loved ones and detaching easily from them. They are often psychologically defended and have the ability to shut down emotionally. Even in heated or emotional situations, they are able to turn off their feelings and not react. For example, if their partner is distressed and threatens to leave them, they would respond by saying, “I don’t care.”

TRP also encourages men to use manipulative tactics, mind games and narcissistic arrogance. AWALT also describes women as being manipulative, but that's again because those are the ones that are attracted to that kind of behavior.

https://www.psypost.org/2018/10/study-psychopaths-are-attracted-to-other-psychopaths-52414

New psychology research suggests that most people do not view psychopathic personality traits as particularly desirable in a romantic partner. But the study also provides evidence that psychopaths are more attracted to other psychopaths.

To a large extent, our findings support a ‘like attracts like’ hypothesis for psychopathic traits.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201605/do-narcissists-feather-flock-together

Maaß et al. concluded that narcissists “like what they have” (p. 378). Narcissists are not only tolerant of narcissism in their friends, they also are not turned off by the selfishness, arrogance, and bossiness that would drive non-narcissists away

OP is pretty spot on with their analysis, and it also perfectly explains why TRPers believe in those weird AWALT traits: because TRP was engineered to attract AWALTy women

[–]bostezo220 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Only "AWALTy women" is such a contradiction you make me laugh! :)

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

It's not a contradiction just because TRPers can't get any better.

[–]mwait1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't consider myself RP... Although I tend to lean reddish.

I'm also 6'4" and look like a fucking model.

Being aloof has been, by far and away, the most successful method to attracting women I have used. Both for short term/flings and LTRs. The asshole part isn't necessary.... But I have seen a distinct inverse correlation between amount of initial interest shown and success rate.

[–]bostezo220 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

We all with experience in dating know this.

[–]mwait0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Right. That's my point.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

As a woman who has said multiple times I like aloof guys - it’s because it makes you curious about him, for me anyway.

However attractive “aloof” is not, how some people are putting it here, some sort of complete disinterest or complete lack of any investment or toying back and forth between apathy and interest.

If the aloof guys I “went after” did not start to reciprocate wanting to hang out, spend time together, showing a growing level of interest, I would have moved on. But yeah when a guy is kinda quiet and isn’t immediately falling all over you it makes me more interested. (Well it did in the past anyway when I was single, I married one of said attractive aloof men).

[–]bostezo220 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Right.

I will make it easier.

It is a contradiction just because NAWALT-AWALT. The acronym starts with "ALL".

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes it starts with "all", but you still have to explain how this proves that it's true for the majority of women just because a bunch of incels and angry bloggers believe that.

The existence of an acronym doesn't prove that it's true.

[–]bostezo220 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes you are right, we are not saying if it is true or not. Just saying it's a contradiction to say "not all women are AWALT".

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

you should change your name to "BiggerStrawmanThanYou" because that's all you ever do

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Where's the straw?

You've got to consider that just because you do not like facts that this doesn't make my argument bad.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Where's the straw?

to start with, you completely mischaracterize what RP means with the term AWALT.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

RP uses AWALT to describe what they understand as female nature. It doesn't mean that all women are like that, but that all women have this female nature and some merely hold back on their AWALTy behavior, but sooner or later they will show that they actually are AWALT.

AWALT presupposes that women are collectively governed by a set of underlying principles which drives their behaviour.

Hypergamy, solipsism, Machiavellianism and immaturity are principles which make up the AWALT umbrella. Behaviours resulting from those principles would be branch swinging, blame shifting and emotional impulsiveness, among others.

What's wrong with this definition of AWALT?

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You will get the "no true scotsman" treatment no matter how you define AWALT. Some will say that NAWALT, but you assume AWALT in the sexual marketplace as a hedge. Or that making the assumption that a particular women falls under the AWALT umbrella characteristics leads to some benefit, even if she isn't. Some will say that "AWALT when it counts" aka most women won't have those characteristics until they're put into a situation where they have something serious to lose, then all of a sudden they change on a dime (aka, selfishness is the only true AWALT characteristic, something I've heard red pillers say before). Some will say that AWALT is true literally.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

your definition of the term "All Women Are Like That" includes "it doesn't mean all women are like that" which literally negates the whole purpose of the term as used by RPers.

AWALT applies to ALL WOMEN. there are no non-AWALTy women. they don't exist. there are no exceptions.

the idea that AWALT doesn't apply to certain women is a misconception pushed by guys who haven't fully swallowed the red pill. the madonna/whore guys who are still trying to find a unicorn.

AWALT doesn't mean that all women are definitely going to act like slutty whores or whatever. it means that ALL WOMEN could potentially be bad if they're placed in the wrong circumstances. wrong place, wrong time, with the wrong guy.

AWALT is not an insult tossed at a certain type of women. it's literally the opposite of that. it's a warning to men to never assume that a particular woman is a good woman who isn't like that

your description of AWALT is a complete mischaracterization of what RPers understand AWALT to mean and why they use the term.

anti-RP zealots like yourself tend to focus on the "That" part of AWALT, and strawman some bullshit meaning into the "That" so you can then argue along the lines of: "ah-ha! some women aren't like the strawmanned version of That that i just pulled out of my ass! therefore not all women are like that! therefore all of redpill is wrong! therefore checkmate you misogynists!"

it's just so boring and predictable and tiresome. can't you guys ever come up with new ways to argue against RP instead of the same old shit over and over

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

your description of AWALT is a complete mischaracterization of what RPers understand AWALT to mean and why they use the term.

It's literally copy-pasted from the sidebar

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Part of it is copied from that article, but you're combining that with your own shit to try to twist the meaning.

And the part that i specifically disagreed with, where you say "it doesn't mean all women are like that" is part of the shit that isn't from that article.

Here is another quote from that article:

No veteran in the online men’s community believes in NAWALT, a NAWALT (meaning not all women are like that) implies there is a woman out there who behaves in none of the ways central to which AWALT claims. That is the unicorn, and the unicorn is a lie – an idealised mythological remnant of blue pill programming. The idea that a woman who is not hypergamous, Machiavellian, immature, solipsistic and all the rest exists out there. Think of the NAWALT unicorn as El Dorado, you’ve heard all about it, a buddy of yours may have even been on an expedition to go and find it, but neither you nor anybody you know has ever found it.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

And the part that i specifically disagreed with, where you say "it doesn't mean all women are like that" is part of the shit that isn't from that article.

That's not what I've said though. You've got to consider that sentences continue after a "but". You can't just ignore the rest of a sentence simply because it would ruin your strawman argument.

It doesn't mean that all women are like that, but that all women have this female nature and some merely hold back on their AWALTy behavior, but sooner or later they will show that they actually are AWALT.

"and some are merely holding back on their AWALT nature, but sooner or later they will show that they actually are AWALT" does mean that they are actually AWALT but are merely hiding it, even though you completely ignored this part of my comment.

Which is basically this part of the article:

Not only is she the exception that proves the rule, but were she to look for another relationship, she would in all likelihood cease to be the exception. If she didn’t branch swing on that one occasion, she may on another. 

[–]beachredwhineCongratulations!1 point2 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

You have it half right. But only half. And the other half of what you don't understand, as you try to redefine yourself as an attractive man, is the other half that is going to not even so subtly sneak up on you. And knock you upside your head.

[–]orelon 1 points [recovered]  (12 children) | Copy Link

Seems awfully cryptic and useless, friend. There's no redefinition involved here. I'm tall, good looking, physically fit, successful (well into six figs), funny, articulate, and kind. I spend my time doing meaningful things, e.g. improving my body and mind, advancing my career, spending time with friends that actually give a shit, and volunteering (hospice and a dog shelter). If that's not a woman's definition of attractive, then I don't want to be "attractive." I'm not evading any sparkling gems of wisdom by choosing not to participate in shitty, juvenile dating strategies.

[–]reluctantly_red2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not evading any sparkling gems of wisdom by choosing not to participate in shitty, juvenile dating strategies.

But you certainly are if you don't sit back -- observe how woman actually behave -- and adjust your behavior in response.

[–]beachredwhineCongratulations!1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

You don't even understand what attractive means.

You think terp is real. You think a hot body, a high male status, a big paycheck, that will do it.

I have those things as well.

But for me.

And after I got women.

You haven't even begun on the path of understanding who whom, women love.

Can you at least stop and think after you have accomplished so much male status, and think to yourself, I did everything I was told would work. And yet that homeless guy who is speaking to me right now has had more and better women fall deeply in love with him?

Why? Why can't you ask why?

I do

[–]orelon 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

What?

[–]AreYouDeaf2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT ATTRACTIVE MEANS.

YOU THINK TERP IS REAL. YOU THINK A HOT BODY, A HIGH MALE STATUS, A BIG PAYCHECK, THAT WILL DO IT.

I HAVE THOSE THINGS AS WELL.

BUT FOR ME.

AND AFTER I GOT WOMEN.

YOU HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN ON THE PATH OF UNDERSTANDING WHO WHOM, WOMEN LOVE.

CAN YOU AT LEAST STOP AND THINK AFTER YOU HAVE ACCOMPLISHED SO MUCH MALE STATUS, AND THINK TO YOURSELF, I DID EVERYTHING I WAS TOLD WOULD WORK. AND YET THAT HOMELESS GUY WHO IS SPEAKING TO ME RIGHT NOW HAS HAD MORE AND BETTER WOMEN FALL DEEPLY IN LOVE WITH HIM?

WHY? WHY CAN'T YOU ASK WHY?

I DO

[–]orelon 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

Good bot.

[–]GoodBotBadAdmins2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

good human

[–]MrBeepyBot1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Aww do you mean it ? <3

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

🤗

Gee I wonder why you are a loser?

What?

Huh?

... dad?

[–]poopidydoopscoop0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Pretty sure this guy has read a lot of great books designed specifically for men.

You should listen to him.

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

Maybe he can teach me how to loser 10,000

[–]poopidydoopscoop0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

"If you had to kill one of your kids because god said so which one would it be and why?"

85% success rate on HB4 and below. Try it

[–]darudeboysandstormSoup on the stove, bread rising, apple pie0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

My boy tried this and ended up casting out all his concubines 10/10 do not try.

[–]SerpentCypher1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Quality men? Sure, that's all a matter of perspective I guess. For what it's worth I tend to agree with you that quality men, heck, quality people in general aren't assholes.

Men that women are attracted to? They are absolutely aloof and assholes a lot of the time. Every bit of research i've seen on the matter backs this idea up.

Do you think most men would rather be a quality asset to society? Or attractive to women and easily able to get his dick wet?

Before someone says both, this is essentially what "NiceGuys" want, only to become bitter when they realise it doesn't work that way, and that to be the former is to generally be disqualified from being the latter.

[–]Pastelitomaracucho1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Quality men express their interest like an adult, don't get bent out of shape if it's not reciprocated, and are never insulting. They treat people with respect, both men and women. That means you don't neg, you don't intentionally wait X hours to respond to a text, you don't act disinterested to "game" women. None of that. Men that latch onto these cynical "tactics" are the exact opposite of "alpha." They're weak, emotionally immature, and not worth your time.

Where did you get your standard of "quality men?" because is there's something the internet is full of, is of people all over stating what "real men" and "real women" are.

Both men and women are contunously entrenched on a psychological arms race to adapt and outsmart the other party. It is part of being human: people trying to sell you stuff and you trying to get the most value out of it, the State trying to make you pay more tax and you trying to find ways to pay less, people finding the "meta" in games, people trying to trick systems at work, university and generally in life. Love and relationships are just another realm where people have always played strategy and no, love is not extent of game and trategy just for being love. The examples of that abound and have always there.

So the negging, the cynical tactics are simply a conclusion of a rational decision made from the fact that well, being completely open, emotionally vulnerable or acting too interested is risky and can backfire and so, they try the opposite. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt work. It does not work all the time with all women, that is for sure because every person is different.

Now, I think that the circumstances used for men to reach these conclusions might be flawed: she rejected you, not because you were acting in a particular matter, but simply because she did not like you from the very beginning and you thought you had something on your hands - this is my opinion.

So no, they are not weak and inmmature: they are making rational decisions based on experience. Whereas there was a bias in the conclusions they arrived to though that experience, that is something to consider.

"Quality women" (or poor quality women) are also basing their mating choices based on experience - and they also fall into biases -. Many women like the agressive, overconfident guy for whatever reason. Many are simply attractive and tired of being swamped by thirsty men and FINALLY there is someone that gives them some breathing room and a bit of a challenge. Many women (which are smart as fuck) like their brains played with, the like being challenged, they like being put in positions where they have to stop and think or whey they need to observe things from a different angle, many find it refreshing that FINALLY there is someone out there that is not simply blindingly agreeing the everything they say or do in an attempt to get sex from them.

td:dr your definition of quality men and women is shit. Start again.

[–]SilentLurker6661 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Quality men are quality men; Assholes are Assholes. They are not mutually exclusive. There are quality men that are assholes and there are non-assholes who are not quality men.

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So you believe some women are exempt from evolution.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men can't determine what "quality" men are for the purposes of discussing sexual dynamics

[–]TheBookOfSeilAn ounce of Snu Snu is worth a pound of cure1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Tfw you realize that beta is really alpha and alpha is really beta.

[–]NeedingAdvice861 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Wishful thinking...I am afraid.

One doesn't have much experience in dating younger women, particularly college aged girls \popular high school girls if they haven't seen that disinterested, assholish and cocky guys are usually fucking a steady stream of hot girls.

But I am sure that Op was the king of the university poetry reading club and Lord Baron their way into many a wall-flower who was shocked that the opposite sex finally asked them to go out for ice cream with sprinkles even.

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

You can say that all you want.

It works anyway.

[–]genethedog1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is an ideal. This is a perfect world dream come true. Unfortunately, as soon as someone knows what you want they use it against you. And if you want them, then it's game time. I don't even know if people don't is consciously. I think it's at least half lizard brain assuming that if something is easy then it has less value.

The biggest problem is that once most people start down the shit testing path, they usually don't know when to stop. Then it becomes abusive because it wears down the targets confidence and then, when they break, the abuser goes 'ha, there it is, he was always broken I just had to find it.' so it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

If you 'play hard to get' and it works, you eventually just keep playing more and more because you keep getting away with it. How do you all of a sudden go 'ok, I'm done playing hard to get' and then throw yourself on the other person. That would probably freak them out. They'd sense a huge shift and probably think you're fucking with them. And then if you received all the shit testing and said 'and you passed' they would feel gamed.

So yeah, the whole honestly thing is absolutely the best way. Too bad it so very very rarely works that it's more of a dream than reality.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

That are no quality women. There are just women (when we ignore the bottom 20% trash). And they're mostly interchangeable.

[–]azngirl76890 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

This roughly translates to “I’m taking my ball and going home!!!!!”

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

"I'm emptying my balls and going home!"

FTFY

[–]azngirl7689-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why my good golly gosh thank you so much. I'm sure that's exactly what happens.

[–]Popeman79Red Pill Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're absolutely right. Real quality men treat everyone with respect, and use their power/influence to lift others up instead of putting them down.

I consider myself a high quality man, and I aspire to always be righteous. Righteous and strong.

Because that's what differentiates a quality man from a nice guy. A nice guy thinks he has to be a good man all the time, and that it brings him value. If somebody makes fun of him, he shrugs it off and shows the other cheek. If a woman tests him (hey stranger, why don't you buy me a drink) he complies (and buys the drink), because he doesn't see malice in it, he's a good guy. If a woman tells him she has a boyfriend (although she keeps talking flirteously with him), he takes the hint and kindly removes himself from the conversation. He also won't take a chance at saying something that could be offensive, so all his jokes are dad-jokes.

See where I'm going? Quality guy doesn't 'neg' because he's using tactics, he just talks confidently about good things and bad things, and if the girl tests him he for sure is going to test her. He's not an asshole, but he does take chances on abrasive humour, because usually that's much funnier than dad-jokes. That means sometimes saying something asshole-y. He doesn't respond to the text because he has a life. He acts disinterested sometimes because, as a quality man, he has high standards that are hard to meet, and he doesn't believe in hiding what he feels (the 'nice guy' does).

You're talking PUA man. I'm talking redpill Alpha.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You've got to consider one little thing: TRPers do not care about facts at all and they desperately need a oversimplified fantasy they can believe in.

Due to their rigid cognitive style, intolerance of ambiguity, fear of uncertainty and the fact the they can't handle nuance at all they struggle a lot with the real world, but such fantasies help them to navigate it.

Before finding TRP they already had one oversimplified fantasy: women are perfect angels that would never lie and just pretending to be nice is everything it takes to find a partner

This fantasy didn't work out so they simply switched it around 180 degrees: women are mentally like children and are manipulative succubi and just acting like an asshole is everything it takes to find a partner.

It doesn't matter to them if it's true or not. All that matters is that they have a simple flowchart that they can use for any social interaction.

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to MRS_DRgree[M] 0 points1 point  (11 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.

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

There is no such thing as a quality man or a quality woman. You're all trash until proven otherwise.

Quality men express their interest like an adult, don't get bent out of shape if it's not reciprocated, and are never insulting. They treat people with respect, both men and women. That means you don't neg, you don't intentionally wait X hours to respond to a text, you don't act disinterested to "game" women. None of that. Men that latch onto these cynical "tactics" are the exact opposite of "alpha." They're weak, emotionally immature, and not worth your time.

WTF did I just read? Did the OP established herself as the authority to evaluate the criteria of men of quality? Usual disgusting shaming tactics that deserve to be laughed at.

FYI your description does not match the depiction of quality men, but rather "easily manipulable pussy slaves."

That means you don't neg, you don't intentionally wait X hours to respond to a text, you don't act disinterested to "game" women

Beta male 101.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Beta male 101

I’m so glad my OH is a beta male according to this definition.

He’s sexy as fuck but god if he hadn’t just been straightforward and honest about his interest from the start then I never would have ended up in bed with him so soon into our relationship...

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

It worked because he's sexy as fuck. And secondly one can act like he has option and doing everything above, and still be straightforward.

Negging is a huge part of teasing for some men. Not responding to text right away is because one is busy or have something else better to do than to respond to one of her prospects right away

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It didn’t just work because he’s sexy af - I’ve been approached by plenty of cocky arseholes who were physically attractive, but my attraction definitely increased to him as he revealed that straightforward direct personality. Game playing is not attractive like that to me.

Not texting back right away is one thing - not replying when you texted two minutes ago or leaving someone on read is another. And personally, I’m not into that kind of teasing either, although I get that some women may be.

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It worked because he's sexy as fuck.

Yes, I'm sure he could just be "straightforward" with any woman and be in bed with them all in no time.

Dumbass.

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I'm sure he could just be "straightforward" with any woman and be in bed with them all in no time.

Never implied that. You like to put things in others people mouth apparently.

Dumbass.

Welcome to my ignore list. And nothing of value was lost.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Daily reminder that AWALT is not a description of women in general, but simply a description of women that are attracted to TeRP behavior.

AWALT actually describes a minority of women

Dark Triad people are attractive to other DT people

TRP encourages men to act like narcissists with a dismissive-avoidant attachment style which attracts women with an anxious-preoccupied attachment style

tl;dr: Women aren't illogical, childlike, drama-loving manipulators, but women that do not see TeRPy behavior as a red flag are.

[–]bostezo221 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Just read the first letter of the acronym.

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

YAACM.

You are a complete moron.

I made an acronym, so it must be true.

[–]bostezo220 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

We are not discussing the veracity of the concept but the meaning or the description of what AWALT is.

I know it's hard to understand for you.

We will make it easier since now.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This might surprise you, but just because it's called All Women Are Like That this doesn't make it a fact that's true for all women.

AWALT isn't based on actual traits that are common in women, but merely on those women that do not see TRPers as red flags.

[–]I_sort_by_new_fam0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

thank you 👏 somewhere, an incel is crying

[–]wtffellification0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I will look at women I find attractive, that's just my nature. I do it before I even realise it. But I am not interested in pursuing a relationship based on solely this kind of (physical) attraction, it's not a good enough reason for me.

If I act indifferent (which I do most of the time) it's not because of wanting to impose my will on another and display my faux power. It's mainly because of my interests and my realistic (I hope) estimation of them

In other words, if I don't pursue something which I'm instinctually attracted to, and play aloof because I don't want to display false intentions and waste anybody's time.. does this make me twisted somehow?

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No, I think the OP is talking about intentionally acting aloof as a deceptive tactic.

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

If a girl is into a guy, but the guy either is not into the girl, or does not pick up on her signals, what behavior would that come across as to the girl?

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Some women like cocky and aloof because I think they see it as a challenge to gain this man’s affection so long as said man is physically attractive. But if said man has average looks or lower, being cocky and aloof isn’t going to get him much. Nevertheless, as others have pointed out, it’s probably better than a guy seeming needy and cloying to a woman.

[–]WhatIsTheMeaningHere0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

afraid of vulnerability

To me when people say this it's like someone saying I'm afraid about having a dick in my ass.

immaturity

This concept is how you frame AF/BB as a natural process. If these cocky men are mistaken for real value, why isn't this something that mothers warn their daughters about? Why is every generation just as confused about true male value?

[–]TriadFamilyTimesEverything I know I learned from group sex0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with this post completely.

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

If the content of this post were true, then “super-liking” on Tinder wouldn’t be (in the words of nearly all women) “creepy AF.”

[–]dukes19980 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Quality women don't go after the loudest and rudest men in the room. Women that do (and this includes women that fall for PUA bullshit on Tinder) have low self-esteem and are socially handicapped. Physically hot or otherwise. They're attracted to cocky, seemingly "unobtainable" men, because they mistake that bullshit for genuine value. It's a sign of emotional immaturity and a shitty personality, just like the men they go for.

Actually agree with this to some extent. I'm surrounded with friends who try to be cooler than they are (and if you're partying, doing drugs and getting girls people will mistake that for being a cool person) and the aloof dickhead personality gets old quickly.

Girls aren't inherently into this type of guy at all though however guys who really don't give a fuck and are cocky and aloof often have some sort of reason for having that attitude (comes off as fake confidence a lot of the time as well) and the girls are drawn to that, however i'm sure you've heard girls bitching about asshole guys all the time and its because they hate that shit but like fun attractive guys.

But a guy who is genuinely nice and considerate while still being fun and attractive will get better quality women for sure. If you want to know the difference between the two types of guys look at how they talk about people and how they treat their "lessers". One will be inherently negative (I.e: talking shit behind peoples backs, making fun of people, clearly sucking someone who they think can do something for them while being aloof and cold to someone they think cant) vs positive (ex: playing off a stupid comment someone lower on the totem pole made to let them save face, being genuinely nice and outgoing to whoever it may be regardless of what they can do for you)

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

Not sure if CMV. If not, then jumping in to say modern PUA circulates around this concept of Vulnerability. That's why many of the old-schoolers describe it as 'feminised.'

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter