TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

54

In another thread a red pill is telling us the sexual market is skewed because women fuck Chad and get an overinflated sense of their own value, refusing to fuck average men and forcing them to dip into ugly women to find casual sex.

The title is a quote from one of the comments in that thread,

"Patriarchy gave low value guys an inflated opinion of their own worth. Eventually that bubble had to burst."

I think this makes a lot of sense. Before, women looked for a good provider because women didn't have access to many well-paying jobs like men and there were restrictions on what even the wealthy ones could do with their money. It made sense to seek a provider, something a woman couldn't get herself. These provider men had an inflated, false sexual advantage that isn't as relevant anymore today because women now have the option to enter well-paying jobs and provide for themselves - and many do!

The men who complain they have to dip down into ugly women, these are the guys few women would have wanted to fuck in the first place. Chad isn't stealing them from you, they were never rightfully yours to begin with and they're acting on their own agency and desires by fucking guys they want to fuck instead of have to put up with for economic reasons.

Guys who complain of rampant hypergamy are clueless. If for thousands of years men had to marry much older established women and never got to see prostitutes or have casual sex and got stoned to death if they tried, they surely wouldn't politely keep putting up with old well-off women they don't find attractive if they didn't have to anymore. Why do you expect that from women?


[–][deleted] 35 points36 points  (151 children) | Copy Link

it goes both ways. the problem is that nobody believes or wants to admit that they are low value... it's always everyone else's inflated self worth that's the problem, my standards are perfectly reasonable. low value people who perceive themselves to be good catches (which is basically all of them) get frustrated by their similarly low value options. high value people-- good marriage prospects-- generally pair off by the end of college at the latest, which leaves poorer relationship prospects to date each other. It's not that 80% of women go for 20% of guys... it's that 80% (more like 60-70% but I'm following the pattern) of both sexes are already paired off.

if you've been single all that time then you, and the people you have to choose from, are low value. that doesn't mean there aren't higher-value people who, through whatever circumstances, wind up single into their mid/late twenties and beyond, but they have their pick of whoever they want, giving an illusion of a radically skewed market for those with fewer options. none of this means you can't improve if you're low value, but most people (if we're being honest) are too stuck in their ways to make significant changes.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

normally, I prefer to shit post everything you write, in this case, we see eye to eye perfectly.

Guys who estimate their SMV always make me cringe. You don't get to create your SMV, thats the other sex's job. you simply get to guesstimate, based on what kind of women/men you are attracting.

Unfortunately, while a guy will know if he's a 6, because he can never lay a 7, but an 6 who used to be an 8 ten years ago is more than happy to betabux him up today for a comfortable marriage. It's very clear what his league is.

A girl acts as if they are both equal. a female 6 can lay a male, 9. But no one will spend any time in a relationship with her who is a 7 or above.

now, the numbers are pretty hypothetical, it's to illustrate a point.

[–]figthief points points [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that18 points19 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

True. I was reading some study where men and women were asked to rate themselves in a blinded survey and without fail you had gorgeous women rating themselves as 6s or "woefully average" and mediocre looking men rating themselves as 8s or higher.

[–]Boobear310 points11 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

There should be a thread about this lol I feel like it applies to many rp men !!

[–]GridReXXit be like that14 points15 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

NY Mag did a "evo science" video about it.

Essentially came down to evo psych. Men need to boost their confidence by inflating their ego to get the courage to approach women or fight or what have you.

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

Yeah was about to say, it makes sense because women can judge by the type of men who hit on them, whereas in general men cannot really do this and like you say kinda need to puff up their egos to give them confidence to approach.

I'd estimate my own physical attractiveness to be a 5 but then I also have low self-esteem and have done forever, and I've had way hotter girls than that interested in me, so I don't even fucking know haha no point obsessing over that bullshit ultimately.

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah was about to say, it makes sense because women can judge by the type of men who hit on them, whereas in general men cannot really do this and like you say kinda need to puff up their egos to give them confidence to approach.

And more important, to actually make it interesting when you do. I don't need to initiate, because we're all degenerate snowflakes, but part of the dance is knowing what I can offer, and knowing I can walk away if she doesn't meet the asking price.

Anyone who makes their shitty self-esteem the focus of the conversation, is way more into self-gratification anyways.

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

yup,

just take a look at foreveralone and incel sub and forums,

incels are actually really honest and even pathologically good at rating looks and describing themselves and other ugly men as "sub human"

if every man was like this... well let's not imagine a situation where everyman thought like r/incels or lookism.net

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

well let's not imagine a situation where everyman thought like r/incels or lookism.net

Lol I'd join the feminists in their campaign to kill all men.

[–]figthief points points [recovered] | Copy Link

It is the most likely explanation for their perception of the market being "broken" and that they were "cheated" somehow.

[–]Boobear311 points12 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yup. It's also hard for men to get an accurate assessment on their looks because women tend to sugarcoat it. Like some ugly or fat dude who can't get laid asks his female friend how he looks, and she tells him he's handsome to not hurt his feelings. Men however are way more brutal when they judge a woman's looks, especially when that woman won't sleep with them. So a man who's friend with a woman might tell her she's uglier than she is or make fun of her features because he's bitter she won't have sex with him, even if she might be well out of his league. I knew some guys (both overweight) who talked shit on the way one of my pretty fit girl friend looks, even though she was clearly better looking than him. Weird

[–]figthief points points [recovered] | Copy Link

the only reliable assessment they have is who will or wont date them. when that is out of sync with their unfounded confidence, what their mom tells them, or what Jay Baruchel movies demonstrate, they prefer to think something is wrong with the market.

[–]Boobear30 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's funny cause when I was young, I heard this unattractive overweight man, probably one of the more unattractive men I've encountered, say "I decide who is in my league". It doesn't work like that. That's why he is like 35 and still single. Lol. Last I heard when he was 30, he was a virgin.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Men however are way more brutal when they judge a woman's looks, especially when that woman won't sleep with them.

Men are exactly the opposite when they are talking to a woman they believe they will sleep with, or are sleeping with. My first lay was morbidly obese. You think I ever commented on her weight? Hell, no. She was the prettiest, most slender girl who would fuck me. Honesty is not always the best policy.

[–]Boobear31 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well I'm a normal weight and nice face and guys seem to have given up brutal unsolicited opinions pretty often, so who knows. Maybe it's more that I just seem bitchy

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

Fat girls know they are fat. If you cant see through the "all that bass" overcompensation, you probably miss a lot of things

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That extends to most things, not just physical attractiveness.

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

Yes. Dunning Kruger is more pronounced in men than women too

[–]disposable_pants1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You don't get to create your SMV, thats the other sex's job. you simply get to guesstimate, based on what kind of women/men you are attracting.

The difficulty is that the type of women men attract is a function of at least two things:

  1. That man's SMV (Game is rolled into this), and
  2. That man's willingness to approach women.

Maybe a guy is well above average and could pretty consistently sleep with 8s if he went out and tried. But he just isn't willing to walk over to an 8 and talk to her, so he usually sleeps with 5s or 6s who initiate with him or who at least make it incredibly easy for him to initiate.

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

Then he ain't above average, thats how it works

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

Yep. For me? Body: 6.5/10. Face: 5/10 Personality: 1/10.

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

A girl acts as if they are both equal. a female 6 can lay a male, 9. But no one will spend any time in a relationship with her who is a 7 or above.

RMV is different from SMV though.

SMV is mostly looks+charisma+good personality/charm/what the red pill calls game

RMV is usually ability to have support a family (whether through housework or through a job), personality match, sexual compatibility, mutual agreement of what they want the relationship to be (captain/first mate, egalitarian, traditional), committed (no cheating), and a lot more things, looks often being less important as long as it reaches the threshold for physical attraction.

Women don't settle for their beta bux, they just look through the lens of RMV rather than SMV. The beta bux SMV might be low but they might have a lot of traits that make their RMV really high. If a Chad 10/10 offered to marry a woman, but he has no marriageable traits, and a 6/10 guy offered to marry the same woman, and he has great traits for marriage, most women pick the latter.

Same with women, a lot of guys would not marry a supermodel if she doesn't have traits for marriage (for example, not ready to commit), their personality doesn't match, they aren't very compatible. Trophy wives are an exception but most men don't want trophy wives. (A lot of men would say "wow yeah sign me up!" just like women say when they see Chad, but once they actually marry someone who has nothing at all in common with them, a lot of them change their minds.)

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

Women don't settle for their beta bux, they just look through the lens of RMV rather than SMV. The beta bux SMV might be low but they might have a lot of traits that make their RMV really high.

Problem is RMV doesn't get you the sex life SMV does. I'm all about relationships, but not at the expense of a healthy sex life. So while I appreciate a woman correctly identifying my RMV traits, I'm not very interested if I don't "make the cut" without them.

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

Youre right, they are. Now go tell every young girl that, after you slap the phone outta her hand.

Before they turn 35, and bitter

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Most young women aren't looking to get married.

When they want to get married they'll prefer the guy who's better for marriage.

Just like most young men aren't looking for marriage.

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

I was talking a lesson for later in life.

Arent you chicks supposed to artificially inflate the price of pussy?

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Interesting.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (34 children) | Copy Link

high value people-- good marriage prospects-- generally pair off by the end of college at the latest, which leaves poorer relationship prospects to date each other.

This must be a cultural thing. I don't know a single person whose parents got married before twenty-eight probably at the earliest and these are UMC, good-looking, successful people. Honestly I think i'd be fairly shocking if I met someone my age (early twenties) whose parents were still in their forties.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

well most people date for a long time before tying the knot. mr. spaceboobs and I were together for 8 years before we got married, and we were among the first in our friend group. but we lived together and pooled our resources almost that entire time.

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

Not that long. Again, two years is pretty common here. My mother and father met when they were twenty eight and married at thirty.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

huh. how old are you? my parents got married at 25 and that was considered old back in the 80's.

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

well most people date for a long time before tying the knot.

I agree with this, but I'd say that quite a few high-value people start dating their eventual spouse after college for the simple reason that it's not easy to transition a college relationship into the real world. For example:

  • What if one of them is a year or two older?
  • What if their first jobs out of college take them to different cities?
  • What if the stress of having a job and adult responsibilities strain/change the relationship dynamics?
  • What if increased time together (e.g. both parties move to the same city and cohabitate, which they did not do in college) strains/changes the relationship dynamics?

There are a lot of hurdles, even if both parties are committed and desirable.

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

of course, relationships fail all the time even for high value people. I'm speaking in generalizations. attractive, good relationship prospects don't find themselves single for long if they don't want to be.

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think your generalization applies to a majority of the high-value population, necessarily, because of what I listed above. You could even argue that those factors are even more likely to split up a high-value couple, because both parties have an abundance of options and thus are more likely to move on if there's significant difficulty.

Say Tim is a senior in college and Sarah, his girlfriend, is a junior. He moves a few states away for a job after graduation. Compared to the average guy with fewer options, he's a lot less likely to tough it out if long distance turns out to not all that great.

[–]maxytracksSelf-Righteous Prick0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Ah, so you and mr spaceboobs are among those high-value people your're talking about?

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

eh... probably not broadly speaking but to each other yes.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't know a single person whose parents got married before twenty-eight probably at the earliest and these are UMC, good-looking, successful people.

What seriously? Your experience contradicts statistics. Late marriages are a fairly recent thing.

[–]ChadZackary1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know any either. Most of those I know who have paired off early are not pursuing higher education.

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

Talking about middle/UMC here, professional class, in the UK.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

My oldest is 23, and I'm 46 years old. Most of my kids peers have parents around my age, and most of the people I know with kids started having them by the mid 20's, with a few exceptions that either never had children, or waited much longer to start.

I'm a little ahead of the curve in my peer group with my oldest, but my son is 17 and most of my friends children are right there with me, meaning most of them have late teens/early 20-somethings as well. We are ALL still in our 40's, but my oldest buddy is going to turn 50 next years.

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

For me, and in my environment/culture, it'd be crazy to have a kid that early. Usually people enter the workforce at around 21/22 and it takes at least five years for them to be certain of their ability to provide and for a woman to also be sure of the man's ability to do that as well.

Having a baby with a guy fresh out of university seems like a massive risk.

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

Having a baby with a guy fresh out of university seems like a massive risk.

Most of my peer group didn't attend "university" until much later in life. I myself didn't get a degree until my mid 30's when I found an employer willing to pay the bill for it. Most of us graduated HS, got jobs, got married, and started having kids in our 20's.

I should also add we are all from the working class and "done good" by those standards, at least to our families, which probably plays a large part of that. The "poor" tend to start having children early, because they realize they will NEVER be able to "provide" enough to hit some threshold to start. Might as well just have them now and suffer through it like everyone else.

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

my parents didn't start having kids until their early thirties and had their last in their early 40's. I always had the oldest parents out of my peer group. Most of my friends' parents started sometime between 19 and 23, and most were divorced by the time their kids were in grade school.

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

We know one couple that just had their first child, and they are both early 40's. They struggled like mad to get pregnant, and then had a VERY difficult pregnancy all around. And? The doctor told her the chances of having another without further complication is unlikely.

The rest of us kinda started popping out kids in our 20's, MOST were married first, but a few married after the pregnancy, and at least one married after the first birth. One couple never got married but have been living that lifestyle for 18 years now!

The one guy I know that is late 30's with young children in our peer group takes a lot of shit from us, because we keep reminding him he'll likely be using a cane or walker at their HS graduation. :P He's 39 and his youngest is 2, but those children are from his second marriage. He has older kids from his first. Most of us on marriage #2+ weren't silly enough to start having kids again!

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

yeah my parents were outliers... they just wanted to wait until they were established first. easy pregnancies too.

we were by no means wealthy but looking back I can definitely see where some of my friends' younger parents were perpetually behind a financial eight ball and how that put stress on their marriages. It's really hard to be financially solvent, a good parent, and have the rest of your ducks in a row at 19 or 20. Don't get me wrong, for the most part (from my perspective) they were great and involved parents they just got divorced in high numbers at young ages. My parents, by comparison, had a bit more life experience and career seniority under their belts.

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

yeah my parents were outliers... they just wanted to wait until they were established first. easy pregnancies too.

Honest truth: of the people I know, most always "wanted" to have kids when asked. Most did NOT however actually plan when that would happen, and instead found themselves expecting and making due. Mostly someone got pregnant along the way, and with that came the rest. Call it what you will, but it is what it is.

Of course the flip side is: if you have kids when you are young and poor, you'll have the energy to keep up with them. If you wait, you'll have the money to pay someone ELSE to do so.

[–]oneandforall points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Wow that seems very young to have a 23 year-old. I'm 22 (and the first child) and my parents are 61 and 58. I know my parents are a little older than most of my friends' parents, but not by that much.

Are you from the US?

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

From the US. Western PA. 22 for first born seems fairly common among my peers. Which is to say yes, most were having kids not long after high school. As I said, many/most of us didn't go to college, or did so later in life as older adults. Guys got jobs. Girlfriends got pregnant and became wives. Life happened.

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

UMC people marry a little later. But a lot of the BB narrative is about men who are 30-35 suddenly becoming "attractive". Even for the UMC, most people are on their first marriage by 35. I'd say it skews closer to 30 rather than 27.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I think past 35 you're going to struggle, and even past 30 it gets very difficult, but late twenties is usually when UMC people start getting serious about it and it usually happens fairly quickly.

[–]figthief points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah. I'm MC and most of the people I know who stayed in my hometown got married 22-25. Usually after a the first kid, but white people still marry typically unless its a very Steve Wilkos type demographic. The urban dwelling ones were with live-in partners by mid twenties and are in the process of marrying now. For UMC people this can be a few years delayed with longer grad school, moving to other cities for opportunities, etc. But its not vastly different. Either way, the friends I know who are single in their 30s, some of them are great, but by percentage, less of them are.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Either way, the friends I know who are single in their 30s, some of them are great, but by percentage, less of them are.

This is a good way to say it... I have some great friends who are single at my age and older, but I'd never consider dating any of them for a variety of reasons. they all have some issue or trait that makes them less broadly dateable.

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

Usually they either don't really want to be married or their standards are too high relative to what they can offer. That goes for men and women.

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

A lot of my older single friends just have really strong-- bordering on abrasive-- personalities. they're fun in small doses, but I couldn't imagine living with them.

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

Oh...that's what you mean. The intense, strong-willed, blunt, abrasive type; if female, is the type to say things like "Yeah, I'm a bitch, and proud of it!" I know what you're talking about. Had a good friend like that; would NEVER want to date her. She had one fiery temper...

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

Yeah I know a guy that was so constantly bad we stopped inviting him to parties. He needed to be control of everything, was a sore loser over silly drinking games, hit on every girl etc. He is 33 and never had a girlfriend. He's about a 4 or 5, not ugly as such that his looks were the problem. He even managed to meet women here and there and they never stuck around for more than a couple of weeks. Sometimes he still comes over for dinner, but he's too much of a liability in mixed company. I can't imagine a world where somebody has to be shackled to a man like that for survival

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You'll find that most of those people had been friends or dating since their early 20s at least. I married young (20), but almost all my friends were already paired off to the people they would marry - they just "lived in sin" with each other for longer.

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

Uh no, I won't. Most of them met as clients and then almost immediately started dating.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Clients?

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

Most of them got into business/finance/law after university, spent five or six years dating around, and then ended up with someone who they worked with at some point. No one's meeting at bars and clubs.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No- they're meeting through friends and societies at university.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (52 children) | Copy Link

high value people-- good marriage prospects-- generally pair off by the end of college at the latest

I doubt this more because of the whole college enrollment gap thing. As with the sheer shortage of men in college that means far more college educated women have to seek outside of college to find a guy and the chances of him being college educated are low to say the least. And women aren't exactly dating down any time soon. More so its not like all the high value people go off to college.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (47 children) | Copy Link

right, I was using that as an approximation of age: by ~22 or 23, the approximate age at which college graduates get their undergrad degrees.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (46 children) | Copy Link

I know. You left out one huge part tho in your post, which is the sheer lack of marriage material men. Something women are freaking out over.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (42 children) | Copy Link

no I didn't. if your only options are low-value people you yourself are low value. women freaking out over uneducated men is no different than men freaking out about "landwhales" and single moms. having a degree doesn't entitle you to shit or make you higher value, it just makes you perceive yourself as higher value than you necessarily are. thinking you're above dating an electrician because you have a degree is, in itself, a pretty big flaw. you're not bringing any more to the table than he is.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (38 children) | Copy Link

no I didn't.

Ya you did. You made the claim all of the high value people are taken up by the time they graduate college. Which is laughable.

make you higher value

How does a college degree not make you higher value when in fact it does? Both genders value one with a college degree more than one without. I mean people value a doctor more than they do a plumber.

thinking you're above dating an electrician because you have a degree is, in itself, a flaw.

It is, and its a flaw most women have.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

I'm talking about suitability as a long-term mate. a degree has no bearing over how agreeable you are, whether or not you're sloppy, how good of a teammate you are, or any of those traits that make for more successful longterm relationships. men in college have a numerical advantage in terms of finding a future wife, so if you're one of the women who found herself still single at graduation guess what? You're low value. and if you think you're too good for a guy without a degree you're delusional too.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (27 children) | Copy Link

so if you're one of the women who found herself still single at graduation guess what? You're low value.

What part of lack of college educated men don't you get? A college educated women isn't going to date a plumber.

if you think you're too good for a guy without a degree you're delusional too.

And how high value is a plumber compared to a doctor?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

but why is a plumber necessarily low value? from a purely financial standpoint he's probably making more money than most college-educated men. plumbers can easily make six digits. he and a college educated woman might be very well matched in every way but education. if she looks down on him she's lowering her value as a potential long-term partner... elitism is a bad trait.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

why is a plumber necessarily low value?

Don't ask me ask society.

rom a purely financial standpoint he's probably making more money than most college-educated men

Yearly yes, lifetime wise no. Most men working trades are out by their 50's work wise, white collar men can still work long into their 70's.

if she looks down on him she's lowering her value as a potential long-term partner... elitism is a bad trait.

Its not that she views him as lowering her value, its more she sees him of lower value because of his job and she doesn't want to date beneath her. This is all part of hypergamy.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Seriously plumbers and electricians are where it's at. Actually my family has a pattern of college-educated women marrying (and staying married to) working class men.

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

What part of lack of college educated men don't you get? A college educated women isn't going to date a plumber.

I have a master's degree and my bf is a welder. My SIL is a nurse practitioner and my brother is a carpenter/contractor. It happens. I think the main thing is the woman's background -- if she comes from a working class family, even if she has a degree herself, she's not going to look down on a working class man as beneath her because those are the kinds of men she grew up with and who influenced her.

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

I think the main thing is the woman's background -- if she comes from a working class family, even if she has a degree herself, she's not going to look down on a working class man as beneath her because those are the kinds of men she grew up with and who influenced her.

To a degree I agree with that.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

It is, and its a flaw most women have.

You really think so? I would love to date an electrician. I don't care about degrees at all.

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

I think its a mentality shared by many women in the MC for sure, and certainly at UMC levels.

Blue collar woman getting a degree from a community college? Not so much. She may very well LOVE to be married to an independent contractor that does roof work.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I almost agree with atlas that men who read are gay lol. I would actually prefer a roofer even though I went to college. I might be more into it since it's the kind of work all the men in my family did and do.

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

I almost agree with atlas that men who read are gay lol.

If I didn't read profusely as a young kid, I don't know what I'd have done with myself other than tinker with musical instruments. I actually miss having the time to read a book for pleasure, but it is what it is.

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

I've known people like this and it's annoying. Most of them are working BS office jobs for 40-50k a year, most vets and trademen outearn them anyway.

"Unmarriagable" to me are men who arent marking things happen by 25ish. Most of these men I know are college educated. They live in a barely furnished house with 3 other guys, barback, go to shows, play video games etc. I get that the job market sucks but the fact that you cant take care of your living space and need to drink 4 days a week mean you wont be good father material either, even if the earnings arent there.

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

right. it might be that I live in more of a blue collar area, but I don't think having a degree is even remotely necessary. if anything, it robs you of good working years. Give me a hard-working mechanic any day over some guy getting fat at a bullshit office job or living in squalor with roommates until he gets his big break with his poli-sci degree.

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

Yep. Thats the archetype if you live in a city/suburb cheap enough to sustain credentialed young people in low rent situations. I know a number of couples where the girl outearns the guy. But he still has to have steady enough work make a reliable contribution and be somebody you can build a life with. If youre 30 your band isn't going to make it, your first start up idea is probably garbage, and maybe you should be squirreling away money for a downpayment and trying to get promoted from office clerk II to office clerk III instead of telling everybody about all the "big things" you totally have in the works.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Something women are freaking out over.

Being forced to read more articles about this on the NYT site are we?

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

This 38 year old lawyer who makes 220k a year and travels half the time can't meet a 220k+ never-married man young enough to want kids. People in the upper west side have problems, SOCIETY IS CRUMBLING

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

Kellyanne Conway you can't be still bent out of shape now.

[–]bigredchewinggum0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

In more working class/low income communities.. It's pretty common for a couple to have kids out of wedlock but stay together to make things work for the kid(s).

I have several friends in this situation right now. They just don't have the money/resources to get married. However, they have children. My guy friends in this situation right now I'd say are "high value" in their own way.. Not that they make a ton of money to live a middle class lifestyle, but they have decent paying jobs, are handsome guys, and their girlfriends love/respect them.

All of these guys either didn't go to college or are dropouts. I've met lots of college girls too who have boyfriends who work in the trades or they're in the military or something.

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

They just don't have the money/resources to get married.

Which I find hard to believe given that a marriage licenses isn't exactly expensive.

I've met lots of college girls too who have boyfriends who work in the trades or they're in the military or something.

Women are more likely to date someone from the military than from trades.

[–]bigredchewinggum0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Which I find hard to believe given that a marriage licenses isn't exactly expensive.

I think they're less concerned with the paper contract and more focused on the actual ceremony/celebration. A lot of them to have emphasized that they don't want any government/bureaucratic influence in their relationship.

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

Unless they are gay/lesbian there's next to no government influence in their relationship.

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

It's not that 80% of women go for 20% of guys... it's that 80% (more like 60-70% but I'm following the pattern) of both sexes are already paired off.

I think we discussed it already, but your eperience in this regard isnt universal.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.11 points12 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

She does have a fair point that a lot of people are paired up pretty early so by the time you get into your mid-to-late 20s there's less single people to choose from.

[–]FairlyNaiveRed Pill Man1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Sure, less, but not nearly 80% ime. 25-30% tops

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

Nah, it's more than that. Most women are marrying at age 27 and the average amount of time being with their spouse before marriage is 3.5 years. Meaning they are pairing up with them around age 23. Obviously these are just averages, but I'd say 60-70% isn't a bad guesstimation. Anecdotal, but most of my friends met/started dating their spouses in high school or college. I do have some presently single friends or friends who met their spouse/partner after college, of course, but it's not the majority.

[–]FairlyNaiveRed Pill Man1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I thought that arguing against personal experinces was a bad taste in ppd.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Well the first part is actual statistics in the U.S. And I said the latter was "anecdotal."

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

Some are pairing up by age 23. It's not most. It's not a majority.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Give or take a few years on either side id say that's a majority. I saw a stat that found roughly 48% of women marry men who went to the same HS or college as them, and, IIRC, that's not including those who married men they met young but who didn't go to the same schools as them.

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

I think it is a substantial number paired off by age 23; maybe 40 to 45%. It's not a majority. It's not 60 to 70%.

We're all just pulling numbers out of our asses here.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well mine is based on statistics but yeah they are very generalized. Unlikely to apply across the board. We can still draw some conclusions from them though.

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

if you've been single all that time then you, and the people you have to choose from, are low value.

Yup. But, it means low value for relationships with the opposite sex. I was in a law school class of about 200 people, 2/3 of which were men, 1/3 women (obvs). The vast majority of them were unmarried. Were they low value? Yes, for relationships. But not in other ways - they were college educated people who had gotten themselves into a top 30 law school. And many had high SMV.

You can be high value in many ways but low value for relationships with the opposite sex.

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

There are people who are physicians in fairly good shape with high status that don't find romantic relationships.

I agree with you on the idea that the very low value people remain single for long stretches of time, and that the people who are single for other reasons at, say, 30 wind up radically skewing the market.

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

high value people-- good marriage prospects-- generally pair off by the end of college at the latest, which leaves poorer relationship prospects to date each other.

this deserves its own post imo, I was thinking of writing it but maybe you can do it better?

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (18 children) | Copy Link

One generation doesnt change much from the next, the only thing that has changed is median male income has been flat for 40 years, while women have flooded into colleges and displaced men. Such a system will eventually destroy itself by attrition and demographics.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

if a woman brings little to the table yet demands a man who outearns her she is probably exactly the kind of low-value prospect I described.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

That's why it's better if women are dependent on men, even lower value men, which drives the need to pair off rather than fighting over the top 30-40% of men.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

most people do pair off. it's only low value people who are left feeling dissatisfied with each other.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

In the past people didnt pair off so, that is one driver of rising income inequality according to a study I read.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

...people have always paired off. that's what marriage is.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

so, you're arguing that women shouldn't work because it's unfair that rich people marry each other?

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

Not exactly, but college should be primarily for men to support families, whereas today it's 57% women.

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

That's ages seem pretty young to me. I just finished college (in a conservative area of Texas) and I would say only ~20% of my friends are engaged/married. It's definitely common to get married this young, but not the norm. Plus, statistically your divorce is cut in half if you wait until you're 25 to get married.

http://imgur.com/I00niwa

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

right, I'm not saying people get married at that age, just that they start dating the people they eventually marry at that age.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'll say the same thing I said in the other thread, in an unrestrained free market like the SMP there is no recourse for the losers.

In our economic free market there are lots of different forms of insurance, and a social safety net that keeps most people out of the gutter and helps maintain a little bit of dignity.

Not so in the SMP. It really is a free market. The losers lose for real.

OP is correct that the Patriarchy distorted the SMP by giving non-marriageable men a way to get married since women had no other means of providing for themselves. Now that women can earn their own money that market distortion is gone and we are seeing low SMV men really struggling.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

How exactly do we know that there is no recourse?

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Then watch as I laugh as these women have incel sons.

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

That's a stretch. How are you making that assumption? These women are picking men they are attracted to, it stands to reason their children aren't all unattractive.

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

Both of my parents were very attractive people, but I'm hideous.

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

Ok I'm sorry, you're only one person though.

[–]Offhisgame1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Incel is incurable. Its mental

[–][deleted] 43 points44 points  (108 children) | Copy Link

There's also the fact that male average attractiveness has significantly dropped over the past few generations, while female average attractiveness has significantly improved.

Think about what makes men attractive: toughness, strength, capable fitness, ruggedness, etc. 200 years ago most men were farmers and posessed all these traits simply by virtue of living. Nowadays it's the opposite, men are sedentary soft weak timid creatures.

Now think about what makes women attractive - softness, ease of life, young clear faces, childlessness, shiny hair. All of this is MUCH easier obtained by modern women with makeup, hair products, easy lives, not having 5 children by 30, etc. 200 years ago women were tired matronly wrinkled mothers by 30, no makeup to make their faces young, no easy dye to hide the gray, pudgy from bearing so many children.

[–]sexydude0126 points27 points  (57 children) | Copy Link

Have you seen the obesity problems with women these days?

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (56 children) | Copy Link

It's a drawback but on average women are still more attractive than they were in the past. More men are overweight in any case, so the point still stands.

[–]Saint_Chad_of_Mercia6 points7 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

More men are overweight in any case, so the point still stands.

I think the difference is that most men who are overweight are generally betas and omegas anyway. Their fatness is a symptom of their unmasculine lifestyle.

If a young man is living a masculine lifestyle - which, by definition, will involve physicaity and strength - then it's going to be almost impossible for him to become anything more than a little chubby, at worst.

On the other hand, fatness in women is the primary cause of a lack of femininity. And it can strike anyone who is the slightest bit undiscliplined, as a feminine lifestyle generally doesn't involve a large level of energy expenditure.

[–]philomexaIF THE POISON WON'T TAKE YOU MY DOGS WILL1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

fatness in women is the primary cause of a lack of femininity.

Obesity yes, as it tends to funnel both genders into androgyny (physically, hormonally, etc). However I think there is a reason 'soft', 'plump', 'round' and 'curvy' are coded as feminine terms.

[–]Saint_Chad_of_Mercia1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

While being slightly overweight in a woman is far from ideal, a little bit of chub is not really an obstacle for a woman being feminine and sexually attractive.

''Curvy'' is mainly down to the luck of genetics, and certainly doesn't mean overweight. It means women whose genetics provide them wide hips, and fat deposits which are stored in all the good areas (breasts, thighs, buttocks) and not in the bad ones (face, stomach, waist).

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The obesity rate is higher in women.

Also obesity is less of a negative for a man than a woman regarding smv.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Some guys fetishize fatness though, I don't see women doing the same

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A high level of body fat counts against women more than men. That is not a controversial opinion anymore than the opinion that unemployment counts against men more than women in the sexual marketplace.

[–]BPremiumMeh4 points5 points  (34 children) | Copy Link

more women are overweight in the usa than men

[–]purpleppparmchair evo psych13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

More men are "overweight," more women are "obese." But they use BMI to determine that, which is not accurate across the sexes because of the difference in muscle mass. More healthy men are misclassified as overweight, and fat women misclassified as normal.

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

False, 71% of adult women are overweight, 75% of adult men are overweight.

[–]disposable_pants1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're essentially correct, but note that those figures include people who are overweight and people who are obese.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (30 children) | Copy Link

And a lot of the statistics are based on BMI data which is nonsense: a guy with a BMI of 24 is rather typical, a woman with a BMI of 24 almost always overweight. Similarly, a lot of guys at 26 or 27 are decent looking (although rarely ideal).

[–]The-os3 points4 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Nonsense because the averages between sexes differ?

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Not sure about the distribution but "ideal" body types are obviously different. A 5'10" guy with a 24 BMI is 167 pounds: rather trim. If the guy is decently muscled, he could be 180 or 190 (BMI 26 or 27). On the other hand, a 5'4" girl with a BMI of 24 weighs 140 pounds. Both Kate Upton (voluptuous) and Rhonda Rousey (muscular) are both BMI 21. Even Christina Hendricks usually clocked in at 23 (although she has porked out to 25 at times). However, very few women sport an hour glass figure and a pair of F-cups like Hendricks, so telling your average woman that BMI 25 is "normal" is really misleading.

[–]The-os2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

A healthy weight ranges between 108-144 pounds with a corresponding BMI of 18.5-24.9 for women. You're making a case of two extremes: either an athlete (low weight) or women with (very) big tits (e.g. more weight). If those are the two extremes, the average will fall between those two. E.g. between a BMI of 21 and 25. Or 18,5 as that is the low end of BMI.

So I'd say that a BMI of 25 for women is not normal but rather on the high end of normal.

Edit: you are aware that men and women have different ratings for BMI?

Edit2: I'm still confused about the point you are trying to make. How can you argue that BMI is nonsense because the same BMI does not correspond between sexes?

[–]purpleppparmchair evo psych2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

BMI is calculated based on weight and height. Doesn't take into account muscle mass.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

BMI underestimates BF % in both men and women. It underestimates more for women, certainly, but there are still more men who are fatter than BMI would predict than thinner than it would predict.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Can't argue this, you're forgetting one thing though.

Guys will fuck anything. a 4 today may have been a 7 in the 1930s, but guys will still line up to fuck a 4 today.

Granted, for all the talk of modern life helping women be hotter, I will say this. I live and work in the financial district of my town, and lots of thin women, great clothes, makeup, in shape etc. They have the resources, the easy life of leisure that all your points are 100% applicable here.

They are starting to look masculine as fuck. The shoulder sway is real. Even asian women, the supposed epitome of femenine genetic traits, are walking around everywhere, with that cowboy swag, like they have to keep from chaffing their balls on their legs. And they all have this 'tired' look. I've never seen so many women with dark bags under their eyes before this. Victoria never had that, it was chubby, or gaunt vegans, sunbaked until they looked like leather, but thats another story for another post

So I don't know if you're right. I think a life without hardship helps women age better, hot 40 year olds were unheard of 100 years ago, but it's adding whole other problems IMHO.

Men turning into women, and women into men, it's fucking weird, now that I look for it.

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Even asian women, the supposed epitome of femenine genetic traits

Spotted the white guy xD

Men turning into women, and women into men, it's fucking weird, now that I look for it

There has been masculine women and feminine men for who knows how long, this is not a new trend.

[–]darla104 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

maybe it was always there and you are just now noticing since you're looking for it?

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lel interesting times.

[–]cinmacn0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Obesity rate for women is higher than men's (in the U.S.). Also, makeup is making women more attractive, but at the end of the day it's still just an illusion.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

More men are overweight in any case, so the point still stands.

The rest of your post is agreeable. This part is not.

Women now are more obese than men.

This is using CDC standards for obesity which uses BMI and does not use different scales for men and women. This is using the same BMI scale, which is outrageous because men SHOULD weigh more given the same height.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Very much agree with this. The only thing I would add is that woman's dress standards have changed alot as well and woman now advertise their sexuality and attractiveness a lot more than they did in the past. Take a look at some old time photos. Woman had to be all covered up and modest. Now they can flaunt their attributes. This also increases their attractiveness.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.8 points9 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Lol all these men are upset by your comment.

[–]SSYYssyySY points points [recovered] | Copy Link

He's totally right. When I go to the gym, it's myself, a guy clearly on something anabolic and like 15 women either on treadmills or doing very distracting squats or lunges.

Men are docile now- once the wolf, we are now the corgi

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

She

[–]SSYYssyySY points points [recovered] | Copy Link

In that case her point sucks and her grammar is indecipherable. Women can't neuron/brain, obvs

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol

[–]Returnofthemack3Purple Pill0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

eh. My gym has a lot more guys than women in the weight room lol. Yeah I agree that on average, men are weak as fuck, but are you seriously trying to say there isn't more men on average in a weight room. Bullshit

[–]SSYYssyySY points points [recovered] | Copy Link

In general you are correct. But I think, perhaps solipsisticly, that all men should be pumping out incline presses and upright rows, some squats and lunges, etc...

It's all 1) athletes, 2) roiders, 3) playboys 4) bros

[–]Returnofthemack3Purple Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I see guys pumping out incline presses and rows on the regular. I'll admit that the average guy is a bro though, more concerned with bench and curls than anything else. To each their own, some people just want glamour and aesthetics

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it8 points9 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

I totally disagree about women's quality going up.

Obesity and single motherhood have increased dramatically in women. So have bad personality traits like disrespect or entitlement.

Shiny hair and anti acne treatment doesn't make up for those things.

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

You could say similar things about men though.

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

She did. She claimed men are going down in quality but women are going up. Not true. Men may not be as rugged or dominant as in the past. But women are not as supportive, nurturing, loyal, childless or thin as in the past.

Women haven't gone up in value.

[–]bigmfkrNo pills, injectables only0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're confusing SMV with RMV. Women's SMV has generally gone up, except for the obesity issue. RMV has tanked though, that's for sure.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl5 points6 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Shiny hair and anti acne treatment doesn't make up for those things.

Uhh they do tho. Men here admit all the time they will take the hotter option and put up the associated bullshit over an uglier woman who feels more gratitude than entitlement

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

What men have you been hanging out with? Most guys prefer a nice, kind, thin childless woman over a mean, entitled, selfish, obese single mother with shiny hair and clear skin.

[–]cinmacn0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

For one-night stands, sure. Personality matters in the long-run. Probably almost as much as attractiveness.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Are you RP?

[–]SkrattGoddess7 points8 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Nice takedown.

Masculine men are very hard to find in this day in age. :/ My mom said alphas are rare and that's why women fight over them.

'Soft weak timid creatures' xD Perfect description.

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

Give me a cute funny guy with a goofy smile any day. :)

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Think about what makes men attractive: toughness, strength, capable fitness, ruggedness, etc. 200 years ago most men were farmers and posessed all these traits simply by virtue of living. Nowadays it's the opposite, men are sedentary soft weak timid creatures.

I don't know about that. I think 200 years ago there were a lot more uneducated, idiot men and that alcoholism was more common. Much of the prohibition movement was driven by women who were trying to stop all these useless, drunk men from being useless, drunk husbands and fathers.

Showers and baths and soap were pretty uncommon back then, too, so everybody stank.

By the way, I assume you give feminism some credit for making men into "soft weak timid creatures" by attacking gender roles and complaining about "toxic masculinity"?

[–]darla100 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

this is great. It's "The Kind of Queens" effect.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Male median income being flat for 40 years certainly didnt help median smv. Males are strong when there is a need and reward, but society would rather slowly collapse demographically and economically. Hopefully Trump can begin turning the Titanic before we hit the iceburg.

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

Agreed. MAGA!

[–]rreliable0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've lived in a society where obesity only affects a small percentage of women under 35. And I've also lived most of my life where obesity is totally normal for the same demographic.

The hair products and make up aren't nothing, but they do very little to improve the situation.

Add the female tendency to inflate rapidly with only a small increase in food consumption, and I'd much rather live in a country where there are no cosmetics, but only 10% of women under 30 are obese.

And while women may claim not to agree, the fashion magazines and websites they buy and frequent overwhelmingly reject anyone who isn't my preferred body type, except for the images supporting a body positive article.

[–]DarkLord0chinChin5 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

There are as many men as there are women. Whether men make significantly more money than women, or whether all women are as fat as my grandma was in her fifties, we can safely assume that for every woman there exists a man of similar attractiveness. Because attractiveness is a relative concept, and depends on other people too. Being able to provide and make money does not make you a more attractive option when all other men make money and are providers. Being a lazy entitled fatass does not make you a less attractive option when all other women are lazy entitled fatasses.

The gender ratio did not change between 1950s and now, there are roughly as many men as there are women, it always was true, and will always be true. Therefore if men and women theoretically had similar standards and paired off according to their attractiveness level, the number of single men or women should not have changed significantly. And yet, it did.

The reason for this is not that "men no longer have inflated value". The reason is female sexual liberation, feminism, birth control and hookup culture. You can be damn sure that even if women of today retained the ability to have careers but not the ability to be sluts, the situation would not be very different from what it was in 1950s.. People would not slut around, everyone would pair off, inflated provider beta-value or not.

And on the other hand, even if the traditional women of the 1950s had retained their inability to have independent careers but were encouraged to be sluts and "have fun" on the carousel, they would have done just that. Their fathers and Chads would've paid for the lifestyle, but overall things would have been just like now..

[–]speltspelt2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

The 1950s had an unusually high marriage rate due to unusually good economic conditions. They were not 'traditional', plenty of people married in 1955 that would never have been able to get married in 1855.

[–]DarkLord0chinChin0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

marriage does not require good economic conditions. If anything, it's the opposite. Bad economic conditions make marriage a better option than trying to survive alone.

[–]rreliable0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Marrying during a depression was often the cause of extreme heartbreak. A period of unemployment would easily force families to abandon their kids, or feed them so poorly that they die from ordinary diseases that well fed kids could survive.

That feels a lot worse than celibacy. If you're poor and want to keep your misery within tolerable levels, and there is no social safety net, or affordable medicine, and jobs are hard to find, celibacy is a popular choice for men.

That explains low marriage rates during historical depressions.

Now that all kids get cheap medical care for most life threatening diseases, it fails to explain a correlation between poverty and celibacy

[–]DarkLord0chinChin0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Bad economic conditions does not necessarily mean extreme poverty, unemployment and hunger. It can mean something as mild as living as a couple being cheaper and more convenient than living alone.

[–]speltspelt1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A traditional marriage is not a couple, it is a couple with a number of kids proportional to how fertile they are and how much sex they've been having.

[–]rreliable0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think ten thousand years of civilization is enough to cause genetic change so that most women lose interest in marriage (to an extent) when times get relatively tough.

Nowadays, in the West, a typical recession doesn't lead to a massive leap in child mortality. But for 9,950 of the last ten millennia, economic hard times has usually led to lots of dead kids.

[–]BPremiumMeh25 points26 points  (90 children) | Copy Link

All these threads basically come down to " Haha women dont have to settle anymore. Lets laugh at the multitude of men that are unhappy that more than half the population ( Women and the top percentile of men ) gets to have their cake and eat it too at their expense"

Thanks for showing some much empathy

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia7 points8 points  (27 children) | Copy Link

What about empathy for women that would have to marry unattractive dudes in an regulated sexual market?

[–]BPremiumMeh6 points7 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

Since most men have had to that too, Id say the empathy levels are about equal.

[–]GridReXXit be like that6 points7 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I'd argue if he can get a boner for said unattractive woman he's better off than a woman having sex with someone she deems unattractive.

He'll at the very least experience physical pleasure and release.

[–]BPremiumMeh1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Even if he cant, viagra exists. Viagra for vaginas doesnt ( unless you count a shit load of cash )

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that's my point. He's better off in that aspect so it's not really the same.

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

That doesnt mean he gets to finish, just means he wont go soft. it really is the same

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

That's assuming he'll need viagra. TRP always claims men will fuck hambeasts just to bust a nut and feel good for a second. So not the same :p

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

lol when you haven't had any sort of affection for a long period of time, that hambeast will do. Doesnt mean hes happy about it, and I can guarantee hes thinking about someone way hotter while he is with the hambeast.

it is the same.

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Newp because he's feeling good in that moment. A woman doesn't get the same release being fucked by someone she doesn't see it for.

[–]rreliable0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you dispute that claim? The evidence appears pretty overwhelming.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is funny in a number of ways.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl2 points3 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Huh? So you disagree with the idea that most young women are attractive?

[–]rreliable1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Most young women are more attractive than one's own hand. The infallible test is this: is she still attractive to the guy in the minute after he ejaculates?

Most men are familiar with the deep cosmic horror of gazing upon that which moments before was erotic enough to get you off, but is now less sexy than a mound of rotting vegetables.

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Well many of the women who were forced to marry significantly older men under patriarchy did not even find those men more attractive than their hands.

[–]rreliable0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Let me remind you that while I'm not at all bluepill, I too am not red pill.

I was only talking about DrunkGirl69's comment that most young women are attractive.

If the obesity epidemic keeps going, that will cease to be true, depending on how you choose to define "attractive". If you choose to define it as "still attractive post-ejaculation" then that wouldn't be true.

I'm moderately intelligent, so I am aware of the obvious fact that women in 1712 found no more delight in fucking elderly men than they do today.

Are you putting the position of men and women in 1712 into the correct historical perspective, however?

Most women married men their own age, and whom they physically liked being around. Families didn't want a shitty marriage for their daughter unless the match brought a huge advantage.

What you also seem to miss is that in the age of patriarchy, virtually everybody was compelled to do stuff they didn't want to by codes of duty. So that young woman in 1712 sucking the 80-year-old cock out of duty was aware of her brother who marched off to be butchered with bayonets in the War of the Spanish Succession.

Life sucked for everybody in 1712, and objectively it sucked worse for men.

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Most women married men their own age, and whom they physically liked being around. Families didn't want a shitty marriage for their daughter unless the match brought a huge advantage.

They didn't purposely choose a shitty partner, it's just that when making their choice they focused too much on material and status gains and not enough on his personality, also, couples didn't date a lot before they married so they didn't get much time to decide whether they were a good pair.

virtually everybody was compelled to do stuff they didn't want to by codes of duty. objectively it sucked worse for men.

one gender had the ability to make his own life what he wants to make it, while the other gender's entire gender identity was tied to following rather than leading

[–]rreliable0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

one gender had the ability to make his own life what he wants to make it

Well, that's total baloney. Literally nobody had any freedom. Even most kings were tightly restricted in what they could do, and they were the freeest.

For anyone outside the aristocracy, everyone was the slave of their social superior.

You have a lot of gaps in your knowledge of social history.

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Men were defined by who they were while women were defined by who they were married to.

Both men and women had it shitty back then but at least men were defined by themselves and their own families.

The reason why women had to marry up was because if she married down, her social class would drop. If a man married down his class wouldn't drop because he's defined by who he is and not who hes married to.

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

nope I agree with that statement. in general, it tends to be correct

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Then men weren't forced to reproduce with unattractive people...

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

not forced as in having a gun to their head, no. But the " either settle for her or go ___ months/years without anyone at all " reality that non chad men face acts in much the same way

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

So in the past, men got to marry women they were attracted to, while women had to marry unattractive men

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

in the past men and women didnt get exactly who they wanted, but they got a good enough deal.

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

If women got a good enough deal then there wouldn't be so many feminist movements protesting the patriarchy.

In fact even the most traditional women I know in 2017 (many of them who would not describe themselves as a feminist) would not be happy living like a woman in the 1800s.

[–]rreliable0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

As I said "attractive before orgasm" can often be hideous post-orgasm.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.15 points16 points  (51 children) | Copy Link

Why show empathy to men who say women's sexual choices need to be regulated for the sake of unattractive men?

[–]BPremiumMeh7 points8 points  (35 children) | Copy Link

because, as we know, women view most men as unattractive. And regulations result in more fair practices for all involved, usually.

[–]darla1013 points14 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

I feel empathy for men who can't find love. I still don't want to be forced to fuck/marry/reproduce with someone I don't find attractive. That is downright torture. Here in NYC, there are so many more single women, the SMP is highly geared towards men. Lots of single unhappy ladies. I feel empathy for anyone in this position. But don't trample on my human rights just so you can even out the playing field. That is absolutely nuts.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

There's something wrong with NYC. The girls just don't know it. This has been discussed before. Exception doesn't prove the rule.

[–]darla100 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

there are way too many exceptions to prove your rules. That's a problem with rp.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That observations not a RP observation. Those are known as facts. They're statistics & articles cited as proving these viewpoints accurate. You cite a reality as "Redpill canon" to disprove us as a strawman.

[–]BPremiumMeh2 points3 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

I know you'll disagree, but youre "human rights" are in direct competition with my "human rights". Men have had to fuck/marry/reproduce with women they didnt find attractive for centuries, why do women get a pass?

[–]darla108 points9 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

NO ONE is forcing men to fuck/marry/reproduce with anyone. Unless they are in an arranged marriage or some shit like that, a man is free to choose any woman he wants and a woman is free to choose any man she wants. And they BOTH run the risk of not getting what they want. By your logic, women should enslave all Chads and force them to commit, right?. Why are you not understanding this? Human rights does not include the option of trampling on another person's human rights.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl5 points6 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

What are the human rights that you are specifically referring to? Is it a human right to be able to fuck and marry someone you find attractive?

[–]BPremiumMeh4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I think it should be, personally. others disagree

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah it sounds like that "entitlement" I keep hearing so much about.

It seems that in order for men to have what they see as human rights, women have to sacrifice what they see as human right..

[–]Sandralees6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

And then you want people to have empathy for your sad little life.

[–]BPremiumMeh2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

What? Thats what women get now. The ability to fuck guys they are attracted too. Is it so bad that Non-Chad tier men want the same thing?

[–]Sandralees7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You don't want the same thing. You want to force women into a specific situation so you get what you want. You want something that is not consensual.

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So don't women also have the right to fuck and marry guys they find attractive? For them to do that, that may mean some men do not get a partner.

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

It's interesting, but everyone has a different concept of human rights. Like that crazy feminist psychopath posting recently who believe that if men and tax payers aren't literally paying for her abortions, and contraceptives her rights are being trampled on.

[–]GridReXXit be like that7 points8 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

I can feel empathy and also be thankful I don't feel the need to fuck someone I don't find attractive for providership.

What makes you happy makes me sad.

[–]BPremiumMeh4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

exactly, hence why marriage 1.0 was created. Nobody got everything they wanted, but most got more than they had previously. Nowadays, thats not the case

[–]GridReXXit be like that6 points7 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

But now I get providership via my own earnings and a good guy all without forcing anyone to do something they don't want to do.

[–]BPremiumMeh3 points4 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

but the fact you now get to do that, when extrapolated out, leaves out a lot of men. Men cant do the same though, due to how female attraction works

[–]GridReXXit be like that4 points5 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I agree. Only option is for everyone to become as attractive as possible.

And don't counter with "nope then women will want only the Uber hot."

That's not my experience. Most women can get horny for a 6 or 7 who grooms well. And most men are not even that.

[–]BPremiumMeh1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well thats mine, so Im going to counter with just that. Women always want more. Also note that you mentioned a 6 or 7, which is above average. Do you believe that even below average women deserve above average guys?

[–]GridReXXit be like that4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The first part of your comment 👉🏾🙉.

The 2nd part , no. I'm talking about above average women seeking above average men.

Regarding average women, I know TRP claims that average women are all only dating top men but I see too many ugly women in relationships with looksmatched men to believe that.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

6 or 7 sure, but that means hes above the other guys. if the average goes up, women will raise their standards accordingly. That's the point of the female imperative, weed out the lower percentage of men regardless of what the overall group looks like

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Whose version of a 6 or a 7?

I'd really like to know.

It's kind of complicated to figure all of this out.

Really complicated.

Seriously, this should be it's own branch of science.

And I haven't even touched style, diet, and exercise.

The idea that you can figure out someone's objective value as a sex partner in a glance is up there with flat Earth theory. (Unless you're observing a meat market) So why keep pushing it?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

But aren't we supposed to have empathy to women who want quotas, scholarships and special treatment = men's potential and achievements have to be regulated for the sake of less capable women?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I mean I got a purely academic scholarship and there's no quotas/special treatment in my industry, so you're preaching to the wrong crowd.

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

Yeah purely academic scholarships for women are a thing. For example, see http://www.aps.org/programs/women/ https://www.aps.org/programs/education/undergrad/students/scholarships.cfm https://www.aps.org/programs/women/scholarships/

What is your industry? I just went to the first stem thing that came to my mind, and surely it was there.

p.s. I can't be preaching to the wrong crowd. We are talking about empathy in general. You asked why men who want to regulate women deserve empathy. I'm pointing out that it's kinda hypocrite, since the system supports women and minorities in regulating options of men and majorities.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure it is I'm just not sure how prevalent it is outside of STEM. My industry is plaintiff's law, so private law firms.

I also don't think by providing incentives to minorities you're necessarily standing for limiting the options of the majority, although I understand the side effects of raising one group up can result in the others losing out.

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

I also don't think by providing incentives to minorities you're necessarily standing for limiting the options of the majority, although I understand the side effects of raising one group up can result in the others losing out.

Yep, so yes they are limiting options of the majority. Basically, they are N spots, if you give give n spots to some, then others only get N-n they compete for.

For example, if we take school that accepts 100 students, but you say let's have a 40% quota for women, then it is possible that some men who get higher scores than some of those 40 women will not be accepted, while women with less score will.

So yes, it's hypocrite to regulate some but not regulate others.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I could be wrong but I don't think that's how the quotas work. I think they set a base qualification and everyone who meets that gets put in the pot and those who are minorities get an additional point, so while that means yes there maybe some higher scoring majority people not getting selected, it's not like the people who got in were unqualified to begin with. I'm really not sure of how it all works though, I'd be interested in learning how if you know.

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

so while that means yes there maybe some higher scoring majority people not getting selected,

That's all you need to know for this discussion. But talking about it in detail deserves a whole separate thread. Details can differ in different places.

it's not like the people who got in were unqualified to begin with.

Never said that. I said they were less qualified then other people, but those other people didn't get selected while less qualified people did.

That is DIRECTLY taking places away from people and that is directly regulating their options and bringing them down for the sake of less capable people. Who arguably don't "deserve" those positions and aren't "entitled" to them, however the freedom of those who "deserve" them is regulated.

So how is that different from the topic?

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Isn't that what feminists try to do for women?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Not that I'm aware of

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

What are feminists doing then?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Idk, ask them. I've never heard of any feminist movement to make men date unattractive women.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I've heard of feminist campaigns for fat acceptance or other things of that kind, it's not directly about making men date unattractive women, but it's still about "adjusting" the SMV standards.

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

Eh, I think that's more of the tumblrina/SJW types. It's definitely not mainstream feminism, at least from what I've seen (which admittedly isn't very much).

[–]harbo0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You don't have to show empathy but you do have to understand that large numbers of sexless young men are dangerous to society.

For example:

As cohort after cohort of young Asians reach marriageable age, all of them containing too few women, a huge number of men will struggle to find partners. Some will import foreign brides, thereby unbalancing the sex ratio in other, poorer countries. A great many will remain single. Some women will benefit from being more in demand. But the consequences are bad for societies as a whole, because young, single, sex-starved men are dangerous. Stable relationships calm them down. Some studies (though not all) suggest that more unattached men means more crime, more rape and more chance of political violence. The worst-affected districts will be poor, rural ones, because eligible women will leave them to find husbands in the cities. Parts of Asia could come to resemble America’s Wild West. (Many polygamous societies already do: think of Sudan or northern Nigeria, where rich men marry several women and leave poor men with none.)

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

RPers always say "no empathy!!" But where is your empathy for the women who were raped and beaten by husbands they couldn't leave? Where is your empathy for the women forced to bear child after child and lie under a man who doesn't give a damn about them? Where is your empathy?

[–]SkrattGoddess5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

'They deserve it! They married a Chad Lolol'

[–]louplopNeeds your food3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Your problem is thinking there are only RP men on here.... by this asumption you drop extrem threads and piss of a lot of different guys who said nothing especially wrong against women.

You're prone to starting a gender war because some TRPers pissed you off. You do the same shit as extrem TRPers...

But where is your empathy for the women who were raped and beaten by husbands they couldn't leave?

I personnaly do support helping when women (or people in general) suffer from an apparent problem. The fact nowadays women with this holly freedom still die under their husban's fists make me wonder what did you do with this freedom....

[–]Feeldariddim2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

kind of a tangent but this is why the left is in a tailspin right now. the uber liberal SJW crowd and their predictable 'if you're not lockstep with us then you're the problem' mantra only push away people in the middle, further isolating them as the marginal few rather than those evil people on the other side. I swear the internet is slowly making an entire generation of people painfully socially retarded.

On the next episode of "When Virtue Signaling Goes Wrong..."

[–]BPremiumMeh2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh I had plenty of empathy for women that actually had those things happen to them. But for every one if those mistreated women, there are more that leave their husbands and BFs for trivial bullshit

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

Where is your empathy for the girls disgusting incels like Rodger shoot? Where is your empathy for women in the past forced to marry men they found repulsive? Where is your empathy for women who were forced to marry and have children despite not wanting either? Where is your empathy for the women who got raped, were then forced to marry their rapist because they were no longer virgins and died in childbirth?

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Serious question: Does Melodrama make you horny?

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

that more than half the population ( Women and the top percentile of men ) gets to have their cake and eat it too at their expense"

Don't women want to get married? if all women got what they wanted then all men would have to be married or in LTRs too.

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

As in riding the CC with hot chads and then demanding marriage to that caste of men. And if they dont get that, getting subsidized everything as a single mom at the expense of the men you rejected.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice27 points28 points  (85 children) | Copy Link

This is the fallacy of modern feminism rewriting history to make it look like the sucky parts only affected women.

Throughout most of history people struggled to survive. To have adequate food to eat, a roof over their heads, to keep warm in winter, to be protected from violence and theft. This went for both men and women.

People in olden times made practical decisions related to mating because they needed to in order to survive.

In modern times all those survival pressures pretty much don't exist anymore. Food is abundant and plentiful. Everyone has shelter, running water, can get warm in the winter is protected by the justice system etc. We can treat marriage as fun, and for feelings, which is nice.

In past times what you consider"low value men" were not "artificiality inflated" they did have more value than they currently do because providing protection, stability and resources were valuable commodities in those times to both men and women.

The technological revolution has provided us all with an abundance of resources that used to be scarce in the past. It's abundance has lessend it's value. Econ 101.

If anything is artificial, it's the world we are living in today. A bubble of unprecedented prosperity that might burst. If it does then boring beta men will once again become valuable.

Of course if economic or social collapse happens it is going to suck for all concerned. Particularly men.

PS: tinfoil time to add in the "patriarchy" boogeyman. Got to rack up them victim points.

[–]speltspelt2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Where is this assumption that low value men actually provided much protection, stability, or resources coming from? I don't think the 15th or 20th percentile guy was ever adding much value when you get down to it.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The bottom 20th percentile guy didn't survive his first winters.

There weren't so many shut-in neets back then because evolutionary pressures kept them from reaching adulthood

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think the 15th or 20th percentile guy was ever adding much value when you get down to it.

Sure, except:

  • As /u/BiggerDthanYou notes, survival pressures killed off a lot of truly low-value men. Think stuff like war, disease, harsh winters, etc.
  • Even if a small minority of the remaining men with the lowest value still couldn't provide much protection, etc., that still left 80-90% of the male population that could provide value this way. There was a demand for almost every able-bodied man the way there simply isn't today.

You bring up a decent point, but the original argument still stands even if you take yours into account.

[–]trpobservereats ass0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The 20th percentile guy was a longshoreman. There werent a whole lot of people lazing around because they simply couldn't do that and also eat, at least not for long.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Even if the economy collapsed, women still have jobs. They would still not go back to wanting the betas. For centuries now the valuable professions have been things which have nothing to do with physical strength, aka being a doctor, lawyer, nurse, translator, politician etc.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm talking about a complete collapse of modern society such as produced by a global pandemic, nuclear war, extreme global warming/cooling, etc Essentially something that wipes out modern social and economic structures as we know it. Going back to subsistence farming etc.

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

One very strong solar flair that hits the earth and drops the power grid would send us back to the stone age in a moment. Everyone thinks the power can just be 'turned back on', but if enough of the grid drops at once, it cannot simply be 'jump started' to get things back up. It could be months, or even YEARS before we'd be able to repair the damage.

That's just once scenario of many that can cause exactly the type of catastrophe you described.

[–]FairlyNaiveRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

They would still not go back to wanting the betas.

Didnt you argue that women love betas and are way better off marrying them? And that your hubby is a feminist beta math major who you were very happy to be with?

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

'Betas' as described in OP's post are men a woman would never date unless forced to by extreme economic necessity as in the past.

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

In a collapse, those jobs won't be there.

[–]Returnofthemack3Purple Pill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

lol are you a retard? he's not talking about a slight recession. Jesus christ you people are daft as fuck

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

But even in hunter gatherer societies, men mostly killed each other after raping women, and women gathered most of their calories themselves. They were far freer than under the patriarchy anyway.

[–]trpobservereats ass0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Doctor and nurse absolutely, but I dont think we need an HR department when the zombie hordes are invading.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (65 children) | Copy Link

Who is saying men didn't also suffer? This is about women having less opportunities to work well-paying provider jobs.

Women couldn't become master craftswomen because guilds didn't accept women as apprentices, only men. Men of a certain class or caste, but women of that same class were excluded. In every class men had more opportunities for economic independence than women of their same class. This is why women needed providers and low quality men had an inflated leg up in the sexual arena. In addition to prostitutes, mistresses and other sexual outlets women weren't allowed.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice17 points18 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Rofl guilds. Where did you get your history from? RPGs?

The vast vast majority of the population were farmers. Even as recently as 1800 80% of the population worked in agriculture The remainder had very basic jobs such as blacksmith, tanner, stonemason, woodsman, etc Men did not have any opportunities. They did not get to chose what line of work to go into. They were born into it and had no more options than woman did. Sometimes extra sons that could not be fit into the father's farm or trade would be sent off to be apprentices or to war. They had no choice in the matter.

Man and woman needed eachother. A man on his own could not run a farm. You needed a family, and each had a role to fill to make thinks work.

Medieval serfs did not have any freedoms to speak of and were the property of their lord.

Read some actual history before coming in here talking about the "patriarchy" boogeyman keeping the poor damsels in distress oppressed.

[–]OfSpock5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

And the farm was left to the eldest son, and if there were daughters and no sons, it went to a cousin.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The eldest son and his wife.

[–]skimfreak926 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

But if he didn't have a wife it would still go to him. It was not a requirement for the son to have a wife in order to receive inheritance, was it?

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

heh always looking for an angle to claim some kind of oppression. Everyone married you could not run a farm alone. If someone did not want to marry (man or woman) immense social pressure was placed on them till they did.

The farm belonged to the family and stayed in the family. It's always hilarious when people try to force modern individualistic morals onto people in ancient history.

[–]skimfreak920 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm a purple pill dude, genuinely not trying to stir the pot. This just seemed like a topic you knew more than me about so I wanted to ask. 8/8

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You didn't answer her point. Her main point is

and if there were daughters and no sons, it went to a cousin.

Daughters were not valued in the past, and even in modern day patriarchal cultures.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Man and woman needed eachother. A man on his own could not run a farm. You needed a family, and each had a role to fill to make thinks work.

yes which is why it's silly to think women never worked or that it's unfeminine for women to work.

Since when is your flair red??

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol

[–]anitapkcsarlbmed ggse9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Have you seen old family pictures? People were slim but I've hardly seen any lookers except the rarity. Most women didn't have time, money or the habit to make themselves look feminine.

Having sex meant risking pregnancy or risky abortions later on, and many men saw prostitutes so marriage sex life mustn't have been that great.

It's better for the majority of men just for the way women look (in Europe), most of them have sex before marriage and they even dump prudes who don't put out.

It might've been better for a minority of guys who can't find company but it wasn't guaranteed even back then.

So yeah, I don't think "patriarchy" gave them an inflated sense of value, guys thinking that "back then was much better" should time travel and see for themselves what fun it was.

[–]Archwinger8 points9 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

This is 100% the case. Women in the "good ol' days" weren't marrying nice-guy good-provider men because they wanted to. They were forced to due to financial dependency and social restrictions. It was not their "feminine nature" to "submit" to these guys. They just did what they needed to do to fit in socially and to survive. Marriage and sex were transactions, everybody knew it, and it was just how things were. She didn't really burn with desire to fuck him, but he gave her a good home and took good care of him, so she fucked him and had his kids. That was the deal. Everyone knew wives having sex with decent husbands was more of a grudging act she did out of duty instead of desire.

One of the biggest goals of female liberation was to fix all of this. Essentially, end conventional marriage, which was viewed primarily as a form of sexual slavery and/or prostitution. Get women the right to vote, become educated, get jobs and earn money, own property, file for divorce, and make their own reproductive choices.

Once financial dependency and social restrictions were removed from women, we're able to see what "feminine nature" is really like. Most women are hedonistic sluts who want to fuck hot fun guys.

Men are still catching up to this mentality. A lot of guys are still trying to be good marriage material instead of fun sex material. There's really no place in the dating market for good marriage material any more. Guys like that strike out or get taken advantage of. They think they're being valuable guys, but under the new rules, they're low-value men. High value men are hot and fun, not reserved, respectful providers.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Once financial dependency and social restrictions were removed from women, we're able to see what "feminine nature" is really like.

You were on point until right here, and then your anger at women derailed your logic.

They think they're being valuable guys, but under the new rules, they're low-value men.

They were always low value men. The fact that women no longer are forced to marry these men out of economic necessity does not change their SMV, it reveals it. If they raise their SMV, no more problem.

High value men are hot and fun, not reserved, respectful providers.

Not every woman is a 22 year old sorority chick.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas4 points5 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

he doesnt sound angry to me at all, he's just telling it how it is. You interpret what hes saying as "negative" instead of just "factual" and then assume he could only say "negative" things because he's "angry."

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

No he's definitely salty af. Look at the huge generalizations he's making about women's nature, it's ridiculous. And of course, he makes "good husband material" and "good fuck material" mutually exclusive. They aren't, they tend to go hand in hand.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha1 point2 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

he makes "good husband material" and "good fuck material" mutually exclusive.

Lots of people, including many non-TRP sexologists, have that view. There was a thread recently that discussed a recent study that identified four main criteria women use when assessing potential mates. While that's more than the standard two, I think it was pretty obvious that two of the four where definite 'fuck material' qualities and two were 'husband material' qualities. Regardless, the idea that there isn't one set of qualities that makes a man attractive and that humans have a dualistic mating strategy has been around for a long, long time.

Read Ester Parel's "Mating in Captivity" for a good look at this dualism. She has a Ted Talk as well.

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

Is that the recent study that said being monogamous was the #1 most attractive trait a guy could have? I don't see how that is the opposite of husband material. That list seemed pretty on point with husband material.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

No. There was no '#1' - there were four equal 'ones.'

And there is no fucking way being monogamous is the #1 turn-on for women, or lots of women, my wife included, would be trying to get into my pants ('cause I'm not too shabby at this monogamy thing). Instead, I've been monogamously invisible to women and haven't had anything like a real sex life in a few years, and I know many guys who are in similar (if not nearly as bad) situations.

It's believing bullshit claims like that that cause 'anger phases' in men.

[–]figthief points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Women want to marry respectful providers.

A man's best bet, if he is playing the odds, is to be a hot fun guy when he's in college, and then transition into mature stable guy sometime between 25-30 (ish).

Not every guy wants to max out on casual sex looks permitting for the rest of his life. First of all, his looks will fade, meaning the chance at young girls evaporates. Many men want kids and don't want them out of wedlock. Many men don't want to grow old alone either.

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

100% agree with this plan of action for men. I thought this was the norm.

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think this is great for everyone. Date different types of people, learn what you really want and don't want in a partner, etc. then settle down around 25-30 to minimize risk of divorce.

[–]figthief points points [recovered] | Copy Link

It is, just not on here.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Two things -

First, Reddit skews young. Not many of either gender seem to be too interested in the traditional family route. I think that is fairly representative of the young demographic.

Second, it is obvious to at least me that a significant number of men on TRP want that traditional family life, but believe that it is impossible because reasons, so they are going for casual sex instead. On the one hand, you can say they are just trying to justify doing what they wanted to do all along, but on the other, low-value guys probably do see locking down one woman as their best hope for a decent life.

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

A man's best bet, if he is playing the odds, is to be a hot fun guy when he's in college, and then transition into mature stable guy sometime between 25-30 (ish).

That's everyone's best bet. It's always good to have fun in the college years before settling down and becoming a responsible person.

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

Yeah. But telling guys they'll recapture that at 35 is misleading too. It creates flirty waitress syndrome

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You have to have the kind've enthusiastic personality that virtually makes me gag to be a natural at that.

[–]bottles_n_models“Human life must be some kind of mistake" Schopenhauer0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

How do you be fun sex material?

[–]Alth12Purple Pill Man4 points5 points  (29 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't this topic answer the old question from feminists on why men (in general) seem so reluctant and/or quiet about feminism and won't fight with them?

The type of world we've got from feminism and them pushing for more of the same is bad for most men who are as pointed out be the OP and comments "low value." If it's not helping these majority low value men or making them happy, why support it?

Why are men expected to be selfless when women are being selfish?

Oh and before I get the angry misogyny rants from people (bizarrely usually the men here not the women) I actually believe feminism on the whole is a good thing, I'm just posing a question.

[–]OurThrownAwayDreamsWorking On Myself1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

dont you think the expectation for men to be selfless has to do with the fact that men are expendable? a village with 99 women and 1 man can out survival a village of 99 men and 1 woman.

our biological reality makes it so young women can afford to be selfish. ultimately that makes a young woman's life worth more than a man. however, this is only on reproductive terms. That's why we have laws that sees everyone as equal value, and even that is arguable whether or not it holds true in some cases. there are, however, no rules or laws to make dating more fair for people. so young women have the upper hand and are considered more valuable than men. thus, they can get men desperate for poon to submit.

but i have a feeling if we look past the 30s, in 40s and 50s men have the upper hand. http://jonathansoma.com/singles/#6/6/2/0 check out this map, id take it with a grain of salt but the color almost flipped when it comes to single women and men between the age of 35 and 40.

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (26 children) | Copy Link

Why should men support feminism?

Well why should white people have supported ending slavery? Or giving black people equal rights? Because we are all human. We all deserve human rights like the right to vote, to have certain freedoms and opportunities, etc.

[–]BPremiumMeh2 points3 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

lol of course you think that, you have additional rights on top of Human rights.

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (23 children) | Copy Link

What rights do women have that men don't have?

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (22 children) | Copy Link

I shouldnt have said right, I mean privileges that come intrinsically to women that stack nicely with the rights given to you. Case in point, now that you have the right to work and make your own money, your biological privilege of getting to be passive in the mating game sets up women nicely with a buffet of options presenting themselves. She gets to have her cake and eat it too. While her male equivalent is starving

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (21 children) | Copy Link

Her mate equivalent is having sex with her.... only men who had nothing else to offer except for money go "starving"

[–]BPremiumMeh1 point2 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Getting her male equivalent at 35? maybe. at 23? No she trying to snag a dude way higher up the food chain using easy sex. This leaves her male equivalent either dipping lower on the SMP scale or going without. Since going without sucks much more for a guy, he will usually dip lower in the SMP. This then takes away from an even more unattractive guy until it gets to a point where a male 5 is equal to a female 2 because womens pussy force multipliers gives her more points in the SMP, simply by existing.

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (19 children) | Copy Link

Okay you can scream until youre blue in the face "shes not pretty enough for yoouuuuu" but if the guy keeps dating her, then she is equal SMV to him.

Its like the free market. You can tell a manufacturer "your price is too expensive for this shitty product" but if he keeps making a profit, hes not going to lower the prices.Market forces decide prices. So YOU may not think that the girl is attractive enough for Chad, but Chad is still buying the product, so apparently it IS the right price.

There are the same amount of men and women in the world.

[–]BPremiumMeh1 point2 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

What you're missing is the free market enables competition. So manufacturers lower prices and make their products better to gain more of a market share. But with women, there is no other manufacturer. So there is no competition, thus no need to lower the price.

And Chad isnt buying the product. Hes leasing it for pennies a day and can trade her in at anytime. The fact that she demands a Non-Chad pay a premium for something Chad got basically for free is the definition of double standards

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy Link

But with women, there is no other manufacturer. So there is no competition, thus no need to lower the price.

There are literally 157 million women in the US. If you don't like that car, go to another car!

The fact that she demands a Non-Chad pay a premium for something Chad got basically for free is the definition of double standards

Chad didn't get it for free! Chads payment was that he was hot. She got what she wanted because she got to fuck a hot guy. Now what do you have to offer her? If you have less looks than Chad, you have less to offer her. So no, you are NOT paying the same price as Chad.

[–]Alth12Purple Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The people who stranded to lose out didnt support those things. There was a whole war fought over slavery in the US.

Plus there's the difference between those and that here you're asking the majority of men to accept and support themselves being lonely and bred out and f the gene pool because women don't want them.

[–]Returnofthemack3Purple Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

it's a good point. Society is trying to cater to women at men's expense in all things. It's not fair for men, but no one gives a shit about the average man lol

[–]FairlyNaiveRed Pill Man3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Patriarchy gave low value guys an inflated opinion of their own worth

It diddnt, ffs. It killed them young. The gender ratio was very different when war was human's favourite hobby.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

THIS IS SPARTA.

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

TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL

[–]SharK3D1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Your premise is wrong. Women are the gate keepers of evolutionary success e.g. procreation, as they are the limiting factor: maximum 1 baby per 9 months per woman, and only for about 1/3 of her life span. For more read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oogamy.

So, women make a trade: evolutionary success in exchange for access to the protection and resources offered by a man. If you take the provider/protector role away from men, you destroy the unspoken covenant between men and women. With all the disastrous consequences that entails for a society.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Your baby every month statement is making me wince. Please change it to at least a year.

[–]SharK3D0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

maximum 1 baby per 9 months per woman

Somehow reads

baby every month

Pls

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I read theory a long time ago that in the next one or two generations, there will be a huge split between insanely attractive and insanely ugly as people get more picky over who they pair off with. I'm kind of noticing it now. Women don't need to marry the farmers son next door because he's got land and he's the only one nearby. Attractive Women (and men for that matter) have access, mobility and freedom to mate with the most attractive person they can and carry on those good genes. Plus the huge divide between rich and poor is making the split even wider as rich people can afford healthier lifestyles, better clothes, cosmetic surgery, etc.

My lousy prediction is there will be a very obvious split of 20% attractive and 80% ugly, in line with the Pareto principle.

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

In most circumstances people that pair up are approximately of equal value regardless of their time period. A lot of people that talk about the past seem lost in a "when the times were simpler" idea and for some reason idealize a past they don't actually know very well.

Men and women that were more desirable always had more options than their less fortunate counterparts. Looks are part of status, but you have to remember that it's only one component. If people took their relative status in modern day society and projected that into whatever time they think they would have had it easier with women they would be terrified. The same men that complain about having dip down to hooking up with ugly women are probably having those same women complain about having to dip down and hook up with that ugly dude.

[–]voteGOPkBlack Pill2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Legit

Agree, that is why I am black pill

TRP is a coping strategy for men who for whatever reason never realized looks matter to women as much as it matters to men when it comes to all things sexual.

at least in western wealthy nations (USA, Western Europe etc) Women are quickly catching up to men and earning almost the same. That combined with a welfare state (in political sense, not demagogic sense) women no longer depend on successful "go getter" men or rather don't seek them out as much since the government can provide social safety net and promote "equality" and etc pork barrel programs, so women are basing their mating choices just like men have been doing since forever: based on looks. erotic capital> monetary capital in 2017 in non poverty western nations.

average is the new ugly. ugly is invisible, no matter how good your job is or how nice a car you have.

Feminism doesn't cast a magic spell on women that suddenly makes them ignore or immune to beauty I think we have to take a step back and realize women, much like men, are more dictated by their ego, their sexual desires and self interest, than any -ism

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic4 points5 points  (143 children) | Copy Link

The problem as TRP and others see then is 80/20. You're not seeing lower value women match up to someone of equal attractiveness for casual sex due to this, and eventually when they do match up, lower value men are dissatisfied because these women have already had sex with anywhere from a few to many Chads.

[–]speltspelt5 points6 points  (77 children) | Copy Link

Except, since women have a much higher risk premium, 'equal attractiveness' is not an equal exchange for casual sex.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Uhhh, I'm pretty sure that the danger of remaining alone into middle and old age is way greater than anything women face in the SMP. What are you talking about?

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic1 point2 points  (75 children) | Copy Link

Well, sure, but this frustrates the average man, obviously, especially when he sees multiple women sleeping with the same man at the same time.

[–]SkrattGoddess5 points6 points  (37 children) | Copy Link

Boo hoo, you want 10 women on your dick then make it so they want to be on your dick. Who wants to fuck an average boring man? Get in the gym and shut up.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (36 children) | Copy Link

But the hypocrisy ensues when he claims this is 'socially wrong'. He is not entitled to a woman, after all. So there is nothing 'socially wrong' with that.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic2 points3 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

But the frustration is that those raised in western democracies are raised in a society where supposedly "all men are equal." When the sexual reality that all men are not equal hits them, it makes them bitter and likely to blame women. A TRPer who has fully swallowed the pill is arguably less misogynist than one who hasn't, as he believes that women of equal attractiveness are just acting according to their biological nature, rather than that these women are making a conscious vicious choice to reject him despite his "great qualities."

[–]SkrattGoddess8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Democracy means all men have equal REPRESENTATION AND RIGHTS yall are stupid as hell if you think it means every man is gonna have hoes on his dick. you have to EARN that.just like you have to earn FRIENDS and MONEY.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

There are lots of deluded people out there, I guess. TRP caters to them.

[–]NowEarDis points points [recovered] | Copy Link

No there aren't. You're hardcore straw manning.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say that there's a majority, but there are enough.

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

I have genuinely no idea where this 'all men are equal' notion comes from, because men in the West are raised watching Disney, and in those movies the girl always goes for the handsome prince.

Also, Red Pillers talk about the 'decline of Western civilisation' literally all the time.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I have genuinely no idea where this 'all men are equal' notion comes from

It's an idea that is fundamental to western democracy, I think. When you get to late middle school or high school and you see average girls sleeping with the hottest guys, you start to realize that the sexual world is more like an aristocracy and less like a democracy (more like a Disney movie, I guess you could say, which are arguably geared more towards little girls than little boys). When this continues through college (luckily it didn't for me, because who knows how bitter it would have made me if it had), then you see extremely bitter guys starting to do things like turn to Red Pill beliefs.

[–]sexydude012 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes but those "bitter" guys are smartening up and not marrying these whores that rode the CC anymore.

So I don't see why thats a bad thing.

MGTOW/TRP is teaching those beta bucks men to not be a sucker.

Why should feminists be mad at that?

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think I can confidently speak for feminists everywhere when I say: we are not mad MGTOW men are off the market.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, some women who want relationships are mad that they can't get commitments from men. Others don't really care and say that they don't want to be with immature men anyway. I don't think there is a consensus opinion from women about many men's counter-reaction to the proliferation of female casual sex with high-value men. Of course, the men who are going their own way or swallowing pills are still in the minority.

[–]sexydude011 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yet feminists continue to whine incessantly about the TRP.

Why should they care? Men are only exercising their options to avoid post wall CC riding women for long term commitment.

Are we trying to restrict men's rights and speech now?

[–]Boobear31 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

What if the hot guy actually thinks those "average girls" that he's having sex with.. are hot? Maybe his standards for hotness just aren't ridiculously high, like most rper's standards are? A red pill guy could look at a girl and call her a 6, maybe to someone MORE REALISTIC, the girl is actually more like an 8? Hmm. Maybe. I find it ridiculous that a guy could think a girl who is a size 4-6, decent size breasts, nice body shape, pretty face.. is only a 6.. but some rp do think this way. It's outrageous how high their standards are. Must be from porn and plastic surgery. Men that actually see a higher volume of women naked in real life.. tend to have more realistic standards.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I think a lot of guys think that they should be able to have sex with the same quality of women that the most successful guy that they know is able to have sex with. Men who are already satisfied with the quality of women that they can have sex or relationships with aren't going to try to do much self improvement. I've known lots of guys who were able to have better looking girlfriends than me, but it never bothered me like it seems to bother other guys.

[–]Boobear32 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's been studied that men overestimate their looks while women don't. So maybe the men who think they deserve to have sex with hotter women just aren't good looking enough. They need to have a good look in the mirror and realize that if you are very average in terms of personality (can't make women laugh, aren't that smart, aren't talented) and also aren't that good looking, that you have to settle for girls of lesser value..or just not have sex or date.. or improve yourself .

[–]speltspelt5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Men don't treat undesirable women as equal.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't agree with this generalization. I think you see a lot of SMV 3 men treat SMV 3 women as equals, even if they aren't able to sleep with them.

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

No one is actually "equal" to anyone. No one reads that as if everyone is "equal" when it comes to things like looks, intelligence, athletic ability, etc. "All men are created equal" applies to rights, not genetics or inborn traits.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I know that most people don't literally believe that, but I don't think one can deny that a culture of equality and justice affects individuals perception of the SMP when they are younger. They get a skewed perception that they are of equal value as a naturally muscular man with a good-looking face, thinking, "Well, I make up for it with my nice personality, so I'm his equal." Reality then hits them like a ton of bricks. I fully believe that democracy promotes a "we're all special" mentality which does not reflect actual reality.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you're talking about millennials and helicopter parenting/"everyone gets an award" type mentality, I agree with you. Not sure it's "democracy" promoting this, more like individualism, although I suppose those are related concepts.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Democracy is about giving the individual as much power as is reasonable. So yes, democracy increases individualism which increases feelings of entitlement.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

But the frustration is that those raised in western democracies are raised in a society where supposedly "all men are equal."

Not to mention that men who are not sufficiently sexy and sexually successful enough are shamed, ridiculed and demonized. Of course no man wants to be that.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

True. Luckily for me I avoided this by hanging out with groups of equally sexually unsuccessful nerds, but even the internal shame that one places upon oneself as a result of a culture that says that successful men get sex is bad enough.

[–]sexydude013 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Yes and she's not entitled to his commitment after being thrown off the CC when she gets older.

MGTOW/MRA tells those beta bucks dudes to AVOID marrying one of these whores after she decides to "find a good man after dating the jerks".

Don't see why that opinion is problematic.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

For the love of god no one has argued that here, no one is disagreeing with you, you're just derailing the conversation to bitch about women.

[–]SkrattGoddess7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

You can't expect women to be ok with you calling them whores, used goods, trash, etc. It makes no fucking sense.

[–]sexydude012 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

So if men phrased their interests as younger women with few sexual partners would that make you feminists happy?

Somehow I doubt it

[–]Boobear35 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You can desire women 10+ years younger with few sexual partners all you want. Reality is, it's a pipe dream for many men. most young women still prefer to date men around their age and peer group. A 34 year old man and a 20 year old girl isn't the same peer group whatsoever. And the ones who are actually willing to date older men, you might find they've had a good amount of casual sex (or maybe they'll just lie and pretend they haven't had it but they really have had a good amount of partners.. how will you ever find out if they're being honest?). Don't be surprised that your preferences aren't exactly realistic in this day and age. 20 year olds who date guys in their 30's tend to be looking for a sugar daddy rather than a true boyfriend or life partner.

[–]sexydude011 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

might be more difficult but the higher level men can do that.

the lower level men should just remain single without marriage.

very simple

[–]Boobear31 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Higher level men are a very small portion of men. You have to be very attractive and very rich to be so picky.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

JFC, it's not that hard.

It's not like a 20-year old and a 30-year old are from different planets or something. They all still listen to the same music, read the same books, like the same movies, etc. And after college, the whole idea of 'peer groups' becomes way less relevant. The general population is nowhere near so homogeneous.

And most women I know express a preference for older guys because they want men, not boys. They actually like the 'groundedness' and 'maturity' (descriptions of masculinity) of older men.

I and my friends all dated in that range at least once (and some of us married in that range, too, like me), and none of us were fabulously rich or gorgeous, and the girls weren't total sluts and gold-diggers.

I have no idea where this idea that men dating 10 years their junior represents some outlier population...

[–]Boobear30 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The hot 20 year olds who consistently try to date older men are gold diggers 90% of the time. There's no other reason to date someone outside your peer group except to for money. You will naturally have more in common with someone within 1 year of your age rather than someone ten years older. There's even a chart that was circulating around showing women prefer men their age.

[–]SkrattGoddess3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Probably not but I KNOW they hate the name calling, just like yall hate when we call yall dry dick losers.

[–]SkrattGoddess0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Idk why your comment is hidden. Did I hide it or is it downvotes?

o.O Idk how to work this tablet

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (64 children) | Copy Link

To be honest, when men say this means the culture is 'disintegrating' they just come off as bitter. Who said they have a right to a virgin?

[–]sexydude015 points6 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

Who said women have a right to commitment?

Men don't have to marry or give any resources to the female when she hits her 30s.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.11 points12 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Everyone here already agrees with that

[–]sexydude016 points7 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Actually no they dont agree.

Feminists/Older women are VERY angry that MGTOW/MRA are saying that men should NOT marry that slut

TRP is teaching those BB how to improve themselves to attempt to get younger women in their 30s while avoiding commitment to older used goods women.

Ergo, the problem with MGTOW/MRA by feminists.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Everyone here already agrees with that

Reading comp, dude. Come on.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

very few people give two shits about MGTOW-- certainly not as much as they want to believe. that's just their revenge fantasy, there have always been bachelors.

[–]sexydude011 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Then why are so many of them whining about "toxic" TRP or MGTOW?

Its a big talking point these days.

Also why is it "toxic" for those beta males to exercise their sexual game back to women?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

it's a very small group of people having those discussions. and the toxicity of MGTOW is the constant obsession over and hatred of women going on over on their sub, not the idea that some men would voluntarily stay single.

[–]sexydude011 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Doesn't seem too small when you look at marriage rates

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

yes, because marriage is dying out among the lower classes. that's not MGTOW, it's economics.

[–]LyaninaBlue Pill3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Everyone here."

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

Since when did TRP target 30 something women?

[–]sexydude010 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

they dont for anything but pump and dump

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

They don't touch 30 somethings you know the wall and all.

[–]SkrattGoddess1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

DUH. Feminists don't like the word slut in the first place. Of course they're mad.

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists/Older women are VERY angry that MGTOW/MRA are saying that men should NOT marry that slut

Men can choose to not marry women they don't want to marry, but MGTOW/MRA don't do that, they go to the internet to call her names like slut or "worthless ho" and say that she doesn't deserve love/commitment/marriage from anyone.

Who's to say who doesn't deserve love/commitment/marriage?

We'd be just as angry if someone said "fat men don't deserve love".

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Great. Don't do it then. Last time I checked, nobody held a gun to men's head and forced them to do so. Strawmanning left, right and centre here.

[–]sexydude017 points8 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

That is all MGTOW and MRA are saying.

Dont be beta bucks who marries to older whore/slut.

This seems to upset the feminists/older women though. They seem to think this is "sexist" and men aren't allowed that opinion.

[–]SkrattGoddess6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course, nobody likes to be told they're used goods xD

But when we say yall aren't entitled to virgins we aren't insulting you. That's just a fact.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Well, men like these reveal themselves as weirdos, seeing as most well-adjusted men just marry a woman of similar age in their 30s and settle down.

[–]sexydude011 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Why should those men settle down with CC riding post wall sluts in their 30s though?

See that is the problem here. TRP/MGTOW has taught these dudes to avoid these women.

Feminist should support men exercising their own options like women do.

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

Again, when have feminists told men they must marry these women?

Feminists are simply suspicious of men who obsess over much younger women because they might lure them in with the promise of gifts/money and abuse them.

[–]sexydude011 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Why aren't feminists worried about post wall CC riding women luring men into marriages to only divorce rape them a few years later?

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

Because these low-value men ought to kiss the earth these women walk upon for having been given a marriage. They are called 'law-value' men for a reason.

[–]kick6Red Pill Man2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Pretty sure the court says exactly that. Or if not a gun, at least a set of handcuffs and a jail cell.

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

To a married man who does not provide for his children. Not to a man who, as you put it, never married the post-wall CC rider.

[–]kick6Red Pill Man2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

No, I'm pretty sure my wallet is still dinged for taxes, which statistics show amounts to a transfer of funds to women, despite my status as a single man. But Alimony and alimony-disguised-as-child-support too.

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

Uhm... women pay taxes too, and men get benefits too, especially disabled ones.

[–]kick6Red Pill Man3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Uhm... women pay taxes too

They sure do, honey! And they get all of that back......and some of his.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2375926

And a blog with commentary on the subject

http://judgybitch.com/2016/08/16/reblog-research-find-that-as-a-group-only-men-pay-tax/

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

So you are saying men pay more because they earn more. Wow, it is as if this is an issue that could be solved by... closing the wage gap!

[–]SkrattGoddess1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course not.

Now answer her question.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't agree that it means culture is disintegrating (it's just changing), although I don't like casual sex in general when either men or women engage in it. But arguably only Red Pillers who haven't swallowed a pill are complaining still. The rest are supposedly working hard to get into that upper echelon of men that women are having casual sex with, as they realize that "female nature can't be changed."

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

it cant be changed, but it can be curtailed with laws and cultural values. sucks that isnt the case anymore

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

Why should those cultural values give men women who do not want them? That was the past we got rid of. Because men are not entitled to a woman.

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

Which raises the issue of the OP.

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

I believe it was warring tribes, frequent droughts, angry bears, and other things that kills wee little girls that gave guys 'inflated' senses of worth.

Or as I like to put it, 'worth'.

We can talk about the obesity epidemic, or depressed alcoholics dropping out of the market early from SSRI's and alcohol damage, but women are kicking our ass in both categories.

As for your complaints about men complaining instead of working with modern rules in the dating world... I don't know if anyone outside the MRA would disagree, next time, word it like a clever little story like GLO when he gives Paul Elam a recipie for fat free water

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

There are more male alcoholics than female, we haven't quite beat you on that front yet

[–]theiamsamuraiRavishment Realist0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Women have higher relapse rates when trying to quit drinking though.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

That's not the same thing though

[–]theiamsamuraiRavishment Realist1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I know, I'm just pointing out that you can't consider someone an alcoholic strictly from the amount of the alcohol consumed, as women tend to be more addicted than the men. If someone can stop easily, even if they're consuming a lot, then are they really an alcoholic?

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

f someone can stop easily, even if they're consuming a lot, then are they really an alcoholic?

Fucking obviously not.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Gaining fast, russians are skewing the numbers. Definitely got us beat on anxiety meds

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Women were abusing more anxiety meds even in the golden era of 1950s housewives, putting gals back in the home doesn't seem to be the answer

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

Ah, Miltinis.

Funny, happened right about the time the west startred the world of abundance.

Like you gals were happier , back when you were beating shirts against rocks, and making your own cheese

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

People are always happier when they don't know any better.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes I think we were! My ancestral females worked the land hard, I can only assume I've evolved to do the same

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

Something is always sexy about a girl who churns butter, not sure why

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

People seem to forget that a patriarchy benefits both men and women a lot, but it only helped certain men and women. If you were a man who could provide, you would benefit highly from it, if you could not you would be left in the dust.

[–]Tyler_Gatsby points points [recovered] | Copy Link

The more I read what "normal" guys say, the more weird I think I am. I guess I'll have to chime in to represent those who "dip down" in "attractiveness" on purpose b/c I don't want to jump through hoops to impress narcissist to borderline sociopaths. I hate talking about my appearance on the internet, b/c it ruins the beauty of what I see about this place. We're all equal here, just names who judge each other fairly by the words we say. I really like that.

That being said, I'll admit one more time that I would think I'm at least a 7 on anybody's list, depending on how high they hold dimples and straight, white teeth. Some women "oooh" over that, and some "eh" over it. I have slept with some fairly hot women, and they were usually the worst people inside once you got in their head.

Maybe if I give up claiming red pill, or mgtow I won't get any more angry PM's about how I'm not one of them, or talking right. I'll just speak for me.. and say I'd rather have/date/gf up a 6-7 who shares my tastes in music, movies, life, than a 9 who is so full of her selfie status she's too mentally busy to relate with me like a normal human being.

TL;DR: Sorry for the rant into your inbox, but most "upper tier" women I've actually gotten to know are borderline sociopaths, and maybe a lot of "higher men" are really less superficial than they get credit for.

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

What makes you assume that 6-7 represents a dip for you? If you are an 8+ you'd be approached in public, messages online from non-escorts 10x a day, matching with every pic on Tinder, etc. Is that what is happening?

[–]Tyler_Gatsby points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, I almost went back and edited that b/c I was already calling myself a 7, so that wouldn't be a step down then. Ok, just less physically attractive according to most people's comparison to me then.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Thats fair. I don't think a point above or below is really stretching or dipping either. I always take it with a grain of salt because I have never met a man who called himself lless than a 6, and that includes guys with receding hairlines, no chins, overweight, etc.

[–]Tyler_Gatsby points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Fair point as well. I just meant I'm not bad, and some women really have a thing for dimples. I'm just genuinely more interested in her having say the same taste in music and lifestyle as me, than what she looks like now.

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

I would say a 7 guy gets approached maybe 1/3 of the time he goes out to bars with lot of singles and gets messaged maybe a couple of times a day on online date. Does that seem accurate for you?

[–]Tyler_Gatsby points points [recovered] | Copy Link

I do get arguably flirted with, or at least talked to everywhere I go, but I don't do online dating or tender. I'll agree with you again:)

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

7 is probably fairly accurate then

[–]OurThrownAwayDreamsWorking On Myself0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

because some attractive people are used to people being nice to them. they never had to try and work on themselves. i was once talking with a female coworker. the subject about attractive people was brought up. and i told her, "a lot of attractive people are quite mean and lack manner because people give them a pass on their bullshit." to her amazement she replied, "no way. you'd think that they behave like nice people because they learn from what they experienced!"

we are naive to believe that attractive people will often have the self awareness and are conscientious enough to live with integrity and firm values. it seems like those were likely the people you have encountered in the past.

funny though, beauty fades, virtue is forever.

[–]Tyler_Gatsby points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Agreed, and probably the only thing related to this that we'll disagree on is that I think women are worse than men about that specific trait. I've met more mean/cold higher end women than higher end men. But admittedly maybe I'm biased in how men and women treat each other in private with each other.

[–]OurThrownAwayDreamsWorking On Myself1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

well, in my opinion it's closer to a 50/50 split. Keep in mind that the consequences an attractive young woman and an attractive man face are often not on the same level. So the likelihood of an attractive man who gets his ass handed to him to cause him to reexamine his life is much higher than that of an attractive young woman. Though I think a lot of the "empowerment" we're seeing right now is causing the number to tilt toward women. Maybe that explains why you were led to believe that women are worse.

that's the one thing i dont agree with a lot of the 3rd wave feminists on. they seem to switched the message from "women can do it too" to "women MUST do it". it seems like SAHM are not well liked by feminists. and that's something i really dislike. a successful woman can be either a mom who raises kids, or a woman in leadership positions. women now are trying so desperately to out-compete, out-mean, out-angry, and out-man men. nature is off its balance.

anyways, that went off the rails, but i think society is softer on women than it is on men, so maybe that brings out the worse of the worse in them, given the opportunity.*

*women are wonderful effect

[–]DucksCanDanceRed-ish Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

so ya want polygamy, then?

[–]darla101 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is an actual discussion I overheard on the sidewalk a few years ago between 2 guys in their late 20s. NYC: guy1: "I'm done man. I'm done fucking ugly chicks." guy2: "yeah. I don't care how much money they have. I'd rather be poor than bang another ugly girl." guy1: "the revolution starts now" brought to you by the frontlines....

I suppose they ran off and decided to finally get jobs? Nah....they probably just went back to their sugar mamas.

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

Seems like the implication behind a lot of these comments is that women are inherently more valuable than men because they are women. That even if a guy does things that have value, he can still easily be lower value than a woman who doesn't do these things because the woman has higher value due to her youth and having a vagina.

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think it's about their "youth and vaginas". I think it's about there being waaayyy more men looking for sex than women.

[–]BPremiumMeh1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

its about youth and vagina. Young attractive women are more valuable intrinsically than anything else. They can be complete fuck ups in life but still be able to get a great catch because of pussy force multipliers

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

"Patriarchy gave low value guys an inflated opinion of their own worth. Eventually that bubble had to burst."

The problem with this comment is that it assumes that women are more valuable than men.

In a traditional (Western) relationship setup, the vast majority of relationships were dyads with

  • 1 man
  • 1 woman

If we assume equal RMV and SMV for the average member of both sexes, such a system would (on average) produce couples were both parties are of roughly equal value. Sure, sometimes women will get paired with a less attractive partner, a good-for-nothing etc., but the same is bound to happen to men as well. The progressive myth that as a rule barely legal girls got married to guys who could have been their fathers is more a specific setup that applies to men who were high in status, because the average commoner simply wasn't interesting as a prospect for a family's young and pretty daughter.

What's more likely is that most women who were unhappy with their relationships for attraction-related reasons simply wanted a more attractive guy but weren't able to get one. Which is by the way something TRP would predict.

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

How am I assuming women are more valuable than men? Patriarchy is the assumption men are more valuable than women, and for those circumstances it was true. Parents needed a son to carry on their name and business, daughters were economically another mouth to feed until they could get married off.

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

How am I assuming women are more valuable than men?

The logic behind that comment does. If you subscribe to that logic, so do you. The reason: Read the rest of my comment.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem with this comment is that it assumes that women are more valuable than men

This may be true though, because women can produce more humans and men cannot. Hence male disposability via the draft, dangerous jobs etc.

In terms of sexual attractiveness, I think women do have more SMP points than men, or at least a few men have most of the erotic capital that exists for men, whereas its more evenly distributed among women. This just means men are thirstier lol

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed4 points5 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

We're living in a bubble at the moment, which is why women are free to choose, but it will end soon enough, one way or the other.

[–]LyaninaBlue Pill0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

A bubble?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Yes. The Modern Western world is in a "safety bubble", which is to say so many of our basic needs are met by default, we have the luxury of basing decisions on more frivolousness desires.

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Spot on, dude. Most people are far too clueless and never give this a moment's thought, but I don't think the bubble will last.

[–]LyaninaBlue Pill1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Thank you.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You are most welcome!

I'm not wearing a tin foil hat over here, but you'd be surprised at how many of the things we take for granted technologically hang by VERY thin threads. A cascading failure in some specific systems would literally end the Age of Technology, and even though I'm in IT, I can't help but be concerned at how reliant the West has become on tech that can fail at key points quickly.

What do we do the day self driving cars can't drive because their connection to the "cloud" is down? What if its down for months? And we no longer have steering whiles and manual control? I know we aren't there yet, but I'm fairly sure that's the end goal for self-driving vehicles.

[–]LyaninaBlue Pill0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes, it is the end goal, and we're not that far away from it. I'm still a student, but our professors bring up self-driving vehicles pretty often, and one is currently being publicly tested in the city where I live (it's a fun ride).

Do you by any chance have any reading (educational, basically) recommendations about these "cascading failure" scenarios or just about how reliant we've become?

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

Just did a quick Google search:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/spaceweather/index.html

Lots of info there about solar storms, and some info about how they can affect the power grid and even above ground pipelines.

A lot of the info is online, but much of it is hosted by pages that look to be a bit on the tin foil side of the fence. However, that does NOT mean the info is incorrect. I've seen folks talking about things as crazy as Google launching a DoS attack against themselves and causing the internet to crawl to a halt, but there are certainly more likely and less "black hat" type issues that could do just as much if not more damage.

Our power infrastructure is sadly out of date and not only is it possibly exposed to hackers, but its clear it is susceptible to natural events that would have far more impact than someone taking control.

In addition? Look at 9/11 to see how easily the cell phone system reaches capacity and stops working. MANY people couldn't place calls during the chaos, NOT because the cell network failed, but because it was overwhelmed with people trying to use it all at once. Its designed to ONLY service a limited amount of customers at any given moment, because in most cases everyone is NOT trying to use their phone at the same time. However in an emergency when everyone is calling 911 and trying to contact loved ones? Do NOT assume your cell will help you. In fact? in such a situation, send texts and DO NOT make calls. Texts are small, and are far more likely to make it to the system and through than attempting to make a voice call. Me? I have a ham radio license, so no matter what if I can power my radio, I can talk to someone if they can too.

[–]calling_cq_to_anyonewubba lubba dub dub1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't forget that ARES and RACES are around to distro short messages in times of emergency.

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

Awesome, thank you. Bunch of stuff to look up. (And now I'm wondering if this is the reason behind my brother's interest in radio.)

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

My interest in radio started in middle school with a CB. :P

However, as I got older I came to realize that its just about the best last plan for long distance communications if shit ever truly hits the fan, and I've kept my license active mostly just for that reason.

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes

[–]LyaninaBlue Pill0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Allow me to rephrase: What's the bubble?

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LyaninaBlue Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, reading material. Thanks!

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (54 children) | Copy Link

So true. Most of them can actually get a woman. They simply get a post-wall one later in life. But they are special, entitled snowflakes who think they deserve the hot virgin and that 'society is falling apart' if they don't get her. Special Snowflake Self-Centred Solipsism to its finest.

[–]Eastuss points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Except not 100% of the women are hot virgins when they're 20, women too think they're entitled snowflakes who deserve chad, but they aren't.

It's normal to think that as an average 20 year old something you deserve an average 20 year old of the opposite sex. But TRP tells us women will pursue better men while men will pursue many women.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

If these better men will fuck them, then good for the women. You would take a much hotter girl too if she was offered to you.

It all goes down to: you are not entitled to any woman. Not the average one, not the fat one. Not a single one. The woman has to choose you. There is nothing wrong with her choosing Chad over you.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

There is nothing wrong with her choosing chad over him, there's nothing wrong with chad not committing to her, there's nothing wrong with her LTR cheating on her because at any moment she might leave for chad.

And then there are the feminists, unhappy that men choose hot stacy over fat roberta.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Here is the thing: she chose Chad, and did not break a promise to you. She never made a promise in the first place.

Instead, when a man/woman in a LTR cheats, there is a broken promise (both genders are culpable).

Feminists are not angry because you freely chose Stacey, they are angry because you abuse Roberta and call her a landwhale, implying that her existence and her worth ought to be tied to how attractive men find her. You are not and will never be forced to date her, you are simply required to stop the bullying and try to behave like civilised humans.

[–]darla105 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

wow. I can't believe you actually have to explain this. I'm starting to think some of these RP guys would be very happy with a sex slave system....

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The patriarchy of the past was pretty much a sex slave system. Women were barred from voting and having careers because that way they would be forced to marry a low-value man who could provide and please him sexually. It was welfare sex for all the men who otherwise would have gotten no pussy.

[–]darla101 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

that is really scary. I hope we don't slide back to that....

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

Oh bullshit. It was not a sex slave system. Women who didn't want to marry Louie Loser or Fatty McDrunkerson didn't have to. They worked jobs, they taught school, they worked in factories, they lived with their parents or brothers or other relatives. Women were not en masse being sold off to brutes for sex slavery.

Horseshit.

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

As I said, there's nothing wrong.

Divorce was breaking a promise back then. But it has changed, now you can divorce. Now IMO divorce had to be a thing. But you see, divorce benefits hypergamy and not polygamy, for both genders. That's partly why TRP thinks LTRs are not worth it, because they believe men will be mostly polygamous while women hypergamous.

Everybody with low SMV is bullied one way or another, except roberta gets a TV show to claim that she's still beautiful while she just had to move her ass off. In my country, a feminist group wanted to boycott the miss election because this kind of TV show might hurt roberta's feelings because she's not 1m70 for 50kg. There was just thousands reason to want to boycott such show but they chose the cringies reason...

I know the internet is a bully machine, but don't fall into the trap of believing bullying is only something men do to women, bully is something everybody does to everybody.

[–]SkrattGoddess4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Bullshit.

You're confusing relationships with sex.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Are you sure you're not the one making confusions?

[–]SkrattGoddess0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yep

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

Fine

[–]BPremiumMeh3 points4 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

You'd be pissed too if you're expected to pay full price for a used rental vehicle with 200,000+ miles with a transmission that locks up and a massive oil leak.

But thats ok, cause as long as women get to have their fun, nothing else matters /s

[–]LyaninaBlue Pill7 points8 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I hate these analogies, but -- isn't it just that they can't afford the car without the oil leak, so they buy the one they can afford with their SMV?

[–]rulenumber30312 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I hate these analogies, but -- isn't it just that they can't afford the car without the oil leak, so they buy the one they can afford with their SMV?

Pretty much. The low value guys are working from the assumption that when they give their all it is worth the same thing as when a high value guy gives his all. And rather than come to terms with their own lack of value and what that means, they complain that all women aren't high value.

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

Interesting point.

[–]BPremiumMeh2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

You would think that, but the dealership ( women in this scenario ) knows they are the only game in town, and can do whatever they want. So they price gouge anyone that isnt in their inner circle ( Chads and top 20% ), knowing the customer has no recourse. There is no BBB for the customer to report them too and they dont have any competition. Its either that shitty car or you walk.

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

But there are billions of dealerships because there are billions of women. So if you don't like that one, go find one who you do like. But you can't be mad if you simply can't afford the ones you do like.

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

millions, if we are talking single women. Im only talking about the US here. And I can be mad when any non lemon vehicle has its price artificially inflated due to culusion. Knowing they can charge whatever they want because there is no recourse for unfair business practices.

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Why do you not have any recourse? You have the same recourse women do. Find someone else. You can't complain that the price is too high if a product is selling for that price. You basically want someone better than you can afford, that's entitlement.

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

did you miss the culusion part? How is this hard to understand? First off, the products price is being artificially inflated based on who's shopping. So the dealerships inner circle ( the Chads and other top percentile men ) get to lease the product for pennies a day, while the average guy doesnt even get to test drive it. Then hes expected to be happy about the fact that the vehicles available to him all have 200,000+ miles, are most likely lemons, and are still demanding the retail price that was paid during the manufacture date. He cant just go to another dealership, cause that one is the same as the one prior.

Its not entitlement to want a level SMP where womens SMV isnt artificially inflated due to pussy force multipliers

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

First off, the products price is being artificially inflated based on who's shopping.

How is it artificially inflated? You can argue that x product "should" be y price, but if its selling for twice of y, that is its market value.

while the average guy doesnt even get to test drive it.

Yes, everyone has the right to only have sex with people they want to. This includes women. You can't force someone to allow you to test drive a car if you can't afford it.

Then hes expected to be happy about the fact that the vehicles available to him all have 200,000+ miles, are most likely lemons,

He doesn't have to be happy at all! There are a million other cars out there, go find one that he can afford + be happy with

He cant just go to another dealership, cause that one is the same as the one prior.

Then maybe the problem isn't with the dealership its with him. Maybe he should stop complaining about the price and make more money or buy a car he can afford.

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Youre being disingenuous. The price is being artificially inflated based on who's shopping. Nobody is pissed that the rich can buy a sports car. But problems arise when the average customer is given sports car prices for a used civic, while the dealerships inner circle rents that civic for $1 a day and drives it into the ground.

And if everyone has the right only have sex with someone we are attracted too, then that applies to men. And yet when men complain that this "right" is being infringed upon, Women say hes entitled. Or is it only a right for women?

There may be other cars out there, but they have all colluded to keep the prices high, for the average customer, cause its in their best interest. So the customer ( an average guy ) is at a severe disadvantage because he cannot go to the competition ( cause they have all jacked up the price ) and he cannot seek legal route as there is no BBB.

And there we have it. Just make more money to afford the car you want or stop complaining. Easy for you to say, The dealerships have the privilege of being passive.

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

If you cannot afford a better car, that is your problem and no one else's. Stop whining.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lament of the beta.

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

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

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

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

  • OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

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

[–]Boobear30 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Honestly if you're a man with decent social skills and you have to resort to fucking ugly/fat women, you're probably ugly/fat yourself.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

What if the guy wants easy sex though? Or just has sex with them because they're there?

[–]Boobear30 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

There's tinder, bars, dating apps. If a guy is attractive and just puts in minimal work, he should be able to get laid with women in his league. You're acting like no hot women are easy.. please. Also typically attractive men just run with crowds of people that include attractive women as well. A 9 usually won't run around with crowds of women below his league. If a guy finds himself in situations where he's always around women below his league, he's probably just not that attractive and is overestimating his own looks. A guy may have sex with a woman below his league once or twice, but if it becomes a pattern, it's probably because he's just not that attractive. Hint: having muscles doesn't always mean a guy is that attractive. If his face is weird or even average, then he's downgraded. Women like faces arguably even more than super muscular bodies.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

They're easy for hot guys. I'm talking about an average guy who just wants instant sex and doesn't have hundreds of dollars on hand for a prostitute.

[–]Boobear30 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well an average guy can go one of two ways. If he's funny or talented in some way, he can get laid with women hotter than him. But if he's boring, then yeah he will have trouble

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

then why bother living, if you can only get fat/ugly women?

[–]Boobear30 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

What kind of question is this?

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

a legit one? lol

[–]Boobear30 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you've improved yourself all you can and can still only get women you find unattractive, then it's your choice whether or not you want to keep dating, or just find meaning in other life pursuits. I guess this is why Mgtow exists. If you really find life meaningless and depressing without women then I guess do what you need to do? I don't know .

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

The only time I had unrealistic sense of my worth in dating was when I was 15 and had a crush on a beautiful friend, being very isolated and having only knowledge from tv shows like "boy meets world" and "saved by the bell" to follow.

At 16, being around more people, and having big peer friend groups for the first time, it was clear to me what guys who dated a lot had that I didn't - tall, loud, outgoing, sporty, early competence in things like driving and work, socially easy going.

I'm not saying the guys who dated had all these, but I had none of them. It became clear quite quickly I was "lower tier" in attractiveness.

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

Yeah I realized around the same age I had braces and frizzy hair and while I thinned out and looked nice, I'd never be photogenic or bodacious. The thing is, its better to date in your league because you get treated much better. Guys often think everything will be great once they snag that one hot chick, and then find out shes dating down for a reason (crazy and/or controlling, usually).

[–]kick6Red Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

that isn't as relevant anymore today because women now have the option to enter well-paying jobs and provide for themselves - and many do!

Statistics on which sex consumes the most government funding says otherwise. Women are still looking for a provider................it's just that now daddy-government is the ultimate provider as he can pick the pocket of every dude instead of the woman having to choose just one.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Patriarchy is the only proven system to maintain a civilized society, that's why Europe needs Muslim immigrants to replace a generation that was never born. But it won't last in the long run. The matriarchy must import the patriarchy to survive.

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Nonsense.

Patriarchy or more accurately, traditional marriage, gave a societal stake to socially productive betas. That is why our greatest technological and societal advances took place under operation of traditional marriage.

Feminism has liberated the natural hypergamy of women, and unleashed a genetic genocide of betas who are now confined to the role of taking care of a woman and her alpha brood after her beauty has declined.

Also, the availability of the social safety net means that more of alpha kids are surviving infancy. The resulting demographic change in the alpha beta mix is destroying the viability of the society as more and more alpha losers populate the next generation at the cost of socially productive betas.

It isn't a surprise thus that feminism is closely correlated to societal decay.

[–]PurpleBanner0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Patriarchy or more accurately, traditional marriage, gave a societal stake to socially productive betas.

I do not think this is correct.

I know a lot of betas who have girlfriends, and many of the betas I know are not particularly intelligent or crafty, but still live in a patriarchal civil arrangement.

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Of course betas have girlfriends. I used to have some too.

They don't keep their girlfriends in line because women always prefer alphas, no matter how powerful and successful the beta maybe. Given the ingredients of professional success in the current age, betas are among the most successful of men.

[–]PurpleBanner0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

betas are among the most successful of men.

That is not what I have witnessed.

They don't keep their girlfriends in line because women always prefer alphas, no matter how powerful and successful the beta maybe. Given the ingredients of professional success in the current age, betas are among the most successful of men.

God, this reads like such a practiced line, one would think you are either a woman or a beta/alpha male yourself.

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

betas are among the most successful of men.

That is not what I have witnessed.

Professionally, alphas are usually useless. They lack focus and competence.

They don't keep their girlfriends in line because women always prefer alphas, no matter how powerful and successful the beta maybe. Given the ingredients of professional success in the current age, betas are among the most successful of men.

God, this reads like such a practiced line, one would think you are either a woman or a beta/alpha male yourself.

I am a beta. I don't see it as the form of abuse some here use it as.

[–]jesuisunrenard0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Patriarchy gave low value guys an inflated opinion of their own >worth

Yep . Aka RP, MRA, any other collection of neckbeards that subscribe to this overall nonsense

[–]theiamsamuraiRavishment Realist0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

If for thousands of years men had to marry much older established women and never got to see prostitutes or have casual sex and got stoned to death if they tried, they surely wouldn't politely keep putting up with old well-off women they don't find attractive if they didn't have to anymore.

Where are you getting this from?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

apex fallacy, as usual.

High status men of course had their pick of women, could marry another pretty young girl that wasn't even 20 yet when the first wife died after 20 consecutive years of child bearing, and have mistresses thrown in for good measure.

And when it comes to fighing the patriarky, a good little feminist will treat this scenario as if it's the norm while simultaneously (when it's necessary) trying to ingratiate herself with hapless betas by telling them that "feminism is for men too!" because it supposedly fights aforementioned setups - only to ultimately stab them in the back every chance they get. Because after all, they're still men and for that reason on some occult level still complicit in all this.

Doublethink.

[–]ZoidbergluverBluePurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Having mistresses and going to see prostitutes still is the norm for men in central/South America. It is almost expected that men are unfaithful and have multiple girlfriends, even the poor men (well, they are third world countries, everyone is poor)

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

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