CMV: Redpillers do not understand women. They still think of them as men.

Auvergnat · 2016-12-28T23:12:53+00:00

I am a red pill man and I 100% approve of this message.

Example 1: "Women divorce or deadbedroom their husbands because they were never really attracted to him to begin with."

Notice the assumption that the woman's attraction is constant over time. If she isn't attracted now, then she never was attracted to him to begin with. Notice that the alternative, i.e. her attraction changed due to changing circumstances, is never given any consideration.

I don't think I am the only redpill-aware man who believes women often manage to marry a man they are attracted to, who slowly but surely becomes unattractive, principally due to her incessant manipulation at getting him to provide for her only. It's a process we call "betaization" and that's been red pill knowledge for a while. I think your view of "redpill men believe women marry men they were never attracted with" is somehow of a strawman fallacy. Sure there are girls who settle for an unattractive man because they settled too late, but that's definitely not the majority of women and I doubt that's what a majority of redpillers think.

Example 2: "Women fuck hot, sexy men in their youth, then settle for a boring beta."

Notice that again, the assumption is that women's sexual preferences are constant over time. Men are sexually attracted to 20 year old women their whole lives, so they assume that women are also sexually attracted to the same type of man their whole lives. Notice it is never considered that what women are sexually attracted to changes over time.

I don't see how that example illustrates the assumption of constant female sexual preference. About your comment, I must say I never made the assumption that a 17 years old girl crushing on One Direction will become a 47 years old woman crushing on One Direction, and I never saw anyone on TRP making that assumption, and if they do, they're definitely idiots.

Example 3: "Once women sleep with Chad, she will never be satisfied with a different man who is not equally as alpha."

Again, this assumes that her sexual preferences are fixed in time. If she was really into a type of guy once, she will want him for all time. It is not considered that she was attracted to that man in that specific context, but is not attracted to him outside that context. Ancedotally, I know several men who still pine over their ex, but only one woman, and she never even slept with him.

The example is truly what we think but your interpretation of why we think that way is off. We're not assuming female sexual preferences are constant to explain that phenomenon, we invoke her own estimation of her own value. If she's been with a 10 Hot guy, she values herself as a 10 hot babe, and therefore anything below that is unsatisfying. It's a bit simplistic but the gist is hard to deny. And by the way, men work like this too.

Example 4: "Women are all attracted to the top 10% of men."

This one has fallen out of fashion somewhat, but there are still a few stragglers that believe this. Men are almost universally attracted to beautiful women, and the more beautiful the better. In constrast, the type of men a woman likes depends on her social group and situation. She likes the top men, but the top of what depends very much on her particular preferences and situation. Again, the mistake is assuming that female sexuality is as fixed as male sexuality.

This one I like, because it falls right in line with my own comments on TRP about value being context-dependent. Everything but your last sentence I wholly agree with and often encourage on the TRP sub. Men need to find the social context in which they can reach the top 10%. Similarly, that's why I always try to stay in a context that is in my favor, doing activities I excel at, and going out in contexts where I am near the top of the hierarchy.

Overall, I think your post would look great on TRP itself to teach some of the newbies of the subtlety of women's attraction being dependent on context. Although your view of redpillers somehow believing that women's sexual preferences is fixed is a bit unwarranted (at least to my knowledge of the sub).

Archwinger · 2016-12-28T22:51:20+00:00

This is kind of a half-truth. Partial credit.

The general, overarching idea that women are turned on by the context surrounding a sexual encounter as much or more than the rippling abs is true. But the rationale behind this is way off.

Women aren't a certain way, then they mature, get smarter, and adapt to their changing circumstances which sometimes results in changed sexual attraction.

Women just like a good story. That's the whole point of "game" and the pick-up culture. You can't just walk up to a woman and ask to fuck. Not if you want a good success ratio, anyway. You need to sweep her up into a good story. You need to be a cute/hot guy who starts talking to her about random shit, then hours pass, then she feels like she's known you forever, and there's this spark -- this chemistry -- then sex "just happens". She needs to get swept up in the story. The "context", I guess we're calling it in this post.

The entire pick-up culture is all about using this to get laid.

The Red Pill takes this a step farther. If you are "Chad" -- hot, successful, high-status -- then a woman's mind practically runs laps writing the story for you while you just show up. When you type "hey" on some dating site, it's hot. She hears "hey" in her head in this suave voice. She pictures this confident, nonchalant guy asking her what's up, as he selects her picture from the masses. When you're scrawny and have shit pictures and your dating profile screams "dorky nerd who never gets laid", your "hey" is interpreted as a low-effort entitled neckbeard.

If you want to get laid, you have to give women their story, and you have to be the kind of man she'd want to be in a story with. So yes, "context" matters. But it's a big mistake to attribute this "context" to women getting smarter, more mature, or adapting to changing circumstances just because they find you grabbing their boobs less sexy right after they've changed a diaper.

fundude1 · 2016-12-28T20:53:54+00:00

By this logic, men should avoid all financial LTR (ex marriage) with women due to their "changing preferences".

Who is to say she wont divorce you in 10 years due to her changing sexual dynamics?

Industrialbonecraft · 2016-12-28T22:42:12+00:00

I just find it amusing that they're so overly concerned by the whole concept of 'alpha' and 'beta'. To me it just reeks of infantile ego. On that basis I'm not sure it has anything to do with men and women, so much as it is simply a juvenile refusal to graduate from the playground and mature. They refuse to stop comparing themselves to everyone and everything around them, so they're trapped in a hollow cycle of peacocking and braggadocio, with little to show for it outside of a series of increasingly fragile ego-defences. They don't care who they're getting attention from, male or female, just so long as they're getting attention.

sublimemongrel · 2016-12-28T19:49:43+00:00

by images of Chad walking shirtless on the beach (this has no sexual context)

Oh for god's sake, why do girls drool over Calvin Klein models or topless men in https://www.reddit.com/r/LadyBoners/ ? Are you serious?

Example 2: "Women fuck hot, sexy men in their youth, then settle for a boring beta." Notice that again, the assumption is that women's sexual preferences are constant over time.

Yes and there is a lot of data to support this.

women want casual sex just as much as men

The researchers asked 2,370 adult women to look at photos of two men's faces side by side, with one face having more or less of these three key features than the other. They were then asked to pick which of the faces they found most attractive.

The results showed that most of the participants were attracted to men with strong features associated with psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism, while a smaller minority was not. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/02/women-prefer-narcissistic-men_n_9365428.html

UCLA study finds muscular men have more casual partners and flings

Example 4: "Women are all attracted to the top 10% of men."

The vast majority of sexual encounters for women do not end in orgasm. All sexual encounters for men end in an orgasm. Lookat the OKcupid study too.

Again, the mistake is assuming that female sexuality is as fixed as male sexuality.

Look at the American hookup culture. There is no proof it's not fixed.

Your trying to argue females aren't shallow which is an old traditionalist view, and the main reason TRP exists.

[deleted] · 2016-12-28T22:25:16+00:00

Notice the assumption that the woman's attraction is constant over time. If she isn't attracted now, then she never was attracted to him to begin with. Notice that the alternative, i.e. her attraction changed due to changing circumstances, is never given any consideration.

Honestly, that sounds worse and makes women seem even more fickle when it comes to love.

goatismycopilot · 2016-12-28T20:41:19+00:00

I think individual men may have some interest in understanding the women they cross paths with once in a while. But TRP is appealing because it is based on the driver that how women think and feel is not important anyway. It is about getting what they want from women sex/validation/ego boost. So they either think they understand women but are actually clueless or they do not seek to understand them.

SilentLurker666 · 2016-12-28T21:05:48+00:00

I'm not sure if this is OP's intent, but this post actually confirms a lot of RP's truth:

Notice the assumption that the woman's attraction is constant over time. If she isn't attracted now, then she never was attracted to him to begin with. Notice that the alternative, i.e. her attraction changed due to changing circumstances, is never given any consideration.

For example: What do you think the implication is for a married male who once day faces divorce from his wife who sexual attraction suddenly "changed due to changing circumstances."?

...She likes the top men, but the top of what depends very much on her particular preferences and situation. Again, the mistake is assuming that female sexuality is as fixed as male sexuality.

I think all BP would agree that a women's 'top male' isn't a 400 lb guy living in his parent's basement who's broke and got no social skills.

Notice that again, the assumption is that women's sexual preferences are constant over time. Men are sexually attracted to 20 year old women their whole lives, so they assume that women are also sexually attracted to the same type of man their whole lives. Notice it is never considered that what women are sexually attracted to changes over time.

Actually RP does admit that women's sexual preference changes over time... it's call AF/BB. Or how evolution psychology states that as women age, the preference to finding a provider became more attractive. What I think OP failed was where he/she failed to take account of what the male would and wouldn't want, and in this case, they wouldn't want an older women just for the sake of her being older.

The problem, as OP so eloquently states, is that women's sexual preference changes. Or better yet today's women want it all: They'll find the provider attractive until their needs are met, and then they'll crave for the Alpha again.

In conclusion, I think that the feelings of understanding men get from reading TRP is due to recognizing similarities in their own sexual strategy. The familiarity produces mistaken feelings of understanding. It won't be a true understanding however, until they can accept that female sexuality is changing and contextual. Actually accepting this fact would resolve the majority of the problems with the RP worldview.

In conclusion... the best strategy for male in today's society is to change their women before the women's sexuality changed. As for the contextual part, it's call holding frame. As for OP, his/her analysis is based on the presumption that RP doesn't know women's desire changes... but this argument is really a strawmen and RP's sexual strategy adjust to a women's changing attitude all too well.

StudntRdyTeachrApear · 2016-12-28T22:36:05+00:00

Another poor attempt to deny reality. I'm being honest, I would love an actual refutation of the TRP lens. I want the truth, who the fuck wants to cling to a perspective that is ultimately wrong? At this point, however, and especially with posts like this, I become even more confident that the other side has nothing useful to offer.

sublimemongrel · 2016-12-28T19:54:02+00:00

Redpillers do not understand women. They still think of them as men.

Not exactly. Redpillers do not understand women because they weren't taught to understand women as men understand women. When they first get to the manosphere or The Red Pill, Redpillers are either extremely male brained (prone to regulation, systematizing, rule making, process-oriented, rigid thinking patterns) or female brained (hyperemotional, easily influenced by others, indecisive, prone to making decisions based on feelings).

but for women sexual interest decreased with age or children, or even birth control.

Not really. Sexual interest in her mate decreases. Her interest in having sex with attractive men does not change. Take that bored housewife and put her next to Chad, and we'll see how fast she revs up.

Example 1: "Women divorce or deadbedroom their husbands because they were never really attracted to him to begin with."

Notice the assumption that the woman's attraction is constant over time. If she isn't attracted now, then she never was attracted to him to begin with. Notice that the alternative, i.e. her attraction changed due to changing circumstances, is never given any consideration.

Except that's not what happened. Her circumstances changed but that had nothing to do with her attraction to him, which was low or nonexistent to begin with. Moreover, a woman's losing attraction to a man she was attracted to enough to marry almost never happens, unless he changes so radically that he's literally not the same person. And that doesn't happen often, because men don't change all that much when they marry.

Example 2: "Women fuck hot, sexy men in their youth, then settle for a boring beta."

Notice that again, the assumption is that women's sexual preferences are constant over time. Men are sexually attracted to 20 year old women their whole lives, so they assume that women are also sexually attracted to the same type of man their whole lives. Notice it is never considered that what women are sexually attracted to changes over time.

Except that's not what happened. She didnt' change the kind of men she was sexually attracted to. She changed her strategy, because the AF strategy wasn't working to get her what she wants. Her attraction is constant. It's her strategy that changed. If she could have locked down a Chad, she would have done so. She couldn't, so she changed strategies. She's still hot for Chads. She just can't have one, so she settles for what she can have.

until they can accept that female sexuality is changing and contextual.

Sexuality and sexual responses change and are contextual. The kinds and types of men they are sexually attracted to doesn't change all that much. What changes in response to the contexts are the strategies and tactics, not her attraction or attraction level to varying types of men.

despisedlove2 · 2016-12-28T19:34:15+00:00

It would be more correct to say that RP didn't understand women until they turned RP.

ContrarianZ · 2016-12-28T21:15:44+00:00

Yes I agree with 90% of what you're saying, female sexuality (on average) is definitely more fluid than male sexuality, and changes over time.

I disagree that by simply understanding this resolves the majority of the problems in the RP worldview. None of these points are going to change how RP feels about being left out during youth, or being second choice for marriage, or being unexpectedly divorced.

If male sexuality is more constant, then they are going to be unhappy when things don't stay the way they want.

_primeZ · 2016-12-28T21:57:12+00:00

Ok what about those who prefer milfs?

[deleted] · 2016-12-28T23:15:29+00:00

So then if your attraction changes over time just lemme have a mistress and we're gucci.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2016-12-29T06:36:45+00:00

This entire post is "but women are special! We aren't animalistic fuck-apes like you menz! Our sexuality is wholesome and pure and more mental and spiritual than your debased throbbing biological urges!"

Tell us more how you wish to be treated equally. Because clearly what you want is special treatment.

No, you don't have a better nature than us. You're just as much of a biological creature.

For that matter though, sexuality can be fluid. This actually includes male sexuality too. The idea of rigid male sexuality/fluid female sexuality is a product of the female privilege of "bisexuality is okay in women but men who are bi are just gay-and-in-denial."

kick6 · 2016-12-29T15:30:46+00:00

Example 1: "Women divorce or deadbedroom their husbands because they were never really attracted to him to begin with." Notice the assumption that the woman's attraction is constant over time.

I've never heard it stated that way. Normally it's stated that she slowly lost attraction for him as he doubled-down on betatude. So, her attraction IS constant...he's just slowly become less attractive.

Example 2: "Women fuck hot, sexy men in their youth, then settle for a boring beta." Notice that again, the assumption is that women's sexual preferences are constant over time.

Here's the thing: women's sexual preferences haven't changed in this scenario, what has changed is their ability to capitalize on said preferences. Let me give you a counter example.

Let's say I'm a big-shot investment banker making $1 million a year. I drive a brand spanking new $100,000 porsche.

The financial crisis hits, I lose my job. I now work as a CPA making $60,000. I drive a $15,0000 corolla.

Has my preference changed? Fuck no, I'd much rather drive a porsche. I just can't afford the porsche anymore.

[deleted] · 2016-12-28T21:51:05+00:00

100% agree with this. Upvoted.

AutoModerator · 2016-12-28T19:29:16+00:00

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.

[deleted] · 2016-12-28T23:36:36+00:00

The biggest practical difference between male and female sexuality is that for women, sexual arousal and interest is fluid, contextual, and changing

Only in the sense that women's sexual arousal and interest depends on the men who approach them, and on the men who are around them. Women will always flock to the alpha. Chad will always take preference over any other man. There might be 50 girls and 5 guys but only 2 of the guys will sleep with 50 of the girls or close to it because women only want the chads of the group of men.

And as soon as the women meet guys who are more chad, their former liasons are forgotten with the other men.

A few studies on sexual arousal have found that women can be aroused by a larger variety of stimuli. They are aroused by situations considered sexy by our culture (women working out) or by sexual situations (monkeys fucking)

Most women are bisexual, indeed. They evolved that way due to a lack of chads around them. They wanted sexual release and emotional bonding, which caused women's sexual preferences to involve a dual sexual strategy: have sex with chads and other women, marry a beta.

but not by images of Chad walking shirtless

Those women are gay, totally. They don't get aroused by Chad walking shirtless? What? What do they get aroused by? Seeing Chad being good with kids? O.o

of Chad walking shirtless on the beach

How is this not sexual in context? lol. If I see an attractive girl walking around with her bikini top I'm going to find her arousing.

heterosexual male arousal is limited to naked women.

No? Dude, I've legit popped boners in the library over seeing girls who were fashionably dressed, with the right earings, make-up, shoes and so forth. What can I say? My dick knows what it likes, lol.

Also, women find older men more attractive as they themselves grow older,

So women in their 30s find men in their 30s to be attractive. What does that matter? Its natural.

but men always find 20 year old women the most attractive.

Ehhh, I actually find women in their 30s to late 30s to be more attractive lol. Those women are sexy af, have seen and been to places, have had a lot of sexual experiences, lots of sexual partners which really turns me on. Virgin women and women with low N numbers have never appealed me. I get aroused by the possibility of being taught stuff, of being show things I never thought were real, like extreme stuff that older women are into and want to do instead of the vanilla sex young women prefer because they are insecure or lack experience.

Notice that again, the assumption is that women's sexual preferences are constant over time. Men are sexually attracted to 20 year old women their whole lives, so they assume that women are also sexually attracted to the same type of man their whole lives. Notice it is never considered that what women are sexually attracted to changes over time.

hahaha, honestly? Are you excusing women for fucking chads in their youth and then wanting a beta? What is the point then for older men to get married? As soon as a man turns 25+ his sex life is dead because women are now looking for a beta bux and that means sex once a month, lukewarm starfish sex?

I guess guys should just accept it. If you didn't get with her at 20, be ready for that dead bedroom because she changed and has other priorities. Like having you raise kids that might not even be yours.

Again, this assumes that her sexual preferences are fixed in time. If she was really into a type of guy once, she will want him for all time. It is not considered that she was attracted to that man in that specific context, but is not attracted to him outside that context. Ancedotally, I know several men who still pine over their ex, but only one woman, and she never even slept with him.

Usually, women only stop pinning for chad after chad tires of them and goes for younger women. Around that time women go trough a transformation and suddenly claim to have been manipulated by men, used, or pumped and dumped ;D

This one has fallen out of fashion somewhat, but there are still a few stragglers that believe this. Men are almost universally attracted to beautiful women, and the more beautiful the better. In constrast, the type of men a woman likes depends on her social group and situation. She likes the top men, but the top of what depends very much on her particular preferences and situation. Again, the mistake is assuming that female sexuality is as fixed as male sexuality.

LOL. Female sexuality is as fixed as male sexuality is. Women want men with perfect aesthetics. She likes the top men but the top odepends of what are particular preferences or situation are? Like what? She likes man buns?

Musicians?

Doctors?

until they can accept that female sexuality is changing and contextual. Actually accepting this fact would resolve the majority of the problems with the RP worldview

Men should accept that women don't really mean what they say.

[deleted] · 2016-12-29T00:08:16+00:00

Do you believe alpha widows are a thing?

If so, what traits causes women to pine over the one that got away?

[deleted] · 2016-12-29T00:27:45+00:00

Female attraction over time is only constant in terms of male height.

Transmigratory · 2016-12-29T00:45:18+00:00

I'd like to ask how much of TRP text have you actually read?

Have you read it? Like some posters here have you simply claimed you've read it? Have you read it only till something bugged you then you stopped?

A lot of the time people don't get it so they think they've disproved it till they've unwittedly supported what TRP says like you've done.

Up2Eleven · 2016-12-29T00:48:29+00:00

This is actually a good explanation for fickleness.

HumanSockPuppet · 2016-12-29T02:08:09+00:00

Which "Red Pillers" are you referring to? The ones teaching, or the ones learning?

[deleted] · 2016-12-29T04:36:31+00:00

I both agree and disagree.

Popular culture/entertainment tells us that women remain attracted to very young men all their lives. (Many/most women, not all women)

I don't need any context to find an image of a man sexually arousing. I've been like this since I was 16. I can look at a photograph of just his face and feel the same.

cxj · 2016-12-29T06:28:59+00:00

This post reminds me of one I wrote a while back elaborating on hypergamy, the 80/20 rule and "like attracts like."

I touched on a lot of the same ideas here, especially women's attraction changing with her environment and how this can lead to dead bedrooms.

DarkLord0chinChin · 2016-12-29T08:31:47+00:00

Studies didn't prove female sexual attraction changed over time. They only proved that women want a story to be a part of, not just a hunk of meat.

Female sexuality is not as rigid as male sexuality, but you gonna have to prove that it "changes over time". Because it doesn't really

Gobiel · 2016-12-29T09:25:25+00:00

So basically you're saying that TRP is not misogynist enough ? Fuck yeah.

BPremium · 2016-12-29T13:53:43+00:00

Still, her attraction to the bad boy douche bag usually peaks at 16-24 ish, which happens to be when a woman is the most physically attractive. I dont want that guys leftovers after she aged and he doesnt want her anymore

bigmfkr · 2016-12-29T16:11:01+00:00

I can only agree with the first sentence of the title.

Redpillers do not understand women. Neither they want or need to understand them. You don't need to understand how a car or a computer works inside in order to operate it in an efficient way and take good care of it. You only need the manuals and someone to teach you how to do it. Understanding the inner kitchen might help juuuust a tiny bit, yes, but it is absolutely not necessary.

I only care about getting practical results. Attraction, first and foremost – it makes me happy. Keeping her happy if she's my LTR. I do not need to understand her for that. Her thought process is waaaay different than mine, and I'd have to spend my whole life studying psychology to understand it. For a marginal improvement. Nope, thanks. I'd rather take the practical advice that works, and works well.

That's for "Redpillers do not understand women." The rest is, as usual, pointless debate about how to interpret something on the internet.

Rollo-Tomassi · 2016-12-29T19:22:59+00:00

Your presumptions of what Red Pill men believe in this respect is entirely based on your preconceptions.

In fact I wrote a book about exactly how women's sexual prioritizations change over various phases of their maturity:

Preventive Medicine

You can also read it for free here: https://therationalmale.com/2014/03/16/preventative-medicine-part-i/

circlhat · 2017-01-03T16:39:38+00:00

"Women divorce or deadbedroom their husbands because they were never really attracted to him to begin with."

Yes and no, TRP never stated this as a 100% but simply as a scenario, it seems women generally only accept 1 scenario , while you accused TRP of treating women as a singularity entity this is what society and women tend to do themselves.

Some women aren't attracted to their husbands from day one, some women lose attraction because they gain weight, some lose attractions because they become different people.

This one has fallen out of fashion somewhat, but there are still a few stragglers that believe this.

But you just confirmed it

Men are almost universally attracted to beautiful women, and the more beautiful the better.

Typical shaming technique used by women, You make a argument than say , "Hey look at you guys and what you are doing" , This is completely irrelevant, and here is the kicker

Again, the mistake is assuming that female sexuality is as fixed as male sexuality.

and here you have it, male sexuality is stagnate, one dimensional but women are multi-dimensional creatures , notice how you didn't justify mens sexual attraction which you act as if you are a expert in, but went though hoops to convince us that

She likes the top men, but the top of what depends very much on her particular preferences and situation.

top 10% is still top 10%, you aren't even disagreeing with the statement, but just wanted to talk I guess.