TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

76

That's why they complain about AF/BB or high n-counts, only certain types of women are like that. It's just like the women who complain that men are all assholes, it's not true at all, but the men they are attracted to are assholes and they generalize that to all men. It's the same logic with AWALT instead of questionning your tastes, you generalize to all women. But you can't put all women in the same basket, just like you can't put the frat boy in the same box as the nerdy guy they are different types. You can totally avoid high n-count and AF/BB if you go toward shy/nerdy/or religious women. Not every women spend her 20s sleeping around with Chad or having fwb. What I noticed is that Tinder/Insta/Party women are the most popular with men.


[–]SincereDiscussion62 points63 points  (52 children) | Copy Link

I think there is some truth in this thread, but I can't fully agree with the examples you've chosen.

TRP does takes some examples of abhorrent behavior and generalize it to all women. That's virtually undeniable. No, most women won't get impregnated by your best friend and trick you into raising the kid. No, 99% of women won't lie about being raped. No, most women don't have an n-count of 200 before they're 20. Reading TRP, you wouldn't necessarily get that impression!

With all that said...

Hypergamy is the default. Women can be shamed out of acting on it to varying degrees of success, but it absolutely doesn't mean that it isn't the default set of behaviors.

[–][deleted] 39 points40 points  (47 children) | Copy Link

I see a lot that resonates with me in your comment here, but I would extend the 'selecting for horrible stories and using them to generalize about the entire population' thing even further -

'Hypergamy', or 'seeking out the best possible partner by one's standards for that', is not women's default, it's everyone's default. Anyone can learn to value their partner uniquely and work to not passively search for a trade-up, but the default set of behaviors applies to men in the same way it applies to women, with slightly different window dressing.

Online communities of angry women can just as easily draw vastly negative conclusions about men from limited data as can be drawn by communities of angry men about women. Both are groups of humans with the ability do do stupid/harmful things, though in the different contexts/with the different powers afforded to them by society.

So my disagreement with you is that 1) shame isn't the only way to combat the tendency to seek Greener Pastures 2) men, who are also human, do the same dysfunctional things that women do, but society gives them different tools by which to exercise their dysfunction.

Like, a big RP concept is that women are children/stupid/memes/fundamentally different than men, and I think that's the most harmful factor impact of RP thinking. Women are slightly smaller humans with statistically less grip strength who have been taught a different set of norms than men.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat28 points29 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

'Hypergamy', or 'seeking out the best possible partner by one's standards for that', is not women's default, it's everyone's default.

YUP. It gets especially silly when you factor in that people's standards are not, in fact, universal.

[–]WavesAcross13 points14 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

'Hypergamy', or 'seeking out the best possible partner by one's standards for that', is not women's default, it's everyone's default. Anyone can learn to value their partner uniquely and work to not passively search for a trade-up, but the default set of behaviors applies to men in the same way it applies to women, with slightly different window dressing.

Standard TRP theory would contest this point. That men's default behavior is polygamy, not seeking out and trading up, but simply adding on.

Then marriage originally was a trade of between both sexes. Women would refrin from hypergamy, men from polygamy.

With the loosening restrictions around marriage of course both sexes pursue hypergamy, but men would rather be polygamous were it allowed.

Women are slightly smaller humans with statistically less grip strength who have been taught a different set of norms than men.

Women and men are really, really different. And not of all is just what they were taught because women that are biologically closer to men often are closer to men psychologically over many traits.

There is lots and lots of stuff, but just to give two examples:

In the prisoner's dilemma pairs of women cooperated on average 200 times out 300 rounds, pairs of men 250 out of 300. It had a d of 0.55 ( a sort of measurement of how "big" a difference is). For comparison grip strength is a d of ~0.60.

Throwing distance/velocity is a d of ~2. There are very few psychological traits that have a difference that large, but some do. For example age preference has a Cohen's d of ~2 (men preferring younger women, women preferring older men).

Anyways my point is that if you see any significance to the physical differences between men and women, many of the psychological differences are just as as big.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I would argue that the physiological differences between men and women don't make a significant difference in everyday life. A woman is statistically likely to have less grip strength than a man, but I have greater size-proportional grip strength than most men because I'm a rock climber. A woman is statistically likely to have less throwing acuity and distance than a man, but my school's softball team is full of women who've trained to have incredible arms.

I'm not saying 'see, girl power!!!' here, I'm saying that the traits that you describe as physiologically limiting can be, with effort, worked around, and don't limit women's ability to participate in most areas of society (exceptions being certain competitive sports in which absolute rather than relative physical strength is a decisive factor, as... women are generally smaller and struggle with building certain forms of upper body strength, to an often prohibitive degree, and things like hitting their heads on doorframes, a phenomenon most women will never experience. Glass doorframe, alas!)

How about psychological limitations/differences? In the case of age preference, I would argue that is definitively a result of sociocultural rather than psychological difference. If you look at media depictions of love/sexual relationships, age differences follow a very specific and pervasive pattern. If there is a psychological mechanism behind the studied preference for older men, it can't be studied in isolation from this extreme cultural stimulus that says 'young woman dating an older man is good/okay, older woman dating a younger man... ew, bad, sketchy, even if she's hot (The Graduate, for example).'

The question I'm always asking, rather than 'are men and women absolutely different (genetically, not too much)' is 'how do men and women differ in the way they interact with society, and what causes this difference'? My little brother and I are as genetically similar as two people can be without being twins, so what makes him a talented artist while I'm a biochemist who struggles to draw hexagons (kill me)?

I'm sure the history of marriage arrangements matters a lot in why we are the way we are, because it informs our present cultural norms, as well as who lived/procreated/died hundreds of years ago, but were we genetically different then, or were class structures and structural understandings of gender simply different? How about the demands of procreation and the risks to a woman in childbirth? How about the object-commodity identity of women then vs. now? How have things changed, and what forces are operating on us differently?

Genetically, we haven't changed a lot since the middle ages, but we sure act different. That's one of a million reasons that I turn away from bioessentialism in explaining human behavior even as I work 9-5 to explain the causative capacity of biochemical factors. :)

[–]dick_perle0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

When I love a girl, I feel super monogamous. I’m only polygamous when I’m single.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here13 points14 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Women are slightly smaller humans with statistically less grip strength who have been taught a different set of norms than men.

This blank-slatism has been debunked decades ago. I hope you didn't mean this literally. If you did, then this needs to die right now. There is no reason to actually believe this.

https://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/5b1501/F/sex.pdf

Sexual dimorphism in sociability has been documented in humans. The present study aimed to ascertain whether the sexual dimorphism is a result of biological or socio-cultural differences between the two sexes. 102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and cultural factors, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object) and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in origin.

[–]ElderSignChildless post-wall cat lady5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

In part and on average. Even in that study, only a minority of the children showed a preference for "their type", most either showed no preference or a preference for the other gender's "type" (table 1). Few people deny that there's a difference in averages, but that the variation within a gender is great enough to render that mostly meaningless.

[–]ayywumao 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

That's a handwaving

[–]ElderSignChildless post-wall cat lady5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

How is bringing up the actual results of the study being discussed "handwaving"?

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

Few people deny that there's a difference in averages, but that the variation within a gender is great enough to render that mostly meaningless.

The study isn't, but youre overvlown conclusion is.

[–]ElderSignChildless post-wall cat lady5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you were to try to make predictions based on that study and "typically gendered behaviors", you'd be wrong 57% of the time for boys and 64% for girls. Sounds pretty meaningless to me.

[–]eyewant😋 grape suppository13 points14 points  (29 children) | Copy Link

'seeking out the best possible partner by one's standards for that', is not women's default, it's everyone's default.

If women didn't have higher standards, then why do incels exist?

Women are slightly smaller humans with statistically less grip strength who have been taught a different set of norms than men.

If you're a dude and I put you on estrogen, you would act completely differetn from how you do now. You cannot deny sexual dimorphism and the presence of hormones.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

I'm a biochemist, I'm not denying hormones are 'present', I'm saying that there's a gradient as to who has what hormones in which concentrations and 'hormones' are not perfectly causally explanatory for behavioral variations within gendered groups, while sociocultural norms and their enforcement are exceptionally useful in explaining behavioral variation. Our hormone levels fluctuate wildly throughout our lives and between members of gendered groups. I don't stop being a woman when I'm taking prednisone, and the presence of particular levels of estrogen in my body isn't what makes me a woman. Gender essentialism is a strange hill to die on, though you can have it if you want it. Women are still people.

I was single for a year and enjoyed it. I go to a women's college where the vast majority of the women I know are single, and many of them struggle to find a date, because we vary widely in looks, interests, and preferences in men (or other women). Lonely women exist, women who choose not to date exist... the existence of the 'incel' community doesn't prove that women have higher standards, or anything, really, other than the fact that there is indeed an angry and lonely community of mostly-men on this particular part of the internet.

Women are humans, is what I'm going for here, and if your claim is 'women are not humans' - I'm not saying it is, but I've heard that argued - that's a big claim and requires big evidence to back it up.

[–]the_calibre_cat4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

I go to a women's college where the vast majority of the women I know are single, and many of them struggle to find a date, because we vary widely in looks, interests, and preferences in men (or other women). Lonely women exist, women who choose not to date exist... the existence of the 'incel' community doesn't prove that women have higher standards, or anything, really, other than the fact that there is indeed an angry and lonely community of mostly-men on this particular part of the internet.

The women you're describing here are lonely because they're picky.

Because women CAN be. There are plenty of options, they're just not interested in any of them. That is a fundamentally different reason from why most men are lonely.

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

The problem with that response, as I see it, is that from that perspective, anyone who is having trouble getting what they want must just be picky.

Incels, by this logic, must just be picky if they're not frothing at the bit to get a sick fade, some fancy clothes, and hit the clubs, or hire a prostitute, or start talking to women on some mutually interesting subreddit. The way this argument is presented, it sounds like the conclusion is unavoidably extended to: if you're not willing to put in the work, you must be picky.

The women I'm talking about are busy, have never dated before, are the sort of people who'd be crushed by one rejection, who have heard terrifying stories of men who've done unspeakable things to other women who come to a women's college specifically to avoid them. We're geographically distant from other college aged men, and the social life here, barring a few exceptions, does not include men at all.

To 'get a man', if that's what they're yearning for, they would have to figure out transportation to a local city, carve out two hours of a day to get there and back, develop a sense of security on a date with a rando or otherwise convince another woman here to introduce them to a single male friend, face the potential consequences of failure, face the potentially dangerous fallout of a failed relationship with a man more experienced and more mobile than they are.

This strikes me as very similar to the incel's dilemma, minus the fact that these women are not angry at the men who don't appear at their doorstep - they find other things to enjoy, recognizing that engaging with men would be more trouble than it's worth, and that someday when they want to put in the work, men will probably still exist. Incels struggle because they have no access to women other than through traditional dating mechanisms that place a premium on looks (tinder) and few social connections involving eligible women.

Could an incel 'ascend' if he were desperate and motivated? Of course. He could do the same thing as the women I'm describing - steel himself for potential rejection, put himself in a position to find like-minded women, put in the leg work to get to know them and find someone with whom it's possible to make a connection happen.

But neither the hypothetical incel nor the hypothetical woman do this. Both are more content to stay where they are, minimize risk and effort, and maintain the inertia of their present state.

It's a mistake to say that women have many options lining up if they're not willing to work and look for them. Attempting to make a connection requires risk and effort for everyone. Some people handle that differently, and women in particular are more likely to have the kind of social-cultural ties that make 'romantic relationships in general' a little redundant. They're already getting the kind of social support that incels would like to get from a girlfriend, and therefore the risk and the reward are out of balance.

[–]the_calibre_cat4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The problem with that response, as I see it, is that from that perspective, anyone who is having trouble getting what they want must just be picky.

All else being held equal, AND "what they want" being in relative surplus, sure, that logic works.

It doesn't work on the sexual marketplace, where women are more valuable than men.

Attempting to make a connection requires risk and effort for everyone.

...that risk and effort is not equal along everyone, however. And that's what T.R.P. is saying - if one of these women wanted, they could probably have a boyfriend or a lay in a matter of hours. That is not the case with men.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You seem confident that women are worth more than men in matters of negotiating relationships. I'm curious where your confidence comes from. Some men have very little power. Some women also have very little power. Some men have a dating pool limited severely by their preferences, situation, appearance, and fears. Some women have a dating pool limited severely by their preferences, situation, appearance, and fears.

The risk for women is very high. You're right that not every force operating on men and women is perfectly proportional. The greatest risk an incel might encounter - an accusation of harassment, at absolute worst, and that's a story he's been told by his community. If you just give it a whirl and try to talk to women, you'll be accused of sexual harassment. In practice, this is not a wildly likely fear. There are many strategies he could use to mitigate this risk, but he doesn't, because he's paralyzed by inertia.

The greatest risk a woman might encounter is being physically overpowered and physically harmed. That's the story she's been told by her community. If she just gives it a whirl and starts trying to talk to random men, she'll be exposing herself to dire harm. In practice, this is not a wildly likely fear. There are many strategies she could use to mitigate the risk, but she doesn't, because she's paralyzed by inertia.

The effort involved for the woman is increased physical maintenance to the effect of hours a week, transportation and movement necessary to physically become adjacent to a man, psychological preparation for rejection she's lived in fear of for her entire life, preparation for situations in which she may be physically overpowered and harmed, social preparation to meet and vet the man involved... and then, the most difficult part, deciding to just do it.

The effort involved for the man is increased physical maintenance of a varying amount, transportation and movement necessary to physically become adjacent to a woman, psychological preparation for rejection he's lived in fear of for his entire life, psychological preparation to avoid situations in which he may need to avoid a misconception alleging harassment, social preparation to meet and vet the woman involved... and then, the most difficult part, deciding to just do it.

It sounds kind of similar to me. In both cases, the hardest part is getting the ball rolling. And the benefits are not equal - the woman likely already has a social support network, is more likely to be close with her family, is more likely to be seeking/have sought a college education (if she's young). The man is more likely to be seeking out a single source of companionship. He may, to the outside world, seem to be asking more of a potential partner. I'm not saying that's not hard. That's hard.

But... relationships aren't as easily navigable for women as people who are not women seem to think they are. It's easy for me to look at attractive, social men and say 'god fucking damn it, they get everything, don't they? it's so easy for men, literally every man I see out here tonight has three girls dancing around him, where's that for me?' because the men who are suffering are not men I see on a night out.

The women who are suffering are not the women you see.

Most suffering is done privately. Incels are an exception, not the rule, with regards to the public nature of their pain and anger. There are 88 unmarried men for every 100 unmarried women in the United States.

Their suffering is private, but it is real.

[–]the_calibre_cat5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You seem confident that women are worth more than men in matters of negotiating relationships. I'm curious where your confidence comes from.

Mainly, differences in energy expenditure for reproduction. Men expend relatively little, where women expend relatively much.

But... relationships aren't as easily navigable for women as people who are not women seem to think they are. It's easy for me to look at attractive, social men and say 'god fucking damn it, they get everything, don't they? it's so easy for men, literally every man I see out here tonight has three girls dancing around him, where's that for me?' because the men who are suffering are not men I see on a night out.

Where do you go on nights out? Because I want to go there.

I feel like, when I go on nights out, MOST of the dudes I see around me are probably striking out that night, except for an extreme minority who managed to hook up with a woman that night, and the guys that showed up with women already.

Incels are an exception, not the rule, with regards to the public nature of their pain and anger.

I will rarely step out to defend incels, but here, I have to: Their "pain" and "anger" is public only because of the insufferable thought police who can't help but visit their communities. There are plenty of female communities that talk mad shit about men in similar ways that incels talk mad shit about women - difference is those communities are tolerated and even exalted to some degree, incels are merely vilified and laughed at.

I'm not saying incels aren't mostly ridiculous, but I get it, and additionally, they're basically being singled out because they group they're targeting with their vitriol is politically protected - while the group they're part of, is not. Male suffering is acceptable, again, in part due to our relative abundance and general low value to society. There are some men who are seen as high value, but... they're overwhelmingly the exception to the rule.

A hot, female Starbucks barista could finagle a night on a celebrity's yacht. A hot, male Starbucks barista will never, ever accomplish that. That goes back to the central point of why I fundamentally disagree with you on the equality of male versus female loneliness: Men are thirsty but high in supply, women are not thirsty and thus are low in supply - making them more valuable.

A woman can much, much more easily get a relationship than a man. She may not get the one that she wants, but she can surely get it. She can surely get sexual fulfillment almost whenever she pleases as well, again, much more easily than a man can. Given this, I can't help but conclude that if they're lonely, they're either a.) lonely by choice by virtue of being picky (and this is what I think is the case with the majority of women, since I think hypergamy is real and not even necessarily bad, even if it is indescribably frustrating), or b.) much more rarely, lonely by naivete and ignorance. I think option "b" tends to be much more widespread around men, since women ALSO tend to have much higher social intelligence than men - and indeed, the rare, high-value men who command women's affections that I mentioned above - are men who tend to be above average in social intelligence and acuity.

There are 88 unmarried men for every 100 unmarried women in the United States.

This link tells us very little as to why.

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

Their "pain" and "anger" is public only because of the insufferable thought police who can't help but visit their communities.

Ehhhhh, having your ideology associated with mass murderers can't help.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

A women who is at least a 5 has a huge array of men who’d date her a 5 man has a much much much smaller pool of potential partners.If you are a 5 and you have a very toned body and you have a good job and personality and you try you hardest to get a partner and you can’t that’s much more likely.I just read some stuff on a post on sex workers saddest clientele it was mostly sad lonely men a type of loneliness women can’t conceive.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

A woman who is of average attractiveness may have a theoretical array of men who'd like to fuck her, but those theoretical men are literally as useful to her as saying to an incel 'chin up, the right girl's out there for you somewhere! :)'

It's not useful, because it's not what happens, in effect rather than theory, to lonely women. I'll refer you to my earlier comment:

The greatest risk an incel might encounter - an accusation of harassment, at absolute worst, and that's a story he's been told by his community. If you just give it a whirl and try to talk to women, you'll be accused of sexual harassment. In practice, this is not a wildly likely fear. There are many strategies he could use to mitigate this risk, but he doesn't, because he's paralyzed by inertia.

The greatest risk a woman might encounter is being physically overpowered and physically harmed. That's the story she's been told by her community. If she just gives it a whirl and starts trying to talk to random men, she'll be exposing herself to dire harm. In practice, this is not a wildly likely fear. There are many strategies she could use to mitigate the risk, but she doesn't, because she's paralyzed by inertia.

The effort involved for the woman is increased physical maintenance to the effect of hours a week, transportation and movement necessary to physically become adjacent to a man, psychological preparation for rejection she's lived in fear of for her entire life, preparation for situations in which she may be physically overpowered and harmed, social preparation to meet and vet the man involved... and then, the most difficult part, deciding to just do it.

The effort involved for the man is increased physical maintenance of a varying amount, transportation and movement necessary to physically become adjacent to a woman, psychological preparation for rejection he's lived in fear of for his entire life, psychological preparation to avoid situations in which he may need to avoid a misconception alleging harassment, social preparation to meet and vet the woman involved... and then, the most difficult part, deciding to just do it.

It sounds kind of similar to me. In both cases, the hardest part is getting the ball rolling. And the benefits are not equal - the woman likely already has a social support network, is more likely to be close with her family, is more likely to be seeking/have sought a college education (if she's young). The man is more likely to be seeking out a single source of companionship. He may, to the outside world, seem to be asking more of a potential partner. I'm not saying that's not hard. That's hard.

But... relationships aren't as easily navigable for women as people who are not women seem to think they are. It's easy for me to look at attractive, social men and say 'god fucking damn it, they get everything, don't they? it's so easy for men, literally every man I see out here tonight has three girls dancing around him, where's that for me?' because the men who are suffering are not men I see on a night out.

The women who are suffering are not the women you see.

Most suffering is done privately. Incels are an exception, not the rule, with regards to the public nature of their pain and anger. There are 88 unmarried men for every 100 unmarried women in the United States.

Their suffering is private, but it's real.

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

Their are still more people willing to date her overall

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

Might as well tell an incel to just suck it up and wait for the right girl, for all the good this advice does a lonely and isolated woman.

[–]eyewant😋 grape suppository7 points8 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Gender essentialism is a strange hill to die on, though you can have it if you want it. Women are still people.

Sex essentialism if you're referring to my beliefs. And ofc women are still people. Saying that is like implying that man is the standard human.

Incels have been around in all of history. It's how we as humans have evolved. The most successful men were the only men allowed to reproduce. I think only 1 in 17 men reproduced at some point.

I strongly believe that women have evolved to be pickier and have higher standards. Did you know that being pregnant is a huge risk that is a danger to a woman's life? Fucking the wrong man with shitty genes back then was a massive waste of resources, time, and the woman's body. The fact that women can only have a certain number of children meanwhile men can have a Genghis Khan amount at no risk should say something about humans. That men are BUILT TO BE INDISCRIMINATE. And that it is advantageous that women be very selective or risk their life and die.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat13 points14 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I think only 1 in 17 men reproduced at some point.

Y'all trot that statistic out all the time and use it as some kind of evidence of women's attraction patterns. I find it bizarre and naive that you believe all or even the significant majority of sex in ancient times was consensual, let alone desire-motivated. These guys were reproducing not because women found them sexually appealing, but because having sex with him meant not dying/having enough food for the winter. Many of them were simply rapists.

Genghis Khan has more descendants than any man in history--do you think this is because women found him sexy? Or maybe, just maybe, being a powerful warlord gave him certain leverage that had absolutely nothing to do with arousing anyone?

[–]ifelsedowhilelocal cop - cherry top2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That kind of opportunistic behavior is unconsciously ingrained in their mating preferences just like men who lust after women with big breasts or an ideal hip to waist ratio don't do it because they consciouly think 'we need those women because they are better suited for bearing and breasfeeding children'.

In other words, women are spontaneously attracted to wealth and status.

[–]eyewant😋 grape suppository6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The motivations don't matter. That example was meant to show the reproductive capacity of the sexes. The fact that women can have way less children in their lifetimes at a much higher risk, correlates with higher pickyness. Do you deny this?

I find it bizarre and naive that you believe all or even the significant majority of sex in ancient times was consensual, let alone desire-motivated.

Of course it wasn't, but it hapoening thru most of history surely caused humans to "evolve" in a certain way. It had some sort of effect on us.

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

Genghis Khan has more descendants than any man in history--do you think this is because women found him sexy?

Of course women found Genghis Khan sexy! Nothing about him mattered, except for the fact that he was Genghis. Fucking. Khan. He conquered more of the world than most people even imagined existed at the time. He probably raped many women, but it wasn't legally rape as he was the sole arbiter of what was legal in his conquered lands.

Even if he was an enlightened man, who wouldn't dream of having sex with an unwilling woman, he was still. Genghis. Fucking. Khan. He couldn't possibly live long enough to fuck every woman who willingly gave up the pussy for him.

[–]chrysanthemum_tea4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

He probably raped many women, but it wasn't legally rape as he was the sole arbiter of what was legal

Lol what the fuck kinda logic is that? That's like saying the rape crisis in India doesn't exist because rape is legal there...

Just because it's decriminalised doesn't mean it didn't happen

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

Please try to comprehend what I said. If Genghis Khan raped anybody (he probably did), it wasn't LEGALLY rape, as there existed no legal authority to contradict the will of the Great Khan. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. That doesn't mean that thing at all.

And how is rape legal in India, when they recently instituted the fucking death penalty for rape there? It's hard to be less legal than a capital crime.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

To explain my response to your comment, the thesis of my original comment was women are not children/stupid/memes/fundamentally different than men, physiological differences are minor and vastly eclipsed by common humanity/common sociocultural norms.

On that basis, I argued that rather than saying 'all women are subject to hypergamy/seeking out the best possible partner, but can sometimes be shamed out of it', the conclusion 'all humans are subject to hypergamy/seeking out the best possible partner, but often in the modern day, through various mitigating sociocultural circumstances, settle into monogamy' would be better supported by reality. Drawing a fundamental discrepancy between men and women sleeping around/cheating/'leveling up' with a new partner halfway through a marriage is not well supported by the anecdotal data we have seen presented.

Here's what I can tell you - looking to animal behavior, there are not good models for human sexual selection in the modern day. As one example, pheromones have importance in many forms of animal courtship - humans scrub themselves of sweat and apply perfume. If we try to apply a pheromone model to human attraction/ruling in or out a potential partner, we find ourself missing enormous pieces of the picture. Female 'viagra' doesn't have the effect or market of viagra-viagra for many reasons, but in large part because initiating physiological arousal in a woman doesn't initiate what we'd actually call arousal.

Biology outside of the brain - the physiological characteristics evolution had to select for to keep our ancestors' risky two-legged pregnancies viable - cannot tell the whole story, or even the whole biological story.

We can rewrite our incredible, fascinating brains through therapy, conditioning, psychotropics, a simple change in scenery, and yet so many people insist that an occasional bath of hormones and a few SNPs on a Y chromosome is sufficient to explain sexual behavior! I think that's - forgive me, the concept - ludicrous.

The evolutionary selections of animal behavior that are written into our genes have had little use if any since antibiotics and vaccines were developed.

As a scientist, it strikes me as a very lonely way to think, to assume we are nothing but our biology. You are, as I mentioned, welcome to die on that hill if you like, and I won't think less of you for it. I think each human is special and fascinating, that gender is only a fraction of a fraction of what a human is biologically, let alone socioculturally, and I value your willingness to tell me more about what you believe.

[–]eyewant😋 grape suppository2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

'all humans are subject to hypergamy/seeking out the best possible partner, but often in the modern day, through various mitigating sociocultural circumstances, settle into monogamy' would be better supported by reality.

That makes sense. You're right. I meant picky in a different sense, i.e. picky for partners to engage in casual sex. Women are pickier in that regard, but for lifelong companions, I think men and women have the same motications to pick out the best partners.

so many people insist that an occasional bath of hormones and a few SNPs on a Y chromosome is sufficient to explain sexual behavior! I think that's - forgive me, the concept - ludicrous.

I respect your beliefs and I don't blame you for thinking that it is ludicrous. For me right now, linking human nature to our biology is more convenient for generalizations and preparing my expectqtions, than what you believe - that each human is special. I believe we are incredibly predictable, but maybe my beliefs will change as long as I stay open to learning from new experiences

I think each human is special and fascinating, that gender is only a fraction of a fraction of what a human is biologically, let alone socioculturally, and I value your willingness to tell me more about what you believe.

I value that of you too. However, rp men don't believe we are nothing but our biology. Phrases like AWALT are there to remind men of women's biological capacities, or at least what the average woman does. An example of what I believe is that women care more about status and money than men. We see this in the amount of rich dude young woman couples. Or maybe its that men care more about youth than women. Either way I believe that points to our human nature.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

You do not understand what the RP concept hypergamy means

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

You're absolutely right, I'm quite new here. :)

Would your definition exclude the argument I'm making, that regardless of identity, people tend to seek out the best possible partner?

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

Men don’t seek out a partner higher in financial status by default. Women’s default is to seek men with higher financial status.

Researchers have done this* and find that for men there is no amount of income that the woman in the bottom ten percent in terms of appearance can earn to make men prefer her over women in the top 10 percent. That is, looks really matter to men relative to income. For women though, if the man in the bottom ten percent in terms of looks earns more than $248,500, they will prefer him over the more attractive guy earning $60,000. My students often interpret this result as saying that women really care about money, but that is not what it says at all—$186,000 is a huge difference in income. If women didn’t care about looks and only cared about money, the figure would be much, much lower. This says that despite the impression that on the marriage market women really care about income, the evidence suggest that they also care about looks. They just care about income too.

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

Hm. Sounds like evidence of different priorities in men and women as opposed to a sweeping judgement on the nature of female heterosexual attraction.

Is this study usually also used to conclude that men judge women near-absolutely by looks? I'm not sure how that conclusion would fit with the general attitude in RP communities about women's and men's attitudes when searching for partners.

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

Your'e conflating hypergamy with optimization. SEe my prior comment to you.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

“Hypergamy” is not what you define it as by the redpill definition. Hypergamy in TRP means women being attracted to higher status men

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

Hm, but what's causing hypergamy as they define it? I'd add that to understand the pattern of women choosing higher status mates, you'd have to go deeper. What is status for a women? What is status for a man? Why don't such genetically similar beasts (men and women) use the same metric to choose mates? In so many ways they do, but why are some factors weighted more highly than others?

After all, men and women both cheat, divorce, remarry, serially commit or serially engage in low-commitment sexual behavior. In different proportions, but it does happen. So if they're engaging in these same behaviors, does it really make sense to say 'women have a reason [hypergamy], but men's reason is a totally different thing'?

In my view, no. Both men and women's behavior can be explained by my breakdown of the concept of hypergamy - preference for the best possible partner. Society defines the best woman partner and the best male partner differently. Women's status is still measured very differently than men's status, and women have less accumulated wealth and fewer societal positions of power than men. But they do have traits like facial attractiveness, fitness, and willingness to provide sexual or commitment services. Men have a lot more metrics on which they can be reliably judged, but if you tried to judge a woman by the metric 'how high-status is her job?' that wouldn't necessarily tell you a lot about the social fitness/relationship fitness of the woman, just that she does or does not make six figures. There is a wealth of cultural information that attributes desirable qualities to high-status men, and makes this, to women, seem like a really good indicator of their social fitness and fitness as a partner!

Occam's razor - the simplest solution is generally the best one. What's more likely, weird preferential patterns have co-evolved in men and women that biologically prioritize different things and have gone unchanged for millennia? Or people generally seek high-value partners, and society values different traits in men and women?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Of your last paragraph, definitely sentence one (biology) is more probable . Women seek these traits out across civilizations

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

No. You are confusing hypergamy with optimization.

hypergamy is what women do in their relationships with men; it is unique to women, and men don't do this. Hyeprgamy in women is "I am attracted only to those men who are more attractive than me". Men don't do this. Men are attracted to women more attractive than them, to women who are their SMP counterparts, and also to women who are LESS attractive than they are.

Hypergamy is women's default - women constantly seek the bigger better deal.

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

I think people have issues with this because when you use the term 'attracted'/'attractive' the first thought is physical appearance, and that's definitely not the case. I would agree that women 'aim up', but what does that actually mean? Do you mean socially, class-wise? Marriage definitely offers women more social mobility than men. Is it just a matter of prioritizing different things?

If men, tomorrow, collectively started only trying to "date up", I wonder what would happen.

[–]ivegotsomequestions0Purple Pill Woman4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd argue that once a woman controls her hypergamous instincts, whether subconsciously via shaming or consciously, hypergamy is no longer a problem for her spouse or society. I haven't seen anyone argue that men aren't fit to be husbands simply because they will inevitably crave younger, hotter women than their spouse.

[–]the_calibre_cat2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, 99% of women won't lie about being raped.

I think most women would be honest if they were raped. I think a significant minority of women would lie and room someone else's life if it meant they got away with it, whatever "it" is. I don't think they're special in this regard, I think most people would take advantage of this, because people have a lot of reasons to take advantage of the opportunities presented in their lives.

It's just... crying "rape" if you've had sex you regret having, or because someone you don't like potentially stands to become confirmed for high office... is just not an option men can levy.

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

No, most women won't get impregnated by your best friend and trick you into raising the kid. No, 99% of women won't lie about being raped. No, most women don't have an n-count of 200 before they're 20.

This is not what TRP says. The lesson of TRP is that ordinary women have the same hardwired psychology as these abhorrent women and will act in accordance with their nature in a predictable way.

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

But couldn't the argument be made that ordinary men have the same hardwired psychology as abhorrent men and will act in accordance with the various violent psychopaths who measurably skew male?

The one difference I can think of is that men who are 'off' enough are actually determined to be a danger to society and locked up (serial killers and what have you) whereas women who deviate from the norm tend not to be (unless VERY extreme; I think there are maybe 3-4 famous female serial killers and dozens of male). But that's the key, it's 'deviant' from the norm.

Those quoted examples are not normal but if you read TRP and similar subs, they absolutely DO talk about it as if they are, and even worse in adjacent subreddits. If you listen to reddit, you would imagine every woman is a manipulative harpy succubus who sleeps with a new man every day then accuses them of rape, pokes holes in condoms and pretends to be pregnant, but won't have sex with you personally because she wants to humiliate you. I imagine if you listened to some feminist subreddit or tumblr or whatever you'd imagine every man is a gaslighting date-rapist who sneaks condoms off before sex, hates all women, demands women be their sex slaves, and wants to jerk off into various orifices because they have mommy issues.

But if we're talking about ordinary people. Not the abhorrent ones. Ordinary men & women are capable of having empathy for each other. Those extremes are just that, extremes; they're not indicative of some 'deeper nature', they're indicative of something being fucked up. I do think that TRP has some valuable insights about behavior but they're so focused on examining why women do things that they don't bother looking in a mirror once in a while and actually enacting change on the one thing they have control over.

I imagine the reason why is because each individual man knows he isn't abhorrent, knows he's just a normal guy getting by... just like each individual woman knows the same of herself. They become more and more closed off to the possibility that the other could be like them. I've seen plenty of posts on TRP about how now that OP "knows the truth" he can't help but hate/feel disgust/pity all women. Really, an entire 50% of the population, you've figured them all out?

Maybe what we hate in each other is just a variant of what we hate in ourselves. A refusal to be introspective. Cue someone saying "women don't have the ability to be introspective". Yikes, metacognition is a pretty fundamental part of human existence, if we all lack that no wonder we get treated like objects ;).

Who's wrong? Who's right? & everyone just keeps pointing fingers. It's just a poor excuse to dehumanize each other. "act according to their nature"? We all act according to our nature. Do you truly understand yours? That's not an attack, by the way - I know I don't understand myself completely. I'm not even sure why I wrote this comment, except I'm procrastinating at work.

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The women I've met who fit the AWALT stereotype had endless other red flags saying they were not relationship material.

There are lots of kind, caring, loyal, honest women out there. But if all you care about is chasing female validation you'll chase the flaky party girls instead.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker30 points31 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I’ve never dated any woman who was completely like how RP describes how AWALT woman should be. Of course, they weren’t sexually attracted to men who they considered inferior, but they were never AF/BB or even ever drawn to alphas in the real world (although some of them liked some alpha celebrities). They definitely weren’t CC riders and were looking only for relationships from the very beginning.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

The problem is one of supply. Good women get scooped up fast. Okay women next, then the shitty ones are left behind.

Women, in general, don't find men as attractive as men find women. Most men are pretty average guys. Most average women want more than averagr men so a lot of men end up scraping the bottom of the barrel just to get some intimacy. Men hang onto shitty women because of a lack of better options but also because they find women more attractive than the other way round.

Women lose good quality guys first before settling for lesser quality men. These two batches of people meet. He is a bit of a doormat and this is the best she can do. Where RP comes in is that these women, many of whom are single for a reason in a market that appeals to them first, are indeed messed up and most men attract these messed up women because they're weak.

These guys join RP because they had negative experiences with women and want that to change. They discover women have a nature, society is anti men and that committing is a trap. Since many of them are operating or will soon operate in a market of women who are okay to shitty because the good ones are taken, they'd rather not commit.

If a woman is single at 21 that's not an issue. If she's single at 31, it means she's spent like a decade and a half unable to find a guy good enough. She's either aiming too high or has issues. A beta who meets her is going to have a rough time with her issues in a society that worships the ground she walks on and blames him for her unhappiness. In ten years she'll leave him, take his kids and maybe the house too. Guys like that need to be aware of the market they're in and how to capitalise.

You perhaps were lucky and just met okay women. You've maybe not dated or committed to someone who is neglectful, passive aggressive, narcissistic, or abusive because there were no other options for intimacy. No one's forcing these guys to only date shitty women, but a combination of poor advice, poor social skills and loneliness make men desperate.

They wouldn't need RP if they were attracting top quality women to begin with.

[–]sketch16200010 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Where RP comes in is that these women, many of whom are single for a reason in a market that appeals to them first, are indeed messed up and most men attract these messed up women because they're weak.

This is an excellent point. By the time unsuccessful men wise up and start to put the red pill into practice, they're already hopelessly behind. It's not that RP men are only choosing to associate with low quality women; It's that low quality women are the only ones left.

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

Think about top tier men. They've always had options. They don't have to settle down until they choose to and even younger women are an option. A rich guy in his 50s can pull a good looking 30 year old if he ticks all the boxes (money+height+looks etc).

A good looking, ambitious, succesful man at 30 can get a hot 25 year old or even younger. He is probably lusted after by a bunch of women in their 20s. Those women are not all hot but they're overlooking average men even when they're average themselves.

So when she nears 30 and realizes Chad just used her, she and all the women like her who were pumped and dumped repeatedly, want a better deal. However, they don't offer even beta men a good deal themselves. They wasted their youth while he improved his social and financial status. They weren't working on themselves or their relationships if they were casually fucking Chad on the side.

Having issues from repeated rejections from Chad, add in a baby from an ex, don't forget her ever expanding waist line, and mix it into a woman who is desperate because her clock is ticking and you can so easily figure out why some men find themselves with the worst kinds of women. Now, most women will probably get married before this happens but that doesn't guarantee they'll be together for life. It also doesn't mean she's dealt with her past (these things can cause issues with her current partner) nor that she's had decent LTR experience to know how to be a good partner.

No one tells women that they should be better people for the opposite sex. They save that speech for men because their very existence offends women somehow. But maybe women should be warned when they're young about making better decisions, and not becoming Chad's fuck toy, so they're not single moms in their 30s trying to find a sucker to help raise her kids.

These women flood the SMP and single betas don't exactly have much to choose from, even if they're really decent guys. They were overlooked while young and all the good women were married young too. Women could avoid a lot of this shit if they chose to behave better but they've freed themselves while adding more restraints to men and their sexuality.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, I’ve met women with issues but they’ve had compatible issues with my own. I think everyone out there has issues and the game is to find a woman with similar issues. I’ve dated shy, introvert women and it has worked out because they understand my shy introversion. If I tried to date a woman who wanted an extroverted, ambitious go-getter, then it wouldn’t work out and of course they would hypergamously branch swing on me. Women usually branch swing for a reason. They’re not usually going to leave a man who they feel compatible with for one who they feel incompatible with just because he seems slightly more alpha. My own theory is that a lot of shy, introverted women don’t feel comfortable with alpha men, and instead look for high betas that they feel compatible with from the beginning. Or perhaps the small supply of truly alpha men are never hitting on these women to begin with either.

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

This basically. I also think that birds of flock together.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If she's single at 31, it means she's spent like a decade and a half unable to find a guy good enough. She's either aiming too high or has issues.

Or, she wasn't really looking to get married.

The problem is one of supply. Good women get scooped up fast.

The problem is also the fact that most men aren't attractive enough to attract and keep a quality woman. That problem has worsened over the past 20 to 30 years. What was "average" then is decidedly below average now. What could attract and keep an SMP counterpart, a 6 man attracting a 5 or 6 woman, 20 years ago, isn't anywhere nearly enough now.

The rest of it is spot on. This is exactly how these men and women get together. Yeah, a big part of it is shitty men, weak men, etc. A lot of it is shitty, mentally ill, emotionally unstable women too

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

The problem is also the fact that most men aren't attractive enough to attract and keep a quality woman. That problem has worsened over the past 20 to 30 years.

Everyone has gotten fatter, including women. But fat women can still offer sex to men a point or two higher than them. What can a 6 man offer a 6 woman who also has a degree and a job?

This is also why I don't have sympathy when women complain about men they desire not wanting them in return. They have exposed themselves to the kind of unreturned affection and serial rejection men have experienced since forever. Women escaped this before because marriage happened much younger.

Now they're angry that Real Men won't step up and commit to single moms in their 30s? They still believe a man is intimidated by strong women when it's akin to trying to break through a wall to have a relationship with them.

Or, she wasn't really looking to get married.

Maybe at first. But show me a 30 something year old who wouldn't latch onto Chad if he was available.

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

If she's single at 31, it means she's spent like a decade and a half unable to find a guy good enough. She's either aiming too high or has issues.

Plenty are just out of a LTR though. That might have its own issues but a LOT of people break up around the 30 mark from their college bf/gf or whatever because they've grown apart. I'd argue that's more likely than she's just been single her whole life.

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

I want to say its true, but I can't prove it. A lot of my friends and acquaintances that are women, remain single for the vast majority of their 20s. And no, no CC either.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

AF/BB is only relevant when you can't find someone good enough that can do both. It doesn't mean that the girl who found her high beta won't be hypergamous, it doesn't mean she'll support you in hard times. All you can pray is that she's enough FTO to stay with you, which is something you shouldn't rely on.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Sure, and I’m guessing that women hope that men don’t cheat on them polygynously. Both genders are equally capable of being disloyal if they feel that a relationship is not satisfying them. But there are also loyal people of both genders who will stick with a person even if there are hypergamous (women) and polygynous (men) situations that suddenly appear before them.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Men would cheat even if the relationship is satisfying, and it doesn't mean the end of relationship... It's not comparable.

Women don't consider leaving you as being disloyal.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

It’s the end of the relationship to her if she expects monogamy and that was agreed upon beforehand. I don’t see how it’s any less harmful to a man to be cheated on and have a woman continue a relationship. In fact, men call it being cucked and it’s usually just as much of a relationship breaker to him as it is to her if she finds out that she is being cheated on.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

It’s the end of the relationship to her if she expects monogamy and that was agreed upon beforehand.

Nah.

I don’t see how it’s any less harmful to a man to be cheated on and have a woman continue a relationship.

If she cheats it likely means she broke up with you already and you don't know it.

Men have splitable sexual resources, women don't, don't forget it.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I’d never date a woman who was okay with me “splitting my sexual resources.” I think that women can sense my loyalty as well as the emotional bond that I have with them and that it inspires them to be more loyal themselves.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Are you a magical poney? you sound like you live in a magical world in the sky.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There are virtuous women out there, you know. Not every woman out there is ready to instantly cuck you if the mood suddenly strikes her.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you misunderstand what I'm joking about. I'm not saying there are no virtuous women, I'm saying your belief that people can sense your loyalty and are motivated into being loyal back is just plain mad and naive.

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

It doesn't mean that the girl who found her high beta won't be hypergamous, it doesn't mean she'll support you in hard times. All you can pray is that she's enough FTO to stay with you, which is something you shouldn't rely on.

Exactly!!! If she comes to feel that you are no longer her best option she's going to branch swing.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse25 points26 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

This post should win the "no shit Sherlock" award but damn, RPers truly don't realize this at all, so you really are doing their world a public service by saying this. Please accept my upvote.

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Do you honestly believe that every single guy at TRP and MRP hadn't found their "unicorn?"

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/7d5z5n/schr%C3%B6dingers_nawalt_right_now_she_never_lovesd/

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

But that doesn't mean that there are lots of men who have never found Red Pill who are still with their unicorn. The Red Pill sub attracts men who thought that they found their unicorn but who didn't. That doesn't mean that there aren't unicorns out there.

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you believe in female unicorns then you don't believe in evolution. They can't be reconciled.

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

Many women already think that they are close to someone who is their ideal. These women aren’t going to hypergamously leave someone who they are already familiar with and who they already have strong feelings for for somebody who is an unknown quantity who they have no feelings for just because that latter person seems slightly more “alpha”.

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

It's BS.Nobody can predict the future, you can't tell how a woman is gonna act. A "NAWALT right now" is a NAWALT period.

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Do you think that women have a smaller window of arousal than men? Phrased another way, they are more discriminant with who they choose, and fall out of love easier?

[–]darla100 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I think so. Women fall out of love easier because we aren’t collectors like you guys. We need to see our man as ‘king’ or it doesn’t work. It’s up to man to disappoint us, or not.

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You do realize this is AWALT right?

[–]darla100 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yep.

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Then you have no cohesive narrative on women or the SMP. Either NAWALT exists or it doesn't. We both know it doesn't. Which means your idea of "the wrong women" doesn't either.

The difference between a stripper and the church girl is the stripper will tell you straight up what's up. Honesty and introspection are the difference between the two of those women.

[–]darla100 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I’m not the person who was originally responding to you.

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

Ahh wtf lol.

[–]machimusMahogany Pill23 points24 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

"Why can't I find any super hot 21 year old sluts who are also virgins and also the perfect obedient girlfriend?"

Part of it is unrealistic or contradictory standards, or those guys who get halfway fit and complain all there is left is 35 year old burned out wrecks who are only after beta bucks. It's a false dichotomy, but also an indicator that guys who complain about that didn't actually work on themselves...otherwise they'd be getting laid and they'd see things are actually a bit different.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

"Why can't I find any super hot 21 year old sluts who are also virgins and also the perfect obedient girlfriend?"

RP doesn’t claim to want this. Do some have unrealistic perfection standards yes but it’s mostly just the bad pool of women in general. There aren’t many hot sane women tho.

I do agree most Red Pill men need to work on themselves more though. A lot are in the rage phase.

[–]machimusMahogany Pill5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

TRP doesn't claim to want this, but lots of guys on here who claim to be TRP do. Maybe we should be making a more clear distinction between actual doctrine and anger phase myths.

[–]SasquatchMcKraken2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it does though. It's basically "there are no unicorns and all horses suck." It's the foundation of "don't get married." It takes the realization that your Disney Princess doesn't exist (true) and then says you shouldn't really accept anything less so enjoy the decline (not true). That is probably my biggest problem with TRP, despite being mainly red.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost16 points17 points  (38 children) | Copy Link

Why do you think nerdy women aren’t on tinder or Instagram or like to party

Nerdy women generally respond to the same attraction triggers as any other woman

[–]Wandos7naproxen sodium24 points25 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Nerdy as in really introverted, not the ones posting their Zelda thigh high socks or cosplay photos on Instagram. Most of the former are pretty much invisible.

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks24 points25 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

pretty much invisible

Yea cause they're at home avoiding any social media and aren't "out there". Which is why guys don't date them.

[–]Ladyofblades5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Or many of us as we graduate or grow older become careerists (since nerds tend to go the high-performing student route) and found our men a bit late. I was a late bloomer who was shy, had glasses, built my own PCs etc and I can say that I was simply not interested in dating most of my teens and early 20s because I just had a lot of “part of becoming an adult” things and life to deal with on top of my hobbies and interests, plus hyper sexuality isn’t as much of a thing in my culture. I had a relationship here and there but romance was simply not the priority for many of us even if there are a lot of fairly attractive “nerdy” women. The “sleeping around early and settling for beta bux” narrative is simply alien to my experience, both culturally and on a personal level.

The guys I did meet during that phase were through mutual friends or group outings, once online. I did start going out and learning to party and appreciate the social side of life, but I feel because of this that it’s really quite impossible to judge the kind of lifestyle someone has led prior to your meeting them. There are lots of former (and current) nerds who are doing really well and just getting into regular partying and dating late.

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

We just meet people through our hobbies, like I met my boyfriend at a gaming convention.

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yea idk I hear this alot but never have come even close. I probably picked shitty hobbies lol.

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

...go to a shitty hobby convention?

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ya, just last week we had one, but all old rich white guys w/ tube socks and jean shorts, circlejerking about their airplanes, no hotties :(

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

That sounds odd, yet I've been having "a thing" with a chick i also play online with on Xbox. Been over a year at this point

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat19 points20 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

YUP. "Invisible nerdy women" are kind of my Tribe, although my life has been a little different for some time now. Guys in TRP-esque forums will do a LOT of mental contortions to deny such women exist. And then, weirder still, they claim they'd want to date them if they could--my dudes, make a tumblr, start talking about Harry Potter or Dr. Who, these women will find you. Or just go to your local social dance lesson/SCA meetup/book club.

[–]Wandos7naproxen sodium5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And then, weirder still, they claim they'd want to date them if they could--my dudes, make a tumblr, start talking about Harry Potter or Dr. Who, these women will find you.

And then these dudes will run away screaming. They do not know what they're asking for, lol.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hah! I wonder how the TRP ideas of female sexuality would square with what I've seen in nerdy female spaces.......they really don't know, it's another country.

[–]VoidInvincibleFull Measure0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

What's SCA? Sudden Cardiac Arrest? That's pretty fucking dark. But if a bear attacks you, that's what happens. Insta kill.

Or did SCA stand for something less grim?

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Society for Creative Anachronism--it's for people who are into, like, campfire cooking and archery and making historical costumes and stuff.

[–]Naebany0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I've been to local fantasy/board games/RPGs events and it's 90% dudes. And girls attending such events are mostly obese, ugly or taken.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You'll notice RPG/Board game events weren't on my list.

[–]Naebany1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok. Off to the book club then ;)

[–]ConnorGracieWhy Don't You Just Date Hypothetical Girl Who Doesn't Exist-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nerdy women are some of the most debauched and bitter of all.

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...5 points6 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Far from all women who enjoy alcohol and loud music in moderation are also glued to Instagram (or whatever is hot nowadays) and are club hos and bar flies. The latter are what the OP is talking about. The former exist but don't go over the top with those "vices."

[–]odysseygirl116 points17 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I am a classic nerd. And an introvert on top of that. The prospect of putting myself out there on a tinder to get probably one nights or on rare occasion a fulfilling relationship( that i highly doubt) is extremely frightening. I neither drink nor smoke. I dont do party. I am those ambitious women who love to bake at home and half the time dream about building a home library. So I feel guys wont typically date me. I might actually be boring to them. Ha ha

[–]darudeboysandstormSoup on the stove, bread rising, apple pie4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So I feel guys wont typically date me.

They just wouldn't know how. I always fall for the introvert nerdy chicks but feel like if I talk to them it will be received poorly. Instagram party girls are just easy to talk to.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As a sort of recovered ultra-introverted nerdy girl (long story)--seriously, just ask them on a date. Even party girls don't get asked on dates per se that often, but introverted nerdy girls LOVE that shit.

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

Tinder is just a normal dating site

I know like 5 married couples who met on tinder

[–]machimusMahogany Pill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok, so in addition to a tinder account, guys should get a pinterest and an etsy account to find girls like you. Easy.

[–]odysseygirl14 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Goodreads too I guess. :) so guys do want to find girls like us. Thank God! Btw pinterest is a correct guess.

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you didn't mind the occasional alcohol and cocaine fueled gaming and/or party bender... nah you'd be fine.

[–]officerkondoRedder Shade of Purple Man-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

For what it's worth, you would have been right up my alley but I went off the LTR market about twenty years ago. Assuming you're halfway cute, you'd clean up at a con speed dating event. Yeah, I know, the pickings would be very slim.

Actually, I wouldn't mind meeting a girl like you today but as you say, I suspect most of you aren't on the dating apps.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

How does anyone not have an Instagram

Probably bc they absolutely suck at photography

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not about having vs not. It's frequency of use and dependence on "Instagram dopamine."

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

I don’t have Instagram or Twitter - it seemed like too much effort when my friends were already all on Facebook.

I’m actually really into photography and have a decent camera that I actually know how to use effectively but why do I need Instagram when I already share them on Facebook?

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

IG is optimized for photos , it’s seriously just photos, way better than fb

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

But why go to all the hassle when I can share my photos with my friends already on Facebook? I’d need to add all the same people again just to do what I already do... and then have to spend twice as much time checking social media.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Easier to share with non friends

Easier to discover other cool photos/photogs

Better image quality

Less noise

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Easier to share with non friends

I don't do this, and am not worried about doing so.

Easier to discover other cool photos/photogs

Fair, but again doesn't seem worth the extra hassle.

Better image quality

For most of the people I share my photos with, they will barely notice this.

Less noise

As in, less other posts etc? But then I'd have to go back to Facebook anyway to keep up with how everyone is doing... seems like it's just doing an extra layer of unnecessary to me tbh.

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

Yeah I mean for me I just click the app it’s not like it’s a ton of work hah but if you’re not into it I could see how it feels unnecessary

I usually use Facebook to share a bunch of photos but IG to share my absolute favorite photos, like 1-2 highlights of my week

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

An infinitely smaller torrent of bullshit.

Now, I just get NASA occasionally proselytizing to me about global warming - the rest of the world's "Everything you thought you knew is wrong, and here's why" pictures/videos are... basically gone. It's truly wonderful.

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

But I wouldn't be giving up Facebook, as thats how I keep in touch with a lot of friends who I don't see very often. So I would only be adding more hassle, not cutting anything down.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Those nerdy chicks still dream of band players and other chads. Awalt

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

RP men are attracted to hot women, and since the stable hot women tend to pair off early and permanently with mr right, this leaves the crazier ones who are more difficult. The RP view/experience is that to get a stable woman for an ltr, they have to bump themselves up to a 7/10 overall to get a stable 5/10 for an ltr. Seems unfair and unworth it

[–]draggin_balls8 points9 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

My theory is that RP works best on women who have an underdeveloped pre frontal cortex and rely much more on their primative brain. They respond better to simple evolutionary cues whereas women with higher executive functioning can see through the charade, so you’re effectively preselecting more instinctive women

[–]reluctantly_red6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

whereas women with higher executive functioning can see through the charade

No! I've dates and married some very smart women. The super smart ones are the most hypergamous and ruthlessly AWALT women out there.

[–]draggin_balls7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Just because you seem smart doesn’t mean you have high executive functioning, anyone can learn stuff and become smart, this is just memory, a different part of the brain. Being able to override instinctive behaviour is the central purpose of the pre frontal cortex.

[–]reluctantly_red6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Executive functioning and high intelligence are closely linked. The women I'm talking about are smart (which of course is a hell of a lot more than rote memory). Smart people don't override instinctual behavior -- they channel it. My ex-wife didn't branch swing to a useless loser -- she's marrying a millionaire in November (a clueless BP millionaire but a millionaire nonetheless).

[–]draggin_balls2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok, I’ll meet you half way. I think you would agree that women with low executive functioning will be bambozled by RP, an easy lay, shooting fish in a barrel etc. However a woman with high levels of executive functioning will have a greater ability to detect RP behaviour and stay rational. However, executive functioning (EF) is fickle, even smart men and women can be instinctive. To this I agree smart women will be attracted by RP, however I still think overall if you use RP tactics, you are more likely to succeed with a low EF girl than a high EF girl, statistically speaking.

You may be interested in this article which discusses he fickle nature of our executive functioning; http://www.indisputably.org/?p=909

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

Look at the bright side. You will never have to pay alimony. If anything, maybe you can get alimony from her.

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Alimony is (in most cases) a thing of the past. I did get a share of her pension.

[–]TheBlackQuillMisanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well it has sth to do with social status and compatibility. Normally you would date someone within your social circle and if the said woman is super rich/smart they are likely to date someone like that as well.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice18 points19 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Thread number 5736 repeating the same tired excuse "bbbut TRP only fuck club sluts, all other women aren't like that"

As if red pillers suddenly came into existance the moment they started reading TRP and never ever had any female friends, classmates, sisters, girlfriends, wives, cousins, coworkers, etc etc.

Lazy arguments 101.

[–]reluctantly_red9 points10 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

"bbbut TRP only fuck club sluts, all other women aren't like that"

I was the first guy my first wife had voluntarily had sex with. My second wife had been shall we say more adventurous. Both lied, stole, and cheated.

[–]DXBrigade[S] 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Would you believe me if I said that they are guys who never got cheated by their wives ?

[–]eyewant😋 grape suppository4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes of course. But RP points to a person's nature. Yes you can train a tiger not to kill humans, but you're just suppressing their base nature. The suppressions of humans are social norms and consequences.

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Why marry though? Genuine question, because from my perspective it is an utterly stupid act. Unless it allows you to climb higher the social ladder.

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Good point. Marriage (and soon remarriage) certainly helped my second wife climb the social ladder (at my expense and that of her soon to be new husband).

[–]DXBrigade[S] 3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Except they are guys whose personnal experiences with sisters, mothers, female friends, colleagues is like the opposite of what the TRP-ers claim.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You just made that up.

[–]DXBrigade[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't. Just go read others post.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

link

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

Just look at the posts on that thread.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What thread?

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Are there? I wouldn't call myself red... but I'd say the women in my life chose fairly alpha men, and in fact, I'd say looks + game consistently yields fruit among women in my experience.

[–]machimusMahogany Pill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There are like two kinds of posts on this sub, "TRP only goes for 10/10 sluts, not all women are like that" and the opposite TRP strawman for women.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree

The problem with TRP is that they think that their feelings are objective facts. If they experienced some woman doing something they think it's empirical proof that this is female nature, but they neither understand that women aren't a hivemind, that they are selecting for an AWALTy subset of women nor what the confirmation bias is.

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

You can totally avoid high n-count and AF/BB if you go toward shy/nerdy/or religious women.

No, no you can't. Can't even tell you how many milquetoasty religious guys married virgin preachers daughters only to end up divorced.

Shy girls, nerdy girls and religious women usually get a bad, bad case of FOMO/YOLO around age 25 or so, a couple years after their first marriages.

[–]Betty_42011 points12 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

The shy nerdy types are invisible, and all anyone ever sees are the frat boys and party girls.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Your statement itself is evidence of this phenomena because you assume that non-extroverts are "shy nerdy types", social recluses basically. You don't talk about non-nerdy introverts who are more like lone wolves, basically with cool interests and hobies but basically asocial. As an example. So you're right basically: only a very specific personality type ever gets noticed, typically.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your statement itself is evidence of this phenomena because you assume that non-extroverts are "shy nerdy types", social recluses basically.

This is a great point. Im introverted in that I find dealing with groups of people (people in general) too regularly for too long completely exhausting, and love my own company, but appear very outgoing and am very confident with people when I am socialising.

My oh is the opposite - he’s painfully shy but loves being surrounded by people and being prt of whatever is going on. We work because he drags me out the house and I pull him into conversations.

But yeah, introversion doesn’t necessarily mean shyness or nerdiness at all!

[–]Betty_4200 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

you assume that non-extroverts are "shy nerdy types", social recluses basically.

Almost all intros I know are nerdy types with nerdy hobbies, but I don't know any recluses. They still go out, go to work, go restaurants, etc. but they just aren't loud and chatty while doing so. They aren't the type of people who feel compelled to chat with the people in the check-out line.

non-nerdy introverts who are more like lone wolves, basically with cool interests and hobies but basically asocial.

Ah, right, I keep forgetting about all bass players of all bands, LOL!

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

I have a friend who moved to a national park to climb rocks with his girlfriend. Super asocial.

[–]reluctantly_red8 points9 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

The shy nerdy types are invisible

Hell no!!! Lots of guys like the shy nerdy type.

[–]weaver420junkie prude9 points10 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

as long as she's hot

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The more average she is the more men she has lined up, because she looks accessible.

But these guys are betas so they don't compute as men in these women's brains.

[–]weaver420junkie prude3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

average women are attractive as long as they arent fat or old, but at that point they're statistically above average

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

There must be lots of fat women where you live...

[–]weaver420junkie prude2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

talking about america, like every one else do on ppd. i live in a thinner country than america.

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

That should be the tagline to any post about attractiveness or attraction.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Women hold the same requirement for men, to at least an equal degree.

[–]weaver420junkie prude0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

never said they didnt. most people prefer an attractive partner that fit whatever personality type they like best but it's no secret that shy/not out-there men and women are less visible on the dating radar.

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

Wear make up. Lose weight. Dress nice. That's all a woman has to do to look decent.

[–]Betty_4209 points10 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I was talking about the shy nerdy personality in general. They are invisible no matter how nice they look because they are lost in a sea of loud chatty extros.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Men do not give a fuck about your personality.. as much as you think at least. Men see beautiful thing - they want it.

Edit: meant "men" instead of "women"

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat13 points14 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Oh bullshit. So much of what gets lumped in as "looks" is really personality--things like posture and body language can be forged by trial and error, but they can't really be faked. Anxiety also literally changes your smell, imperceptibly, but pheromones are VERY MUCH a thing--the girl who's all dressed up but her movements are unnatural and she smells of fear and is giving off fight-or-flight vibes because she's not used to parties is not going to pull guys.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

bull-shit. And girls don't need to do anything "to pull guys". Guys pull women.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Then what exactly do you call a wallflower, assuming she's not obese or visibly ugly? Why do we have a word for that? Why have we had a word for that since the 1870s?

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

Maybe in 19th century it made sense. Nowadays guys are real wallflowers, not women.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They said that then, too.

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not even that. I like chubby women and don't like make up. A wholesome fat girl in jeans and a cotton shirt is my thing.

[–]hammerhauntsbread pill5 points6 points  (68 children) | Copy Link

What I noticed is that Tinder/Insta/Party women are the most popular with men.

They are, but

You can totally avoid high n-count and AF/BB if you go toward shy/nerdy/or religious women.

Is like hunting for hay in needlestacks

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman9 points10 points  (41 children) | Copy Link

Is like hunting for hay in needlestacks

Then stop looking in college parties and Tinder.

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks8 points9 points  (32 children) | Copy Link

And start looking where? Inside these girls' apartments?

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Please. If I wanted to meet smart chicks, I'd join a club relating to something like that. Or go to study groups, tutoring sessions etc. Possibilities are endless, but anyone bitching about not finding chicks like this who fiend for attention more than anyone is just lazy.

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Depends on what exactly you are looking for. Religious girls are obviously going to be religious groups. Churches or out reach groups. Intellectual women might be debate groups or certain book clubs. Charitable women work with charities, so you look at things like soup kitchens or Habit for Humanity.

I met my husband in a study. If you look around universities or on online websites, you can find studies recruiting participants. Thing is the researchers will often get lab mates and coworkers to join the study. So there tends to be a lot of science folk as participants. I joined an exercise study of a friend of a friend. First time I met my husband we were crammed into a car covered in sweat from high intensity interval training with four other people.

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Religious girls

Antithetical to the word "intelligent"

I do think universities are a good bet, but kind of defeats the advice of you arent in college or live in the same town as one.

And I think the passivity associated with "join a debate club and maybe you'll meet someone" is kind of non-advice when you're looking to find an SO. That example of being in a study and randomly meeting someone is something that happens in the course of normal life and I think people would agree there's little value in joining something like a debate team with the specific intent of meeting a possible SO. It's no different than "do stuff you like doing and wait for an opportunity to come up"

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

[Religious girls are] Antithetical to the word "intelligent"

Let's put the fedoras away.

And I think the passivity associated with "join a debate club and maybe you'll meet someone" is kind of non-advice when you're looking to find an SO.

I think that it's honestly the best bet, even if uncertain. You can either try to meet these women through avenues they intend to meet potential husbands through, or avenues that aren't explicitly for meeting the love of your life. So you are stuck with dating website and similar, or being in the same space and hoping to meet someone. Not sure if you are hoping for a better answer, but I don't think there is one.

[–]FalseBuddhaSomething borrowed, something Blue1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

And I think the passivity associated with "join a debate club and maybe you'll meet someone" is kind of non-advice when you're looking to find an SO.

It's only passive if you're passive. You can't just show up to the meetings, sit silently in the back, and have someone fall in love with you. You have to engage and you have to be engaged, you have to participate. You have to be active.

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I meant the passivity of doing an activity with meeting an SO as a byproduct rather than the goal

It's arguably a waste of time if you arent all that interested in the activity.

[–]FalseBuddhaSomething borrowed, something Blue1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I meant the passivity of doing an activity with meeting an SO as a byproduct rather than the goal.

Again, it's only passive if you are. Chemist wasn't saying "go loiter around these groups and the women there will fall all over you" she was saying "if you want to find certain kinds of women you have to go where they congregate". All she's telling you is where they are, not how to pick them up.

It's arguably a waste of time if you arent all that interested in the activity.

Duh. Was the fact that you're interested in these things not implied by the fact that you want a girl who also does these things? Plus, most people can spot someone engaging in bad faith a mile away. They can tell you don't really want to be there and that's certainly not going to help you pick up these women.

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

Why date someone who doesn't have some common interests? You can't expect to fake it forever. People in these clubs aren't dumb. Go somewhere to learn about something that interests you. Like minded females might enjoy your efforts at self improvement and enjoy all the other body builder hot-guy stuff as a welcome bonus.

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The clubs and other stuff that interests me have never led to any results let alone meeting women my age, so I'll concede it could be fairly unique me and the hobbies I have. But I meant more like of a cooking class. Sure I enjoy cooking and I'd regard it as an "interest" but theres no way I'm so enthusiastic i would regularly sacrifice evenings to go to a cooking class. Same could be said for something like a book club.

[–]flyawaylittlebirdierabid feminist0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

OkCupid has a far more diverse and specific search feature than shitty parties and tinder

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Okcupid is pretty garbage ime. The design of the app doesn't really allow you to 'match' so guys just shotgun spray messages to girls they like which fills up their inboxes, so your "specific search" doesnt mean shit. It also just has way less users.

But I get your point that there are better more personal avenues than tinder. Parties are better than any OLD though.

[–]flyawaylittlebirdierabid feminist0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

How long has it been since you used the app? While you can still message people regardless of if they match with you, you only get messages from others if you match with them, or by looking at their profile when swiping.

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh huh that's a new feature since I used it (probs last year sometime) actually sounds like a neat algorithm, I'll have to go see how it works. I guess I rescind that point, cheers m8

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill0 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy Link

Places an intelligent girl would be

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks5 points6 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Yea that was intrinsic to the previous comment. I was asking for an actual place, because nobody ever really conjures up one. They just say "not on tinder or in bars"

At the library? In science class?

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Social dance (ballroom and tango and such). Cooking classes. Gardening clubs. Non-swipe dating sites. Art galleries. Religious institutions' social events. Freaking ComicCon.

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Book clubs. Coed sports.

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Book clubs might be valid (though I'd say a horrible return on the time you would have to invest)

Maybe it's where I live or something but in the 3 coed sports I play it's about 80% guys and 20% very extroverted athlete girls, def no "nerdy intelligent" girls.

[–]SmurfESmurferson2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Join a running club - distance runners are statistically more likely to be female

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

In the co ed leagues around here its 50 50

[–]concacanca0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Coed sports team girls are the biggest sluts in the world. If you are looking for a hookup then go nuts but you gotta question their suitability as partners.

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Honestly school/ university is probably your best bet (cause they have to regularly leave their house for that), otherwise online or through friends if someone happens to drag them to a social function.

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So for people not in school you've got

online

So scratch that whole tinder thing that's part of the OP...

through friends of someone happens to drag them to a social function

And then some kind of passive "hope they come to a party or something" strategy (while the OP is about these girls not wanting to party anyway)

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I agree, I basically said the same thing in response to OP - you can't date people you don't meet/ come in contact with and the chances of meeting someone who actively avoids social interactions is very slim.

Though for “online“ I was thinking more of in a videogame, an online communit, etc. or one of the dating websites based on a written profile, not hookup-centric apps like tinder.

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

IN THE GOT DAMN KITCHEN /s

[–]reluctantly_red-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Places an intelligent girl would be

College parties then?

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Until 22 sure. After that not often..

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Grad students have parties too.

[–]hammerhauntsbread pill-1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

i dont look there so

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Well, you clearly aren't looking where they are. And they do group together, so there are places where they concentrate.

[–]hammerhauntsbread pill0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, you clearly aren't looking where they are.

Which is

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Same place introverted men are - at home behind their computer screen or a book. Srsly it's not exactly easy to meet someone who avoids social interactions.

I suppose extroverted religious girls can be found at church functions but I disagree that they are any less AWALT in personality than their worldly counterparts.

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nobody ever has an answer for this

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm just going to copy and paste my reply to the same question.

Depends on what exactly you are looking for. Religious girls are obviously going to be religious groups. Churches or out reach groups. Intellectual women might be debate groups or certain book clubs. Charitable women work with charities, so you look at things like soup kitchens or Habit for Humanity.

I met my husband in a study. If you look around universities or on online websites, you can find studies recruiting participants. Thing is the researchers will often get lab mates and coworkers to join the study. So there tends to be a lot of science folk as participants. I joined an exercise study of a friend of a friend. First time I met my husband we were crammed into a car covered in sweat from high intensity interval training with four other people.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Now knowing where they do concentrate is a great mystery...

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Copy and pasted answer.

Depends on what exactly you are looking for. Religious girls are obviously going to be religious groups. Churches or out reach groups. Intellectual women might be debate groups or certain book clubs. Charitable women work with charities, so you look at things like soup kitchens or Habit for Humanity.

I met my husband in a study. If you look around universities or on online websites, you can find studies recruiting participants. Thing is the researchers will often get lab mates and coworkers to join the study. So there tends to be a lot of science folk as participants. I joined an exercise study of a friend of a friend. First time I met my husband we were crammed into a car covered in sweat from high intensity interval training with four other people.

[–]metropolisapocalypse2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Is like hunting for hay in needlestacks

It's really not. Try grad school.

[–]hammerhauntsbread pill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not in college

[–]metropolisapocalypse2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You don’t have to be in college to be around grad students, try coffee shops around the local university for starters, or you could just be on the lookout on dating apps or whatever you use. Unless you’re still in high school, if so then just get off this sub lol

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

They are

If your in your early 20's they are. The older you get the less popular/appeal they are to men.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

They are easy to find on message boards. Doesn’t PPD itself have a high number of introverted women?

[–]hammerhauntsbread pill4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Introverted yes, shy / nerdy / religious no

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

Is like hunting for hay in needlestacks

Not to mention that conservative girls are attracted to the same traits as high n-count women. They just do a better job masking it.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost0 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy Link

Yup it’s more that it’s difficult to find women like that who are also attractive

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You dont look in the right places.. you cant find them in your basement or local trump rally

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

I have a few active hobbies and I’m a barfly

I tend to meet more party girls than nerd girls. Idk I like party girls, the trick is to find the one who’s also a low key nerd

[–]hammerhauntsbread pill2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Or even unattractive ones

[–]BlueDillyDilly 1 points [recovered]  (13 children) | Copy Link

Not true. My colleagues are hot. This is a fox and grapes thing. "They are too hard to reach, they are probably too sour anyway".

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

Who do you think I’m saying that about

Like if you really don’t know that there are lots of weird nerds who don’t get how to manage their appearance, I really don’t know what to tell you

[–]BlueDillyDilly 1 points [recovered]  (11 children) | Copy Link

You misunderstand me. I am saying I have some lovely colleagues who are nerdy as hell, and very pretty. Saying nerdy people are unattractive simply because it is harder than using Tinder or hitting on bar people makes you the fox and them the grapes.

"I can't see any pretty nerds at this club, that must mean nerds are ugly."

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

Youre wrong, your logic is that “I know some hot nerds therefore nerds are hot,” which is such bad logic I honesty don’t know if you’re trolling

What i said is that there are hot nerds they’re just less common

Nerdiness is defined by being awkward, weird, having unusual interests, obsession, etc., nerds by definition are much less likely to spend as much effort on physical appearance

Thus it’s hard to find nerds who are also attractive

[–]BlueDillyDilly 1 points [recovered]  (9 children) | Copy Link

I suppose our definition of nerd varies greatly.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

How do you define a nerd

[–]BlueDillyDilly 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

Well, I would say a serious, studious person who is typically energized by alone time, but excited about certain niche things.

Some nerd stuff has become mainstream, like Avengers and Harry Potter - for sure, but among my sort of people we also get excited about ideas, scientific findings, and other topics that generally require a lot of reading. I work in research and it absolutely draws a type! We all know our house in Hogwarts. I am a Ravenclaw and my best friend is a Slytherin. My husband is a Hufflepuff. :)

We nerds have lots of hobbies. I know knitters, potters, painters, cooks and fossil collectors. Most of us patronize the local library on the reg. We belong to various clubs. My town is great for craft nights, library events, philosophy discussions etc.

We are all all very clean, we dress well, have good grooming habits and know how to present ourselves as attractive and professional. In my field we present our findings to 60+ people at a time.

We care about science and as such we care about our health. We do yoga or pilates or run. We don't "live hard" we all have fairly youthful looks, I am one of the youngest but when you aren't partying all the time your face reflects it.

Most of us shop at the health food stores. Some of us have tattoos, trendy glasses, sensible shoes for standing all day.. Would probably rather buy the latest book/comic/craft supplies than the latest and greatest trends. Low maintenance probably not getting manicures but trendy hairstyles.

You see women like this everywhere, but not on Tinder or in the club.

It is hard to define I guess, but certainly not like the Revenge of the Nerds type nerds.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

lol these type of people are definitely on tinder

Also just sounds like umc more than anything

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (27 children) | Copy Link

You can totally avoid high n-count and AF/BB if you go toward shy/nerdy/or religious women.

implying intro women arent the biggest AWALT bitches of them all. theyre ok with pissing everyone off and going home and reading

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker7 points8 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

The introverted women that I’ve dated have all been completely different personality wise, and definitely different than extroverted women, who usually want nothing to do with me.

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

How physically attractive are these introverted women in your experience? My experience is that the more introverted the woman, the less attractive she is.

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

Well, it's not like the shy ones are the hottest, but there are some average looking introverts, and perhaps some on the "cute" side, and I'm just an average looking introverted guy myself, so I can't complain.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Put introverted woman in right situation and she suddenly becomes like the rest - a slut

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker9 points10 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

That’s not true. Not every woman on this sub is a slut. Do you think that every woman here is a slut?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Who said that every woman is a slut? I said "put her in right situation and she BECOMES a slut". Not that she is a slut or born a slut. That's the whole point of RP's AWALT. All women can be sluts but not all have a chance at this or go through this. Otherwise I wouldn't even want to date women if all of them were sluts.

[–]whichbladeNA Paler Shade of Purple8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I mean. Put you in the right situation and you become a murderer.

Or put you in the right situation and you become a pedophile.

But why persecute someone for something they haven't done?

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

Put you in the right situation and you become a murderer.

Nope. I can murder only in defense. Comparing woman's nature to murder tendencies is kind of a stretching.. too much. You misunderstanding AWALT.

But why persecute someone for something they haven't done?

who prosecutes women? RP just let's men be aware of what women are capable of. It's a warning. All guns are loaded and treat them accordingly. All women are like that and treat them accordingly.

And by the way, this "right situation" can be very easy to arrange. Alcohol, drugs, traveling, attractive chad, heart break, depression, BPD... friends even!

[–]whichbladeNA Paler Shade of Purple1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That right situation for you to become a pedophile involves alcohol, drugs, travelling, attractive child, heart break, depression, friends even.

[–]metropolisapocalypse4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

put her in right situation and she BECOMES a slut

All women can be sluts but not all have a chance at this

Lol what does this even mean? Please describe the "right situation" that will turn all women into sluts.

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

For many/most women it is different. We are all individuals after all.

[–]metropolisapocalypse3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok then pls give some examples with hypotheticals or anecdotes. I want to pre-identify my whorevironment.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

If she has the ability to become a slut and it’s not something that she can control, doesn’t that make her a slut? Why date a woman if there’s a chance she might be in a situation where she uncontrollably becomes a slut?

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

No use arguing with that line of reasoning tbh. There are tons of women who wouldn't cheat on their man regardless of the situation.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Why live if there is a chance you can die in a car crash? Same logic.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I wouldn't drive if I didn't trust that almost every driver wasn't going to uncontrollably crash into me while I'm driving. Of course, I suppose any driver could crash into you uncontrollably under the right circumstances. I suppose it depends upon how common those circumstances are. The way that Red Pill talks, though, the situation where the typical woman becomes a slut is a pretty common one, therefore why drive/date?

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

You don't understand trp then if you still clinge to belief that rp claims all women are sluts. As if you do it on purpose.

[–]reluctantly_red3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

they're ok with pissing everyone off and going home and reading

I see you've met my first wife. :(

[–]BlueDillyDilly 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

😂😆😀 it is crappy to say but as a huge introvert who doesn't want to sleep with anyone who enjoys the club scene, I kind of love this reply. I have cultivated one hell of a scowl just for people who hit on me. I am not there for you. I don't work out for you, or try to be cute for you or answer to you. Why on earth would I care if I piss everyone off?

The hubs is my one and only. If that means all introverted women are like me, you are in for a treat if you finally figure out how to hold up your end of the conversation properly in the wild.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

aaand from the horses mouth

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

So let me get this right... I am in a club.. Married woman and all that... If I smile and flirt back AWALT. If I don't I'm a horse-bitch. I guess I can't win.

Oh well. My guy is great and I hope you find someone who makes you as happy as he makes me.

Neighhh!!! 😄

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

I am in a club.. Married woman and all that

if youre there alone without hubby anything you do is already awalt to the max enjoy the 10 dudes grinding on you before you leave

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

Troof

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

This OP couldn't be more blue pilled even if he tried. Same old same old advice - not all women are like that, sweety, you will find your unicorn! Believe your mom!

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

I am an unicorn. My friends are unicorns. Open your eyes.

[–]kat33c-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sad for you

[–]Uncommon_Sense_12345 1 points [recovered]  (22 children) | Copy Link

Lots of women do marry for beta qualities and betabux because they provide the comfort and stability for marriage and raising kids.

I advise all female family members to go beta and be good to him.

[–]tickledpic1 point2 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

So they would be sexually frustrated and be tempted to cheat?

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman5 points6 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Or find one that you are attracted to. That's also an option.

[–]tickledpic1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

The way I see it is that alpha is sexually attractive, beta is not. Beta is a 2nd tier man who women choose for security, not for sex. If a man is sexually attractive to you, you perceive him of having decent amount of alpha traits. As a woman, does that hit home for you?

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman13 points14 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Nope. Alpha and beta are very weird descriptions to me. It paints a picture of dating and romance that is not at all how it really is. In particular, reds seem to bundle traits into alpha and beta and treat it as a single scale when in reality those traits can vary independently.

I am sexually attracted to my husband, but he's also very reliable, hasn't had much luck with women before me, and is indecisive and generally has me take the lead. He's also confident, doesn't baby me, and will speak up if he disagrees with me. So he has a bundle of alpha and beta traits.

Now, if you define how alpha he is based entirely on his attracted I am to him, he is pretty alpha. But that's not how the terms are used. Even in your comment, you put sex and security as opposites when they can easily go together.

[–]tickledpic1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm not fond of the alpha/beta scale myself, but it gets the point across. Sexual attractivness is based on how aroused he makes you. Financial security is based on how well off you will be by being with him. Unless money turns you, they are quite sepperate.

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

But they aren't contradictory, and that's the point. In fact, they do go together, though not the gold digger way. I want a guy who is smart, reliable, willing to carry his share of work, and how his shit together. That type of guy tends to have a decent job.

[–]tickledpic1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I see your point. I'm tempted to say that a man who has his shit together has alpha traits in this area of life. But then there are total nerds who have good finances, but you can in no way call them alphas. Hmmm...

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

Alpha and beta traits as TRP describes them are basically meaningless and is mostly why so many guys “take the pill” and then come back asking why everyone hates them.

“Beta” traits are only beta when they come from an unattractive person. Niceness is a big example of this. Being a “nice guy” is a trope at this point, yet being nice is one of the best traits you can have. But being nice to get something, which is both needy and manipulative, is unattractive. But an attractive confident guy being genuinely nice is going to be attractive to 99% of women. And attractiveness is not based solely on looks, especially for guys. Being a confident, self assured person will boost someone’s attractiveness ten fold.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

As another woman--no. I can't feel very sexy if I'm not comfortable or relaxed. What you guys describe as "alpha", especially as "inverse of comforting" sounds distinctly related to SCARY. I briefly dated someone TRP would probably consider very "alpha" and among other issues, I just couldn't RELAX and found myself looking for excuses not to see him because the whole business was making me anxious.

[–]tickledpic0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Who said that inability to relax in his presence is a trait of an "alpha" man? It's a trait of a scary man who might or might not be an "alpha". His confidence, drive, etc. is what determines that.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Aggression is an "alpha" trait, no? I find aggression frightening.

Also, I kind of have a "thing" for shy guys who I pursue.

[–]tickledpic1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No. Aggression is a description of an action. It can come from insecurity or from drive to make the world his. It can be coupled with good emotions in others (aggresive team play in sports) or fear of life.

[–]Uncommon_Sense_12345 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

As full disclosure, no betas have been hurt by my advice to female relatives because all they want are low quality relationship men that have a mild "bad boy" edge. And then complain about how no good guys want them.

[–]tickledpic2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

It's still weird advice. RP makes it seem like no alpha man wants to settle down and have a nice family life. That's very far from the truth. I've even seen some go for plain looking women, because they have good chemistry and no drama.

[–]Uncommon_Sense_12345 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

IRL alphas aren't common. But as TRP describes alpha and what they try to emulate then I would chose beta with a backbone.

The appeal of the Plain Jane types is the perceived sexual fidelity and perhaps gratefulness for being chosen. But PJ's cheat too and an alpha who is unbending or playing mind games as suggested by TRP/MRP will grow tiresome.

[–]tickledpic5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The appeal of the Plain Jane types is the perceived sexual fidelity

Well, yeah, if you choose to marry, you expect fidelity. No matter who it is.

perhaps gratefulness for being chosen

Never seen a normal dude who has his shit together worried about that kind of trivial mind game stuff.

[–]Uncommon_Sense_12345 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

Guess you have never read TRP/MRP forums or are implying those who participate in them are somehow challenged by mental health issues.

They are always trying to figure out "was it a shit test or comfort test" and the proper timing to "smack her on the ass", with or without the optional smirk.

[–]tickledpic3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I haven't much. And the participants are definately not representatives of actual alpha men. Alpha men don't sit in forums discussing an area of life they have have no problem with. Unless they are coaches or something.

[–]madcockatielAlpha Bird, Slayer of Cloaca3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

implying those who participate in them are somehow challenged by mental health issues and are therefore not normal.

Well... yeah. Not to be an ass, but men with good mental health who have their shit together don't usually go digging for girl advice on reddit.

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

Yeah this is kind of the elephant in the room on all those subreddits. Like... the fact that you're there looking for help is a bit of an indicator.

[–]Transmigratory1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I wonder how long it'll take for a RP guy to point out that someone's implying that the not-so-desirable women need love too. Or a Black Pill guy to say that you're basically suggesting to find their looksmatch.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

AF/BB if you go toward shy/nerdy/or religious women

AF/BB is a description of emancipated female optimal sexual strategy and nature. you are fooling yoruselves if you dont think it is "shy" "introverted" or "religious" womens nature

congratulations on reinventing NAWALT

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It ignores the fact that there are women out there who try to find a man who is in between alpha and beta, and it assumes that all men are either totally alpha or totally beta, which is not the case.

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

Yup, I would even go so far as very few people in general are attracted to the right folks.

[–]InformalCriticismProbably Red1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is in lock step with the feminist narrative that men and women are equal. Female nature has been exposed for what it is, and judging male decisions after that is patently unfair to reason.

[–]tiger1296A little bit of both2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The only women red pill techniques work on are promiscuous low quality bitchy back alley hoes, hence why to every redpiller all women are like that

[–]ttkkk0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nope, works on many, i am living proof ;).

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The loud party types are simply the most obvious, attract a disproportionate amount of attention, and because of that are perceived to represent the vast majority, even if they are not. This phenomenon isn't unique to dating or to men either, it's literally everywhere in society - at work, in politics, in a group settting, etc. The louder you are, the more you get noticed and the quiet/shy/nerdy types are almost invisible in comparison.

There is also the issue of meeting those people. The more shy/nerdy/religious they are, the less they mingle in the typical dating scene. Yes there are some non-repulsive n=0 women in their mid 20s (I know at least one in person), but the reason their N count is and stays so low is because they don't date. If they don't leave their house or, categorically don't date (you) because of their religion, then you're not going to meet them, and they have effectively taken themselves off the market. It's a lot harder to find someone who's hiding vs. the people who are all up in your face.

Lastly while the extreme AWALT and frat boys aren't the majority of people, neither are the shy/nerdy/religious types. The majority of people is in fact in between, most are extroverted, most exhibit at least moderate AWALT/ normie qualities, most are to some degree assholes, etc. In the end this is describing human qualities that the vast majority of people exhibit (or most women/most men) to some degree, even though most are obviously not hyperbolic walking stereotypes.

[–]SilentLurker6662 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Define "types of women".

You can totally avoid high n-count and AF/BB if you go toward shy/nerdy/or religious women. Not every women spend her 20s sleeping around with Chad or having fwb. What I noticed is that Tinder/Insta/Party women are the most popular with men.

My theory is this - The reason why women have a high N count or an AF/BB attitude is because they have high SMV and can afford to do these things.

It is obvious that less attractive women would have a lower N-count and will not have enough leverage on their potential men.

So basically your stragety is for men to go after less pretty women that are somewhat more overweight. I disagree with said strategy.

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

In my experience, HSMV women actually have LOW n-count and are unlikely to do AF/BB. They don't need to slut around because HSMV men will gladly commit to them

Hot women who ride the CC are usually mentally imbalanced and are the exception rather than the rule

It's the women in the 5-7 SMV range who engage in that behavior because they refuse to even look at men below 8 when Chad will gladly pump n dump her, and she thinks this means he loves her

Women under 5 generally pair up with betas who are a point or two above them and are ok with it

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It is obvious that less attractive women would have a lower N-count and will not have enough leverage on their potential men.

Except that RP says that even unattractive women can get a ton of sex just by spreading their legs, which of course they can, but of course most women do not want anything like this.

[–]SilentLurker6661 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Except that RP says that even unattractive women can get a ton of sex just by spreading their legs, which of course they can, but of course most women do not want anything like this.

Agreed - what they want is attention when they are young, and then a way to secure a betabuck when they get old. Less attractive women have less ability to get either of those things compared to more attractive women. The focus here is what men actually want, which isn't just low-N count or nice shy submissive women, but attractive low-N count and submissive women.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, this is why I wouldn't date a woman who had casual sex more than once - because either she's the hedonistic type and that just doesn't fit my personality, or she is trying to snag an alpha with casual sex. And, if she hasn't figured out after one try that that doesn't work, then she's either not intelligent enough or too emotionally troubled for me.

[–]trail221 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lets be honest. They are seekign the most attractive women in their peer group. I always knda believed that women who fell hard for red pill types are women who cared more abotu personality then about looks.

Peope talk aotu the SMV well there is supply and demand.

Is there a high demand for this type of guy with women who are attractive. Probably. But as far as good girls who want good guys, well there is alreay competition in that market and the naturally good lookign guys seem to have a manopily.

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to MRS_DRgree[M] 0 points1 point  (12 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.

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's been said before and you are right.

They are either too dumb to realize it (esp. if they want a stable relationship) or should stop bitching (if they just want casual sex then they have to accept the women/men that give it up).

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]darudeboysandstormSoup on the stove, bread rising, apple pie2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

One of the better red pill essays. Second time reading and still tru sado.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep. The sad thing, I guarantee you a statistically significant portion of these Mr. Lonelys have had an awkward dorky girl crushing on them, but they didn't even see her as a girl while they were busy wondering where the hot sorority girl who was also a virgin and had never experienced arousal before HIM was.

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

Most guys, RP or not, will have to settle. There just really isn't that many high quality girls out there

[–]ondinee6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Are there many high quality men?

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

I don't date men

[–]OfSpock5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

There are, but why would they go for a red pill guy when they can get someone who isn't a misogynist?

[–]ondinee1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Word 😂

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

🙄

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

Paragraphs are your friend.

[–]sadomasochrist 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

This is not the first time you have personalized the debate in this fashion, but it had better be either the last or close to it.

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

You do realize I'm speaking literally right? The link is about PPD women. This is a meta debate. More or less PPD women were right about how they select LTR men and that they believe they will be loyal to their husband.

You really gotta read this links before you think I'm just being a prick to someone.

This person is the absolute archetype for the post I made, like I said, literally.

Thanks. Obviously you guys can't be 100% on the mark all the time, I get it. But I feel like a lot of times people misread my responses when reading my response literally makes sense by itself.

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

If you have concerns bring it to modmail.

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, we're cool now I assume. If not, share with the class.

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

only certain types of women are like that

Yes but no.

it's not true at all, but the men they are attracted to are assholes and they generalize that to all men

"1 in 4 women will be raped" is a lie. "At least 1 in 4 marriages will end in divorce" is true. Generalizations are not human beings; not all generalizations are created equal before God.

But you can't put all women in the same basket

Yes I can and Yes I do. All women love comfort and security; all women hate responsibility; all women are prone to delusions of grandeur; all women lack capacity for loyalty to their spouses and have over-inflated loyalty to their children; all women tend to cluster around authoritarian left on the political compass.

You can totally avoid high n-count and AF/BB if you go toward shy/nerdy/or religious women.

You forgot 'get yourself an Asian wife' route. Doesn't work. "Don't play Russian roulette with this 4-chamber drum revolver, take this one, it has 7! But, but, but your opponent will still aim at the sky while you're obliged to aim at your own head". Thanks, but the only winning move is still not to play.

Not every women spend her 20s sleeping around with Chad or having fwb.

Yeah, it's so much better when she decides that she didn't party enough after 10 years of marriage than before. Good church girls screw their husbands up just fine.

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would rephrase it differently, just out of preference since wrong and right are subjectively determined, but you're onto something with your view that there is a disconnect between what men are saying they want and who they are actually pursuing.

We see the same with women, though. What would you say about that parallel? Are they lying or are they genuinely dogs fooled into chasing cars?

[–]ConnorGracieWhy Don't You Just Date Hypothetical Girl Who Doesn't Exist0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd say this the majority of females now, they're encouraged to be this way.

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

And men sing about it.

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

Even assuming you are right, attraction is still not a choice

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

Yeah. RP men should go for the fat ugly women. It only makes sense.

[–]VoidInvincibleFull Measure0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah. I like feminine submissive girly girls who wear pink and paint their nails. I think I am attracted to the right women. Certainly not butch feminists. Bloops can have those.

[–]antinatalist-mgtow0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So there are only two types of women: party women and religious women? Not much of a choice.

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

This post sums up all the other posts on the sub. Thank you

[–]mistercheeez-o____O-0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fervently religious women aside,

The biggest motivator for women in the sexual selection of men is scarcity. Women will almost always prioritise their engagement with men whom they perceive are in higher demand, whilst dismissing the potential to pair-bond with men that they profoundly enjoy, because in their view they are easily attainable, and hence less exciting.

[–]SasquatchMcKraken0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Like attracts like, true. TRP's misguided "don't get married!" mantra largely comes from this confirmation bias. But I think the type of women RP methods attract are far more common than a lot of people care to admit. Probably a comfortable majority if you get right down to it.

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

You can totally avoid high n-count and AF/BB if you go toward shy/nerdy/or religious women. Not every women spend her 20s sleeping around with Chad or having fwb. What I noticed is that Tinder/Insta/Party women are the most popular with men.

Hahahahaaha holy fuck that was the best laugh for an absolutely shit sandwich of a day.

You really think those women aren't getting gang banged by hot guys? Don't let the glasses or the cross necklace fool you.

That girl you know who you think "isn't like that" is going out tonight and doing what all those other girls are doing. It's just marketing and perception where you think otherwise.

[–]TookthemethpillBlack Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If I put $10,000 in a container that also had 10 snakes in it, but only 3 of the 10 were venomous, would you still reach in?

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

You can totally avoid high n-count and AF/BB if you go toward shy/nerdy ...

BS!!! My first wife was both shy and nerdy. My second wife just nerdy. Guess what? AWALT!!!

[–]brokegradstudent930 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean if you had two failed marriages maybe you should do some introspection into your own behavior...

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

Most contemporary Western women are what you just described as the "wrong women."

[–]woefulwankPsychology of Romance-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's all down to Attachment Styles. We can keep rewording these arguments but it's always down to the aforementioned when it comes to attraction.

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

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