Toggle Dark Theme
logo
234,387 posts archived

662
663

Thread here.

Remember askwomen? That subreddit where everyone proclaims to be a stalwart feminist who needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle? Get a load of this thread. Someone asked "what are you ashamed to admit that you're attracted to?", and it filled up with Redpill truths.

I guess I'm just embarrassed that I'm attracted to authority figures. Anyone with control over others (in a generally positive way) gives me a ladyboner, even if they're not that attractive. This manifests itself in several different ways.

Yes, and this isn't surprising at all. Women love guys who are dominant and control them. It's been that way for eons.

I'm super attracted to guys that look... I don't know. Dirty? Used up? Like they're coming off a three day coke binge and would probably give me diseases. I have no idea why.

This screams Dark Triad. Sociopathic, controlling, doesn't really care about her welfare. She fucking loves it.

I am chronically "hot for teacher." Professional, established, middle-aged man smarter than god and knows it? In a position of power? Kind of self-absorbed? Emotionally distant? Makes me eager to please and I love it.

No honey, it's not the teacher part. It's the power part.

I'm attracted to men who aren't completely available. I figure it's to continually relive my relationship with my dad.

Again, a fundamental redpill truth. Don't pay attention to her and she'll worship the ground you walk on, if you're hot.

I'll admit I'm a total sucker for the bad boy who's secretly good thing. Like not so much in real life, but for movies/tv shows/books? If there's a character that's kind of an asshole, but then has a redemption arc I'm hooked on him.

Dark Triad at its core.

My fiance is a good guy good guy and I really love him, our life together is great ...but then I talk to the dirty long haired pot smoking mechanics at work and it makes me miss fucking up my life by dating them. Stupid.

Alpha fux, beta bux. I feel so bad for the fiancé, this girl should be ashamed of herself. But she's not. "Her priorities changed", that's why she's with her quiet and submissive fiancé!!!! She's just "mature" now!! Right guys?

This thread has it all, gentlemen. Read all of it. No matter how much women squawk about equal rights and feminism, they don't want equality because they are not biologically capable of it. They want to be led and they want to obey.

Of course, these same women will probably log onto Reddit tomorrow again and start complaining about how RedPill is just a bunch of lying mysoginistic neckbeards. But there's female rationalization for ya.


[–]thredditsowaway 182 points183 points  (29 children)

The honesty in that thread is actually admirable. Not only do they admit their true motivations, they admit that they're immoral and dishonorable in many cases.

That said, one useful observation: not all these men are leaders, not all these men are massively successful, not all of them are socially powerful. The common thread is actually in what they are NOT: followers.

The same woman could get turned on the same way by the "hot for teacher" professor and the "pot smoking mechanics" on the same day. The key thing is that these are people who don't follow the herd and aren't invested in the reactions that others have to their actions. They form their own opinions and go their own way. Sometimes they lead others, sometimes they only lead themselves.

[–]SelfMadeMonarch 103 points104 points  (13 children)

There's a legitimate theory that power structures in hierarchical animals are defined by the level of autonomy a participating agent has. Power isn't the ability to control others, it's the ability to resist being controlled.

[–]thredditsowaway 25 points26 points  (8 children)

This definitely supports the notion that part of being "alpha" is "not following others." I didn't know about this theory before, thanks.

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (1 child)

In my humble opinion this is the reason why people are against posts that beg for certain steps on "how to become alpha", "please tell me an alpha career" and so on. Not because it's an intangible concept but because when you follow a "step by step" almost recipe-like process to achieve it you're basically fulfilling a guide you were given, not a guide that you crafted from your own calculations and conclusions. You could basically follow a "guideline to alpha" without necessarily knowing why.

Last but not least a personal anecdote: During my betamax days, back when I had girls dragging me around while I was "enjoying" the friend zone, I was out with a girl who was professional dancer for dinner. At one night she told me of a guy who worked at a small shop where they sell cigarettes and newspapers and she was so full of admiration for him. The reason was because of "his ability to go to the beach on his own with a book in his hand and just enjoy reading under the sun with no fucks given". And I vividly recall myself mentioning how awkward it would feel because most people go down the beach with friends or girlfriend. He was obviously not one of them.

[–]thredditsowaway 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Good point. Maybe one could say that being alpha is literally just doing what you want without giving any fucks. Doesn't automatically make you attractive but it's the right mentality. Combine it with lifting and social skills and you've got high SMV.

I used to have the same fear of doing things alone but something that's helped greatly is pushing myself to do those things. I have a friend who is very naturally alpha and I picture him laughing at me if I were to admit to that fear. It's almost gone now.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I think it's even more than part of it. It's one of the most important parts of being alpha, being a leader. Now obviously we can't all be THE leader all the time, but it's more about leading by example, confidently and in charge of yourself. Others will follow you automatically when you do it right. Mostly, it's about being the leader with her.

[–]thredditsowaway 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's about being a leader regardless of how many people are following you. If you're alone, it means guiding yourself. If you're with a girl, it means guiding her. If you're in a group, then it means leading the group. That's why we can see guys who are total loners be labelled as "alpha" in some cases.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Does that make MGTOW the most alpha towards women?

[–]thredditsowaway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A man who plays the seduction game by his own rules (refusal of commitment before sex, acceptance of the value of dating younger girls, and so forth), while acknowledging the reality of the marketplace (lifting is critical, style dictates how you are perceived, etc) and does so without seeking or needing the approval of others is what is most attractive to women. Without attaching a title to it, that's what TRP generally advocates.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It certainly explains the Alpha/Sigma discrepancy.

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

This actually makes a lot of sense. Power structures aren't strictly tree-shaped, so looking for the "most dominant" is something of a futile task. Looking to minimize who's "above" a person is a much clearer task, and it helps allow for things like the autonomy of a medicine man vs a chief.

Thanks for pointing out this possibility.

[–]GuruDev1000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's actually quite relieving if you think about it. That means men will stop picking fights in the process of being alpha as they won't need to lead other men. They just need to prevent themselves from being led to look alpha—and that usually doesn't lead to fights.

[–]PeppermintPig 28 points29 points  (6 children)

That said, one useful observation: not all these men are leaders, not all these men are massively successful, not all of them are socially powerful. The common thread is actually in what they are NOT: followers.

Great slice of wisdom right there.

Those women who attempt to champion an ideal of injustice between the sexes are insincere about their motivations the more fervently they go about demonstrating it.

If differences between the sexes cannot be demonstrated through scientific fact, and consideration for individuals who do not follow the herd is not granted, then these sorts of archetypical straw men that attempt to idealize the perfect man or woman, or more typically attempt to typify the least flattering view of the opposite sex, then what you have is not a road to recovery but an attempt to cover up the truth with bigotry and victimhood masquerading as some noble truth. Who wants to live their life championing that kind of delusion? It only leads to misery and bitterness. Admitting to fault is vitally important no matter the sex, but only as a means of discovering a way to improve.

[–]thredditsowaway 23 points24 points  (5 children)

From what I can gather, the major argument made by the "gender theory" feminists is that it might be painful trying to override our social programming/biological imperative (ie, for a man to willingly become more feminine at the expense of any sort of reasonable sex life) but that it is noble to do so because the present/prehistoric state of affairs is somehow "wrong." They hope that one day we can live in a genderless world and then we'll all be happy again, but it will take a few generations of pain in order to get there.

In summation, they expect nothing short of martyrdom from us. The answer is No.

[–]PeppermintPig 20 points21 points  (0 children)

My answer would also be no. They can hold whatever belief they want, and I'll continue to make my own choices. I will not be a contributing member of some collective guilt trip. It is absolutely toxic to the building of an individual's character. It's prejudice, pure and simple.

[–]2elysius 15 points16 points  (3 children)

Not just feminists, that's the entire point of Progressivism, known in the US as the liberals. It is an entire social and political system based on destroying the previous/traditional/natural order and replacing it with one that's "fairer", doesn't matter how many lies they tell or lives they ruin to achieve that.

Also, spoiler alert: it's not going to work.

[–]aggressivejoe 7 points8 points  (2 children)

I hate calling it "progressive", because it implies progress. "Progressives" are really just Marxists that changed their name when being called Marxist became somewhat of a slur in the 50s. Just like all Marxism, it looks great on paper and in ivory tower discussions, but is horrible in reality.

[–]thredditsowaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can seriously feel my blood pressure spike when someone says "progressive" or "enlightened" or the like. OH MY GOD. One might say such language is... triggering.

[–]DrXaos 17 points18 points  (3 children)

What's remarkably different with men is that the personalities of women they are most attracted to are also the ones with the best character for long term relationships, and the best person overall.

Obnoxious screw ups, snobs or skanks are never ever more desirable on account of their nasty personalities, either for relationships or fucking.

No man with an awesome LTR really wants to give attention and resources (a man's scarce provision) to a bad woman.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Men are attracted to naievity and immaturity because these signal youth. But these qualities are hardly a solid base for a ltr.

[–]fullhalf 3 points4 points  (0 children)

that's because they subconsciously want the genes of the guy who would fuck around and spread his genes. the guys who love only one woman would at best spread his genes to one woman and produce 1-2 surviving offspring. i think humans evolved to care for offsprings as a group. that's why it doesn't matter if the man is a provider or not. they can always live off of someone else. the thing is so logical that it blows your mind when you finally figure it out. women evolved to desire the men that spread their genes because those are the genes that get passed on.

[–]thredditsowaway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This actually makes a lot of sense. With women, there exists a clear duality of AF/BB. Most men I know are sexually turned on by attributes that signal good child-bearing and even mothering potential.

Having said that I want to make the point that the absence of "alpha bux" (the presence of the AF/BB duality) is not necessarily a natural thing. If you think about it, for most of our evolutionary history, strength, genetic advantages, and confident leadership are the (alpha) traits that led to (beta) benefits such as stability, "wealth," and protection. Some men were both better lovers and better providers than others. The notion of the "dumb jock" and "rich nerd" as the guy you date vs the guy you settle down with is a modern phenomenon.

Most of us have lived through a school system that basically says "follow the rules and you'll live a happy, comfortable life." Basically, "obey and be rewarded, rebel and be punished." But that socialization system then starts offering commentary such as "it's okay to be weak" and "some people just aren't meant to be leaders," or the more insidious "women are allowed to be dominant in mating." The result is that everyone who "obeyed" became a subject to feminist castration, men who have problems with obeying became the edgy, rebellious, exciting "alpha" guys that girls get wet over. This dichotomy is not natural. Men are meant to compete for superiority against other men, and we've created a system that discourages that nature. Only those who rejected the system in general were not subject to that indoctrination. In our formative years, we're too young to selectively accept information, so it's all or nothing.

TRP and such allow men who got indoctrinated by the system to selectively un-do some of their indoctrination and become confident, strong, and exciting without giving up their stability and access to material resources.

[–]caddyheni 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The existence of fetishes isn't incompatible with red pill theory Here's a breakdown of these comments:

I love the whole "metrosexual" trend. Not for the physical appearance aspect, but because I find it so attractive when a guy takes time to look nice for you. A lot of guys seem to think that doing things like taking care of your skin - washing your face even - is weirdly feminine, but I love it. I hate when guys act like taking care of yourself is "gay" or too feminine. My brother used to refuse getting his unibrow taken care of for this reason. For Pete sake, wash your face, dress nice, put on some cologne from time to time.

This is so banal. Chicks like nice clothes, clear skin, no unibrow? NO FUCKIN WAY

I'm kind of needy I guess, because if a guy is genuinely nice to me, I'll immediately get a crush on him. It's really that easy. I actually like when a guy has some insecurities. Not to the point of being crippled by them, but I find it really appealing when a guy can open up to me and admit the things that he worries about. I feel like it allows us to build a stronger relationship....and I also get a bit of a confidence boost when I know that he is not perfect, either.

Translation: I want my alphas to have a heart of gold. I want them to show me a small amount of vulnerability. I want to believe that Deep Down He's Good and I Can Reform Him With My Love

Business as usual.

I tend to be more fun, more outgoing, and more assertive when I am in a leadership position with a guy. I like that version of myself best. If the guy likes to be the one in control, I back down and become quite submissive.

Fuckin kidding me? You are more outgoing and more assertive when you're in a leadership position? NO SHIT. That's what a leadership position is.

She gets quite submissive around dominant guys, and those are the guys who fuck her, because those are the ones she submits to.

Mormon missionaries. The ones who get sent to my city are always really hot and so fucking polite that I start daydreaming about converting even though I'm a dyed-in-the-wool atheist.

This is just straight up wanting what you can't have. Many female fantasies revolve around them being so attractive that they can seduce men who are not available--married men, Priests, or even men that have some kind of pathology that makes them sit outside the sexual marketplace.

Which brings us to...

I am incredibly attracted to guys with cerebral palsy. Generally speaking, I'm pretty vanilla. But damn, the thought of getting all up on some guy's cock when he can't really control his hands well enough to effectively pleasure himself just gets me going.

She's imagining a guy who is otherwise hot but not a part of the sexual marketplace. Her fantasy is that she has the special skills to "rock his world" (as she later said in that thread) and that he would be unable to resist her sexuality.

In reality, when confronted with a guy like this, she declines. A man with cerebral palsy tried to pick her up later in the thread and then she backed off on her claims, turned down her heat, ended the conversation. Why?

Because the reality of a disabled man did not fit her fantasy.

There's an additional component of "wanting what she can't have" because she thinks her fetish is dehumanizing to the disabled. This gives her an easy way to reject actual disabled guys who want to have sex with her and would probably be very happy to find someone who wanted to have sex with them--as evidenced by the guy in the thread saying "your fetish wouldn't bother me" i.e. "I would have sex with you and don't think it's dehumanizing, or if it is, I don't care!"

It's just a variation on wanting what you can't have.

[–]loin_fruit -1 points0 points  (2 children)

As much as it seems that TRP is against tattoos, my tattoos apparently have gotten me a lot of numbers and lay's. I can't tell you how many times I hear women say "I just love your tattoos and your attitude" while rubbing their hands all over them.

I think it has to do with the whole "not following the crowd" thing. Even though honestly I think it's more rare to see someone without tattoos now.

[–]thredditsowaway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's the "edgy" appearance of them that they like. It shows you're a more "exciting" guy, willing to take risks, not begging for the approval of others, not the kind of guy she's going to bring home to her parents. Works especially well when you're an otherwise presentable kind of guy.

I've known about this effect for a while but I was never going to get one just to score girls. Now I feel like a small tattoo or two would actually suit my style, women or not, so I might give it a try.

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

I used to want tattoos so badly, but I just never could commit.

Then everyone started getting them to the point now that it's totally ridiculous. I didn't want one anymore.

Now I think I know of myself and a handful of people my age (38) who don't have any tattoos at all.

[–]2IVIaskerade 249 points250 points  (47 children)

I'm not sure I've ever seen such a high concentration of daddy issues outside the covers of playboy.

Seriously though, you hit the nail on the head about it being about power and emotional distance.

[–]TattedGuyser 70 points71 points  (41 children)

I'm not sure I've ever seen such a high concentration of daddy issues outside the covers of playboy.

It's a massive self feeding mechanism. The women of yesteryear up and destroyed the family unit, leaving a good amount of both boys and girls without proper father figures (which I would argue is the most important parental figure). Then what happened? These girls turned into women of the same habits and did the same thing today, with even more kids growing up without proper father figures. I can't count the number of single mothers I know. Then what's going to happen to the next generation? History repeats and we're only going to see more and more of these broken homes and bad habits.

[–]Newdist2 52 points53 points  (2 children)

father figures (which I would argue is the most important parental figure).

You know what's way better than a father figure?

A father.

[–]TattedGuyser 36 points37 points  (1 child)

When I say father figure I mean the bio dad. Step-parents never get respected for 2 big reasons.

  1. They aren't the original parent, therefore will never have the child's true respect

  2. The parent bringing the step-parent in will almost never allow them to assume the role of an actual parent. Everything must go through them first... which defeats the purpose of being a parent.

[–]Newdist2 34 points35 points  (0 children)

The parent bringing the step-parent in will almost never allow them to assume the role of an actual parent.

You used sex-neutral terms, parent this and parent that, but we can be more specific:

The mother bringing her new boyfriend in will almost never allow him to assume the role of an actual father.

It couldn't work anyway, because you can't just "assume the role of a father" when the real father is still alive and sees the kids two weekends a month.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 35 points36 points  (34 children)

It's almost enough to for those who want to get married consider joining a religion that actually frowns on or penalizes divorce like the Amish or Islam. At least your woman's community would be shunning the shit out of her for engaging in something like a frivorce.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (20 children)

My hatred for feminism and religion is about the same. They will both fail eventually. May not see it in our lifetimes but it will happen.

Better to just acquire wealth and power and do your own thing.

[–]1DRMMR76 23 points24 points  (19 children)

Religion has been around since sentience. It's not going to fall. Ever.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (17 children)

Because atheists were killed for their beliefs if they spoke out. Systemic oppression is all that religion has. It has absolutely no evidence to back up their claims. Logic will win out.

[–]Keninishna 3 points4 points  (0 children)

unfortunately humans are very irrational creatures, I don't think god and the devil are going to be replaced easily with a logical psychological framework.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 24 points25 points  (11 children)

Old religions were replaced with a new contemporary religion. The new religion is a trifecta: The State, Feminism, Multiculturalism. The new witches to be burned at the stake are cis heterosexual white male Christians.

The irrational Catholic faith presided over two thousand years of people generally getting on with life, with periodic rituals to give meaning to the seasons of one's own life. Religion provided the stability for high art in painting, sculpture, and architecture.

The infallible altar of "logic" we worship at today has spawned multiculturalism which is quickly and permanently deconstructing Europe and N. America, promotes women above men leading to the unraveling of society, leaves individuals without the ritualistic tools necessary to understand their place in the greater context of society leading to widespread ennui. The cherry on top is that everyone looks to the State to solve all problems both macro and micro. Torture and panopticon on top of systemic corruption is the result.

Precious logic go us into this mess. We can not logic our way out of it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Precious logic go us into this mess. We can not logic our way out of it.

What got us into this mess is the ever-growing pyramid of societal lies that caused the civilization to emerge in the first place. I'd rather be free and enjoy life on my own terms than be a content cog in the elaborate machinery of civilization, enslaved by religion, state laws and traditionalism. Fuck them all!

Unlike previous instances of history where civilizations failed once the social bonds that kept nuclear family together thawed, this time due to technological progress all of the collected knowledge is being preserved. Frankly, society that cannot come to terms with itself and self-reflect on its evolution doesn't deserve existence. I see TRP, Dark Enlightenment, New Right and similar movements as necessary baby steps in ushering the next evolutionary step of society. No more lies, no more enslavement.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 0 points1 point  (2 children)

What got us into this mess is the ever-growing pyramid of societal lies that caused the civilization to emerge in the first place.

Lies don't cause civilization to emerge, but I can empathize with the sentiment which produces such a statement.

When I said that "logic got us into this mess, we can't logic our way out of it," I am alluding to the fact that feminism, democracy, universal suffrage, and the multiculti fetish are all logically constructed. They are all rational enterprises. Communism had its own logic, its own internal consistency, as well.

Catholicism taught that Lucifer was a great debater. Totally logical, rational. By using logic against man he convinced Eve to eat of the fruit of knowledge and earned man and woman a one way ticket out of the garden of Eden, into the harsh world with original sin. Is this story real? No. Catholics don't believe in the Bible literally. It's just a fucking story. It is full of wisdom, however. This particular story tells us that using logic can lead to horrific outcomes. Logic and rationality can lead to hydrogen bombs, world wars, concentration camps, and torture--as we have seen.

Modern man thinks too much and feels too little. The modern mind utilizes logic and rationality and spits out a new '-ism' every 20 years, each one more poisonous than the last.

I'd rather be free and enjoy life on my own terms than be a content cog in the elaborate machinery of civilization, enslaved by religion, state laws and traditionalism. Fuck them all!

That sounds so brainwashed by modern thinking to see religion, civilization, law, and tradition as slavery. I see the freedom of feminism as slavery to the whim of women. I see the freedom of anarchy as slavery to barbarism. I see freedom from tradition as life without meaning.

One of the main tenets of neoreaction is that progress is a myth of the Cathedral. You should not believe that we are evolving to the "next" stage. Everything that is happening has happened before. Civilizations rise and fall in the blink of an eye. If this one falls completely it won't be replaced by a bunch of libertarians engaging in the Non-aggression principle. It will be replaced by waves of Muslim or Chinese or Latino opportunists. In fact I'd say it's already happening.

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

I am alluding to the fact that feminism, democracy, universal suffrage, and the multiculti fetish are all logically constructed. They are all rational enterprises. Communism had its own logic, its own internal consistency, as well.

They are not based on logic but emotion and propaganda which the lesser intellectually endowed humans are susceptible to. Marxist theory of labor has been thoroughly debunked, as was the 1 in 5 women raped, as was the 77 cents for every dollar and every single other myth. The state of the matter is - their proponents are simply too dumb to understand the arguments are following their cowardish evolutionary programming like sheep. Logic doesn't come for free - it has to be learned. It requires you to abolish your innate prejudices and discipline oneself into reasoning.

Catholicism taught that Lucifer was a great debater. Totally logical, rational. By using logic against man he convinced Eve to eat of the fruit of knowledge and earned man and woman a one way ticket out of the garden of Eden, into the harsh world with original sin. Is this story real? No. Catholics don't believe in the Bible literally. It's just a fucking story. It is full of wisdom, however. This particular story tells us that using logic can lead to horrific outcomes. Logic and rationality can lead to hydrogen bombs, world wars, concentration camps, and torture--as we have seen.

It's an old myth that predates the Jews and which they themselves fashioned into something probably unrelated to its original purpose. Don't make the Bible something more than it is - it's all mostly barbaric history, propaganda to maintain the priestly and ruler caste, and a method of control, like any other religous text. It works great on a large chunk of population because they are so fucking dumb. And the large reason why they are so dumb is due to statist and religious indoctrination from a young age. You can tame tiger and lion into acting like a pet - imagine the similar process on human mind. The indoctrinated mind is as far away from its natural state as is the adult's tiger's feeding from a bottle in his trainer's hand.

Logic and rationality can lead to hydrogen bombs, world wars, concentration camps, and torture--as we have seen.

Hydrogen bomb is due to misuse of great technology for destructive purposes. WWs and concentration camps were not due to logic, but hate and prejudices (I mean - destroying Jews, one of the most intelligent subspecies of humans, in order to breed a "superior" race is beyond retarded). The reason why we all have these kind of misues is because of civilization - human minds trained like pets to unconditionally obey the State. There is no fundamental difference in training a solder, obedient citizen through schooling from training a circus animal. It's all lies, psychological manipulation and enslavement in order to support the rotten structure.

That sounds so brainwashed by modern thinking to see religion, civilization, law, and tradition as slavery.

It is slavery because you are born into it and have no choice.

I see the freedom of feminism as slavery to the whim of women.

Freedom is a relative concept. If your purpose in life is to cater to women then figuratively speaking in a modern society you are "enslaved" to womyn. But that is your personal choice. Everyone born as a citizen of a state, indoctrinated to mandatory schooling, baptized and confirmed as a Catholic, has no choice. It's impossible to compare the two. The first case result from weak personality the second is a genuine enslavement.

I see the freedom of anarchy as slavery to barbarism.

The same argument applies. Barbarism is today a pejorative, but it is not necessarily wrong or inferior. Barbarians took down more advanced cultures because they were superior to them from evolutionary point of view. Civilized societies were weak from the inside - no one was willing to die for a cause anymore. Tribal societies based on kinship and network of allegiances quickly overrun them. Both were actually a form of slavery - whether to state or your kin (tribe, ethnos, whatever) - there is no difference. That you sympathize with one form of enslavement just because it produces art and high technology is probably due to your cultural bias. Individualist societies of the West are perceived as selfish and materialistic from those from the East for a reason. What is important to recognize is that they're two sides of the same coin, both parts of a dialectic equation of evolution which produces progress through conflict. Enlightenment comes from recognizing lies on all levels which we finally have the opportunity to do today.

I see freedom from tradition as life without meaning.

There is no meaning in life. The universe doesn't give a shit. We are all atoms forged in supernova which will be dead in 50-70 years, and a century or few from now no one would even know we existed. The feeling of "purpose" as belonging to a nation or civilization is an evolutionarily conditioned emotion, Stockholm syndrome selected solely because it benefited the group cohesion and survival when pitted against other groups. People fighting for a purpose are much better warriors than a bunch of anarchists fighting each for his own goal. The whole notion of purpose is completely arbitrary and not based in logic and must be rejected as another shackle created to control and enslave.

You should not believe that we are evolving to the "next" stage. Everything that is happening has happened before.

Never before did we have the ability to do things that we do today. It is impossible for Dark Ages to reoccur. It is impossible in the era of transparency facilitated by the Internet and mass media to engage in genocidal campaigns and expect to get away with it. TPTB need to use carefully crafted propaganda and covert surveillance to maintain control, but that is falling apart every year (Snowden, torture reports, independent news sources, self-organized networks to distribute information...). There is no going back. For every step the Cathedral moves forward to entrench its powers, evolutionary forces counteract it with even more transparency and dissipation of power through awareness. The most stable strategy is every individual entity (on the level of both each human as well as the group thereof) to keep every other individual entity in check through maximum transparency and awareness. As long as you have lies, walls and secrets conflict occurs.

If this one falls completely it won't be replaced by a bunch of libertarians engaging in the Non-aggression principle. It will be replaced by waves of Muslim or Chinese or Latino opportunists. In fact I'd say it's already happening.

Personally I don't care and I'm not a "fan" of either culture. So what if it is replaced? They won't be able to undo the accumulated advances. It's laughable to see e.g. modern-day Westerners (both politicians and common people) getting butthurt over emerging powers calling their bluffs, and reducing the disproportionate influence that a tiny portion of the human population from Northern Europe and America has over the planet. The last half a century is an aberration rather than a rule. It's going away and I'm happy for it. Mankind will come off better as a result. At least the West will finally see through the Marxist lies of impossible equality once mullahs and blacks starting voting exclusively along racial and ethnic lines lol. If it doesn't - well fuck it, it deserves to die.

[–]ekjohnson9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well that was the goal. Destroy the family, nation state and culture. Homogeneous tastes makes free trade agreements more popular and leads to depressed wages, a lack of a sense of self in life and nothing to accomplish outside of trying to strike it rich so that you can escape. There is no family to provide for, the state doesn't have your best interests on its agenda (hint, you're a line item on a balance sheet that nobody ever looks at, on all levels of government) and now we have to compete with the Chinese in the labor market. All that shit about Chinese honor students came true, except their willing to work for a visa and 10 bucks an hour.

Bottom line get marketable skills, work for someone when your young, past 35 work for yourself. If you must marry and reproduce, get their asses into private school that feeds into the Ivys. It's what you owe yourself.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Bullshit. TRP itself is based in logic. All of STEM is based in logic. Everything worthwhile in life is based in logic. It is when we follow ritual, superstition and emotion that we suffer. If not logic, what else do we have?

[–]91239477348238942983 15 points16 points  (4 children)

Art is not logic. It is not logical why I find a painting beautiful, but it is still worthwhile in life even without inherent logic.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Hard to argue with that. Sometimes I get carried away.

[–]1Goomich -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

It is not logical why I find a painting beautiful,

It gives you similar feels to watching beautiful woman.

[–]ekjohnson9 -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Lol what a simplistic view of human history.

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

Lol got a better explanation Einstein?

[–]ekjohnson9 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Religion has intrinsic cultural value. Guiding principles and cultural inclusiveness are key elements of community building. There's a reason the key leaders in the civil rights movement were reverends and preachers. The bs "logic = truth therefore religion is bullshit" is designed to appeal to your sense of self and your ego. Religion is being replaced with the state and thought censorship through twisted social mechanisms that don't benefit anyone (ie feminism and the far left in general).

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

The state can die too for all I care. People need to be free of all institutions.

[–]1spicy_fries 8 points9 points  (4 children)

I have seriously considered moving to Utah for this reason.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 6 points7 points  (3 children)

You can still get a divorce in Utah... not everyone there is a Mormon after all.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Mormon women don't divorce their husbands because doing so means being kicked out of their community, losing all of their friends and everyone they know.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (1 child)

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.

If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension GreaseMonkey to Firefox and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'd heard that from what I believed to be a reliable source. I guess I stand corrected.

[–]ventdivin 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Islam doesn't penalize divorce. Quite the opposite actually.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 10 points11 points  (5 children)

True but don't the community look down on the women who end up getting divorced by their man? Technically divorce is a secular invention not really a religious one.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Technically divorce is a secular invention not really a religious one.

In Christianity yes. In Islam no. Only if she is divorced the 3rd time is it sinful. In the Koran I don't think there is anything against women working and stuff. But jobs that exhibit her body would be considered the same as prostitution.

I am not Muslim, so I don't know if what is preached actually is practiced. Unless you actually have lived the culture you don't really know what is the truth. And even if you find out the truth, if it goes against popular opinion no one will believe you.

I used to believe the myth that bargirls in Asia where exploited by men. Nothing is further from the truth.

Civilians see the military as a place where you give up all your freedoms and become a brainless drone. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most military jobs require a great deal of thinking and quick decision making. Within the rules, there is far more freedom in decision making. Also the military is extremely results oriented. If you break the rules, but later achieved the desired result you will not be punished but usually commended. There is also far more job security, a military contract is iron clad. Unless you seriously fuck up you never have to worry about will you have a job next week, get laid off etc. But when you tell these things to most civilians you are "brainwashed".

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_Islam

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

But there is a lot of borderline misogynist stuff in it. For example a female has to produce 4(!) witnesses in case she accuses someone of rape or she will be punished herself or forced to marry the rapist. India has lot of conservative circles who do believe in that.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 2 points3 points  (2 children)

That is an attempt to prevent false rape accusations. As I get older I no longer have many solutions. Actual rape does happen. What can be done to ensure that rapists are caught without falsely convicting innocent men.

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

Retrospective punishment is fine, 4 witnesses of rape doesn't sound reasonable, certainly not marrying the rapist. There is a lot of stuff in there.

Source; Have read all religions, belong to none.

[–]Senior Contributorexit_sandman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

certainly not marrying the rapist.

Marrying the rapist is reasonable within that mindset - it's not the violation that is considered problematic, it's her being defiled that is considered shameful. Marrying her off to the guy who raped her retroactively nullifies that shame and therefore solves the problem for her father and brothers, at least socially. And it's easier than feuding over it.

[–]ThatKassiusGuy 3 points4 points  (1 child)

On the subject of single mothers.

Does the child still get the same sort of bad upbringing if he/she is seeing the father still a few times a week?

[–]TattedGuyser 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't believe so. I myself get my daughter every other weekend and a single day during the week, however given her mothers work schedule, it usually is a day or 2 more a week. My daughters attitude has improved 10-fold since proper visitation has been established, it's remarkable the change you can witness.

So to keep it short, as long as the father is present and active in the lives of his kids, proper bonding can happen. It also helps if the parents are on good terms, if the mother is always 'poisoning the well' so to speak, then yeah that's going to be a lot harder too.

[–]foldpak111 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Best comment on here i'd give you gold but a nigga broke

[–]texture -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure I've ever seen such a high concentration of daddy issues outside the covers of playboy.

If a woman has a bad relationship with their father, it is not unreasonable that they would then be more likely to generalize that all men are bad and become a feminist.

I've seen the same thing in anarchists of any gender.

[–]Cryocasm 69 points70 points  (43 children)

I'll admit I'm a total sucker for the bad boy who's secretly good thing.

This female rationalization of DT men is also known as Deep Down He Loves Me™.

[–]natteulven 56 points57 points  (32 children)

I learned this the hard way. My ex is completely batshit crazy and refuses to leave me alone. At the time I was being nice about it and trying to gently let her off, but she still wouldn't leave me alone. So I tried being a complete asshole, and well, the problem is worse now.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 69 points70 points  (22 children)

Beta game is the best game to run when you want to push women away. Just be overly needy and clingy and like phone-stalk them asking them where they are and what they're doing and all the other signs of an insecure beta male and they'll be running for the hills.

[–]INomYou 59 points59 points [recovered]

Totally agree. The one plate I had started getting borderline psycho/aggressive to the point I felt she might cross some well defined lines we established. So I ghosted her. She blew up my phone for days, increasingly needy and desperate. I initially held frame and told her I was done because she wasnt working within the limits we set then I put her on radio silence. This yielded even more messages and attempts at bargaining. Finally I went full beta, faux apologized for being so "uncaring and distant" and told her she deserved better. Basically, I intentionally kneecapped my own SMV to her. Result: "fuck you asshole. This is goodbye" and she disappeared. Hopefully for good. Lol. God I hate the red pill sometimes...my pre-pill ignorance was bliss. Sex-starved but bliss.

[–]fullhalf 6 points7 points  (2 children)

that's weird. i would think it would take a few weeks of that beta shit before it hits her since she's on you full force.

[–]RobertCarraway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I agree. Maybe he could turn the tide this quickly if he met her in person and did a full on act of submission with shifting eyes and desperation in his voice. Then he might be able to weird her the fuck out in one deft move. One apology after months of solid moves? Something seems off.

[–]TwoThirteen -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

yaaaaaa.... beta confirmed?

[–]foldpak111 5 points6 points  (0 children)

So true I started laughing out loud. I just did this to a clingy girl and haven't heard from her since. I love myself

[–]Dravous 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wonder something...what would happen if she were to somehow discover the ruse?

[–]fullhalf 1 point2 points  (1 child)

this is genius. a guy should do this to one of those psycho needy girls and report back. it would be hilarious to suddenly see her do a 360 and run away when she was all needy and shit before.

[–]KnighT15 -2 points-1 points  (12 children)

Nonononono this is treading on dangerous ground. If you run beta game she might start hitting you/accusing you of violence or rape etc.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 10 points11 points  (11 children)

No that wont happen... you run enough beta game that she thinks she's dating a loser (including failing shit tests) and she'll dump your ass for the next bad boy that comes along. It's basically taking advantage of the monkey branching behavior women naturally exhibit.

[–]newlifeasredpill 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Probably bad for you socially to use failed shit tests and beta game as a way to dump girls. All her friends will be instantly turned off by what a pussy you must be to be dumped by her.

Still...I'm SURE it works

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 9 points10 points  (1 child)

You're assuming that you want to bang any of her friends... usually when you want to get a crazy stalker GF gone you want to extricate yourself out of that social circle as well so you dont get drawn back into contact with her.

[–]newlifeasredpill 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well..if she is totally isolated and you want her gone then I bet this works well. And is funny too.

"Babe I can't stop thinking about you" you are so special......

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Not only wyat BigRed said, you act mega needy beta around her, in private. You act normal around others, don't let them see it if you care about the peer group. If you act needy beta with other girls around they too will be driven off, so don't do it where others can see. No matter how you act around others, the beta in private will override it.

It's my go to method of ditching crazy and or violent clingy bitches, and those who hid their drug problem.

[–]newlifeasredpill 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I bet the clingy ones hate a man's clinging more than anything.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Yes they do. Nothing drives them away faster.

[–]newlifeasredpill 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Great for married men having affairs. The breakup can get messy. Better to just "fall in love" in a super duper faggoty way.

Every day is a school day

[–]KnighT15 0 points1 point  (2 children)

She might dump your ass. Or she might screw you over badly. Think about all those false rape/crazy girlfriend stories...you think those girls to things like that to alphas? They only do it to betas they don't respect. Remember that "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." Turn beta and she will become furious with you and if she happens to be psycho underneath you're screwed.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's all about the correct level of beta... just like when you want a woman to be attracted to you it's about the correct level of alpha to keep a woman for the long term (as a plate or GF).

Basically you want to push yourself from being her best option to being her second best option (or lower) and she'll bail from you to another dude with little to no consequence. Just pretend to be hurt and devastated by her dumping you and then move on to the next chick you want to bang.

I would be inclined to suggest that all those false rape accusations tend to be directed at dudes women engaged in ONS's with not LTR BF's for the most part because proving rape in a LTR is much much harder than proving it with a dude they banged for the first time.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nah, they don't get that way, they lose interest in fucking you, then try to get you to orbit. Simply do not orbit, go radio silent when she doesn't respond to a needy text for a few days.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Beg her for sex daily, be whiney about it. Act like a little kid that wants a toy from the store. I would say buy her some shit, but that won't work in your favor this time. I've used this often when a chick gets too attached and decides to move in with me or some other shit. No thanks, I don't need a clingy albatross around my neck.

[–]foldpak111 0 points1 point  (5 children)

This is why you never bust guys balls for acting beta. You never know if he's an alpha tricking a psycho into fuckin off

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

Also, why deal with the bullshit ifhe really is a beta simp?

[–]foldpak111 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Yes, I know how true beta's are. My father is borderline omega and he's still deep into his ways, that by the way don't even work. Every once in a while I'll spit some RP truth and he'll attack me and say how wrong I am. Best part is, he's slept with two girls this year... the first one was a horse, all tall and wide and drunk. The second is a 4. Aa cup and a flat ass. I've fucked 14 quality women this year and one was a legit model. Wait what am I saying? Us alpha's are just neckbeards remember?

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 1 point2 points  (2 children)

My family keeps telling me to go for chicks my age, or at least over 35. Well sure if I want some hag that looks like shit, weighs as much as me, spawned five kids, and has some teeth. Yeah, no. Not while I can pull bitches half my age.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, placate them, talk to your sisters washed up post wall wrinkled friends, but continue fucking the girls in their 20s. I'm 45 and have no trouble fucking girls half my age.

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

How did you get out of that if you don't mind me asking? (stuck in the same situation, the more i treat her poorly the more she latches on to me).

[–]natteulven 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I havent she still bugs me, I've just ignored her phone calls/texts/messages....I've treated her properly and I've treated her like shit and I've tried being beta as fuck. When I was nice she appreciated and awarded me with sex sometimes. When I was mean she seemed alright with and was hornier. When I was beta.. she just accepts my apologies and says it's okay and she loves me anyway.. However I've made some crucial mistakes with her. I thought with my dick way too much. Once I learned that she would still fuck me even when we're not in a relationship, that was probably a holy grail, as she's absolutely amazing in bed...

[–]fullhalf 7 points8 points  (0 children)

this is how guys with a player reputation still gets laid every time. every girl thinks she can be the one that reigns him in but just ends up stretched and thrown out like the rest.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Good point. The DT man of course deep down does not love her, but he will make her believe it is true as long as he will decide to take pleasure in controlling her.

[–]mega_beta -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Sometimes I amuse myself by getting a girl to love me, then abandoning her.

Girls do the same thing. It's just a game. All that matters is winning.

[–]RAWR-Chomp 0 points1 point  (2 children)

There are plenty of guys who look like "bad boys" but live surprisingly normal lives. I think that's what she means. Like a punk rocker rocket scientist. We exist.

[–]loin_fruit 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I always took it as a juxtaposition kinda thing. The ultimate guy for a woman would be a guy that knows how to balance being alpha and beta. And a dude who's wearing a business suit but has a shit ton of tattoos, or an mma fighter that also plays in an orchestra, comes off as a guy who is tough and alpha like, but also have characteristics that might resemble a beta.

[–]RAWR-Chomp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or maybe humans don't fit in to an outdated chimp hierarchy. Maybe human interaction is much more complex with whole bodies of science like sociology and psychology dedicated to understanding such complexities.

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Cryocasm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's more like this:

In his head: "Yeah I'm fucking this bitch and when she acts up I'll leave".

In her head: "Omfg he acts sooo like he doesn't care but I know deep down he loves me™"

[–]R4F1 69 points70 points  (22 children)

This one actually disgusted me. Hypocrite much? Oh wait, just the usual female double-standard.

I'm really ashamed of the fact that I am not attracted to someone with a physical disability. It's so hypocritical of me. I'm a recent amputee and I want a man who can look past my physical appearance but I am not willing to do the same thing.

Fellow amputee here. Same feelings.

Lot of gold-digger stuff as well.

Money. Not like over-the-top wealth, but I like a dude with a solid retirement plan and an oh-shit fund that could keep him comfortable for 6 months.

and,

My sexual attraction to men is strongly dictated by how expensive and flashy their shoes are. I'm sort of ashamed.

[–]Endorsed ContributorUrsusG 65 points66 points  (10 children)

This one actually disgusted me. Hypocrite much? Oh wait, just the usual female double-standard.

It really helps to look at things from the gene's perspective.

There is no fairness in Nature, which is why no amount of rationalization will make an amputee woman attracted to an amputee guy 'because that would be fair'.

No, she will remain attracted to Chad McBradpitt because biology. Don't hate on that, it's life.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 38 points39 points  (4 children)

True also in nature a healthy dude wouldn't commit to an amputee female unless he had committed prior to said amputation. So her options would be naturally limited to weaker males who may be willing to put up with a disability because they are unable to secure top shelf pussy.

Of course modern culture gets dudes playing captain save-a-ho and come to the rescue saying dudes shouldn't knock women for physical disabilities while they wont date a guy who's missing a leg even if he got it blown off saving a thousand people from a terrorist bomb.

[–]t21spectre 11 points12 points  (2 children)

You can interchange "disabled" with "obese" and get the same result.

True also in nature a healthy dude wouldn't commit to an obese female unless he had committed prior to said obesity. So her options would be naturally limited to weaker males who may be willing to put up with obesity because they are unable to secure top shelf pussy.

Of course modern culture gets dudes playing captain save-a-ho and come to the rescue saying dudes shouldn't knock women for being obese while they wont date a guy who's obese even if he got obese saving a thousand people from a terrorist bomb.

Obese women think they are entitled to a sexy fit guy. Despite all the fat acceptance BS you never see them lining up to date obese men.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Well I never said being fat/obese isn't a disability.

[–]foldpak111 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Haha true. You could be on some spider man shit and save the entire city of NYC from an imminent threat. But if you become a cripple in the process, you'll live a pretty lonely life. Of course you'd get your 15 mins of fame but after that it's like you didn't even exist.

[–]R4F1 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Nothing for me to hate, I'm not disabled. It's just so funny to see women clamoring for "fat acceptance" and acceptance of all sorts of ridiculous things as "disabilities", while they themselves discriminate against actual disabled men. Having a small penis or being short is a valid reason for women to reject a guy, but apparently men shouldn't reject a girl because she's a landwhale. Last time I checked, the short guy can't change his height, but the fatty can surely change her weight if she got off the couch. These are the types of logical fallacies and contradictions that men must point out to counter feminist arguments. They talk about equality but in reality its all double-standards. Because that's nature – men and women are not equal and never will be.

I never hated on that, its just retarded when you see a low SMV woman (amputee) shitting on a fellow amputee man. The biology of sex is one aspect of TRP, the economics of sex is another. Biologically every woman is hypergamous to the fact that she wants a man with the best resources and genes she can get. But her economic value does not allow that, she would normally need to settle for someone of lower SMV or would need to makeup for her own low SMV with her personality (since she clearly cannot makeup for it in the biology/beauty department herself). But no, a woman's failure in rationalism and her excellence in emotionalism drives her to the state of solipsistic hamster-bliss. Love thy cripple woman, hate thy cripple man.

[–]AdmiralVonJackass 15 points16 points  (1 child)

People in positions of weakness tend to use complaint as a way of bargaining power for themselves. We are all playing our role whether we know it or not.

[–]xu85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everybody is a victim these days

[–]foldpak111 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Reminds me of the signal.

The main character had crippled legs and was wheelchair bound. His girlfriend was going away to university for an entire year. This made him extremely distant, saying that he had to 'protect himself.' she would get upset but he didn't budge. Good on him because a week into university she'd be all over Chad, then come home and exercise typical female behavior by lying, saying she's been faithful.

If you become crippled, you must have a warrior mindset. Imagine yourself as Marcus Luttrell the night after the 5 hour firefight, when he was crawling all night for 7 miles. That's who you are, now. Love it. More importantly, love yourself. Because no one else will.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

To be fair if I became an amputee... They'd appear no more attractive to me tomorrow. By I will give them a chance out of necessity caused by lack of choice. She having a vagina does not need to settle. Always some horndogs looking for a hole.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (6 children)

Hypocriticalish, but here we encourage indian guys to avoid indian girls like the plague

[–]R4F1 14 points15 points  (4 children)

Double standards are real (and necessary), but only women never admit it. There's always that one guy in every TRP thread that comes in saying "don't blame women, yada yada". Indeed it is nature, so on that count nothings wrong with women (for they follow their emotions, aka instinct). But we can blame women for their dishonesty. There's 2 types of men out there: one type who will fuck anything that moves so he doesn't discriminate, and then there's the second type whose much more specific but he'll openly say "I'm only into white chicks/skinny/fat/chicks who can cook/etc".

With women, they'll say one thing and do another. They'll say they want nice guys, in reality they want an alpha and it doesn't matter if he's the biggest douchebag in the world. They'll say they don't care about money, but they always go for the guy with the car and is older then her (which is a biological indication of hypergamy, since an elder man has more skill/resources than a younger man). So that's my only objection with women; not their nature, its their blatant dishonesty. And its only in rare moments like that thread that you see feminists open about what they really want.

[–]Endorsed ContributorUrsusG 18 points19 points  (2 children)

So that's my only objection with women; not their nature, its their blatant dishonesty.

But that blatant dishonesty IS their nature, that's the whole point.

If you want to deal with women, you need to accept it and roll with it, else go MGTOW, because you sure won't turn women honest.

Sure, you can vent about their dishonesty to guys, but that's preaching to the choir. We already know.

[–]R4F1 8 points9 points  (1 child)

You're resorting to strawman. I've accepted that since Day 1, otherwise I wouldn't be into TRP. The Red Pill is specifically designed to explain to us how sexuality & gender dynamics works when society around us, women, parents, academia won't. That being said, I can choose to criticize whomever I want. I was into MRA way before I got into TRP (since my teens), so of course I'm going to vent about double-standards now and then. It doesn't make me naive, it's not the "anger phase", I'm more opposed to the institutionalization of these phenomena thanks to the government and feminism than I am to women. Women is as women was.

[–]Endorsed ContributorUrsusG 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm more opposed to the institutionalization of these phenomena thanks to the government and feminism than I am to women. Women is as women was.

This I can agree with completely.

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

We all know this friend who says he loves his GF for her personality ("no, she's really cool!") while it's obvious to everyone that she's a dumb and annoying bitch. Men aren't honest about what they are attracted to either.

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

Only because these Indian girls have done the same thing to them

[–]Gold_Mouth 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This one actually disgusted me. Hypocrite much? Oh wait, just the usual female double-standard.

Everyone's a hypocrite. Like how I like to fuck a lot but I don't want a relationship with a slut.

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

Is wealth combined with clear plate guidelines a good way to make plates spin themselves?

[–]Lapidarist 98 points99 points  (4 children)

The sheer level of willful self-delusion women possess and use in creating these untrue notions about themselves should be more than enough reason for any guy to question the veracity of everything you've ever been told about women.

In order to convince so many others of a completely false set of ideas you either have to be a psychopath or holily believe in them yourself. Since psychopaths are malicious, deliberate opportunists, and women are opportunists merely by virtue of evolutionary hardwiring, it must be the latter, as we undoubtedly all know by know. However, that doesn't mean female opportunism doesn't have striking similarities to psychopathy - it surely does.

That's why redpillers are often referred to as psychopaths on reddit; people are shocked by the non-gynocentric view of women which, without all the intentional misapprehension, reveals female nature to consist mostly of biological opportunism.

[–]hamsterenema 33 points34 points  (3 children)

Lapidarist this is dead on.

But really amazes me is that nobody calls them out on this bs or expects them to accept responsibility for it.

Because of this kind of shit right here (in the op) I will most likely never marry.

It makes no sense. And it makes no sense for us to play to it.

The man is supposed to be in charge, until she doesn't want him to be. Than he is creepy and controlling.

The man should be a white Knight? Nope. Than he is too nice/available. He no longer stokes the fire.

I will be myself. With kindness. And when that is not good enough I will smile and walk away.

And I will not put my d!ck in crazy. Unless I am far from home under an assumed name:)

[–]Silhouettedweirdo 9 points10 points  (2 children)

honestly, i couldnt be the "bad Boy" type to save my life. its been that way since i was young. i was always the person who tried to help everyone and be the good guy, never take anything in return. tried to be myself. be funny. yet, i was always told im sweet, or lm like a brother. its like. i want to be me. but its not good enough

[–]hamsterenema 14 points15 points  (0 children)

"Not good enough" for who?

You are good enough for your own happiness. The best advice I've ever received was to let go of wanting.

You don't have to be "good enough" for anyone but you.

Concentrate on what makes you happy. Women come and go. But you have to live with yourself for the rest of your life.

[–]Hithard_McBeefsmash 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This just in from our gender war correspondent: women, generally speaking, love tall, athletic, confident, powerful, dominant men. More succinctly, masculine men. Who would've thought?

[–]Kose2kose 7 points8 points  (0 children)

no surprise here. Same ol same ol. Just another RP thread confirming the irrefutable and frequent truths of life love and the pursuit of happiness .

what i find crazy i the people that will sit there and tell me none of this is true. You simply can't argue. How do people not get this?

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (2 children)

The more and more I observe people, the more I see TRP isn't the bunch of sexist pigs everyone says they are but actually totally right about this shit.

No one likes when people talk the truth. Using the advice and suggested readings I have bettered myself not just with women but with my confidence.. I ended up getting a promotion by simply following the advice of standing up straight, a wider gait, talking more loudly, etc... Being more assertive in front of women that I like just to get them more attracted to me.. That kind of thing is awesome. Love you guys<3 just wanted to say that.

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Newdist2 19 points20 points  (3 children)

There are two factors going on here:

  1. The AWALT factor: Women want strong, confident, masculine leaders. Not men who will defer to them, not little fags prancing around in their "This is what a feminist looks like" T-shirts. This is not something you should bash women for.

  2. The damaged women factor. Look where you got that thread from. Some of the more fucked up shit there is a product of who those women are, the way they were raised, the life choices they've made, etc. They're broken, that's all. NAWALT.

I am incredibly attracted to guys with cerebral palsy.

Generally speaking, I'm pretty vanilla. But damn, the thought of getting all up on some guy's cock when he can't really control his hands well enough to effectively pleasure himself just gets me going.

and

Men in women's panties

Actually fuck that, I'm not ashamed, it's hot as shit

[–]icallmyselfmonster 25 points26 points  (1 child)

Read the rest of that part, its gold. Random guy appears:

Okay, I have cerebral palsy, a mild form mind you, meaning that it only effects the left side of my body, but I'm otherwise fairly normal other than wearing a brace on my single left leg. I'm assuming that is attractive to you? Even at that mild, mild form, is it just knowing that they have it, or are visible signs what really turn you on?

Hmm. I'd probably be a bit keener to get to know you. It would probably catch my interest, but it's not immediately going to kick me into "ey bbz i suk ur dik" mode.

Friendzoned AA/bb , shotdown.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

man...

that guy is desperate

but then again he does have cerebral palsy, can only imagine how limiting that can be

[–]1Snivellious 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There's a really fascinating exchange after "aren't completely available".

I'm attracted to men who aren't completely available. I figure it's to continually relive my relationship with my dad.

That's so sad...I hope one day you find one that will make himself available to you.

I get bored with men who are completely available. It's like the whole thing is too easy.

A great flash of self-awareness from one side, and a complete abandonment of agency on the other. There's just this blind assumption that if must be a problem with the guys if you're unhappy. Here we got lucky enough to see someone come back with "No, I'm into them cause they cause problems."

[–]wastemeaway 4 points5 points  (3 children)

This is incredibly true. I've been a total beta male my whole life until recently. The more authoritative I am with a woman the more she responds positively. They always say they want a "nice" guy, but they only seem to respond to "bad" guys.

[–][deleted] 37 points38 points  (6 children)

Women love guys who are dominant and control them.

The woman, by her stand, will use anything she has (seduction, sex, "love", etc.) to try to control him.

She only needs to use her charm and body on someone who is valuable and not easily controllable. That's why she needs to use sex, otherwise (if the man is easily controllable) she wouldn't need to use it; and she knows she cannot just use sex to satisfy her sex-desires (she must be careful into using it for satisfaction) because that would mean she will decrease the power of the weapon (sex).

That's also why AF/BB. If she only wants to satisfy her sex-desire why use the weapon to not get the best satisfaction? Of course she will use her precious weapon only for the best, otherwise (if she doesn't use it for "the best available") she is taking the risk to decrease the actual power of the weapon.

[–]1dongpal 7 points8 points  (5 children)

I've never read about this theory on TRP but I find it very interesting and logical.

[–]needless_pickup_line 29 points30 points  (2 children)

Not the OP, but this is the same reason women slut-shame. When a woman sleeps around, it devalues sex for her entire group. Men tolerate a woman's bullshit because they want to fuck, and that tolerance diminishes when her friend is giving it out for free.

[–]through_a_ways 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Also partially the reason why feminism opposes prostitution (and sometimes even porn)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Except the CC with a healthy dose of solipsism contradicts all that.

And thus the hamster is born.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

You should judge by yourself. It seems nothing can be completely "proved" (perhaps if you start with some axioms you should be able to do it, but the veracity of the axioms is still an issue).

What I can say to you is that the framework I am trying to describe (it is all about efficiently gaining control of the other best valuable agents, putting it shortly) could be useful to have in mind when one interacts with other agents in the system. Of course, one is the only one who can think for himself, one must decide the best course of action for himself.

I know I should not say it, but you seem genuinely interested. The last post in the AlreadyRed sub tries to describe the framework.

[–]1dongpal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

AlreadyRed

i didnt know about this subreddit. hopefully i learn something new

[–]houdinisleftasscheek 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Its obvious most women don't want to appear shallow but the truth is we are just animals at the end of the day. Subconscious desires. Women being attracted to strong protective 'manly' figures and men generally being attracted to a shy 'feminine' women. It's just in our nature.

[–]ShitArchonXPR 5 points6 points  (0 children)

My fiance is a good guy good guy and I really love him, our life together is great ...but then I talk to the dirty long haired pot smoking mechanics at work and it makes me miss fucking up my life by dating them. Stupid.

Who wants to bet she did sexual things with guys when she was "fucking up her life" but she'll never, ever do it with her fiancee?

[–]WordsNotToLiveBy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm never surprised by women anymore. Used to be a mystery, but once you start to figure out the patterns in their words & behavior, then it starts to fall into place.

Also, Reddit's ASK-So-&-So posts (subject: women) usually never cease to entertain with their complete & utter WTF.

Case in point - http://redditlog.com/snapshots/1399393

This comment perfectly responds to the rest of the comments there... and this one.

[–]easternenigma 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This askwomen topic is amazing because it confirms 100% everything we say here straight from the horse's mouth.

Women get very wet for:

Masculine strong men. Every other reply was talking about guys in manly occupations, athletes, or just tall guys in general.

Bad boys. Overwhelming love for the dark triads.

Beta bucks/alpha fucks dynamic. Most of the women showed contempt for beta traits.

So predictable really...

[–]my-redpillthrowaway 11 points12 points  (0 children)

No surprises here. Men in power is the greatest aphrodisiac to women.

[–]foldpak111 9 points10 points  (3 children)

"I'm really ashamed of the fact that I am not attracted to someone with a physical disability. It's so hypocritical of me. I'm a recent amputee and I want a man who can look past my physical appearance but I am not willing to do the same thing."

Funny thing is that most men don't find you attractive either, shame not included.

"Not really ashamed, but I don't discuss it too much? I can't find guys who aren't at least 5'9 or above attractive. I dated a guy who was about my height, and he was really nice and smart and engaging and had a good face, but I couldn't get over the height thing.

fwiw, I'm 5'4."

If you're a female under 5'7" and you hate short guys, tie your tubes and stop contributing to the 'problem' with your so- called inferior genes.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

If you're a female under 5'7" and you hate short guys, tie your tubes and stop contributing to the 'problem' with your so- called inferior genes.

I haven't thought of it that way, but great point.

[–]foldpak111 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I read somewhere that 65% of a kids height comes from the female. I'm not sure if it's true but if it is, women seriously need to stop contributing to something they hate.

[–]redpilltom 9 points10 points  (0 children)

These are the same women who will come here and say how disgusted they are with us, then probably cheat on their boyfriend with one of us a week later.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here; none of the normal girls I know actually go on reddit

[–]let_terror_reign 6 points7 points  (0 children)

First thing that struck me; this is only women on reddit.
Second thing, seems to work in real life too.

[–]RAWR-Chomp -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Good point. The sample here might be... skewed.

[–]good_complexion 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Wow. What's that, you want to fuck a dirty scumbag? I have an EXCITING new offer!

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]good_complexion 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Oh I do. I get approached every weekend. It's great. Everything in that thread is true.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Many of the comments say they didn't accept advances because of self esteem issues. It's a reoccurring and it annoys me, are they just hamstering?

[–][deleted] 33 points33 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]redpillerinnyc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Some men hamster just like women do.

[–]Anderfail -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Edit - Goddammit, I just realized this was a quote from the other thread. Ignore this post.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"I'm an independent woman. I get things done, and I'm used to being in charge because of my career. I LOVE a guy who can "handle" me instead. Oomph"

Hahaha this thread is great.

[–]Sesa_Refum 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well well well, look what we have here. Another piping hot heap of AWALT

I love the idea of being cheated on; I believe that makes me a "cuckquean." But it's a complicated kink because while I love the thought of my SO fucking someone else, the actual action would kill me.

[–]fullhalf 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Not really ashamed, but I don't discuss it too much? I can't find guys who aren't at least 5'9 or above attractive. I dated a guy who was about my height, and he was really nice and smart and engaging and had a good face, but I couldn't get over the height thing.

fwiw, I'm 5'4.

nice, smart, engaging, still left him just because he didn't have one physical feature.

[–]my-redpillthrowaway 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Give it some time and go back to the thread. The lurkers may see this thread and try to do some damage control by commenting total opposites of what OP quoted

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

wheres that thread for a year ago about a glitch in the matrix where askwomen had a thread exactly like this one?

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'll admit I'm a total sucker for the bad boy who's secretly good thing. Like not so much in real life, but for movies/tv shows/books? If there's a character that's kind of an asshole, but then has a redemption arc I'm hooked on him.

Dark Triad at its core

Yeah women are a sucker for a "bad boy they can fix" the thing is you can never let them "fix you" because if you do, the tingles turn off.

Incorporate the dark triad into your social game and business management: http://illimitablemen.com/power

[–]magikmausi 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Feminism is a political movement. It's an important movement from an economics perspective - it helps unlock greater value by bringing women into the workplace.

The trouble starts when you start applying that movement to sex and love and attraction, all of which are driven by primal instincts.

You can be as much of a feminist as you want, climb the corporate ladder yadda yadda, but you will always be attracted to the guys who've always attracted women.

The hardcore feminists will resist their urges and stick to their principles. The 'shallow' feminists will talk a big game then fuck the same guys they supposedly hate.

I have zero respect for the latter. You gotta stick by your principles

[–]redpillerinnyc 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not surprised to see how many girls are into junkie types. I had a friend who was a total junkie, unemployed, played guitar in band... you wouldn't believe the amount of pussy he got. Hot rich girls would buy him dope so he would pay attention to them.

[–]7hunderpants 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I have seen in the media examples of women in power, who choose to be with abusive men. They will proudly show and tell of the 'abuse' they have suffered then take the guy back.

This is their choice and they are aware that the man has a history of abuse.

Perhaps you can remember a female friend who does the same or are aware of a celebrity in your country who has done this on several occasions.

[–]regularbowls 4 points5 points  (1 child)

is it just me or is the term "dark triad" lame as fuck?

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

I thought it was new Sleeping Dogs dlc.

[–]AKnightAlone 4 points5 points  (1 child)

izzardsl 190 Points 22:08:28, 19 December

I'm kind of needy I guess, because if a guy is genuinely nice to me, I'll immediately get a crush on him. It's really that easy.

Ill_Made_Knight 93 Points 00:17:51, 20 December

You sound like you'd be every neckbeards dream girl, although often their kindness isn't so genuine

izzardsl 58 Points 00:19:55, 20 December

Ah, that was why I specifically clarified genuine in my comment! I know a Nice Guy when I see one, and that shit does not fly.

"Their kindness isn't so genuine." Pretty sure this means they aren't attractive enough to do something nice without appearing needy.

[–]foldpak111 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Women want kind guys. Not nice. There's a huge difference. Think Elliot Hulse demeanor. He's an extremely kind guy but gives off that don't mess with me aura. But those women on that page... they want the boys over at facialabuse

[–]wcstone 10 points11 points  (5 children)

It doesn't seem any different from men wanting to marry a saintly girl next door type, but still fantasising about having it off with the office slut.

[–]LewisSkolnick 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I disagree. In both cases, a man wants to bang the daylights out of the office slut or girl next door. In the case of these women - they are literally lying to themselves about what they want (sexually) when they settle for the BB.

[–]wcstone 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I do think there is some cognitive dissonance happening on both sides. But there is more social pressure on women to hide or sublimate their sexual interests, the same way most men don't admit to their friends or anyone that sometimes they just need a hug and some appreciation. The women in this thread are admitting that they have these normal thoughts, but they are not saying they act on them and they are sparing their SOs from having to deal the anxiety of these thoughts. Would you tell your wife how much you would like to bang her sister? If you do, you are most likely an a-hole. This subreddit makes a lot of sense sometimes and sometimes it's just misery looking for company.

[–]through_a_ways 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Men inherently benefit from a short term strategy, and women inherently benefit from a long term one.

So, for a man to give up a long term relationship means he effectively finds the woman more worthy than the other women he is capable of creating an LTR with.

For a woman to give up casual sex means she effectively finds the man more worthy than the other men she is capable of having sex with (which is basically all of them)

It's objectively more permissible (and more healthy for the relationship in general) for a man to cheat in an LTR than for a woman to.

[–]foldpak111 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You'd have to be gosling or depp

[–]heyyoman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha what does it mean to be secretly attractive? ?

[–]DanG3 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Rejections are not always rejections. They are frequently tests for fitness, which includes courage, creativity, presistance and sometimes loyalty. The story cited and related comments illustrate not (always) the "WTF?" aspect of (mating) women, but rather the testing that they unconsciously do. They even hamster by coming up with excuses for their behavior, 'I could never date a ginger.' Had the ginger (or other rejected men) demonstrated more "fitness" by pushing through the test with creativity, humor, etc. - rather than melting away - it's probable that they would have had more success (which is one thing that concerns me when this sub gets on a "Nexting" craze as The Response to ... too many things.

[–]fhghg -1 points0 points  (1 child)

When you next them they give chase. It's not like your tossing them away.

[–]DanG3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If that is the desired reaction and context of "next," we will have to start specifying "hard next" or "soft next." I would, however, suggest NOT using "soft nexts" as doing so will degrade the desired dread effect of "next" among other women, and also within your relationship. Men have the power to control the desired relationship and their commitment to the relationship. If a woman/women realize that "next" means they will get multiple reprieves for bad/undesirable behavior the power of "next" will be degraded and the relationship turned into a drama-fest.

[–]wattwatty 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I like a guy who is below my league, maybe a chubby guy or a slim build with little muscle. I like of he's shy and inexperienced when it comes to sex. I don't know why but I want him to feel lucky that I'm with him, that might sound conceded, however it also makes him less likely to be unfaithful.

Wow. This was upvoted quite a bit. If I were a little bit more beta, I would be ashamed of my visceral response to it, i.e. a strong desire to break something.

Also: Learn the difference between "conceded" and "conceited." And, Google the term "comma splice," you illiterate fucking cunt.

[–]Lt_Muffintoes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2867/sexual-economics-wednesday-call-in-show-december-17th-2014

2:19:20 onwards. Questions to ask a woman to see whether she is human or reptillian.

What's your relationship with your dad?

How have men contributed to the world?

What man do you respect and admire?

What do men bring to relationships?

[–]AugmentedFury 4 points5 points  (7 children)

Not a good woman was seen that day.

[–]asd1100 1 points1 points [recovered]

good luck with that.

[–]Newdist2 7 points8 points  (5 children)

A few do exist. I know of several myself (friends of my parents).

  • Married by 23
  • Probable N of 0 or 1 before marriage (Obviously I can't know for sure, but their husbands aren't the kind of guys to marry sluts)
  • Religious
  • Gave their husbands 6, 8, 10, or more kids
  • Stay at home moms, hardworking
  • Always respectful of their husbands in public
  • No hint of infidelity
  • Still married 30+ years later

The goal of feminism is basically to make sure that women like this don't exist. They're winning.

[–]DanG3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's important to discern "attracted to" from "want for a BF/STR" or even "want to date." For a PUA and a ONS a woman's "attracted to" is good enough. In a relationship lasting much longer than ~12 weeks the man is going to have to display, and will be tested for, other qualities the woman is looking for - IF she is thinking of/ready to settle down.

Further, a woman's "attraction" interest is dynamic. A woman coming off a ~12 week carousel ride on a dark horse is probably going to be looking initially for a horse of a slighty lighter color.

[–]foldpak111 1 point2 points  (1 child)

This is why money has nothing to do with short term attraction.

[–]fatalcharm 1 point2 points  (2 children)

To be fair, a lot of people fantasize about things that they would never do in real life.

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]fatalcharm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can relate to that. We are all just animals with advanced social skills. All of us have urges, but weather we act on them or not is up to us.

[–]SQQQ 3 points4 points  (6 children)

in otherwords, women want to be submissive.

[–]asd1100 23 points23 points [recovered]

no, they want someone to be deserving of their submission. Careful with wishful thinking. When discussing everything in regards to bipolar relationships you should always consider both views, because functionally we literally see and live the world differently. So going on unilateral assumptions is dangerous and leads to invalid positions.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

They see the system only from their own point of view. To acknowledge one is part of the system and to be able to see the whole system from outside the system.

Careful with wishful thinking.

Why do you try to let him see? I ask seriously, not sarcastically. That is something which I cannot yet fully comprehend why people do it.

[–]asd1100 4 points4 points [recovered]

I am here (on the internet) to troll, to learn or to give back effortlessly to the human race. Breaking circle jerks is a opportunity to kill 2 birds with one trow. - it's also not for the comentator, it's for the readers, maybe one gets a spark due to my comment and even if nobody get's it, I got humor out of it, for my 40 seconds worth of writing out of it.

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

OK. It is clear. I understand what you mean.

Did it happen to you that you wanted to make aware a specific someone? When you say "maybe one gets a spark due to my comment" you acknowledge the fact that someone can get more awareness by reading your comment, and that someone could be any reader and not just the comentator you are responding. What if you wanted to have control over who will receive your sparks?

[–]garlicextract 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One woman on that thread says she "loves dads" and immediately hamstered in "I'm not a homewrecker, though"... makes me sick.

[–]BitingInsects 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you've ever watched Orange is the New Black.. there is a token character named Pornstache. The other men on the show are extreme opposites, and get taken advantage of. This guy is a complete, disgusting douche. But fans of the show absolutely love him and if you see the actor in interviews the women go nuts.

[–]Fthebluepill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reading this post has made me angry. I want to stop unplugging but can't help it. Fuck!

[–]TheSecretIsPills 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Kind of picking and choosing.

What about this one?

I am incredibly attracted to guys with cerebral palsy.

Generally speaking, I'm pretty vanilla. But damn, the thought of getting all up on some guy's cock when he can't really control his hands well enough to effectively pleasure himself just gets me going.

[–]superyay 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Haha wtf i didn't look through the thread, but is this for real?

[–]Overzealous_BlackGuy 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm sick of seeing this shit, and seeing the same bitches say they want nice guys.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

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

DT isn't an ideal anyone should aspire to in my own view. Sure, you'll get laid, but your just a lifeless husk of a person in the end.

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

Great thread.. Kinda says different women like different things.. Some do like dark triad.. Some like inexperienced nerdy types.. Some women like men in nice shoes some women like scruffy stinky types..

What I took from it was that I could pick women no matter what I'm wearing, I could pick up wearing even if I didn't bother washing.. Different women like different things just like different men get horny for different things.. It's inspiring.. Some will some won't

[–]stoicly_whimsical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I know the permanently friend-zoned self-pitying "I'm a nice guy thus I finish last fuck me right?" stereotype is thickly prominent here (reddit), and that in most cases it's a flawed and hypocritical mentality, but the type of attraction you describe feeling does make it seem a bit reasonable. I understand stupid uncontrollable desire, and don't hold it against anyone, but it would still get under my skin if my SO was turned on by qualities opposite of those I pride myself on, or if I found my sex appeal lacking for lack of those qualities.

C'mon guys, who put this up ?

[–]Capitalsman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not really surprised, I bet they are into rape play as as well. This is like hearing an anti-gay republican congressman propositioned a guy in the bathroom.

[–]self_made_guy -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

THIS !!! It should go o the side bar, under : Evidence supporting Red Pill Theory.

[–]evenmoretiredoflibs -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Again, a fundamental redpill truth. Don't pay attention to her and she'll worship the ground you walk on, if you're hot.

If she had a shit relationship with her dad. You could also just not date girls that have daddy issues.