Red Pill TheoryLurker Lesson: AWALT, Snakes, and Loaded Guns (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan

tl/dr - a lesson for newbies and lurkers on the essence of AWALT

A discussion in another thread on pillscollide regarding "AWALT" and "sweeping generalizations" wants me to branch out this topic on its own, simply because it is discussed and contended so frequently, but it rarely goes into depth anymore, so there may be men who are missing the context when it is discussed in posts. That topic is "AWALT"; for the newbies and lurkers, "All Women Are Like That. And given that the topic hasn't been broached in an elementary level in a while and we have many new users, I think it bears a refresher discussion.

A brief history; AWALT is a TRP maxim that branches from the acronym "NAWALT", or "Not all women are like that!". This is the common refrain from women whenever a man tells a woeful tale of shitty female behavior within earshot of other women. Some examples:

Man: "My wife took my kids, ran off to Denver, and is now fucking another guy while I pay her alimony."

Woman: "Not all women are like that!!!"

Man: "My wife has been keeping an old sex tape that she made with an old boyfriend under our bed for years. Not only did she suck off a man with a huge cock on video, but she refuses to discard the broken laptop with the video on it."

Woman: "Not all women are like that!!!"

Man: "My girlfriend ran off to Cozumel with her girlfriends on Spring Break, and she fucked Mandingo the bartender in a dirty beachside bathroom."

Woman: "Not all women are like that!!!"

You get the idea. But see, that refrain has worked so well for so long for women. And until recently, men had no frame of reference to dispute "not all women are like that". Men would hear this even from the most trusted woman in their lives, their own mothers. Even after the hardest divorce rape, men would simply believe that "not all women are like that", and in the comfort of those words, blindly run off to marry the next woman who takes him to the cleaners.

So what's changed?

The internet, that's what. Back before the internet, men had a pretty closed circle of fellow men to bounce information off of. His father, brothers, coworkers, and friends were pretty much the only frame of reference he had to compare notes. But now, we have a massive men's club, or whiskey and cigar room if you will, to compare notes with.

As of this writing, 123,000+ men are members of The Red Pill. And they have been comparing notes online for years now. And do you know what we have concluded, after hundreds, if not thousands of blogs, stories, posts, and comments/replies?

All Women Are Like That. And it doesn't mean what you think it means. Do we actually, literally categorically believe that AWALT? Allow me to pontificate for a bit.

Let's say I have 5 venomous snakes in cages. Two of them have been de-fanged and are harmless, the other 3 have not and can bite and kill you. Each cage has a stack of $5,000 in it. Should I reach into one of the cages to grab the money, or should I just assume, for my own personal safety and protection, that all of the snakes have fangs?

Or another analogy; in every single gun safety course in the world, the first thing they teach you is to treat every gun as though it is loaded. Now is every guy really, actually loaded? Of course not. But it is safer to assume that every gun is loaded and to treat the gun as such. Nobody would ever say:

"Hey bro, be careful, I already checked, and it seems like a good number of these guns are loaded."

"Hey! Don't say that! Not all guns are like that!!!"

That is the essence of AWALT, and "sweeping generalizations". We teach men that they will be personally better served if they assume AWALT in this day in age, simply because the percentages bear out the generalizations. 55% of marriages end in divorce, and of those, 72% of them are brought by women. Hence, it is safer to teach men that "all women are lying, shitty, greedy whores who will fist-fuck you in family court, so don't get married." It is more pragmatic for men to operate from this mindset, at least until one particular woman has proven herself otherwise. And even if she does demonstrate a semblance of loyalty, remember that loyalty is not an innate trait in women. Hypergamy doesn't care, and they all have the capacity to do disgraceful things.

That's why it makes no sense when we get women saying "but I'm not a lying greedy divorcing bitch, so AWALT isn't true!!!" You're missing the point, because you aren't the target audience; men are. Women are missing the context to understand the essence of what we are actually saying, because women don't have the life experience of men, except for maybe Caitlyn Jenner.

Conclusion: So, yes men. AWALT.

[–]1jb_trp 214 points215 points  (38 children)

treat every gun as though it is loaded

This is a great way to explain AWALT. Is every woman going to divorce rape you, cheat on you, use sex as a weapon against you, etc? Of course not. But men need to be aware of the potential that any women possesses.

A gun can be a great tool for good in the hands of the right person. And a gun can cause devastating damage in the hands of the wrong person. And so it is with women—there are too many corpses laying around to ignore the danger.

[–]the_number_2 98 points99 points  (15 children)

But men need to be aware of the potential that any women possesses.

Yes, so much.

The gun isn't loaded... right now. Just because it isn't loaded today doesn't mean it never will be.

[–]MySnowflakeMelted 87 points88 points  (1 child)

This^ I've checked the gun isn't loaded and I leave the room. Come back in, I HAVE TO assume it's loaded. It's simple gun safety.
AWALT is simple relationship safety!

[–]rpscrote 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same with condom use.

Most chicks dont have STDs but you assume they all do to be safe. And the feminists and whiners who cry over AWALT would 10 times out of ten times suggest people use condoms for all sexual encounters. As usual, logic doesn't apply to them

[–]Bisuboy 8 points9 points  (9 children)

As much as I agree, this makes "AWALT" sound like "all men are rapists"

[–]cleftscout 15 points16 points  (4 children)

Yes, but (since women can't rape men in the sense that they are not punished for it) people men don't rape people women to make their own life better, people men rape people women because there's something a little funky going on in their head regarding examination of consequences.

Women don't screw men over because there's something objectively wrong with them, they do it because its socially acceptable and makes their life better. Seems logical to me.

[–]plentyoffishes 1 point2 points  (3 children)

But it definitely doesn't make their life better. This is an illusion. It's like a shot of heroin. I'm sure it feels GREAT at first. But ultimately it will take down your life.

A woman sleeps around with a bunch of alphas in her 20s and doesn't take seriously the fact that she wants a baby. Instead at 33 she's got an STD and a past she's embarrassed about, and has to settle. Not better.

[–]cleftscout 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I agree, what may seem logical may not always work out. Sure they can't do so many things, but they don't have to worry about them at all. After all, those things won't happen for a long time. I think you may not be taking into account their complete lack of foresight.

[–]plentyoffishes 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yes but this isn't limited to women. Men do this in other ways, like risk sex without a condom on a drunken night picking up a loose chick at a bar. "She said she didn't have anything" and "She said she was on the pill". Just dumb shit that gets them in trouble. Both sexes do it.

[–]cleftscout 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Another great observation, ignoring that your example used a drunk man as opposed to a sober one making a mistake, you should also notice that I never stated I believe men are infallible creatures because they were born with a Y chromosome.

I'm confused as to why you're trying to poke holes in my comments. Are you trying to make an argument or just trolling?

[–]1ubiety 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's the same logic. All men are rapists, so tread carefully with every man. If you treat every man as a potential rapist, you're less inclined to be taken advantage by him. It's on him to prove his trust to her. Who knows, a man may rape her in the future, she only has his trust in him to not be raped. Thankfully this works both ways. All women are like that, it's on her to prove to her man she's different for the same reason above. Now, like another commenter mentioned, it's socially unacceptable to rape women but perfectly fine for a woman to be like that. Even though both are highly immoral actions devoid of honor or civility, rape is a punishable offense enforced by the state whereas if a women is like that, she gets awarded by society and state in the form of social affirmation, alimony and the rights to her children. That's partly why the expression "divorce rape" is a thing, although not physically analogous, the mental angst caused by having your life destroyed by a women because "she feels like it" is very much so.

[–]mate96 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Both AWALT and all men are rapists are true if you add the word "potentially" to the subjects. The fundamental difference is what is the position of the society on masculine and feminine crimes and how would that act as a deterrent for its members. You're less likely to find an actual male rapist because the punishment for it is so severe. Women's crimes, on the other hand, may not even be considered crimes or will be met with only a slap on the wrist if they are ever prosecuted.

There is little legal, social or financial deterrence from women committing heinous crimes against men if they do it in a feminine way or where a man cannot gain reprisal as he would if another man were to commit it due to strong social values reprimanding him for violence against women, no matter whether she instigated it in some fashion.

Women's analogies to AWALT do not apply to men nearly as much because men actually face the consequences of their actions, inhibiting most rational minded men from raping a woman.

[–]tokesense 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also brings to mind another quote I read recently:

'Once a year, even an unloaded gun fires.'

Better safe when the alternative is losing/fucking up your life.

[–]xray777 64 points64 points [recovered]

I like the analogy, but I think it blunts the concept a bit.

AWALT is not just a generalization on behavior that most women might exhibit...it IS based on fundamental psychology of the female mind and sexual strategy that is hard wired. It is a tendency that they will tend to follow even if they are honestly trying not to.

Using a gun analogy, I think its more accurate to say that its like there's a little secret magazine in every gun that will chamber a round at random times. You could drop the mag and cycle the round out, but it still chambers one from the secret mag. Not every time, no, but the possibility is there 100% of the time because loading its self is a feature inherent to the gun.

Call it "Schrodinger's Slut". She might not be acting like a hypergamous whore right now.....but it lurking under the surface as a hard wired feature that can creep up at any time. Every man has a threshold value of opportunity and irresistible lust that will cause him to cheat no matter how much he doesn't want to most of the time. Society loves to reminds us of that because its true.

AWALT is about society refusing to accept that there is also Schrodinger's Slut along side Schrodinger's Scoundrel.

[–]_whistler 10 points11 points  (1 child)

[–]RPSigmaStigma 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That was actually really disappointing... I was hoping for a more esoteric thesis on how all women are sluts, but the blue pill social narrative was constructed to create a smokescreen behind which all women could keep their slut status in a permanent state of flux. But instead it was just more sluthate. Sluthate just seems so "bargaining phase" to me. As if the very notion of a "slut" implies it's dualistic opposite, the "unicorn".

[–]cariboo_j 1 point2 points  (7 children)

It's true sexual strategy is pretty much innate. Men are hardwired to like young, fertile women. AMALT? But then you get weird fetishes like fatty chasers or granny chasers. NAMALT? By this logic is it possible that some women are hardwired "defectively" to not be hypergamous?

Just throwing it out there, I have no idea if this theory makes sense.

[–]xray777 6 points6 points [recovered]

From my experience, a fetish or interest in "less ideal" women is grounded in the fact that those women are more accessible. Usually it is linked to specific people. If you are in a place where a 57 year old woman is the most likely to fuck you...yeah...makes sense that your sexual preferences will recalibrate. Same mechanism that explains "camp glasses" in remote mining towns. We're programmed to spread our DNA. If you're in NYC crawling with 10's you will want to fuck 10's. If you're in bumfuck and HB170lb and HBAlmostGranny are the only options, chemistry will rapidly cause those two to give you the hots. Damn physics :)

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

I live in Bumfuck, dead center. I am not attracted to the old and/or obese. Your point still stands though.

[–]xray777 2 points2 points [recovered]

I work frequently in bumfuck, and I know what its like to put on those camp glasses. I have standards, but they are not the same as the ones in my hometown of "Hipster and Hotty City, USA"

[–]RPangerandacceptance 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is probably true, as I find myself checking out 6-7's at the convenience store that I would not even notice when I am in Major City Near Me, USA.

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

I know your exaggerating about the 10s but Im in NY for a vacay right now and these women are ugly as shit. 8s are rare here. You guys should just go to Europe. Norway and Sweden got serious ratios of very good looking women.

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

Not sure I can agree with that. A fetish doesn't necessarily have to some subconscious thing to get women who are more accessible. For me, I have some towards latex/rubber outfits and bdsm. In the bdsm scene there are lots of disgusting hamplanets and you can tell some are in it because that's the only way you can get it. Others who are more alpha and in control of their life get the hotties.

And then when it comes to latex, well it's brutally unforgiving unless you take good care of yourself. Trust me on this.

Just my two cents on it.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 11 points12 points  (3 children)

Whhaaaa girls aren't gunzz! © Usually the first fucking thing I hear when making metaphorical comments. They aren't cars either, but they're a shit load of metric fucktons more expensive while being disastrously more unreliable than vehicles.

[–]tuxedoburrito 4 points5 points  (2 children)

An old man at work told me something a few days ago. He was 71. A customer, very picky and specific. A war veteran.

He told me if I am ever lonely to get a dog not a woman.

[–]mrmeyhemn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

thats because he knows what all older men that have had experience with dogs and women know. dogs are loyal and love unconditionally, women are disloyal and love conditionally.

i've stopped calling women bitches, because bitches are loyal.

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

I have three Siberian Huskies, but not for loneliness. They're my early warning system, and my alarm clock, plus they're great for keeping you warm in winter.

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

But men need to be aware of the potential that any women possesses.

Even if she doesn't divorce rape you, cheat on you, use sex as a weapon and so on, the potential alone will serve to fuck you over once you're fully entangled in the relationship and certainly, certainly once you're married.

A married woman knows she can walk at any time and win cash and prizes. She has the power, backed by the State, to completely and totally fuck you over on a whim, for any reason or no reason at all. Do you think she knows this? Do you think she considers it during her interactions with you? Do you think the ability to pull this lever changes the manner in which she treats you? You're goddamn fucking right it does.

Maybe you've got a wonderful, sweet and loving unicorn who wouldn't do these things to you, but the simple fact that she can shifts the relationship dynamic in her favor. This is why so many married men are living under the thumbs of their wives, doing their chores like good little slaves, spouting their "Happy wife happy life" nonsense, accepting "being in the doghouse" and sleeping on the couch when she's pissed off and so on and so forth. It's because they both know who has all of the power, backed by judges, police, prosecutors, family courts and so on.


[–]1jb_trp 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They don’t even need marriage to fuck a man over. There are hordes of young women who wait at hotels for professional athletes just to fuck them. Many of them have alternative motives, and try to get pregnant just collect massive child support. There was an article in Sports Illustrated back in the 90s talking about how many children NBA players had all over the country. If I was a professional athlete I would get a vasectomy pretty quick.

[–]Lt_Muffintoes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here's the thing: the cost benefit analysis is different.

The cost of assuming every gun is loaded and charged is more caution about where you point it, and slightly more time expended on more cautious routines. The benefit is much lower risk of accidental shootings.

The benefit of AWALT is much greater protection against dangerous women. This is a huge benefit in today's environment.

The cost is the forfeiture of the benefits which come from stable long term relationships: greater happiness, longer lifespan, happier families, better physical and mental health.

There are ways of vastly decreasing your chance of divorce. Before vomiting some nonsense about "bleurgh there's always risk" look at how I italicised "decreasing".

These are: Virgin bride; <10 years age difference; man older than woman; marriage after 25; no Cohabitation before marriage; both parties being college educated; similar physical attractiveness; higher IQ

Women do not all represent the same level of risk.

You can avoid doing a cost benefit analysis by just assuming the risk and cost are so great that LTR are not ever worth it, but I would argue that that is actually cowardly and nihilistic.

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

A bit generous there saying not every woman is going to cheat.according to the where hite report,70% of women cheat after 5 years,and those were the women with an N count of 3+,so unless you have a near virgin,its a matter of time until she cheats

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

Isnt this literally exactly what Feminists* say about men and rape...? I guess they use the eminem thing but still...

[–]1KyfhoMyoba 107 points108 points  (5 children)

All Women Are Like That, but not all women do that.

But they are like that.

[–][deleted] 34 points35 points  (4 children)

Yes. A virtuous women is basically a woman who has to fight her nature. Every single day she has to struggle to maintain loyalty and fidelity. Not unlike an alcoholic when you get down to it.

Once they fall off that virtue wagon (which can happen anytime) you are fucked.

[–]OlanValesco 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Yeah, in Christianity you get the term "the natural man". To be a better person, you fight the "natural man" (lazy, entitled, ignorant, etc). When someone says AWALT, what they mean is that women are born with certain tendencies and most don't try and combat the "natural woman".

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]OlanValesco 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So I went a googlin' and most of the stuff I could find is theological based, so if you're against that then turn back now haha.

This site has a good definition. If you're uncomfortable with the idea of the Holy Spirit, just think of it as the desire to do good to yourself and those around you.

If you want to dive into the commentaries, that's another place to look.

I found this speech searching that first site. A couple of quotes that stand out:

Selfishness is much more than an ordinary problem because it activates all the cardinal sins! It is the detonator in the breaking of the Ten Commandments.

[The selfish individual] will even break a covenant in order to fix an appetite.

This one was particularly clever

The selfish individual has a passion for the vertical pronoun I. Significantly, the vertical pronoun I has no knees to bend, while the first letter in the pronoun we does.

This one is easy to see many RP principles in

We see in ourselves other familiar forms of selfishness: accepting or claiming undeserved credit; puffing deserved credit; being glad when others go wrong; resenting the genuine successes of others; preferring public vindication to private reconciliation (e.g. big divorces, false rape accusations); and taking “advantage of one because of his words.”

What it leads to

Each spasm of selfishness narrows the universe that much more by shutting down our awareness of others and by making us more and more alone. Sensations are then desperately sought precisely in order to verify that one really exists.

Surging selfishness presents us with a sobering scene as the natural man acts out his wants. Many assert their needs—but where have we lodged the corresponding obligations? So many have become demanders, but where are all the providers? There are many more people with things to say than there are listeners. There are more neglected and aging parents than there are attentive sons and daughters—though, numerically, clearly it should not be so!

[–]TheColdDark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Each gender has their detestable form: men can be losers, women can be sluts.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 90 points91 points  (5 children)

55% of marriages end in divorce, and of those, 72% of them are brought by women.

How many marriages are happy for the guy? 30-40% stick together sure, but most of those are pretty miserable after a few years when the guy is stuck between a deadbedroom and losing his house, kids and future income. Marriage = lack of options = lack of attraction.

Do we actually, literally categorically believe that AWALT?

Well actually yes. Yes AWALT. It's a tendency, universally true. Some will go off with Chad because they plan to. Some will go off with Chad if he asks. Some might take a few days of persuading from a high value celebrity. Some might never meet a high enough man who is interested enough in her. There's a grey area, but none of them will be loyal in the right (wrong) circumstances. All of them will fuck you over for the right deal. None of them will love you unconditionally.

Yes some are better than others. And some are way worse. But all are hypergamous. All are following a dualistic AF/BB strategy (although the best ones probably try to get both at the same time).

All women are emotional at the expense of logic. All women have extremely strong solipsistic "feelings" which are really overriding self-interested instincts (ever notice how no matter how irrational and crazy her feelz are, they always benefit her at the cost of the man? weird huh?)

All women are different. And All Women Are Like That. Those are the real rules of life, make your choices accordingly gentlemen.

[–]1KyfhoMyoba 17 points18 points  (0 children)

All of them will fuck you over for the right deal.

And as time goes by, and feminism gets more entrenched, that deal gets more and more commonplace and easier to close.

[–]ModRedSovereign 11 points12 points  (3 children)

How many marriages are happy for the guy? 30-40% stick together sure, but most of those are pretty miserable after a few years when the guy is stuck between a deadbedroom and losing his house, kids and future income. Marriage = lack of options = lack of attraction.

Worse, some percentage of the male-initiated divorces were instigated by the woman, coercing him to file so that she comes out ahead socially. "File this divorce or I'll make sure you never see your kids again".

[–]Hoodwink 13 points13 points [recovered]

You know. I grew up thinking that divorce's were almost always the fault of the man. As I grew up though (in upper-middle class suburbia), it always seemed like the father was the victim. They were the ones shell-shocked, surprised, and destroyed. The women seemed to be gleeful idiots.

And the thing is, is that this seemed to be apply to the less well-off as well, but they didn't seem to care as much because their jobs weren't as legit or it meant going from a crummy rental to a crummy apartment with roommates. They seemed to deal with it easier because the fall wasn't as hard or 'legitimate' (i.e. under-the-table work isn't as easy to collect child-support and alimony and the mother wouldn't be able to get much anyways).

It was always this dissonance in my head. Because part of the 'nice-guy strategy' I had in high school was based on this idea which was directly opposed to what I've seen in a number of divorces in grade/high school. The 'nice-guy' training we receive is basically because the guy is always portrayed as the enemy of marriage. And thousands of 'Dear Abby' columns and TV/movie programming.

Even now, a few years ago I met a late 30's guy with 3 kids who got divorced who committed shortly after it. The woman was basically gleefully happy - the man was seemed absolutely blown away and later killed himself. I still remember how his wife was like. It's the same shit.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The woman was basically gleefully happy - the man was seemed absolutely blown away and later killed himself.

She gets to retire with the kids, cash and prizes and freedom. She's got all the benefits of marriage (money) with none of the costs (commitment).

I'd be pretty happy too if divorce came with the keys to the whorehouse and everyone was clapping me on the back saying "you go, guy! stick it to that matriarchal shitlady".

[–]mrmeyhemn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

divorce for the woman is like hitting the lottery, especially if there are kids involved. she no longer has to fuck mr bb once a month AND gets to keep access to his resources.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 25 points26 points  (3 children)

Its very hard to know a person. Sometimes you don't even know yourself and end up doing things that you thought you would never do, like letting your best friend's girlfriend suck your dick.

Now if you don't fully understand yourself how could you ever truly understand a woman. How could you ever truly know what she would do in a certain situation? You know how many men were in perfect relationships untill it just happened and she jumped on Alpha cock?

You really think that at 18 19 20 21 22, you baby alpha know better than the collective experience of thousands of men?

You don't. So play it safe and leen from the painful mistakes of thousands and thousands of men. Save yourself.

All Women are Like That.

[–]tallwheel 14 points15 points  (2 children)

Now if you don't fully understand yourself how could you ever truly understand a woman.

And just as you don't fully understand yourself, she doesn't fully understand herself either. That's another reason why she denies AWALT, and actually believes herself to be a NAWALT. After taking TRP, I feel like I can predict my LTR's actions and feelings better than she can.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 11 points12 points  (1 child)

you are the pussy whisperer

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points  (1 child)

I'm gonna disagree. I think that ALL women are like that. It's good history but I really disagree that there are women without women's nature. It's wrong to say that all women keep their old b/f's sex tapes but that's a pretty surface level objection. When you get down to it, red pill is about describing women's nature, not every woman's behavior. All women have female nature. That's what it means. All 3.5 billion of them. Female nature won't cause all women to branch swing, particularly those with strong alpha SOs, but they still have the nature to. AWALT is about what's deeper than behaviors from field reports and ALL women are like that.

[–]Canwang 16 points16 points [recovered]

My father, who has been an avid gun collector and trader pretty much his whole life once made a stupid mistake with one of his guns that could have killed one of the 4 people in the room at the time.

He has upwards of 100 guns ranging from handguns, rifles, shot guns, and AR's.

He knows the rules of guns, to treat them as if they are always loaded. This particular day he was showing us a new glock he had purchased. He actioned the slide 3 times to make sure there were no rounds in the chamber as he does with all his weapons. He didn't see the 2 rounds come out of the weapon and with glocks, there is no hammer. He then pulled the trigger (it's not good to keep weapons cocked for long periods of time as it wears out the spring) still not aware of the rounds that had come out and shot a hole in the tile of the floor which fragmented everywhere inches from my foot.

No one was hurt, but my dad learned a valuable lesson that day.

Unfortunately for my dad, he is not so knowledgeable and picking good women. He is on his 5th marriage right now and is supporting his wife and her mother. 3 out of 5 of those marriages ended in divorce rape, one of which being my own mother. I can tell his current wife and mother in law have a disdain for him but know that he is their meal ticket.

I'm really afraid this marriage he is in is a loaded weapon pointed at his head.

[–]1DRMMR76 20 points21 points  (4 children)

(it's not good to keep weapons cocked for long periods of time as it wears out the spring)

This is not true. Springs lose their structural integrity from compression cycles not from storing energy in one unmoving state. It's a very common myth because it seems to make sense to to the layman. "If the magazine is loaded, it's under all that strain so it must be getting weaker, like a muscle". It seems straightforward, but it's actually not true.

All springs essentially have 3 states or thresholds. The resting state is when it is neither compressed or extended. It's doing no work whatsoever. There is the the maximum a spring can be compressed before it actually changes the crystalline lattice and warps the spring, and the maximum it can be extended before it does that. Any level of compression or extension that is below those two thresholds will not warp the structure of the spring while in a resting but worked state, though compression and release cycles will over time. You can test this with the small spring from a retractable pen. Notice that it can sit for years either retracted (resting/no work) or extended (resting/work) and not affect the pen at all. But as you click it thousands of time, it wears out. You can also pull the spring out and gently compress or extend it a little bit and it returns to it's resting state, but it's very easy to stretch it too much and it will be permanently warped.

Barring rust and other outside factors, do the shocks and other springs on a classic car just randomly break if it's never being driven and just sitting in some car museum?

It's fine to leave a firearm cocked and it's even fine to leave magazines fully loaded for decades. There are 1911 magazines that were loaded pre-WWII and stayed loaded until a few years ago, and they operated fine after being given fresh ammo. Springs wear out over compression cycles, not being left in one resting state, even if it's under stress.

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

Is this true for any sort of elastic deformation? Or just spring-like shapes?

[–]BallisticTherapy 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Have you bothered to sit down and have a conversation with your old man and tell him this?

[–]darkrood 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Have you ever sit down and have a conversation with any old man with multiple marriages and divorces under his belt?

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

Not really. Just brief exchanges at the most, and they seem to agree with red pill reasoning due to their life experience acting as confirmation.

[–]1commentatorX 23 points24 points  (2 children)

Saw it on here a while ago but don't know who to credit;

"EWALT - Enough Women Are Like That."

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Enough Women Are Like That."...

...that it must be assumed that all women are like that. And that they all have the capacity to be like that.

[–]doveenigma13 8 points9 points  (4 children)

I disagree. All women are like that, the circumstances will be different for some than for others. All women are like that, but not all women will do that. They have the propensity and the desire, but may choose not to.

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I dunno, maybe I could've worded it better, but that's what I was trying to get across, i.e., be extremely cautious until you find one that, in fact, won't "do" that, or at least has a very high threshold of "doing" that. In other words, if you're going to keep a snake as a pet, you want to make sure it's a docile one, that has a very high degree of temperance before it will lash out and strangle you.

[–]doveenigma13 0 points1 point  (0 children)


[–]truchisoft 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To keep with the analogy, that pet snake is poisonous and cannot be defangled, so how do you treat it? With extreme caution everytime that is

[–]truchisoft 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As Bonecrackr said, she is not doing that... right now

[–]ThePedanticF0x 10 points11 points  (6 children)

Similar to paternity fraud statistics. Apparently, 30 percent of fathers are unknowingly not the biological fathers to one or more of their kids.

30 is a high enough percentage that it should be the concern of every single man alive. Assume the kid is not yours by default. DNA test or it didn't happen. All kids are bastards. AKAB.


[–]tallwheel 2 points3 points  (5 children)

30 sounds ridiculously high. You have a source for that? I thought there was a study from the UK that said 10% (?), and it was later mostly debunked (as being higher than the probable real number).

I am in complete agreement, though, that cuckholding is likely far more common than most imagine it to be.

[–]ThePedanticF0x 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"it was later mostly debunked (as being higher than the probable real number)."

You're probably right, I remember reading it in a post here a while ago which linked to obviously poor source material.

[–]truchisoft 0 points1 point  (2 children)

10% for unsuspecting fathers, 30% for suspecting ones.

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point  (1 child)

That sounds more likely. Source?

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

Dont hace it around, duckduckgo is your friend

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

I was hoping this would go more in depth. A lot of people think like this:

  1. this girl I know, is a total whore. She is fucking new guy every week.

  2. AWALT

Conclusion: therefore every girl is fucking new guy every week.

Logic is there, but AWALT is misinterpreted. AWALT means every woman has a potential to be like that, but we say AWALT because it's better to assume she is like that, as other commenters explained allready.

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I was hoping this would go more in depth.

Brevity is the soul of wit. Experience shows me that when you overload most people with too much reading, they lose focus and/or interest.

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

There are a lot of posts longer than this one. Most of sidebar is. I think it's better to lose interest and know you dont understand it, than to read it and think you understand it. You don't, because it's not deep enough. People will still use logic like I explained in previous comment, so OP won't archieve what he wanted to, with his post.

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


What is this?

[–]BallisticTherapy 7 points8 points  (6 children)

The key thing here in the gun analogy is that one can check to see if the gun is loaded before pulling the trigger. Can the same be done with a woman? I think that the ability to "check" the "gun" in this context requires a certain level of ability to profile people. You've got to be able to pick up on their subtleties and mannerisms that reveal the inner workings of their mind.

If you don't have any ability to peel back the layers and see what's below the surface, you're flying blind.

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan[S] 6 points7 points  (5 children)

Learning to "check the gun" is indeed an acquired skill, one that can and should be honed in a man's quest towards a RP lifestyle.

One tip I can give from jump street is to convey to women that you are very liberal about sexual freedom and that you are encouraging of women who "explore their sexuality". As long as you can convey that, not only are you not judgmental, but that you encourage women who sleep around, they will open the floodgates of information.

"One time I was fucking this guy...", "I tried anal in college at this party once...", "This one guy was a total ass but he was so cute..."

I like to play little games of truth or dare with them, ask questions like "where was the raunchiest place you've had sex?", or "what public places have you fucked at?", etc, etc. And intentionally use words like "fucked", "screwed", etc.

She will show you what a dirty whore she is without much trouble at all if you come off this way.

You won't have even have to actively "check the gun". The chamber will open itself and say "have a look at my dirty barrel."

[–]kafka-tamura 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also works for men btw, nothing to build camaraderie than leading the conversation to sexual conquests.

[–]BallisticTherapy 2 points3 points  (1 child)

That's some nice COINTELPRO level strategy being employed there. I'll have to keep that in mind.

[–]DogePerformance 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Upvote for the acronym, rare you see that one thrown around online, outside specific discussions

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

Would it work to maybe, very very subtly, insinuate that she might be a prude to get her to want to out her slutty self?

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

It's funny, most girls will say, "not all women are like that!" But if you talk to a woman who really loves you (like a sister or an old true female friend) they will readily admit that yes all women are like that.

When one of my good female family friends was getting married I asked her which one if her friends I should try and get with. She basically told me straight up all of her friends are trifling bitches and that she wouldn't want to be responsible for what they might do.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (8 children)

If you have any doubts about AWALT then keylog your girls computer and check her phone.

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan[S] 11 points12 points  (3 children)

Funny you mention that. A guy already did an experiment with key logging plates and wrote a book about it. Turns out all the girls did indeed turn out to be AWALT.


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

so did my wife. They are all like that

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

First off I found his methods sneaky and illegal. The poor women talked about in the book were nothing but guinea pigs.

Two-star review left by "Amazon Customer."

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Amazon Customer is an idiot. There is nothing illegal about monitoring the activity on your own computer, just like there is nothing illegal about putting video surveillance in your own home.

[–]epixs 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Anyway to keylog phones or ipads? I know how to portforward/rat/keylog on computers but never on phones.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I dont know any but let me know what you find.

to be honest I needed this snooping shit to help me get pill down. Spent months looking at "data"

Now.... I would never check. I actually dont care

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

You don't need to "check" anymore because you know....AWALT.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is not in women's best interest to admit AWALT, which is why they frequently and vehemently deny it. If they do support AWALT they exclude themselves from the definition, because she's special, she's not like other girls.

A narrative is not required to be accurate or possess any truth in order to spread or benefit from it, just attention and repetition. As a matter of fact, women benefit most when their nature is obscured with smoke and mirrors.

[–]seenit3 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Carrying the analogy into the realm of statistics, AWALT is a method to reduce risk of type II errors. For example, let's say a woman is a "hypergamous" or "not hypergamous". As men we decide hypergamous and not hypergamous. We can be correct in two ways, she is and we say she is, or she's not and we say she's not. Good. However, we can be wrong in two ways. She is not and we say she is (men lose little in this case, the type 1 error), and then she is but we say she is not (worst case scenario, we can lose everything, the type 2 error). AWALT is a risk minimization strategy.

[–]2Overkillengine 5 points6 points  (0 children)


Women Safety courses should be mandatory for men.

[–]Air4ce1 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Thank you, just last week I was saying the same thing. I was downvoted, but I still believe in the same message. It's natural for newer guys to go an extreme and when they hit that anger phase to think "AWALT" and take it literally. This message helps clarify the message so you can understand and work through that stage faster.

AWALT means that they also have the capability to be that given the right circumstances. A gun is harmless with no bullets but given the right circumstances aka ammunition, it is now a dangerous and loaded weapon.

[–]widec 10 points11 points  (1 child)

There's often confusion about the term AWALT. It doesn't mean all women are the same. Some will be more likely to cheat than other for instance, that's why we say don't LTR a slut.

What it does mean is that women share the same fundamental behaviors that are ingrained in their biology. They will always try to get with the top guy, will be turned off by signs of weakness, and will not appreciate things you have done in the past (Briffault's law)

[–]Air4ce1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And those things are AWALT tendencies that should be taken literally. When I first got here there wasn't a clear distinction between what should be taken literal and what shouldn't. That was over a year and a half ago and this board has gotten better at distinguishing between the two.

[–]ericatx 4 points5 points  (0 children)

HAHA - I too wondered why the broken laptop was still hanging around. Great post!

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 5 points6 points  (6 children)

55% of marriages end in divorce, and of those, 72% of them are brought by women.

I think the numbers are wrong... I recall seeing that like 75% of marriages these days end in divorce maybe more.

Other than that solid post explaining AWALT to those who have just started to take the plunge. Possibly even sidebar material.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (5 children)

Depends where you are. Recent figures for the UK are just over 40% of first time marriages end in divorce, and in 65% of those it was destroyed by the woman. In the US, 41%-50% end in divorce, of which 70% are destroyed by the woman directly. However, other studies showed that a further 20% were destroyed by the woman indirectly. That is, the man divorced her, but because of her behaviour (infidelity, nagging, etc).

However, those are figures for first marriages. They are much worse for 2nd and 3rd marriages. In the USA, it is 60-67% for second marriages and 73-74% for third marriages. Why anyone would do it more than once is beyond me, as a divorcee has already proven that she can't stick it.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Yeah... don't forget best case scenario for divorce rates is marrying a woman who is a virgin at the time of marriage. That gives you apparently an 85% chance of success which is much better bet than most marriage... Still you're putting half of everything with a 15% chance of losing it with nothing to show for it.

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

That's interesting, could I ask where the 85% figure comes from? I'm aware of the graph about the increasing change of a relationship failing with number of prior partners (starting after the first one), but I recall it was a graph, not actual data I could download and crunch, so would appreciate another bite at it.

And yes, given virginity at marriage, the removal of the need for a prenup (whatever is your before is yours after just by default, no argument), the removal of alimony, the removal of CS (whoever has the child, pays for the child), and the assets gained during marriage split by means test, marriage in Western society would be salveable. Won't happen, of course.

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

Just removal of alimony alone would be a huge step forward. We are all reasonable and responsible adults and should be able to take care of ourselves if we part ways.

Likewise the problem with the state getting involved in Child Support is the fact that they use it as a way to backdoor alimony. If Child Support was SET when the divorce was finalized and only permitted moderate increases to keep pace with the rate of inflation and/or have the woman show proof she's spending most/all of the child support on the child. When a woman is able to basically renegotiate the terms of child support every time a man makes more money then what incentive does he have to improve and contribute more to society.

Also removal of jail penalties for non-payment would be a big boon too.

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

Yes, all that. It is just insane that a man is supposed to financially support a woman who isn't his wife. She doesn't have a job? Then she is in the same position as everyone else who doesn't she has to get one. But since most divorces happen because of the woman, there is no excuse, because she knows what is coming and should have got a job before she set about destroying it.

I understand in Scandinavia CS is set according to age of the child, not the salary of the husband. However, a second part is that women will (often vindictively) try to separate the children from their father, and we know how damaging that is. CS incentivises this. The answer is to remove CS completely, and by default have the children spend 50% of their time with each, with whoever has the children paying the cost of it.

Bringing back Debtor's Prison is just insane, I couldn't believe they did that. I thought that went out with the Victorians. And do you know what really pisses me off? We get international Slut Marches where women go and protest that they should be able to wear as little as they like with no consequences. But where are the women protesting outside prisons at the injustice of men being imprisoned because they cannot afford CS? These are not anonymous men, they are men that the women claimed to have loved! OK, I think I'm back in anger phase again...

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think you ever fall back into anger phase. Anger phase is something directed at women temporarily because you realize the true nature of women.

However, anger is a valid and appropriate response to the injustices that we see facing men each and every day. As long as you aim your anger in the right direction. In this case we need to blame the men who let family court run rampant without any checks or balances making pseudo-law by fiat because it's become a court of feels before reals (IE. we feel that this is best for the child as opposed to this is what is best for the child).

[–]newls 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's why it makes no sense when we get women saying "but I'm not a lying greedy divorcing bitch, so AWALT isn't true!!!" You're missing the point, because you aren't the target audience; men are. Women are missing the context to understand the essence of what we are actually saying, because women don't have the life experience of men, except for maybe Caitlyn Jenner.

I've come to believe that women really aren't capable of thinking on macroscopic scales.

When we make statements that are broadly true, usually due to the homogeneity of women as a group, their solipsism leads them to take this as a personal attack.

"He says I'm [x], I don't like it when people are [x], therefore I'm not [x]. See? See? He's wrong! We're all talking about why he's wrong, so he must be wrong!"

[–]Dr_HoaxArthurWilmoth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Outstanding. This was my recent explanation:

The exception to AWALT is a unicorn or a red-pilled woman or the fact that all women are P-AWALT - POTENTIALLY AWALT.

The point is for you to always be improving, because the odds are heavily in the favor of your precious snowflake acting like every other girl in the herd. That is a healthy approach if you look at it that way. Now, an autist will argue linguistic gymnastics and state that since Unicorns might exist that AWALT is actually 99.99998% true and need to be changed to A(almost)AWALT, but seriously, who the fuck cares?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (7 children)

This is the exact same argument used to justify the #YesAllMen bullshit.

It's the exact same analogy as the "M&M" argument for why they have to treat all men as potential rapists, despite the fact that there are probably less rapists than women who display the characteristics we bundle under "AWALT".

Take that how you will.

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan[S] 23 points24 points  (6 children)

Problem with that simile is that they are aiming to treat men with aggressive malice, this is aiming to teach men to protect themselves.

EDIT: and let's face it; are we ever going to get feminists to stop using this line of thinking to stop treating all men like rapists? Unlikely. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

[–]Kid_Crimson 8 points9 points  (2 children)

This! The #YesAllMen bullshit would be equivalent if the women using it were advocating for teaching other women to avoid bad situations/decisions etc. rather than penalizing men's thoughts and actions. Of course they're not and so it's not!

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan[S] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Very good point. The inverse to my OP would be telling women:

  • don't go to frat parties and get blackout drunk
  • don't prance around ghettos at 2am wearing a miniskirt
  • don't bring a man back to your bedroom, get undressed, have sex, then call it "rape" the next day because he didn't call you back
  • travel in groups at night

Men using AWALT is about men taking precautionary steps to avoid bad situations with the opposite sex. YAM/"all men are rapists" is about accusing men of criminal activity pre hoc, whilst absolving themselves of any responsibility or awareness.

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

Yes. Also, AWALT is not talking about criminal behaviour. Immoral, perhaps, but actually endorsed and supported by society. But the primary point is exactly as Kid_Crimson says. If feminists actually used YesAllMen to simply teach reasonable caution to women I would not have any objections to it at all. But it isn't, it is used, amongst other things, to try to reverse the burden of proof.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I'm not saying you are incorrect. I'm saying watch how far you take AWALT. Caution and distrust should be proportional the percentage of poisoned snakes/M&Ms (of course the women's argument would involve chocolate), and the severity of being wrong.

Using AWALT to treat every woman as a bratty, spoiled, narcissistic, teenage-minded, divorce-raping, branch-swinging bitch is on the same level as treating all men as brutish, violent, potential rapist until proven otherwise: it's just paranoia and pathological distrust.

That being said: watch and cover your ass.

The one parallel that doesn't hold is that TRP doesn't hold all women morally responsible for the situation: we consider that it's partly evolution, and partly a rational response to the market (not that it makes it OK).

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Speaking of poisoned snakes... anyone see the news story about that dude who tried to take a selfie with a rattlesnake and got bit... cleared 2 or 3 hospitals out of their antivenom and got like a $100k hospital bill as a result.

That said if 4/5ths of the snakes are poisonous/dangerous you'd be stupid to stick your hand in with any of them.

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

There's 5 grand in there though. I can get it without getting bit, I know I can!

[–]Roshambo_USMC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Women in this generation don't warrant a male's immediate respect/confidence. Every new woman you meet you want to be with in any romantic/sexual capacity should not be started with "Is she a whore?", but "Is she not a whore?" (Recent point made over on TRP.)

There has been such a shift in the last 2 decades of female behavior, that should caution each man since he has so much to lose.

The reason for the "whore" language above is because of this. As a recently divorce-raped man that came to find out later that she had over 40+ partners by the age of 20, it is no wonder things went as textbook as many describe here and on TRP about the, well, order of operations in how women behave, and it is very much decided by her past.

This is great post about caution, and that there aren't unicorns as we usually say. It always helps to be reminded of this stuff.

[–]nantucketghost 0 points1 point  (1 child)

deleted What is this?

[–]mrmeyhemn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

there is always a higher value male.

[–]BlackHeart89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! You've explained this way better than I have been able to in the past. Basically, "treat all guns as if they're loaded".

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

ASSPOWALT: A statistically significant percentage of women are like that. (If your interlocutor insists on being pedantic) !

[–]helpImmarried 1 points1 points [recovered]

I grew up around firearms. The "all guns are loaded" analogy is brilliant. I have a young friend who I was recently giving some relationship advice to. He has a severe case of oneitis. I think I'm going to toss this one at him the next time we talk and see if it does any good.

Than you sir!

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All guns are loaded, and all women are capable of despicable things, regardless of how well they treat you today. My AR-15, some days, is so dead on accurate I wanna go fight ISIS with it. Other days, the sights are so off I wouldn't go bear hunting with it.

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

About a year and a half before finding TRP I witnessed my most shocking case of AWALT. Worked with a fairly cute blonde girl (both of us were 20) and she was very religious, constantly talked about Jesus, and was always so nice to everyone. One day she came to work crying because her boyfriend dumped her. Months later I found out that she gave her first blowjob (first sexual experience for her) to some black guy (presumably fairly alpha) she had known for a week and a half. When I asked her why she did it, she didn't even understand. After finding TRP it seems blatantly obvious of course

[–]Hennez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Women are missing the context to understand the essence of what we are actually saying, because women don't have the life experience of men, except for maybe Caitlyn Jenner.

That last part is simply hilarious.

He had them but they were too much for him to handle.

[–]MGHOW_ATL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mozart wrote Cosi fan Tutte ("they're all like that") in 1790. The premise is that a couple of guys test their ladies' fidelity with predictably comical results. Shakespeare has several plays ("As You Like It, Taming of the Shrew, etc), 500 years old, that address exactly the same things we talk about now. Nothing new under the sun indeed. Whether one believes in it or not, the ancient writings of the Bible also speak truths about husbandry, wives, and the various permutations of relations.

Worldviews and sexual strategies are inextricably linked to biology, and that cute sweet doe-eyed colt-legged 8 that smiles at you in the coffee shop, likely has already had more sexy times than you ever will, in quantity, quality and variety. The removal of social controls over what will be tolerated has unleashed the natural order of attraction. Take the good girl out of the unfair patriarchy, and you end up with jungle mating rituals.

"It was/is simply your turn" is the way now.

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

I've heard feminists make the exact same argument against men.

[–]PartyTimeMentats -5 points-4 points  (4 children)

Therefore fucking women is too much of a risk.

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]PartyTimeMentats 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't see why I should go through any effort for women. I can get pleasure other ways. If half what I read in this sub is even partially true, and I think it is, the value I get from women seems really low compared to the amount of time I'd personally have to invest. Getting a dog seems like a much better investment.

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can respect that. Each man has to decide for himself how much risk he's willing to accept. Obviously, the majority on this sub have decided that fucking while wrapped is an acceptable risk, so your opinion will not be popular here.

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


I always figured AWALT wasn't literally what people believed, but more of an application of Murphy's Law.

[–]1London-Bananas -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I like your gun analogy, but I always understood AWALT much differently. Not a black and white case of loaden/unloaded or with/without fangs.

More like a certain treshold. Not every woman is going to take the first flight to Ibiza and suck 3 cocks in a stall bathroom when you slip up. Some women are more and some are less forgiving of beta behaviour, but none are completely immune. So that snowflake girl you've been dating for 3 years has a higher treshold, and Stacey who took her ex-bfs dick in the ass when you were on a holiday for 1 week has a lower treshold, but giving the circumstances every woman has the capability.

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

The AWALT theory discounts the obese ugly woman who really can't be like that, i.e. branch swing, hypergamy, slut it up, etc., as they have no choice. Does she have the potential to be like that? Of course. But it's flat out in all reality not the case. "Potential" doesn't mean much, even if 99.99% of women are that way, it's still not ALL. We can say Most and be much more accurate.

Now let's look at this.

If we said MWALT instead of AWALT. Sure, it's not as shocking sounding. "Most women? Well I found one that isn't like that!"

If it's 99% it's still, in reality, Most.

"All" isn't true, even though, it may be a good warning to guys who think unicorns exist.

"Most" is true, but RP rule followers don't like it because it sounds much weaker.

Bring on the downvote brigade, but would love to hear a discussion on this.

[–]weiry6922 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

There are lots of thirsty guys out there that will fuck even the ugliest obese woman, believe that.

And I don't see how being ugly and obese would change their hypergamy nature

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

Ahh but most settle and go through life thinking "this is the best I can do" and the notion of "getting someone better" doesn't even cross their minds because of their low self esteem.

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

Let's say I have 5 venomous snakes in cages. Two of them have been de-fanged and are harmless, the other 3 have not and can bite and kill you. Each cage has a stack of $5,000 in it. Should I reach into one of the cages to grab the money, or should I just assume, for my own personal safety and protection, that all of the snakes have fangs?

This is not the way I understand AWALT. A better analogy might be:

Let's say I have 5 venomous snakes in cages. Two of them have been raised in captivity, have a mellow disposition, and are perfectly safe to handle. The other 3 will bite and kill you given the chance. Each cage has a stack of $5,000 in it. Should I reach into one of the cages to grab the money, or should I just assume, for my own personal safety and protection, that all of the snakes are willing and eager to kill me?

There are no women, no matter how well raised, who would not cheat on her husband of 15 years if her favorite rock star invited her backstage for a private concert. AWALT. There are no snakes, no matter how well raised, who would not bite you if you stepped on them. ASALT.

The analogy used by the OP suggests that there are women out there who are unable to cheat or divorce rape or 'accidently' get pregnant. This is obviously untrue; there's no way to defang the modern woman. It's dangerous for men to think otherwise. Not all women will use their fangs obviously but we can't neglect the fact that all women have them. AWALT.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

All Women Can Be Like This? (AWCBLT)

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

That would be softening the language to appease those who hate us. We don't do that here. Not to mention, that doesn't roll off the tongue like AWALT.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

I'd agree that AWCBLT isn't a very snappy acronym, but I think AWALT generalizes a bit too much - I don't see how its very different from how feminists generalize all of us.

Think the newbies have to read the AWALT field reports with a pinch of salt. 'Not all women will do this, but they are definitely capable of doing so.'

Good post from OP

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

fuck 'generalizing too much'. When I was at uni walking around campus in the dark the women would go to the far side of the pathways. No doubt they were worried about sexual assault. Are they generalizing too much?

When I was in Iraq we were to wear Kevlar and flack jackets the entire time we were off base. If we came out of our tents at night to piss we wore our flacks. we needed to present 'hard targets'. People will attack a 'soft target' over a hard target.

The Red Pill is flack and Kevlar for men. Your going to wear it and for 99% of the time your not going to need it. But in that 1% of time your going to be happy you had it. If your a soft target your not going to have the 99% luxury. Your going to be attacked (shit tested) all the fucking time.

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

Why are we addressing women directly with a top post in TRP sub?

[–]callsyourcatugly -3 points-2 points  (8 children)

That is the exact same argument put forth by feminists who believe all men are rapists.

Not that I'm disagreeing in the least.

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan[S] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

And? Are we ever going to get feminists to stop using this argument to treat all men like potential rapists anytime soon? I highly doubt it. So I see no problem in using this same line of logic to treat all women like hypergamous sluts. I'm just using their own line of thinking to give them a dose of their own medicine in a way that benefits men.

Good for the goose, good for the gander, my friend.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Also, there is a big difference between the rape statistics (0.61% for students, 0.76% for college-age non-students, 0.15% for older women) and divorce statistics (from 40-50% for 1st time, over 70% for third marriages). That makes a huge difference to how justified the word 'all' is.

[–]callsyourcatugly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree. I just hadn't realized it until seeing it written out like that

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Stats on rape in the US are about 27/100000 woman are raped, this excludes men, and also woman that didn't report it.

0.00027% this is from wikipedia on rape stats.

Even if it was 0.1% it would be fucking ridiculous to say all men are rapists via that argument.

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

Yeah. Which is why "all men are potential rapists" is fucking stupid.

I'm just pointing out the similarities in the logic.

[–]billsmashole 3 points4 points  (1 child)

The way the definition of rape is being changed, soon we all will be rapists. I'm sure hitting on woman or staring at them will count as rape to some women if the guy is creepy enough.