TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

50

So, after much discussion in the IRC, the xNTx cohort has come to the conclusion that a lot of the distaste for RP comes from the general sense of ickiness that non-systematizers feel at the idea that human mating behavior can be broken down and systematized in a cold, calculated manner. i think maybe it feels like "watching the sausage get made" to the non-systematizers. while this tends to break out on gender lines, there is a fair amount of crossover

what do you all think? note: i SPECIFICALLY SAY MUCH and A LOT not ALL, please do not respond like i said ALL of the distaste stems from this. thanks


[–]hyperrrealLoves fun[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children) | Copy Link

This is tagged CMV. Top level responses should challenge the OP.

[–]fizolof23 points24 points  (53 children) | Copy Link

People have been systematizing how the world works, including human relationships, since the dawn of time, and itself it has almost never met any resistance. The reason for the backslash against TRP is ideological, from people who believe in different "systems".

[–]damaskrose 17 points17 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Eh, I'm a systemizer, maybe even an oversystemizer. I normally have a "game plan" for social interactions. My wedding vows were based on research. It's not the systemizing which people object to, but the black-and-white thinking, oversimplification, and like you say, the ideology itself.

the xNTx cohort

A while ago there was that MBTI thread on PPD - weren't most of the bloopers INTP/INTJ also?

[–]shoup88Report me bitch7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

12/16 blue pill leaning users identified as xNTx, if I calculated correctly.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪[S] 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

i didnt want to say xNTJ, but really thats what it is. i probably should have. P hates dat aura of certitude

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

P hates dat aura of certitude

This... explains much about myself.

[–][deleted] 4 points4 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]damaskrose 5 points5 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Certain traits/behaviors are correlated with higher relationship satisfaction and lower rates of divorce, and the idea is to base the vows around those traits and behaviors. We got the idea from this person, who did something similar, though we did our own research and the vows ended up being slightly different.

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

What wedding vows?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

My wedding vows were based on research.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oops!

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not the systemizing which people object to, but the black-and-white thinking, oversimplification

But that's pretty much exactly what systemizing is. "Black and white thinking". "Simplification".

I think it comes back to that even though you are a systemizer, there are certain things you object to seeing systemetized.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

My problem is I don't think like a "normal" person. A normal person says like "OK I will just work steady and have this amount towards the goal this month. I will only do one thing to get this.."

See, I don't think that's how a normal person thinks. I think that's how a black-and-white thinker thinks. A true systemizer will understand that the world is complex and come up with different contingencies for dealing with different people, scenarios, or outcomes. A true systemizer won't just have one default plan, but many auxiliary plans. This is where TRP falls short. They take a one-size-fits-all approach to... everything.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪[S] 19 points20 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

do they tho? they seem to very often say "everyone is unique" and "theres no magic one size fits all approach" etc andthings that REALLY indicate the very notion that "romance" can be systematized is abhorrent

[–]HairbrainerWhy can't we be friends?8 points9 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

It's not false though that different approaches to romance will work on different people. It's the fact that the system that RP uses seems to box women into this character of being stupid, predictable, needy, whorish bitches. It's not that the system exists, it's that it's insulting.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪[S] 8 points9 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Sometimes reality is insulting. For example as a Jew I can totally see how antisemitic generalizations if Jews are generally true. I don't like that a lot if it is true, I wish it weren't but I can't help seeing it is. Being insulted by reality serves no purpose imo

[–]alderheart3 points4 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

I have never met a Jew. Are you really unclean and greedy?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪[S] 8 points9 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

i also control the media

i never heard "unclean" as a steroetype, jews have always been known for their ritual baths and likely survived the black plague because of it

[–]alderheart1 point2 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Apparently, the dirtiness is inherent. The same as Muslims.

I don't believe it - I mean, we all have running water and soap these days. But the Church like to make themselves appear to be a better option.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪[S] 1 point2 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

i mean, i was ACTUALLY a WN skinhead and never heard that jews were physiclaly unclean. that muct be a newer one

[–]alderheart0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

Why were you a skinhead? Don't they kill Jews?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪[S] 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

I was 16, call it my "idealistic" phase

[–]OfSpock3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's more that they are choosing to believe things they like and pushing their own agenda. For example, there's a lot of evidence that shows women like guys their own age but TRP pushes the idea that men get sexier as they get older. No, they can use their money to purchase a subset of women, but that's all. They don't like to believe that.

[–]fizolof0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just because someone objects to people being systematized in some way doesn't mean they object to systematizing in general. Non-systematizer rarely react to systematizing with revulsion. Psychology also tries to systematize human behavior including their sexual behavior, but you dont see people rejecting it this way. That's because the dumbasses who aren't capable of understanding its findings don't engage with it either way. "Everyone is unique" is a systematizing, generalizing, ideological claim that requires thinking too abstract for them.

I don't think anybody really believes "Everyone is unique". I think people who say this mostly lack self-awareness, since these are most likely the same ones who would respond with affirmation to the claim "women require niceness as a minimum of human decency", for example. I think it's because they're not putting much thought into their opinions.

The explanation I see for the revulsion against TRP is because a lot of the claims they make are highly socially inappropriate in the current PC atmosphere. They are also often purposefully expressed with inflammatory language and sometimes made by uninformed people.

[–]vorverkRed Pill Man12 points13 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

No. If you discuss and research sexual dimorphism and mating of any living creature you are animal sexual behaviour scientist. If you do it for Homo Sapiens, you're misogynist.

[–]theiamsamuraiRavishment Realist6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A misogynist or a feminazi, depending on the conclusions of your research.

[–]lollygagyoSociopathic Fake Flirter5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Consider it peer review. We think your methodology is shitty and highly influenced by ideology. We're just pointing that out to you.

Jesus fuck, the idea that TRP is 'science' coming from a bunch of scientists is really almost embarrassing.

[–]vorverkRed Pill Man3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Discussing a topic that has some science to back it up, field reports, personal experience, statistics etc. does not make this field science YET.
But deliberately label anything coming from TRP as misogynistic, denying any mating pattern as a part of human, but instead calling it "love" and "it just randomly sometimes happen" is dogma.

[–]haikufunNon-practicing hyperphagist/hypergamist7 points8 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

The average person still is resistant to basic psychology and thinks that sitting with a therapist is shameful.

[–]InterversityPurple Pill, Blue Tribe5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Eh, I think that's changing very rapidly, to the point where I'm not sure I'd agree with your statement.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/survey.aspx

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-attitudes-mental-health/

[–]YabuSama2k0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It really depends on the community. Some communities are still sort of 'old world' and admitting any kind of psychological issue would be met with hostility and rejection.

[–]InterversityPurple Pill, Blue Tribe1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It really depends on the community.

That seems so obvious as to go without saying.

[–]YabuSama2k-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Mee-Ow!

[–]darkmoon095 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

psychology is a "soft science". As in it's barely a science.

[–]lollygagyoSociopathic Fake Flirter8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

TRP is a 'goo science' -- as in, it's not a science at all.

[–]darkmoon093 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't think TRP ever claimed it was scientific.

[–]PancakeInvaders3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you make claims about biology, you claim to be scientificly based

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

I don't think TRP ever claimed it was scientific.

Then all their theories are mush.

[–]lollygagyoSociopathic Fake Flirter-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

See the comment directly below yours, which strongly implies that it is a science of sexual behaviour. Plus all of the 'this is nature, this is the truth, this is biologically supported!!' claims.

Your camp is claiming 'truth' status rather than 'ideology' status, generally speaking. And it's pretty laughable. Especially when a lot of you have the gall to critique psychology and the social sciences -- I don't mean to jump on you particularly, and maybe you don't think TRP is scientific or biologically based or definitely true because it's rooted in analysis, observation and male rationality. But it's a refrain that I've seen coming from RPers a lot.

And dismissing psych and anth and socio while making these claims is unbelievably goddamn rich.

[–]648262Red Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

and itself it has almost never met any resistance.

That's wrong.

The reason for the backslash against TRP is ideological, from people who believe in different "systems".

There's always a system. Some just can't see it that way.

[–]haikufunNon-practicing hyperphagist/hypergamist9 points10 points  (95 children) | Copy Link

I don't have an opinion on rpw, but for the RP, reducing the odds of a relationship's happiness to an "n count" is reductionist in an extreme. Why did the person have the lots of sex? What did they learn from their experiences? Is there a trend over time of positive developments? Those are the answers that show more inner core of who a person is and can be projected to have some value to future happiness.

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man16 points17 points  (81 children) | Copy Link

N count is an indicator of future behavior based on past behavior, just like charging more for car insurance for people who have been in many accidents.

Just like marrying someone who has divorced 3 times is more risky than someone who has never been married, high n counts are the same type of risk indicator. Sure, that triple divorcee and you could live happily ever after and/or that never married girl could hate you and make your life miserable in 3 months. However, generally speaking indicators are pretty reliable.

edit: to clarify, N count is a single indicator out of a large quantity of indicators. Some people in TRP want to use it as their primary indicator, which is up to them.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points  (46 children) | Copy Link

If that's the logic, why focus on the n count so specifically though? Why not number of DUIs or drug use or how many times they went to hippie music festivals or how many mini skirts they own or a whole other myriad of things that could indicate they don't have whatever value you are placing precedence on?

TRP's initial justification for this is perfectly reasonable: past behaviors may indicate qualities I don't want in a relationship. BUT, n count seems to be the pretty much only "indicator" as you put it, other than single motherhood, that TRP universally abhors for LTRs/marriage. As if there aren't plenty of other things that might indicate or even be better at indicating whatever it is you're trying to weed out.

For example, they say n count usually means higher propensity to cheat. Yet we don't see TRP shouting from the rooftops that past cheating is the dealbreaker, no, we see n count. Past cheating seems like a far better indicator of a person's propensity to cheat to me. So at least for those ppl you identify as using n count as their primary indicator, this makes me think there's something more going on there...

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man7 points8 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

There's 2 things going on in TRP regarding N-count, in my opinion.

1) Men with little/no sexual experience are going to laser in on the fact that nearly all their potential partners are more experienced than them. This is scary to them. So that's why they chose that item in particular.

2) N count is the derivative of those other bad behaviors. Going to music festivals isn't a "poor decision" per se - fucking 5 dudes while you're there is by the aforementioned inexperienced men's standards.

And honestly, TRP abhors marriage altogether, and MRP and TRP regularly butt heads over that topic.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Men with little/no sexual experience are going to laser in on the fact that nearly all their potential partners are more experienced than them. This is scary to them. So that's why they chose that item in particular.

Makes sense.

N count is the derivative of those other bad behaviors. Going to music festivals isn't a "poor decision" per se -

Well I only brought up music festivals because just like n count (excluding ridiculously high) it seems like a pretty arbitrary indicator of poor decision making, IMO. Maybe the reason I find it odd and disingenuous is because I don't think having a high n count per se is indicative of poor decision making, like at all.

I think it could indicate having different values from yourself, which is why I, personally, prefer a man with an n count similar to mine, but poor decision making? Nah. I find it hypocritical for TRP to state on the one hand it's not a red flag in a man to have a high n count but it's a huge one in a woman, but that's likely because I'm looking at it as a way to see if our sexual values are compatible.

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

Right on. I don't have a problem with my wife's n count - it's very similar to mine, which are both high (which still blows my mind that mine is high).

I don't think that n-count is a major indicator myself. I have no problem with sex positive thinking, open relationships, or a myriad of other "alternative" lifestyle choices - provided that both partners go into it eyes wide open and consenting. My marriage is monogamous, because we wanted a stable base to raise our children in. I think it will remain that way even after the kids are adults because it suits us.

Regarding the hypocritical part, it's been a long standing human cultural norm that men who are promiscuous is an indicator of value, while women who are promiscuous is an indicator of lack of value. Blame it on biology - a man can sire an essentially unlimited amount of children with multiple women at the same time, while a woman can only bear 1-2 children to a single man at a time. And men want to make sure that their children are fully cared for by the mother, so any other man's children with that woman are competition.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.8 points9 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

it's been a long standing human cultural norm that men who are promiscuous is an indicator of value, while women who are promiscuous is an indicator of lack of value.

Agreed, but I don't know that simply biology is to blame. Slut shaming seems to be a cultural phenomenon and has ties to puritanism, etc., as well.

My issue with is that--despite long-standing cultural norms--I don't agree with it. N count to me basically is an indication of one thing: how someone values sex (does it mean something, do they need an emotional connection, is it just fun and games, etc.). From that perspective, a high n count man (I'm still more forgiving of the number than TRP) is going to be LESS valuable to me because it would show me our sexual values are not compatible. That being said, I'm just one woman. I'm sure others believe high n count men have values for the reasons you've explained.

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It also has to do with sexual availability. Most men are sexual available to most women. Most women are not sexually available to most men. So a man must display value to accrue said n-count (in the eyes of most people), whereas a woman simply needs to have low standards.

It's kind of like a shorthand for preselection in the eyes of some people when it is applied to men. Men don't have eyes for preselection nearly as strongly.

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

I just don't see how this is that applicable anymore Bc of sex pozzy and whatnot. A man with a ridiculously high n sends off "player" vibes to me, which is not attractive, IMO.

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Because you're dealing with deeply ingrained cultural bias at best, and deeply ingrained evolutionary bias at worst. Besides that, ugly, unappealing men are rarely included in the sex positive culture. Women in that culture still want to fuck hot, masculine, dominant guys (those with value), and who can blame them?

And "Player" vibes might not be attractive to you, but they are to many women.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Biology shapes culture. Who knew?

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

I do not think you can just chalk this up to biology, I made that pretty clear.

[–]lollygagyoSociopathic Fake Flirter1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Has it been that long standing a human cultural norm, though? I'm not sure. I know it's been a norm for at least a few hundred years, but it's important to consider why it wasn't a norm before that and why things might be shifting again now.

Theodora I, Empress of Rome for instance, was a former courtesan as were Messalina and Julia the Elder. Promiscuity among women was such a non-issue that Emperors would literally wife up whores.

It seems like monogamy and suppressing female sexuality/preventing promiscuity became more and more important once property rights were in the mix and lineage of heirs had to be certain. That's not always been the case everywhere and it makes sense that now, with paternity tests etc abounding to make sure we can ascertain lineage anyway, cultural norms surrounding female promiscuity are easing up again.

It's pretty Western and Judaeo-Christian as well, rather than human. In Polynesia, for example, both men and women were incredibly promiscuous and everybody fucked everybody -- it was thought to be a means to social cohesion and childrearing responsibilities were shared by the community rather than by nuclear family units.

[–]Shazoa0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's good to see someone not taking a completely ethnocentric view of sexuality here. It seems like most discussion here sees everything through a western lens.

I think, if nothing else, it shows that 'natural' human behaviour and ideology is malleable.

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

I agree about other areas of the globe, but Theodora I was an absolute scandal in her day due to her past as an actress/courtesan.

The classic western nuclear family has become the basis for the vast majority of civilization. I don't know why that is, but it is.

[–]Sandralees1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If the N-count mattered so much, then TRP followers would make sure that their behaviour does result in maintaining a low N-count for the women they date. Instead, the opposite happens: women are being played and used as plate and then are criticized for falling for your games. She is not a victim of your nasty approach to dating; she is guilty for trusting you and making bad decision. You guys have no empathy for the people you desire. You use them as tools for your short-term benefit.

TRP is not a virtuous circle. It's a system that creates more jaded people and yield the exact same results that you claim to hate about our modern society.

[–]Caucasian-AfricanNot Blue Pill6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Personally, I haven't slept around, and I don't want to be with some who has slept around. It just grosses me out, regardless of the woman's propensity to cheat or not.

Many women are grossed out by guys who hire legal, clean prostitutes. I don't blame them. I'm grossed out by women who sleep around. Don't blame me for that.

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

Same

[–]haikufunNon-practicing hyperphagist/hypergamist2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh, with me or with them? Either way, enjoy the theorizing.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh sorry, that was supposed to be a comment to bornred. Stupid new app.

[–]haikufunNon-practicing hyperphagist/hypergamist1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Np. Actually, my mistake.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (25 children) | Copy Link

Because N signals a cavalier or utilitarian attitude toward sex. To the slut, sex is no longer something two people enjoy. Sex is a means to an end, a tool, a shield, or a weapon.

High N women also are accustomed to being used by men (cost of doing business, so to speak) and using men to achieve their own ends. High N women have an agenda, and that usually involves anything from self protection to validation to accumulating material goods to getting a husband.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

Because N signals a cavalier or utilitarian attitude toward sex. To the slut, sex is no longer something two people enjoy. Sex is a means to an end, a tool, a shield, or a weapon.

This conveys that to you it is also an indicator of sexual values. It is to me as well. Which is why I want a man with a similar n as me and why I think it's hypocritical for TRP to claim high n counts for men are fine but bad for women. If we are looking at n count as a measure of how this person values sex, it means exactly the same thing when looking at a man vs a woman.

[–]DaphneDKKing of LBFM1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

and why I think it's hypocritical for TRP to claim high n counts for men are fine but bad for women.

Are they saying that though? I think women would most often be better off going for a low count man as well. But what is in the best interest of women is outside the scope of trp.

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

Yeah, they say that all the time.

[–]BellaScarlettaRed Pill Wife0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Disagree. I don't believe there is a double standard at all.

Both sexes are generally perceived positively when they demonstrate sexual value, but they are achieved differently (oppositely).

It is easy for a woman to obtain sex, so it does not demonstrate value. For men it is difficult to obtain sex, so it does demonstrate value. Men also do not enjoy the luxury of being virtuous (like women) if they cannot or will not demonstrate this ability; it is easy for men to abstain from sex, so it does not demonstrate value. For women it is difficult to abstain from sex, so it does demonstrate value. Women also do not enjoy the luxury of being "players" (like men) if they cannot or will not demonstrate this ability.

I hope the parallel sentence structure augments the point I'm trying to make. Each gender is judged equitably (but not equally) for their sexual history, and that's why a high n-count is not the same indicator for men as it is for women (but a low one is comparably so).

I acknowledge individual preferences can vary to an extent, but by and large I maintain the above.

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

Disagree. I don't believe there is a double standard at all.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but to me, if you are looking at n count as an indication of someone's attitudes on casual sex, it virtually means the same thing in a man and a woman. So from that angle, it is a double standard to say being high is bad for one gender and good for the other. However, if you are looking at it from a different angle than I am, I can see how you can rationalize it.

It is easy for a woman to obtain sex, so it does not demonstrate value. For men it is difficult to obtain sex, so it does demonstrate value. Men also do not enjoy the luxury of being virtuous (like women) if they cannot or will not demonstrate this ability; it is easy for men to abstain from sex, so it does not demonstrate value. For women it is difficult to abstain from sex, so it does demonstrate value.

See I'm not particularly impressed with that. I'm not in the "it's so difficult for the average man to get laid" camp for one. That being said, someone with an n count of 0 is likely a red flag too (lesser so, but I would be hesitant to date a virgin). I want a guy who is interested in monogamy, so a guy with an n count similar to mine will indicate value. A guy with dozens upon dozens upon dozens will absolutely not. I'm just not interested in "Chad" whatsoever.

Each gender is judged equitably (but not equally) for their sexual history, and that's why a high n-count is not the same indicator for men as it is for women (but a low one is comparably so).

Yeah again I'm just not seeing it this way, but I understand why you and why others would. A high n count man is subjectively lower value, IMO, than a man with say a n of 25 or lower (but more than 0). But again, that's my subjective belief based upon what I look for in men.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

It's not just sexual values; it's bonding ability.

High N doesn't damage men in terms of bonding ability in the same way it does to women. High N damages women much worse in that area.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.12 points13 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

How? Where does this come from Ive asked before and no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer.

[–]speltspelt3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. And capability to bond itself means nothing if he's only going to bond with a tiny percentage of the women he has sex with.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Do you know where this argument comes from? Also, if it's not damaging to him because he's only going to bond with a tiny %, why would it be damaging to a woman who likes casual sex and therefore will only bond with a tiny%?

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying?

[–]speltspelt1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

That was more in response to the comment above yours while agreeing with your skepticism about the whole 'bonding' thing.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

There is a study that gets thrown around alot that shows woman with higher n count are more likely to get divorced, the correlation it shows for woman is very large. On the mens side the stats don't show any link between n count and divorce.

I don't remember the name of the study, you can probably find it with some dedicated googling or asking one of the more spergy reds. Also don't know the methodology or the source of the stats.

[–]DaphneDKKing of LBFM1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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

Hm. Took at a look at your link. Basically this research shows if she's had sex with any EVER prior to marriage there's a near 50% drop in marriage stability. Color me surprised. Going to be hard to find a virgin bride these day but I can't blame TRP for trying.

That being said, I wasn't able to find the actual data to see what they controlled for. The blog mentioned they controlled for a lot. I'd like to know what. Given the rarity of virgin brides these days I cannot imagine there aren't other, more casually related factors at play here (like very conservative, very religious, very young).

Also, men are not at all mentioned in this blog - the argument is this only affects women right? Where is the data that premarital sex partners has no effect on men?

And one last thing - while I see how this is tangentially related to the question at hand - the "women pair bond less" makes nearly a scientific claim. I don't see TRP saying "women are more likely to have unstable marriages" I see them saying "women are less likely to pair bond." This supports the former but not necessarily the latter.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't think you're going to get a scientific study proving it, this is just our real life experience. If yours is different, feel free to believe differently. But IMO past sluttiness is much more damning to women's bonding and general functioning ability than men's. If it makes you feel any better, I've known many male slut washups as well, but lots more who made it into a functioning relationship compared to their female counterparts. That's my life and many other dudes share these observations.

Also, TRP isn't dating men so we don't care what a good man would be like really, thats RPW job

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

this is just our real life experience.

How is this your real life experience? Have you legitimately dated a lot of high n count women and find them less able to pair-bond with you than all the virgins you dated?

If yours is different, feel free to believe differently.

I would say based on what I said above, a high n count man is less likely looking to pair-bond because he's more likely looking for casual sex. I have no idea whether he'd be less capable of doing so if he wanted a LTR. And even the "looking" part I just stated is an assumption on my part, I don't know what he wants just by learning his n count. Maybe he really wants to date me, idk.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Have you legitimately dated a lot of high n count women

yes, and have fucked many more. The advice I commonly got from all dudes was "yeah cool banging her, shes hot but stop trying to make a gf out of her, its not going to work dude" and eventually I had to realize it was true.

Agree with your high n count men view.

[–]Noxin__NixonPillPoppa5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not just sexual values; it's bonding ability. High N doesn't damage men in terms of bonding ability in the same way it does to women.

Evidence?

Source?

This is the type of naive psuedo science that should have no place.

[–]BellaScarlettaRed Pill Wife0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree that high n-counts are not the same indicator for men as they are for women, but I'm less sure about the explanation you gave. This has always been my thought on the subject; I'm interested if you agree or not.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

To the slut, sex is no longer something two people enjoy. Sex is a means to an end, a tool, a shield, or a weapon.

I don't know if I can entirely agree with this. For some sluts this is probably true, but most sluts just seem to have a high sex drive to me. Sluts seem to enjoy sex a lot more than prudes in my experience. They just love having sex with sexy dudes, and it is easy for them to get it.

I think it is really just the ease of getting sex and the frequency with which she has had it that "cheapens" it to her to the point that she's not going to be satisfied with one man for too long. And she will miss the variety. Obviously, also the reduced dopamine release after multiple partners.

[–]haikufunNon-practicing hyperphagist/hypergamist3 points4 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Response to edit: what are the other indicators?

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man12 points13 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

Well, there's a ton of posts in TRP about red flags/green flags.

I'll start with the positive ones (green flags), which in my opinion are:

  • Work Ethic (#1)
  • Responsibility (closely related to work ethic)
  • Physical shape (if she eats healthy and works out, she's more likely to delay gratification)
  • Generosity (towards the man)
  • Conversations tend towards logical conclusions/ able to hold a reasonable debate
  • Has hobbies
  • Has friends that also display green flags

Red Flags:

  • Heavy drinking
  • High N-Count (particularly if recent or ongoing)
  • Hard drug use
  • Financial irresponsibility
  • Lots of beta orbiters
  • Ex boyfriends are still in the picture even if no children are involved
  • Children from multiple fathers (I personally don't think single mothers are trash like much of TRP preaches, but multiple fathers is a HUGE problem for me.)
  • Acting disrespectfully towards me or towards anyone in a service position (not assertively - that's different)
  • Constant mobile phone fidgeting
  • Complaints of victimization
  • Unwillingness to manage her own shit

Those were mine.

Edit: thinking about the N Count thing vs children with multiple fathers actually points out one of the issues with high N-Counts. It takes multiple, repeated decisions to reach that state. Girls don't "accidentally" sleep with 25+ dudes. Anyone can make a mistake. Making it repeatedly is a problem. Like with children - 2 different dudes after a 9 month pregnancy? Learn your damn lesson and use birth control.

[–]haikufunNon-practicing hyperphagist/hypergamist6 points7 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

They match mine and the red/green flags of many others outside of rp, except the beta orbiter part and the n-count. This list is pretty reasonable. I don't see this same reasonableness when I visit trp.

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man7 points8 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Really?

Are you sure?

Because it's everywhere (this one has links to archived posts).

[–]haikufunNon-practicing hyperphagist/hypergamist1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

be more emotional. Little things can make them happy, annoyed, or sad a lot more often. "my husband never does this, but my husbands' friend, he just washed the dishes after dinner. tear"

Trying very hard to take this seriously. This is from the first page.

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't get caught up in the "offensiveness" - keep going. Pay attention to the headings, most of them are identical to what I said.

[–]disposable_pants2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

When that's prefaced with:

(this is a generalization and is not always accurate) Typically compared to men, women will typically (not always, I have a girl who has a better degree than I do):

What's the problem? Women are more emotional than men. Women regularly cry during emotional movies; men rarely do. Women have no problem crying with their friends about a bad breakup; men almost never do this. Women nag (get irrationally upset about a trivial matter) in many relationships; men hardly ever nag.

It should not be hard for a rational person to seriously consider these ideas.

[–]prettydrunk236 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Only if you don't count anger as an emotion. I would say men are more prone to anger so it's silly to say that women are more emotional than men.

[–]disposable_pants4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Men (debatable) are probably more prone to hit something while angry, but that doesn't mean they get angry more than women. As I pointed out, nagging (which is essentially getting angry or upset) is something many women do that you rarely see in men.

Overall, women are more emotional because they can be. If a man is emotional he gets societal pushback. If he cries he's called a pussy, if he flies off the handle angry people get scared he'll become violent, if he mopes around he'll either get no help or get told to suck it up. But if a woman cries? She gets sympathy and support. If a woman gets angry? No one is scared she'll start punching people or bring a gun into work. If she mopes around? Friends and family will tell her to look on the bright side. Women get far more slack with their emotions, and because people respond to incentives that logically means women act emotional more often.

[–]lollygagyoSociopathic Fake Flirter2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I actually think men are more emotional than women and they just hide their emotions because they've been told to all of their lives. Men get incredibly sappy on me all the time, because I make them feel like they can be expressive.

Loads of women are incredibly detached, ime or at least well able to manage their emotions. It's a coping mechanism, really -- we get told, from the time we're young, via cultural messaging that our worth is in our bodies and caretaking abilities and not in our selves. Naivete dies a lot earlier for girls than boys. We're supposed to put everyone's feelings ahead of our own. And so we get cold and cynical faster because we have to, and dismiss our feelings more because we're socially conditioned to do so.

At the same time, we perform 'emotionality' or 'expressiveness' because that's expected of us. I used to communicate like a man when I was a teenager -- no exclamation points in my speech, no modulation of voice, no overt excitement or 'drama' -- and everyone thought I was a bitch. I corrected to more feminine expression to get ahead. Many (most) young women also perform their sexuality.

I have seen many men cry over a break-up (seriously, who are you hanging out with?), I have seen many men nag their partners (altho, imo, men generally have less reason to do this because women are more socioculturally pressured not to be slobs. If your house is unclean etc it says something fundamental about your femininity in a way that it doesn't about your masculinity. Who is defining whether or not these issues are trivial? Try to get out of your head for a bit), I have seen many, many more men express explosive anger in public and private than I have women.

This idea that women are the emotional ones is a idea that you sold yourselves that is just nowhere near true. Look at all of the goddamn incel posts on reddit that are super, super whiny. Look at all of the anger phase RPers. Look at all of the guys that are crying and mega damaged and will never recover because she 'divorce raped' me.

[–]prettydrunk231 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Don't you possess a lot of those more serious red flags? (or are they for women only?) Do you think your current wife was dumb for choosing to marry you even though you had alcohol/drug issues, infidelity issues, and a high N count (I'm assuming) in your past?

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I do indeed possess LOTS of those red flags!

However, the red/green flags for men are VERY different than those for women. Women select for social status, physical attraction, confidence, assertiveness, and ability to provide. Men select for physical attraction, submissiveness, suitability for child rearing, and dependability, in my opinion.

My wife certainly wasn't wise in choosing me when she did. It worked out in the end though, so clearly her decision wasn't that bad. I had the social status, physical attraction, confidence, and assertiveness she was after. I was also on the cusp of starting a much more lucrative career. So maybe that's why?

[–]lollygagyoSociopathic Fake Flirter1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe, I'm weird, but most of the things on your red flags list are still red flags for me. I absolutely select for physical attraction, confidence, assertiveness and ability to provide (less so, but still -- for me this means ability to provide for me emotionally rather than financially).

  1. Heavy drinking

  2. High N-Count (I've got one myself, but I tend to think most people with high n counts are fairly insecure. There are very few people who sleep around because they genuinely love sex and aren't broken or who have figured out their brokenness to a point where it doesn't cause interpersonal difficulties. Men who use N-count to bolster their self-esteem, like many RPers do (if I have lots of casual sex it means I'm alpha! And I wanna be alpha!) are not secure in themselves and this spells disaster for any relationship).

  3. Hard drug use (nothing about this says good provider)

  4. Financial irresponsibility (again -- how are you going to provide? I actually think this is way less of a red flag for men than it is for women. My mother is a spendthrift and got multiple proposals when she was young).

  5. Lots of female friends who are in love with you (ew. wtf, stop manipulating people and be straight with them, dude. Also, stop making me feel insecure for no good reason. Friends are different. I've got no problem with friends).

  6. Ex girlfriends still in the picture (I make exceptions if it seems like they're genuinely just friends, but this is weird 90% of the time)

  7. Children with multiple women (are you incapable of using protection? Or making good decisions re: when to settle down and start a family? Do you pay child support? What role am I expected to take on in your kids' life? I'm not sure I'm ready for this).

  8. Acting disrespectfully towards me, anyone in a service position (really, acting disrespectfully in general when it's uncalled for. No one likes an out of context douchebag. Being a douche to other douches at a party? Okay, fine. Being a douche to the waitress? You. Cunt.)

  9. Constant mobile phone fidgeting (uh, I like conversations and partners who are present. Otherwise I feel disconnected and uncared for. Who is okay with this?)

  10. Victimization (even more unattractive on men than it is on women, because men like to save victimised women and be the hero. Makes 'em feel masculine and puffy and casts her in a truly 'submissive' light. There's no one more submissive than a constant victim)

  11. Unwillingness to manage his own shit (again, I think this is even more unattractive on men than on women because men have saviour complex and it makes them feel puffy and masculine to take care of a woman's shit for her. Women don't wanna feel like your mother, generally speaking. If they do, they'll nag you.)

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

I'd say that's true. Interesting take, thanks!

[–]haikufunNon-practicing hyperphagist/hypergamist5 points6 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

A person with no sexual history is a complete unknown if no other factors are considered. That triple divorcee you have more data on. That's why I consider using an "n count" an inadequate guage.

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

True, however, enough people succeed in their first marriage compared to those on their 4th that a complete unknown is still a statistically "safer bet".

It's all just mathematics - source: way too much actuarial science exposure.

[–]raginghamsterChad's Attack Hamster-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Define 'success' though. Plenty of marriages exist (without divorce), but simply existing does not also equal 'success' imo.

I'm interested in the probability of a 'successful' marriage, although subjective realities such as 'happiness' are tough to quantify

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That definition is going to vary from person to person. Some of us feel that children are necessary for a successful marriage. Some don't. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that a successful marriage:

  • Does not end in divorce
  • Does involve both parties loving one another
  • Does not result in anyone feeling exploited or taken advantage of on a regular basis

I'm sure there's more, but those are the super obvious ones.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

True, but a naive girl is typically preferred over an experienced girl. She'll pair bond far better and will learn what the man likes and adapt well.

[–]alderheart3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I was an 18 year old virgin when I married. It didn't work.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

OK. That proves him wrong then. Thank you for your in-depth study with a sample size of 1. /s

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Can I ask why it didn't work out?

[–]alderheart0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

He cheated on me because I was unable to have sex post childbirth for a few weeks.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm sorry to hear that, that's fucked up. How long did you know him before getting married?

[–]alderheart0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

All my life.

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

Nope, a girl that young has a lot of growing and maturing to do. She'll change a lot, and her marriage will be more unstable because of that. What she might have been willing to adapt to at the beginning will most probably change as she changes.

Pair-bonding means nothing in the face of that. She won't stay bonded if the guy isn't also changing and adapting to her along the way.

Proof: divorce stats of people who marry under age 24 as opposed to marrying between 28-32.

I married at age 22. Had two kids by age 24. I had to grow up fast. He didn't grow up at all - and he was three years older. I walked away and never looked back.

[–][deleted] 4 points4 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]haikufunNon-practicing hyperphagist/hypergamist12 points13 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

my wife's body count

You have a way with words. I thought for a second that you were bragging about your wife's assassin skills.

I learned this from TRP so I don't see how it's reductionist.

I see the number stressed more than any of the reasons why the person has the number.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]haikufunNon-practicing hyperphagist/hypergamist6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

User > doctrine, imo.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Theory can be misinterpreted, why take opinions of people over theory?

[–]futurecrazycatlady0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Because if something is often misinterpreted, there might be a problem with how you present the information.

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

Even the most pure hearted philosophy will have those that exploit it or misuse it (whether on purpose or not).

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

She learned that she didn't like any of these approaches and she didn't do it again. She decided instead to only give it up to a high value man who invests a little into her as well.

You mean that she started approaching the wall and decided that a more beta man would be a smarter investment. You sure you've learned from reading TRP?

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

OK. I admit that is pretty early to start fearing The Wall.

Some women learn much earlier than others that guys who invest some commitment (a beta trait, and there's nothing wrong with that) are better long-term relationship material.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

this is exactly how i feel about it. my ideal ltr would have tried casual sex and not liked it, and in fact felt bad about it so she wont try it again. there is no mystery, just bad memories. Ideally she'd also be honest and up front about this because she processed it in a healthy way and moved on.

[–]speltspelt9 points10 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I'm a systematizer (ASD diagnosis, took a year in my mid twenties to figure out social skills, now fluent and dominant in social interactions). I have no problem with the method - I just think TRP is dominated by parasitic people whose baseline strategy is "how can I get people to cooperate with me so I can defect on them" rather than "how can I find cooperative people and cooperate with them".

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What do you mean by "defect on them"?

[–]InterversityPurple Pill, Blue Tribe2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Seems like they're referring to the prisoner's dilemma.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Finding cooperative people is critical. I do it by finding someone in need of help and then asking for their help in return for me helping them. My strategy when no one is cooperative is more, how can I go behind people's backs and be sneaky enough to get things through?

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

What makes you say they're looking to exploit partners? Given the popularity of rpw it would seem at least some of these dudes are interested in a mutually satisfying exchange

[–]speltspelt0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

except rpw explicitly is not aiming for the guys on TRP because they're not that dumb.

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

That's not what I'm saying. The existence of a place where women are happy with their RP relationships shows that there are instances where such arrangements are mutually satisfying. So what makes you say all these guys are merely looking to exploit the game?

[–]speltspelt2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

RPW are explicitly looking for different relationships than the ones the people on TRP are offering.

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

That's absurd. They discuss sexual strategy from the same ideological points.

[–]speltspelt1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

https://m.reddit.com/r/RedPillWives/comments/4yi5db/where_you_do_even_find_alpha_redpilld_men/d6nvyl1

See the top rated comment to this newbie post for instance. Since RPW are largely pro-marriage they don't have much use for anti-marriage TRPers and generally view them as pretty low quality.

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That doesn't change their ideological similarities. She even talks about it in that same post.

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm a systemizer myself and that isn't my own personal issue. I fully support women living whatever kind of life they want to live, that's what feminism means to me. This includes traditional, submissive gender role lifestyles, so long as that's what the woman actually wants and not because she's been pressured into it . What gives me distaste is the self-loathing I've seen, the women who think poorly of themselves because they're women or who stay in crappy relationships because they believe men can do no wrong and men are "captains" who should never be challenged, even when they're making obvious, serious mistakes.

I don't hang out in RPW subs so I'm not saying this sort of thing is common at all, it probably isn't. But I have seen it, and that's the part I don't care for.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

It's because the systematizers are never willing to admit how limited their models are, and they cannot possibly account for the complex variability of the human experience. They are more interested in making a tidy little model than digging into visceral reality.

You see the same problems in many economic models too. The Quants are so impressed with their algorithms and so clueless with how real people work that they miss a bunch of things that are staring them right in the face.

[–]darkmoon0910 points11 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

I the non-systematizers have a hard time considering the notion that humans may not as complex as they like to believe. Everyone wants to believe that they're a special snowflake but the truth is humans are still animals on a biological level and so we're susceptible to basic animals instincts. TRP points some of these things out and BPers hate it because it destroys their special snowflake narrative.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

No, that is ALL that TRP says.

Their models are superficial, typically only talking about OMG SEX DRIVE and when obvious examples are pointed out to them which invalidate their simplistic theorizing they just ignore it.

They focus on the stuff that validates their preconceived biases (dominant/submissive dynamics, testosterone levels, etc) and just simply ignore and disregard everything that doesn't fit their models or biases.

[–]darkmoon091 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

when obvious examples are pointed out to them

outlier examples that deviate from the common trend that TRP points out.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Not always outliers. TRP labels them as that so that their models remain intact.

[–]darkmoon091 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I can easily say the same thing about TBP and their 'theories' (or lack thereof).

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

TRP TBP (oops) doesn't have "theories" and it doesn't have "models".

There's nothing to refute, so I don't know what you mean.

[–]darkmoon093 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

you mean BluePill, right? they don't have theories because their line of thinking doesn't approach it the way RP does. They are "normal" in that they just went out and dating, sex,relationships happened for them. It's why they enjoy mocking RP guys who apparently didn't "just get it".

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

(thanks, post edited)

You're conflating "The Blue Pill" with "everyone who isn't Red Pill". The Blue Pill is a specific self-identifying set of humans who are aware of TRP and oppose it through satire (on the TBP sub) and/or debate (on PPD). We don't have theories because disagreeing with TRP is all we have in common. Any individual blooper may have theories but they don't necessarily agree with other bloops, and aren't discussed on TBP subs.

Many of us didn't "just get it" either, I don't think most people do (that's just my theory though). Most people have to learn social skills and dating and sex from outside sources, no one is born knowing this stuff, and there's a lot of misinformation out there. It's been quite a few millennia since a dude could get laid by grunting and gesturing.

The reason we mock RP can be boiled down to two basic factors: The first is the fact that it promotes a misogynistic and manipulative point of view, and so we disagree. The second is the way it is presented comes across as very uninformed, whiny, and generally immature (particularly things like field reports or other "first-hand" accounts), which makes it easy to express that disagreement as mockery and derision.

It's not that RP guys didn't "just get it", it's that they still don't get it but they think that only they get it. We're mocking arrogance, not ignorance.

[–]darkmoon091 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're conflating "The Blue Pill" with "everyone who isn't Red Pill". The Blue Pill is a specific self-identifying set of humans who are aware of TRP and oppose it through satire (on the TBP sub) and/or debate (on PPD). We don't have theories because disagreeing with TRP is all we have in common. Any individual blooper may have theories but they don't necessarily agree with other bloops, and aren't discussed on TBP subs.

the way TRP sees it, "Blue Pill" is basically ,mainstream advice that caters to the feminist narrative. They know about the Blue Pill sub, but those on the BP sub aren't exactly the only ones TRP refers to when they say "blue pill".

The reason we mock RP can be boiled down to two basic factors: The first is the fact that it promotes a misogynistic and manipulative point of view, and so we disagree. The second is the way it is presented comes across as very uninformed, whiny, and generally immature (particularly things like field reports or other "first-hand" accounts), which makes it easy to express that disagreement as mockery and derision.

There are angry, bitter, and immature guys there...I won't deny that, that being said I think BPers see it too much for it's face value, TRP does have good advice and it says it in a way that really cuts the message across deep to some of these guys who really need it. I know BPers like to mock the socially awkward and confused, to kick these guys further when they're already down, but I'm telling you, it does help. TRP emphasizes that the world sees you as disposable and that only you come pull yourself out of the dark abyss, to take personal responsibility, stop blaming women and feminism for being what they are and start lifting, get money, establish your career, and be independent - women will fall into place when you get your life in order first. This is the endgoal for TRP, and for guys who take what they need from it they move on. TRP always has a fresh batch of newbie anger phasers so that's why it appears as a hateful and mysgonusy sub at face value.

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

I think he means cases where a RP guy manages to get a woman while seemingly "treating her like shit". BP's would say that he got her despite his misogyny. They would never admit that any women are actually attracted to that kind of thing.

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Can you give examples of a few "outliers" that you don't think are outliers and are dismissed out of hand?

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

Pretty much every example brought up that refutes AWALT.

[–]BlueFairyPainter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

To me, AWALT is ridiculous not in that it generalizes women and takes away some snowflake narrative or whatever justification TRP has for people disliking this part of their theory.

Imho, it's even way too general, I could replace the word "woman" with "humans" and I'd still think it fits. Humans are selfish. Humans want the best for themselves. Humans like to fuck physically attractive people. Humans enjoy being financially stable.

Hell, when some TRP guys use AWALT as an argument, it almost sounds to me like "I know you piss and eat, because all women are like that."

Sure, that's true, but is it really necessary to point out?

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

Imho, it's even way too general, I could replace the word "woman" with "humans" and I'd still think it fits. Humans are selfish. Humans want the best for themselves. Humans like to fuck physically attractive people. Humans enjoy being financially stable.

If it was AHALT I could probably be interested in it. As it stands, RP uses it as a bludgeon to bash women with, that's it.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's because the systematizers are never willing to admit how limited their models are

I'm willing to admit this, so never is the wrong word. IMO the PPD posting RP are more willing to admit this than the TRP, but that's OK because beginners need simple absolutes to get them in the right direction, then they can alter as they see fit after seeing some success.

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

I'll agree that never is the wrong word.

I do not agree that those simple absolutes are ever a good idea. They lead those beginners astray, usually into sexism and occasional misogyny.

[–]KushTheKitten3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I agree but I mean isn't it gross though? To boil human interaction down to such base levels that it's operating on levels akin to machinery with codes and combo locks that make operations a way to unlock women. That pseudo-psychology is poorly applied with pick-up Artist peacocking and a unhealthy dose of wounded male ego. There's a fear of femininity in TRP and a sense of eager submission in RPW. I'm actually banned from both because yah, I decided to say your ideas are whack. The fact I was shunned because of dissent should clue you in to how cultish their attitudes are but that's another issue.

It's just gross is what I'm saying.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

isn't it gross though?

OK. So OP Is exactly correct.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean isn't it gross though

i cant remotely relate to this sentiment. humans are primate meat and chemical bags

[–]648262Red Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Obviously I don't see it as gross, but I can't fault your opinion either of course. But could you please explain why it is gross? The concept and methods of TRP are very clear to me, but I would love to understand yours, and your peers, reasons for finding it gross.

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed13 points14 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I don't know, Atlas. Feminists don't seem to have any problem with their systems of oppression. I still think the hate is more due to the harsh tone and the implications. Women hate it because it holds a mirror up to their worst behaviours, and shows quite clearly that they're not the innocent little victims and special snowflakes that they would like us to believe they are. It makes their job of manipulating men and landing a beta more difficult.

Men hate it for the same reasons. It destroys the feminine mystique, ruins their romantic hopes, makes them feel like a complete idiot for ever believing that women are special, and leads them to nihilism.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪[S] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

second wave feminism was in fact composed of schizotypal systematizing women. schizotypal flight of ideas is often broken systematizing. the patriarchy is female conspiritardy

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The new one is Intersectional (aka white guilt) Feminism. It's even more retarded, but many people are following it. How many of them do you think actually believe it then, and how many just pay it lip service and follow because it's easier to be part of the herd? I have a feeling that since a lot of them are being indoctrinated into this in universities that they actually buy into this bullshit and it becomes part of their belief system.

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

the patriarchy is female conspiritardy

Beautiful

[–]impossibleworlds 6 points6 points [recovered] | Copy Link

In that scenario, then it is no longer useful and should be dispensed with. If any ideologies lead to self-destruction and despair and debilitating cynicism then they are useless to the individual in question.

A great deal of uncertainty must be coped with in life and a great many lies of omission must be made in order to have harmonious relationships. We all convince ourselves of certain fictions to get through life, but you have to find the ones that work for you. They are most certainly not the same for everyone.

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with most of this, but it's not that easy to dispense with a belief system. In fact, it's very difficult to do. I also don't think men are coming to TRP because life is sweet and they have a fully functioning belief system. They usual find TRP when they realise that the things they say make sense, and that it was their old blue pill system that was holding them back. A lot of the men on here who are opposed to TRP are often naturally good with women and never have to change who they are to be successful.

I do agree that you have to find things that work for you, even if not strictly true. I've always argued this in regard to things like AWALT, that it doesn't need to be true to be useful. TRP is meant to be useful to men, but if it's not helping them or if it's making them depressed then, like you say, they should try something different.

[–]darkmoon090 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think this is the best answer thus far.

[–]shoup88Report me bitch5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that those who identify or score as xNTx on the MBTI scale are comfortable with systematizing human behaviour, and those who score otherwise find it distasteful.

Where do you get the idea that the majority of red pill opponents don't register as xNTx? From my estimate, 12/16 blue pill (or at least RP-critical) users in that recent MBTI thread identified as xNTx.

Am I missing part of the argument, or some background on why you think red pill opponents are so uncomfortable with systematizing?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪[S] 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

just from reading a lot of the comments. there is absolutely an xNTx contingent of anti RP who dont object to it for the reason i posited, but i see a BIG cohort of objecting to the notion that human sexuality can be systematized based not in a notion that theyre getting it WRONG but on an inchoate seeming sense of disgust for the systematizing

[–]shoup88Report me bitch3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I definitely see a lot users opposing red pill from a place of emotion and disgust, but I'm not sure it's because of distaste for systematization in general. I have a hunch that if you described different teaching methods for different age groups, for example, they'd be fine.

There could be a variety of reasons for their distaste: shame or anger because they feel personally judged by RP, moral outrage at perceived double standards or hypocrisy, sexual judgment, etc.

The issue is that the most emotional are often the least articulate, so trying to accurately gauge why they feel the way they do is difficult. I imagine it's a combination of a variety of factors - not as simple as your OP.

[–]Noxin__NixonPillPoppa2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Id say its about 1/3

The other thirds being systemizers who agree with the end goal but have different systems.

The other third being people who just dont agree with the end goal and dgaf about systemizing things or not.

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

The red pill isn't so much about exposing how the sausage gets made as grappling how to make the sausage get laid.

And that affects all their "theories".

The red pill is coming from a deep bias, where they have been hurt by women and by other men (because they weren't Chadly enough). They've tried to make sense of the world from their perspective. Red pill women are women who naturally favour their husband being their leader and traditional concepts of women, and red pill theories appeal because of this.

I love systems and scientific classifications. I'm also an INTP who thinks deeply about things, including systems. Humans are incredibly diverse, and trying to package them into tight boxes is less than scientific. There are some conclusions that can be drawn, across all humans, the male/female conclusion of the red pill are in serious error.

[–]kick6Red Pill Man2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think "mating is black magic, and nobody has cast it's spell on me" is a buffer for people. Telling them "no, this is something you can learn" highlights two things

  • they don't know it already
  • now that it's knowable, it's something they have to actually learn, and they don't want to do that

[–]alderheart2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Red pill wives is how I was bought up to treat my husband, and I was badly burned. That is why I am wary of it.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

in your church that is tellign men to look at TRP? what church did you grow up in

[–]alderheart2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I was bought up a Quiverfull Baptist. I'm no longer a member of their congregation. Are you familiar with the Duggar family? Their church is similar, but it's American.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

ye si know what the quiverfull movement is, that is NOT what RPW is like AT all

[–]alderheart1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

How is it different? I have looked over the sub, and it's scarily familiar to the "Man serves God, and Woman serves Man" that I grew up with.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]shoup88Report me bitch5 points6 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Are you saying you think the bulk of red pill users are unattractive? Do you mean strictly physically unattractive?

I didn't really have that impression.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Men who have had a history of sexual and relational failure with women are almost universally unattractive. Many are physically unattractive, yes, I do have that impression (mostly by being fat or out of shape). Most are sorely underconfident and have no idea how to talk to women or even interact with people in a "normal", neurotypical way. Mostly it's because of lack of training.

[–]shoup88Report me bitch1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

And if they follow red pill and become more confident, fit and attractive, you think blue pillers still have this aversion to them? Is it because they feel they're being tricked?

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

Yes, Blues will still be repulsed; mostly because of "being tricked", but also because the guy had to learn it in a systematic fashion. It's unattractive that you had to "learn" it and that someone else KNOWS you had to "learn" it, rather than you just piecing it together on your own.

[–]shoup88Report me bitch0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

That's interesting - do you have a link to the actual thread they're referencing?

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

No... tried to find it and can't be bothered to keep going back in the archives....

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shoup88Report me bitch2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks!

Looks like a mixed bag of reactions. I wasn't on PPD that long ago, so I don't know exactly who leans where if they don't have a flair, but I see some people saying it's a problem and some people saying it's fine.

I can see why you'd feel tricked though - in this specific thought experiment, it's not like he simply used the dating guide to make some changes. Instead, literally everything you like about him is learned from a book. I would be concerned not that they learned it, but that they wouldn't be able to keep it up. You'd have no idea what's actually going on underneath.

[–]darkmoon090 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That seems to be the root of the disgust for RP. They think guys learning sexual strategy or even just the basics is them "tricking" people into dating them.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

As long as they know how they got there, then yes. BP will have the same aversion. If they just met him on the street and have no idea that he wasn't always the way he is now, then no.

[–]shoup88Report me bitch0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you think red pill women feel the same way?

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Not sure what you mean. You mean RP women's reaction to men who they know use TRP?

[–]shoup88Report me bitch1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, exactly.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

There are a couple of occasional PPD commenters of the purple and blue persuasion who say pretty much what I said about unattractive men.

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

To Blues, unattractive men should not be trying to figure this out. They need to know their place, and unattractive men trying to figure this out are clearly bucking against their societally- and genetically-imposed restraints. They need to stay unattractive, not attempt to improve, not attempt to breed, and just "go away". Besides, these are men who have a history of sexual and relational failure. To Blues, that's for a reason -- and that reason is they are genetic and social misfits who need to be bred out of the population. They need to be kept from reproducing.

Pem, do you think that blues feel this way consciously or unconsciously?

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

Some consciously, most unconsciously. most Blues will NEVER outright say this. But they believe some of it.

I suppose it would be more genteel and diplomatic to say I think blues believe unattractive men should just do the best they can with what little they have, not try to improve, "manage their expectations", wife up a ho-bag slut or uglo, and be happy. Or GTOW and be happy. Just as long as those godawful Reds shut up, go away, and stop talking about feminism, bitches, the fucked up sexual marketplace, etc.

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I feel like many women feel this way about unattractive men subconsciously and don't know why they have the response they do. Kind of like how I react to getting hit on by a really fat/ugly girl. "Um... no." There isn't any more reflection on the feeling.

I don't about BP men though, other than "but my princess's fee fees" or maybe they are acting 100% in self interest by trying to kill competition.

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

Sure, women do feel this way about unattractive men. I reacted to ugly girls the same way. Except I feel sympathy and empathy for them. I don't want to date, fuck or marry them; but I do have sympathy and empathy for them.

I think BP men look at TRP men with a reaction of "WTF is wrong with you? How come you don't get this? Just... I dunno! Just... go talk to those girls! Just be with them! If they reject you, so fucking what? Just go find some other ones! What the fuck is so hard about this? I've been doing this since I was 11 years old! I just.... why the fuck can't you just do what I'm doing? Just... GO DO IT!!"

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"WTF is wrong with you? How come you don't get this? Just... I dunno! Just... go talk to those girls! Just be with them! If they reject you, so fucking what? Just go find some other ones! What the fuck is so hard about this? I've been doing this since I was 11 years old! I just.... why the fuck can't you just do what I'm doing? Just... GO DO IT!!"

To be fair, I'm RP and I feel this way about 75% of the time when I talk to people on asktrp or any incel. To me, the crime isn't getting rejected - it's never taking the initiative in the first place. Getting rejected is respectable, it happens to everyone. Letting fear rule your life and prevent you from approaching is just being a pussy.

[–]darkmoon091 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think even BP men have an aversion to TRP because a lot of BP guys are the "natural" who "just got it" and so they can't fathom what it must be like to be in a position where you don't just get it, where you find yourself having to look this stuff online..to Blues it just sounds so unnaturally disgusting, it's like they see Reds as deficient people who need to be avoided.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Right it's NOT "complete" which is why i said "much" and "a lot" not "all" and specifically requested responses thst DID NOT reflect a false belief it was offered as a complete explanation

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

As an INTP, no. There are ways of sytematizing the world that doesn't dehumanize people. Given a subset of people, they aren't always going to react the same way in the same context. And given this system, it seems like women come out inferior to men in all respects. (I'm not delusional enough to think that women are always equal to men.) That's the bigger issue.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

dehumanize people

what does this mean

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]99_Problem0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I really like RP as a descriptive system.

I don't really like RP as a prescriptive system. Or, I think the use of RP as a prescriptive system is rather limited. True optimization of the system is best achieved through direct experience; the basic system must be tweaked or modified.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

yes i 100% agree, all of my issues with RP are with the prescriptive, not most of the descriptive

[–]dadstartingover_com0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Human behavior is insanely predictable. At the core, very primitive. A person like me who enjoys studying human behavior and psychology just loves sitting in a crowd and watching people interact. Watching how the dominate one always does the same "I am in charge" motions and how the subordinate ones fall into place. How the guy presents himself to women and how the woman goes on the defensive or opens up to him. How kids try over and over to test boundaries and parents snap and finally get physical and do the patented "arm grab" as Billy sticks face in the mall fountain for the 7th time.

PUA, for example, was just socially awkward guys taking a look at the world around them and recognizing very distinct behavior patterns and using them to their advantage.. to get laid. That's all. Nobody likes to be told that they, as humans, are so predictable that a nerd can go to a conference or watch some youtube videos and increase his likelihood of getting sex ten-fold, but that's exactly what happens. Sure they're creeps, but it works. They figured out the cheat codes to get the meat robots to do what they want.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually a lot of things aren't predictable. There's many very unstable people who act one way one day and another day the next. Or even change from moment to moment.

[–]Shazoa0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Most of what I don't like about TRP isn't that it's a system, it's that it's a system based on shaky evidence and anecdote at best, and discrimination at worst.

[–]futurecrazycatlady0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nope, team systemization here.

It’s just that it misses a level of self-reflection to save people's own ego. It’s easier to believe that all women are bitches and that’s why you aren’t having any luck than to admit that you need to improve before you're good enough.

When you can see your own troubles more clearly and you can admit that ‘yeah I might not be the best catch either at the moment’, it’s much easier to move on without still blaming the world.

Look at the advice, and look who’s having success. If you’re successful being stoic, you probably were being a whiny little person, otherwise showing parts of your character doesn’t hurt you.

Keep the parts that work, but at least be man enough to admit that yes you were doing some things wrong. Someone who knows when they messed up and fixes it, is attractive, that’s how you cope with life. If someone can do that it only makes them more attractive to the general public.

It’s the shitting on others that puts me off, if you need to do that to feel great, you aren’t really feeling it yet. If you chose to believe that all women are evil kids we aren’t going to ever agree because I truly love most women I have in my life including myself. Although I’m not so hypocritical that I’m going to claim that’s because all women are great, no it’s because I surround myself with people who are worth the time.

So basically what I dislike about TRP is that it’s still a bit too much of a hug-box and I think people would have more success if they were told:

‘Don’t whine, no one is going to listen to you complain for hours, imagine how much fun you’d have doing that for someone else, it’s just too much to ask’ instead of ‘be stoic’.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

My distaste comes more from that a person SHOULDN'T generalize people based off genders, that a person SHOULDN'T systematize human dating behavior past anything other than a fuck buddy.

I don't know what other people think, though. Playing devil's advocate: The stereotype of a cool, popular high school kid being able to play cards right on any girl seems well known, doesn't it? So it shouldn't come as a surprise to most that there's a group of people essentially helping each other "play their cards right".

Also, I mean, you can't deny TRP uses a lot of click-bait, offensive diction. That certainly rubs people off the wrong way.

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man6 points7 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Why shouldn't people generalize or systematize human dating behavior, though? That's some serious push towards letting others control how you think and behave beyond "don't impinge on anyone else".

[–]Sandralees2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Because dating is about developing feelings for someone, allowing yourself to be vulnerable; it's not going into a business meeting and playing mind games.

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

If you don't think dating is full of people playing mind games, you haven't dated much.

[–]Sandralees1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't play mind games with the guy who is likely to be the one and I expect him to act the same. If he plays mind games or pretends to be someone he is not, then I am not interested.

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

And that is your prerogative. Fact is there are tons of men and women out there who play all kinds of mind games in dating. Many do it because they are unhealthy psychologically. Many don't do it on purpose. But they still do it.

[–]Sandralees1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Maybe but TRP doesn't like when women play mind games and test you with their shit tests. So you can imagine that when you guys come up with your own list of mind games, those who try to be fair when dating find your little games disgusting.

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

Agreed, this is why I haven't dated in almost 15 years. Well, that and I'm in a monogamous marriage.

But let's be clear, even in my pretty awesome marriage, there are still mind games going on from time to time.

[–]Sandralees1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

10+ years LTR. No mind game.

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

Just to clarify, the context I was using was within TRP subreddit. So, generalizing all women have periods, I don't feel bad doing that. Generalizing all women "stop maturing around the age of 18", (taken from the article Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager In The House on the TRP subreddit sidebar about women being teenagers), that I'd feel bad about doing. That, people shouldn't do.

I do not see how refraining from systematizing humans like that does not stop you from impinging on anyone else.

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

No, my point is that by demanding that others not systematize or generalize, you are the one impinging on others. Claiming that others "SHOULDN'T" is a classic manipulation technique that only works on unassertive individuals unless they have already consented to your standards.

My behavior doesn't affect you in any way other than our interactions in PPD. If TRP bothers you, don't read it. It's not like it's making any political gains.

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

You're acting like I'm shitposting on the TRP subreddit or something. I'm commenting on this post, which is about why people are disgusted by the TRP subreddit. I don't read TRP, I don't know or care why you think I do.

Also - I was not demanding others not systematize. I was expressing my view, and this is a 1 by 1 quote, "that a person SHOULDN'T systematize human dating behavior". That's far from demanding people to listen to me - I would not expect a Married Red Pill Man to be so sensitive.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

He's asking why they shouldn't systematize have human dating. You just keep saying people shouldn't, but not why.

Saying 'should' has an implied demand of what others behavior is supposed to be like.

Do you feel attraction is magical, like a magnetic force, that can't be figured out into a system and modeled?

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sensitive. I'm curious why you think anyone "Shouldn't" do something that is entirely within their own mind. If you don't care about TRP, why bother posting in PPD?

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So basically you are saying that OP is exactly right. You are saying "shouldn't" because you have an aversion to seeing certain things analyzed.

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] -1 points0 points  (44 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.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Of course this is true, why are Blues less bothered by someone who is naturally seductive, a self-identifying feminist and a philanderer who treats his woman like utter garbage compared with some nerd on the internet trying to figure shit out?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪[S] 7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

not only this bbut many BP are men who are "naturals" but not systematizers who are also grosse dout by seeing it systematized

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This is my point, it's the fact someone is systemising their behaviour which triggers them, rather than the nature of the behaviour or else abusive men who are natural and non-systemising would receive just as much hate, if not more than TRP.

One thing I've noticed and this is a generalisation since there are some very good bluepill posters, once you ignore the subset of really angry redpillers who just want to complain about women and the subset of bluepillers who just want to circlejerk and be smug, and compare the serious redpillers who debate here with the serious bluepillers, the serious redpillers definitely are more open minded and treat this whole thing like a scientific experiment whereas the bluepillers are much more elitist, emotionally fragile and swayed by their ready held preconceptions about a poster.

The amount of times I've taken the piss out of TRP posters for being virgins/poor/bluecollar wannabe fascists/aspies, yet none of them even care and are able to take my other posts and consider them in a vacuum much more than bluepill posters.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

the bluepillers are much more elitist, emotionally fragile and swayed by their ready held preconceptions about a poster.

This is my observation of many of them as well. The pics thread they had confirmed this for me. UMC AF, good looking. no wonder they never had trouble lol

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

I should have posted lol, but yeah TBP is an awful sub because it's like a rich person going to a ghetto and saying ''silly poor people, you just need to get more money''

[–]darkmoon092 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. I think this is because when 'natural' BP men look at the things TRP says, it shatters their notion that because they're such a great and awesome person they've been able to be successful with women...TRP forces them to consider that their success may be be due to the simple facts that they drew a lucky hand in the Genetic Lottery and that they were fortunate enough to be born without the burden of social anxiety/nervousness.

Good thread btw.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

because I support feminism and reject the narrative that women are emotionally stunted and less responsible than men

[–]SilentLurker6662 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

His flair should really be grey. One could easily state that TBP believe that women requires special treatment and deserve more special privilege then men judging from most BP statement from here.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

One could easily state that TBP believe that women requires special treatment and deserve more special privilege then men judging from most BP statement from here.

I disagree, if anything feminism seeks to reduce female reliance on men and instead replace it with direct empowerment.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

One could easily state that TBP believe that women requires special treatment and deserve more special privilege then men judging from most BP statement from here.

I disagree, if anything feminism seeks to reduce female reliance on men and instead replace it with direct empowerment.

Which women don't want. Most women are not happy being single. They want to rely on a man for support.

The more a woman is self sufficient, the less men she will have options of dating, literally makes her life harder in ways.

[–]SilentLurker6660 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Explain why there's so many female scholarship for women but so little from male? If your statement is true then women shouldn't rely on scholarship to obtain their fair representation in college enrolment.

https://weirdscholarships.net/scholarships-for-white-males/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2012/02/16/the-male-female-ratio-in-college/#2b5e8a7f1525

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

Obviously the classic argument would be to rectify pre-existing negative biases women are subject to as well as the effect of social conditioning, the long term strategy being to allow these women to break through and form a vanguard of a female elite.

The actual reason is because women demand it.

[–]SilentLurker6661 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Can you then give an example of what sorta " pre-existing negative biases women are subject to as well as the effect of social conditioning" that'll require one to artificially inflate the enrolment of female in colleges?

Considering that younger boys developer slower then their female counter-part One would assume that it was the boys that needed help.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201010/girls-are-more-intelligent-boys-men-are-more-intelligent

And ofcourse that's just one of the many social advantage that female enjoys in this society.

Another example would be the male to female incarceration rate and jail term disparity

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/genderinc.html

https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx

The actual reason is because women demand it.

That's hardly justification for any argument.

Edit: Also if you have to give special grant to increase female enrolment... are you really reducing female reliance and empowering them?

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

I suppose it would be things such as the stereotype threat which is very real. I remember at primary school we as a class were told boys are better at maths and girls are better at English and whilst I doubt it affected me, since I don't really listen to other people unless I respect them and/or they're my parents I think it could have an influence overall.

That's hardly justification for any argument.

I never said it was, it's a reason, i.e. cause > effect

Edit: Also if you have to give special grant to increase female enrolment... are you really reducing female reliance and empowering them?

I suppose the idea is that by adding reliance on the asexual, genderless entity which is the government, you are reducing female reliance on men.

EDIT: I think I've touched on a very pertinent point, brb making a thread on this right now.

[–][deleted] 7 points7 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]bornreddMarried Red Pill Man3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

People see what they want to when they go outside, but when you break down in minute detail the steps that a system has to go through, all the ugly bits are shown clearly.

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I have been told that I think too much.

By idiots and non thinkers.

I get told I'm different, as if that's a bad thing.

Crabs in a bucket, crabs in a bucket

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

It's absolutely possible to think too much. Sometimes you need to go out and do.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure. Though that's typically not the context when people are told they think too much.

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

Yes much of the distaste for TRP/RPWi is because of systematizers "doing their thing". Breaking a thing down to its component parts, analyzing each part, talking about their analyses, checking notes with other systematizers, and also watching what nonsystematizers (naturals) are doing, how they do it and why they do it.

They're grossed out by it because to "naturals" and women, people just shouldn't do this with human behavior. They just shouldn't have to do this with human behavior. They should just 'get it'; they should just "figure it out" through trial and error. It doesn't have to be analyzed, figured out, thought about, considered and ruminated over.

I also think nonsystematizers get grossed out about it because systematizing uncovers what the thing, and its component parts, really are, good and bad, pretty and ugly. Systematizing reveals ugly shit. People don't want to confront or understand their base natures.

[–]ThrowawayCactus60125 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

non-systematizers seeing systematizers systematize human interaction and being grossed out

Probably has to do with the sight of Peter Piper picking a peck of pickled peppers. ;)

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

But she sells seashells by the seashore!

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

True, are these the same people that claim that it's impossible to know the system?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think this is not quite complete. Yes, it's because systematization is going on. But it's also because of who the systematizers are -- unattractive men, and women who have "left the herd".

To Blues, unattractive men should not be trying to figure this out. They need to know their place, and unattractive men trying to figure this out are clearly bucking against their societally- and genetically-imposed restraints. They need to stay unattractive, not attempt to improve, not attempt to breed, and just "go away". Besides, these are men who have a history of sexual and relational failure. To Blues, that's for a reason -- and that reason is they are genetic and social misfits who need to be bred out of the population. They need to be kept from reproducing.

And women who are systematizing and adhere to Red Pill are "off the reservation" and are disloyal to other women by "revealing the secrets" and "cooperating with men". Any woman who doesn't at least pay lip service to feminism is a disloyal bitch who deserves to be doxxed, her life destroyed, etc.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What about the systematizers that are attractive? Or must none exist?

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

I'm sure there are some attractive systematizers.

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

Yeah, that's fair I think. I'm opposed to systematization and generalization on philosophical grounds.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Care to share those philosophical grounds?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fantastic post Atlas. I've had mixed experience IRL with some groups of people thinking my views on gender dynamics are a gift from a sage, while others think I'm an anti social robot, with very little consistency in what type of person thinks which. its fascinating.

[–]midnightvulpine1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I do find the notion of making systems for something like this to be silly. You might be able to notice trends, but too much focus on those trends could leave one unable to deal with the inevitable times those trends don't fit.

It's like profiling, which might be somewhat effective with some trends, but too much focus on those trends misses those who don't for it.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

It's not hard to adapt at all.

All profiling points to one suspect, but he has a perfect alibi - innocent.

[–]midnightvulpine1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem with profiling is it distracts from others who one would want to find, but don't fit the preconceived notions of he profile. It's more a problem in some areas(policing and national security) but I believe it to be a practice best avoided in general. Even in dating and relationships.

[–]Sandralees0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

It's not hard to adapt at all.

If that were true you wouldn't need algorithms supposedly describing people behaviour.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

A framework makes repetitive work much easier.

[–]Sandralees1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you need a framework that lists all the test cases and tells you how to react to each of them, then you aren't adaptable. Being adaptable means being able to face a new unforeseen situation.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A master sprayer doesn't need a framework (stencils) but it makes his work much easier. You use a framework because it's easier, to create a framework you need to know how it works...

It sounds like you agree with the OP.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I do find the notion of making systems for something like this to be silly. You might be able to notice trends, but too much focus on those trends could leave one unable to deal with the inevitable times those trends don't fit.

Really does speak a lot about bp mindset.

The outliers are reason not to believe any systems at all.

It's like profiling, which might be somewhat effective with some trends, but too much focus on those trends misses those who don't for it.

The top profilers will know best how to handle those outside of the trend. And be the best at figuring out why they're the way they are. Think of criminal detectives and fbi/cia agents. You're essentially telling them their method is ineffective and won't let them handle outliers well.

So then, what's a better approach? Faith?

[–]midnightvulpine1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Less not believing in any system at all and more not relying on such things as a guiding principal for how you interact with people. TRP seems overly focused on trying to take complex human interactions and condense them down into a meme that can easily be transferred from one person to the next. But simplification, in any context, loses something. It inherently can't be as good as a broader understanding outside of the meme that it's turned into.

The best approach is real understanding. Not shorthand. It's an old saying, but an appropriate one. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. I see TRP as more giving a man a fish. Giving him specific paths to take for X goal. A lot of people say that those who read TRP are guys who 'don't get it'. Yet rather than help them get it, they're fed something that seems simpler. Which doesn't necessarily fix the root issue, but just looks to cover it up or provide a shortcut to a goal.

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

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