524
525
526

Red Pill ExampleVanity Fair's "Tinder and The Dawn of the Dating Apocalypse" is chock-full of RP truths (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by aptway

https://archive.is/vCQTM

TL:DR: Vanity Fair September 2015 article dives into the cultural decline of the modern American dating scene, effectively describing WHAT is happening but without going a step further and assessing the ramifications of the current culture on civilization as a whole. Also, blaming men.

There are plenty of juicy quotes in the article, but I'm going to summarize.

Three Chads discuss how many women they fuck off of Tinder in NYC. It's very clear these guys have abundance mentality, which snowballs their success even further. One even describes "playing the beta" in order to rack up his notch count. This is the world you've created, ladies.

Of course the article asks "Is this good for women?" It doesn't care about whether it's good for men or society as a whole- disposable gender and all. Women feeling de-valued? Deep down they realize that the higher their n-count, the lower their value in the SMP is.

Oh fine, I'll do one quote. From a female Professor of Sociology:

“For young women the problem in navigating sexuality and relationships is still gender inequality, Young women complain that young men still have the power to decide when something is going to be serious and when something is not—they can go, ‘She’s girlfriend material, she’s hookup material.’ … There is still a pervasive double standard. We need to puzzle out why women have made more strides in the public arena than in the private arena.”

The answer is simple: Men are the gatekeepers of commitment, women are the gatekeepers of sex. As a corollary- Men's commitment is more valuable than a woman's sex, and more and more men are realizing that.

Additional talk referencing a study in which millenials are having less sex than Gen X'ers and Baby Boomers- the thought doesn't occur to them that the top 20% are drowning in pussy, while the remaining 80% are getting nothing. Be in the top 20%. Even better, aim for the top 20% of the top 20%.

“It seems like the girls don’t have any control over the situation, and it should not be like that at all,” Fallon says."

“Sex should stem from emotional intimacy, and it’s the opposite with us right now, and I think it really is kind of destroying females’ self-images,” says Fallon.

Awww, the poor self-images. How about it's kind of destroying western civilization? You reap what you sow, especially when you can't control dem tinglez.

“But if you say any of this out loud, it’s like you’re weak, you’re not independent, you somehow missed the whole memo about third-wave feminism,” says Amanda.

Deep down she realizes something isn't quite right, but the "you-go-girl" mentality that has been drilled into her from a very young age ultimately pervades. This is progress, right? Then why aren't you happy?

There's plenty of RP gold in the rest of the article- thought that it was relevant to share.

Lessons Learned:

  • If you're in the top 20%, online dating is a gold mine. Take your pick of who you want to fuck- just make sure to be Chad.

  • If there's a perceived cultural issue, the first response is to ask: "How is it affecting the women!?" Nobody cares about men or society as a whole.

  • Women can sense that something is not right- remember, they're programmed just as we are, and they ultimately suffer equally as much if not more in the long run than men.

  • Never forget how valuable your commitment as a man is, and never ever initiate exclusivity with a woman. Deep down they know that it's their job to win your commitment, and initiating monogamy with a woman is a surefire way to paint yourself as a beta in her mind.


[–]darkstout 244 points245 points  (25 children)

“I’ve gotten numbers on Tinder just by sending emojis,” says John ... He holds up his phone, with its cracked screen, to show a Tinder conversation between him and a young woman who provided her number after he offered a series of emojis, including the ones for pizza and beer. “Now is that the kind of woman I potentially want to marry?” he asks, smiling. “Probably not.”

Hilarious. And that's some red pill for women: men don't want to commit to sluts! And if a man does wife up a slut, what does that say about him?

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 79 points80 points  (23 children)

What is truly stunning is the complete lack of understanding by various "academics" about the source of the current situation. "Empowered" women started giving sex away for free like the world was about to end. But they act like it's men that somehow now are less willing to commit. Or some internet bullshit. Fucking newsflash: Men have always been hesitant to commit.

What's equally stunning is the talk about the "double standard" with sex, where women who give it away too freely are considered sluts, and looked down upon. Even though Beta men who give away commitment left and right are just as much looked down upon by women. It's not a double standard, it's that we are held to different standards.

Women were always the gatekeepers of sex, men the gatekeepers of commitment. Men used to have to trade a little bit of commitment for what they wanted. Women though, under the guise of feminism, have abandoned that role. Men are simply doing what they've always done, and adapting to the current situation. Reap what you sow, ladies.

[–]1kingofpoplives 49 points50 points  (21 children)

What is truly stunning is the complete lack of understanding by various "academics" about the source of the current situation.

This was the vibe I got from the article as well. It's a fascinating view into a certain type of female perspective. Through the lens of this author, the only men who exist are Chads -- banging endless strings of women at will. There is not a single quote from or about any guys who aren't top 5%. It's all indie rockstars, marketing executives, and ivy league investment bankers.

It's also interesting how virtually all of the women she interviews are very young, primarily 19-24.

This is the world that gets created when men cede full control of the sexual marketplace to the whims of very young women -- a river of cheap and dirty sex, but no families or children.

[–]1Ronin11A 39 points40 points  (7 children)

Even though Beta men who give away commitment left and right are just as much looked down upon by women.

This comment seriously just clicked a light bulb on in my brain. It makes so much sense.

They're emotional sluts, and no one respects a slut.

[–]magnetflavoredwater 16 points17 points  (4 children)

Holy shit I'm glad you pointed that out. Damn, RP just clicked for me hardcore

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (3 children)

Betas are commitment whores.

[–]magnetflavoredwater 12 points13 points  (2 children)

No shit. We just want a woman we can trust. I really hope this subreddit doesn't get banned.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (5 children)

but no families or children

If high value men had an incentive to settle down, marry and raise a family, Tinder wouldn't exist. Women would be valued for their attractiveness and maternal qualities and not just sex.

If women adjusted their mating expectations and learned to like dating guys closer to their own SMV (i.e. assortative mating), it would open up a whole new pool of bidders for their services (non Fuckboys), increasing their market value.

I guess that patriarchy thing was good for women after all.

[–]1kingofpoplives 21 points22 points  (2 children)

I guess that patriarchy thing was good for women after all.

I agree. The issue is that women, by their nature, are not forward thinking.

Their instincts lead them to be attracted to "edgy" dudes with muscles and tatts who use and abuse them with filthy sex, then laugh as they toss them away. Perhaps worse, it incentivizes men to model themselves after certain types of sexually successful degenerates.

They types of men always existed, and were successful with women to a certain degree, but it was widely known that the women who went with them were ruined. Now a large percentage of youth-targeted celebrities fit these parasitic free-riding archetypes.

There's going be a massive generation that knows only hedonism, pain, and mutual abuse, with no practical or theoretical conception of how build and live a healthy family life.

[–]geezer_pleezer 214 points214 points [recovered]

“What percentage of boys now do you think are fuckboys?,” I asked some young women from New Albany, Indiana. “One hundred percent,” said Meredith, 20, a sophomore at Bellarmine University in Louisville. “No, like 90 percent,” said Ashley (the same as mentioned earlier). “I’m hoping to find the 10 percent somewhere. But every boy I’ve ever met is a fuckboy.”

Unless you are Chad you don't even exist to these women

[–]vicious_armbar 150 points151 points  (11 children)

Have these women ever stopped to consider that if 90-100% of eligible bachelors aren't good enough for them; then maybe they're the ones who are the problem.

[–]Robert_Walker 72 points72 points [recovered]

I remember talking with a woman (hitting the wall) who was complaining that there were no good men in this city because it was known as a "gay city".

I threw up some quick stats, 6 million people in the city, 3 million of them men, 1/6 single so that's 500,000 men. Let's say that half are gay: 250,000 single eligible men in the city but there's not even one good one? Are you sure that's the problem?

She told me that I didn't understand, but I could see in her eyes that I'd given her hamster some new work to do.

*edit: Obviously much less than half of single men are gay, but I was erring miles on the side of caution for the simplicity of the argument.

[–][deleted] 86 points86 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 43 points44 points  (1 child)

the "No good men" line nearly always means "I can't get the good men anymore". Women who were good looking then lose their looks have this issue.

[–][deleted] 20 points20 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (1 child)

I get strong 'tagthesponsor' vibes from the oil sheikh.

[–]boredgod 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yep - those girls are just fresh, white canvas for Saudi poop paintings.

[–]A_Cubicle_Jockey 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I get a chuckle whenever I hear that line. They're the same ones who will tell a man that he needs to settle, and that he's looking for women out of his league. Yet though, she refuses to take her own advice.

[–]1OneRedYear 103 points104 points  (18 children)

The fact that they are using the term Fuckboy that I used to hear in the ghetto 15 years ago from ghetto ass people tells you how far they have fallen.

[–]through_a_ways 94 points95 points  (7 children)

Everything bad hits black people first, and then white people, as a general rule for America.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorVasiliyZaitzev 34 points35 points  (5 children)

Everything bad hits black people first, and then white people, as a general rule for America.

Actually, it usually stops by the Hispanic neighborhoods, on its way out to the 'burbs.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I'd rather say It slows down by the Hispanic neighborhoods.

[–]D-stroyer 38 points38 points [recovered]

And its comical. One of the easiest ways I can tell whether these girls are sluts is to just listen to how they speak. If they are using ghetto language when they came from middle class suburbia it is honestly telling.

When a woman tries to emulate ghetto trash I know, as do even most black dudes, that they ain't commit material.

[–]BlackHeart89 19 points20 points  (3 children)

When a woman tries to emulate ghetto trash I know, as do even most black dudes, that they ain't commit material.

EXACTLY! I'm a black guy, btw.

Unfortunately, being "hood" is glamorized by the vast majority of people in my area. Even the suburban folk. I have to travel to the more upscale part of town (neighboring cities, 10 to 45 min) or get lucky to meet anyone who doesn't fit that mold.

I'm a mix between suburban and ghetto btw. So I'm really getting the pros and cons from both sides.

[–]A_Cubicle_Jockey 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Same here. If a white girl is more hood then me then I know it isn't going to last.

[–]redestofthereds 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I've been called a fuckboy on POF. Ha ha that bitch was ghetto as fuck.

[–]ChrisBenRoy 4 points5 points  (1 child)

This made me chuckle as well, I would have asked her to define exactly what she means by "fuckboy".

[–]Jani1157 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The whole word has so many different definitions it's ridiculous, probably why it's thrown around so much.

[–]Overzealous_BlackGuy 40 points41 points  (13 children)

Fuckboy is like a way of calling a guy a jerk in this context.

[–]i_forget_my_userids 27 points28 points  (12 children)

Yeah I'm pretty sure they're saying it in the context of "boys that just want to fuck" and not "fukboi".

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (1 child)

haha i've only heard gangsta rappers use the term fuckboi, hysterical to hear them using it. Don't you ever call a chick a dirty slut though.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 14 points15 points  (0 children)

You call her that while your cock is buried in her ass, your am around her throat choking her slightly, and pulling her hair or squeezing a tit with the other hand. Then she loves being called a dirty slut.

[–]HAMMURABl 18 points19 points  (0 children)

90 % of men are assholes! the true number must be closer to 20%.

oh but wait, it was conditional on being in the top 20% already, since the bottom 80% are invisible/dont count, OBVIOUSLY.

[–]Sdom1 141 points142 points  (42 children)

One thing that just fucking amazes me - no matter how many times I see it - is people's ability to claim they want something, believe they want something, and then repeatedly do things to achieve the exact opposite result. The lack of self-awareness or insight is just mind boggling.

OK, so let's say I interview Tinderella A, and I ask her what she wants out of her dating life. The answer that I'd get most of the time, if she decides to drop her guard, would be that she would like to meet someone to have a fulfilling relationship with, get married, have kids, the whole nine. A laudable goal, to be sure.

And then, she's going to go on Tinder and swipe right for Chad Thundercock, who immediately tells her he's just interested in "hanging out" and "seeing if there's anything there." Then, she fucks him after a whole half an hour of conversation at a local bar or coffee house. And afterwards laments the "condition of the dating scene."

Funny stuff! So, I'm a little older, 35, and what I've noticed about the millennials is that they are absolutely TERRIFIED of making an actual connection with someone. At first, I mistook it for them being vapid, and while there's some of that, there have always been vapid people.

But this generation is the first to be raised with all of this technology. What it has done is extremely interesting. It has basically spread them thin. They have more connections to others than people in the past, but not as many deep ones.

Combine this with hypergamy and you're getting a small population of guys (good looking dark triads) pumping and dumping all of the women in NYC and these highly educated, supposedly intelligent people are at a complete loss as to how to stop it. It is unfuckingbelievable, and completely hilarious.

[–]Hoodwink 68 points68 points [recovered]

these highly educated, supposedly intelligent people are at a complete loss as to how to stop it.

It would have to criticize women. Even conservatives these days can't criticize women or tell them to behave - they're scared little squirrels in public because they've got about 50 years of bashing.

Plus, if you do criticize women - it immediately signals that you're not getting some. And that destroys your credibility. There's a bit of a double-bind where the expression of an opinion immediately destroys your own credibility in the topic. The only way you can actually criticize women is by being an obvious and undeniable Chad.

[–]Sdom1 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Man, I just got some yesterday. Here's the thing - there's a difference between constructive criticism, and lashing out. If you do it with anger, then the woman wonders why you're so angry about it - getting laid with no strings attatched is what a man wants, right?

Then they make the leap that you're angry because you feel sexually shut out. Sometimes, they're right.

If you're going to criticize women, you have to remain dispassionate about it, and be prepared to state simply and logically how fucking randoms on Tinder isn't going to get them what they want.

[–]Lord_Varys 2 points3 points  (1 child)

these highly educated, supposedly intelligent people are at a complete loss as to how to stop it.

It would have to criticize women.

Ding fucking Ding.

Women's problems can never be women's fault to them. They refuse to accept responsibility.

When the majority - or even a significant group - of women make sex so readily accessible, it directly hurts women who are trying to find commitment. This cow who wants to be bought is doomed because a few others are giving milk away for free. Then that cow grows old and is slaughtered without any husband or children, and the feminists write "how could this happen to this beautiful cow?", even as they hand out birth control and Cosmo subscriptions with their other hand.

It is irony and tragedy, sad for humanity.

[–]IGoYouStayTwoAutumns 56 points57 points  (4 children)

Couldn't agree more, just posted a comment here that echoes exactly this.

Buddha says: if you want to find water, dig one well that's 6-feet deep, not six wells that are 1-foot each. In NYC, you've got all these women wandering all over the desert, all of them digging a thousand different 1-inch wells, and then wondering why they're dying of thirst...

Funny, and sad--and it's only gonna get worse from here on out.

[–]NineInchPitchfork 44 points45 points  (14 children)

I'm a little older, 35, and what I've noticed about the millennials is that they are absolutely TERRIFIED of making an actual connection with someone. At first, I mistook it for them being vapid, and while there's some of that, there have always been vapid people.

But this generation is the first to be raised with all of this technology. What it has done is extremely interesting. It has basically spread them thin. They have more connections to others than people in the past, but not as many deep ones.

This is a very articulate description of what I perceive as well. I am even a little older than you and it is a very strange scene to witness. They are all so busy with posting, commenting, liking, etc and then seeing what all their "friends" are up to that there is no time for a relationship with depth. It has become more about how you present your life than actually living it - perception has surpassed reality. I find it amusing but I probably should feel a bit frightened as this can't be a healthy development in evolutionary terms.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (8 children)

Hit the nail on the head. And see, it's not just people who are addicted to social media. Nobody is living life anymore. Your average girl fills up her time with Netflix binges. Your average guy fills his time with video games and porn. I know because I used to be this guy. My life was wake up late in the afternoon, shower (at least I did that, huh?), eat some junk, hop onto league of legends for 8-12 hours, fap, fall asleep. It's disturbing how much of my life I wasted, thinking that somehow that existence could be better than real life.

Getting out there and actually living is infinitely better than living life from behind a screen. I do spend a good amount of time with the Internet and I do spend a good amount of time on TRP, but I also have to admit that nothing I read on TRP is as satisfying as getting out there and living it.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

To live and actually enjoy it, one must be somewhat good at life. There are some of us that belong behind the screen. When no one wants you around, you learn quickly.

Upvote for real talk; but I can't agree with you. Personal achievability is paramount if you're talking about wasted life. If your potential is shit; you're better off not bothering the functionals with your presence.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Before I give commitment, I tell her, there will be very little social media. it's pure poison for relationships. if she's going to spend all day on instagram, I'm going to be fucking around. simple as that.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

They are all so busy with posting, commenting, liking, etc and then seeing what all their "friends" are up to that there is no time for a relationship with depth. It has become more about how you present your life than actually living it - perception has surpassed reality.

Fuckin brilliant writing and thinking here mate.

I've been trying to figure out how to succinctly summarize the scenario (generation-wide lack of LTRs/deep relationships among medium and high SMV people), but you just did it already.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedPillDad 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yes, it's not so much that millennials are terrified of making connections, they're like overstimulated children who can't pay attention to any one thing for long.

Caught up in a whirlwind of superficial text connections, a woman's need for constant stimulation is on overdrive. LTR's become unsustainable because she feels trapped by having only one source of arousal, one dick to ride, one story to share.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I was just telling my shrink that when I hang out with people, they're on their phones the whole time. And the whole thing is supericial. It's weird how it's noticeable worse with the 18 year olds than it is with the 22 year olds. They are a lot worse and it's interesting. But I agree, they don't want to become deep, even if you're alone with them. It's two people looking at their phones and the other person is your background so to speak.

[–]collidoscope 13 points14 points  (3 children)

Then, she fucks him after a whole half an hour of conversation at a local bar or coffee house.  

That would be considered a "date". It's more like "come over. watch a movie n smoke. u down?"

[–]Danedina 4 points5 points  (2 children)

This NEVER happens to me and I'm completely fucking jealous. I mean, Free Weed?????!?!!?!!!

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

Yep I know man I feel your pain. NYC is a fucking GOLDMINE of pussy.

Liberals pot smoking pussy ready to bang.

[–]Lt_Muffintoes 5 points6 points  (3 children)

So, I'm a little older, 35, and what I've noticed about the millennials is that they are absolutely TERRIFIED of making an actual connection with someone.

I hear you. I'm only 25, but I know there's something missing. Every time I try and talk deep with someone, I'm met with resistance and deflection.

Met one of my new plates on Tinder, she wanted to fuck on the first date, went nuts when I cancelled a dinner with her, standard FWB.
Yet she's tried being sly "I wouldn't want to fuck someone who was fucking around on the side". Internally, I'm bursting with laughter, of course, but she's obviously terrified of just asking me whether she's the only one. I reckon that means a drop, because I don't want to deal with that dishonesty.

[–]Sdom1 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Yet she's tried being sly "I wouldn't want to fuck someone who was fucking around on the side".

When a girl says that, you now know 100% that she is fucking other people. She might as well tattoo it on her forehead.

[–]Lt_Muffintoes 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Ehh, I don't get the feeling she is by her behaviour. She does shit like insisting on cleaning and paying for all the food, buys me drinks etc

Not that it matters, since she'll be dropped once she gets back from holiday, because

1] I am fucking around on the side and she "doesn't want that"
1a] The other plate is hotter

and

2] The lack of directness

[–]Endorsed ContributorObio1 260 points261 points  (40 children)

"Men are the gatekeepers of commitment, women are the gatekeepers of sex. As a corollary- Men's commitment is more valuable than a woman's sex, and more and more men are realizing that."

And the cardinal sin of betas is that they often struggle to get a woman to commit. These betas manage to turn women into the gatekeepers of both sex and commitment -- and then wonder why they get shit on down the road.

[–]thefisherman1961 124 points125 points  (21 children)

When I was a teenager, this girl (HB5) had a massive crush on me for a year and a half, but I didn't want anything to do with her because I didn't find her attractive enough. I didn't see her for about a year (over which she continued to obsess over me, according to everyone she knew) and then I saw her again. She shot up to an HB7, so I hit it.

She just automatically assumed that she was going to be one of my plates and even straight up said, "If you fuck other girls, just don't tell me about it." Because women would rather share an alpha than be exclusive with a beta. Of course this was in my pre-TRP days and I was looking for an LTR so it wasn't long before I asked her to commit to me, which she obviously did. She commented, "I thought for sure you were just going to be an asshole and only use me for booty calls."

Well I think you know how that went. It wasn't long at all before she started disrespecting me and tossing out ridiculous shit tests...and it was because I abandoned abundance mentality in favor of oneitis, and gave up my commitment card like it was worthless. I got what I deserved for destroying her expectations that I was alpha, and instead I turned out to be a totally 100% thirsty beta. I know now that she subconsciously resented that about me.

[–]RP-on-AF1 31 points32 points  (2 children)

Perfect anecdote for the "men are the gatekeepers of commitment"notion. Thanks for sharing.

[–]frequentlywrong 24 points25 points  (7 children)

"I thought for sure you were just going to be an asshole and only use me for booty calls."

Translation: "I was dripping at the thought of you being an asshole and only use me for booty calls."

[–]thefisherman1961 18 points19 points  (3 children)

Yep. But I asked her to commit quickly because I didn't want to be viewed by her friends and family as an asshole taking advantage of m'lady, the poor damsel in distress, because I was a white knight fag.

[–]trpftw 3 points4 points  (2 children)

It's almost a form of stockholm syndrome right? "ugh, he really does want me and treats me perfect... well now I hate him and feel nothing for him..."

I'm pretty sure this is biological. I am not sure any men get turned off by a women who works hard for their commitment.

[–]thefisherman1961 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I don't get turned off, in fact I get turned on by it because I assume that that sort of perseverance means she would have certain qualities that are good for LTRs like respect and loyalty. But no, it's never enough.

[–]FishFoxFerret 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Men are suppose to ask women for commitment?

I know two of my plates want commitment but they won't say anything out of fear of me cutting them off. And I'm not about to commit to a woman who wants me to ask her into a relationship.

[–]hirjd 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Hey kids, wanna go to Disney world this weekend?

[–]quelques_heures 39 points40 points  (1 child)

Because women would rather share an alpha than be exclusive with a beta.

With the implication being that she would have let you use her as a booty call! Women will line up around the block to be an alpha's booty call and always lamenting that he's not her boyfriend, instead of being exclusive with a beta.

I read a thread once about a guy who was a plumber or something working in this girl's house, and they end-up having sex and being fuck-buddies, but then she starts getting resentful that he won't commit. And I'm like if she wanted a real boyfriend who wanted to commit, there's no shortage of guys out there who are looking for girlfriends, and of course I get downvoted because women are always the victims, somehow.

This just proves my point.

[–]Senior ContributorNightwingTRP 41 points42 points  (9 children)

Turn yourself into the gatekeeper of both commitment and sex. One of my plates openly stated a few weeks ago how she was surprised I hadn't booty called her yet... and that she'd be totally ok with that if I just called her up late at night and told her to come over to mine. I laughed at her, told her that'd be fun and I'd keep it in mind. Then told her goodnight. I gotta be up in the morning. Got things to do.

Why'd I basically laugh at plate serving herself up on a plate? It's not about the sex anymore... it's about where it fits into my life. Everything must be convenient to me.

Denying a chick sex because it's not convenient for you is probably one of the most alpha moves you can pull. I swear, she wants you infinitely more. I am consciously very aware now that I am the gatekeeper of both commitment and sex with this plate.

I would even go so far as to say that we should be aiming to move plate-style-relationships from her giving up the sex regularly in hope of commitment to her no longer being in control of giving up the sex and simply being around you in a stupid hail mary long shot of getting commitment. The more control you have over the interactions, the more dominant (and thus attractive) you are... and the better you are able to manage your life.

[–]douglas_p 13 points14 points  (5 children)

Dude, I've been trying to tell my friends this for ages. All you have to do is turn down sex from a hot girl a couple of times, and you will have soooo much more power.

[–]BlackHeart89 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I've rejected women on reasons such as loyalty to a friend or because I was dating someone else. It resulted in me damn near being raped by one of them, while the other just kept insisting we "hang out". Before TRP, it only happened with 2 women, so the BP me thought it was just them hoes. Turns out, its most women.

[–]Senior Contributorexit_sandman 15 points16 points  (5 children)

These betas manage to turn women into the gatekeepers of both sex and commitment

That's actually pretty normal until a certain age; here's my take on it for the average man/woman:


Women can easily find sex, but men are the gatekeepers of commitment.

I know that's a staple of TRP, but disagree with it to an extent.

Think of it: women have higher standards and feel less (intrinsic) pressure to mate than men. As a consequence, they're more likely to hold out for a better man as long as they think they can afford it (i.e. during their teens and 20s). Some women abstain from sex and relationships, others hope to bone their way into relationships (only to get dumped), others again fuck reasonably hot but otherwise not very datable guys if they feel the need. But all of these types have in common that they try to partner up with a guy who is overall more attractive than they actually can get.

Now of course not all women fail with that tactic, and it's also not as if all women behaved that way, but this situation certainly influences the SMP: Due to the fact that many women think they can afford to hedge her bets on dating up, a female is less likely to date a male who is the same percentile of overall attractiveness as she is than vice versa. Even when he is willing to commit to her.

Because men on the other hand are far more willing to compromise in that regard; and if they have internalized the feminine imperative (i.e. most guys these days), they're looking for commited relationships out of their own free will. I.e. they don't use commitment as a bargaining chip, but are offering it to any woman they fancy without strings attached.

However, even though the tide turns slowly over the years (as men gather relationship experience, they become gradually more comfortable with asking for more earlier on), the true gamechanger comes around the wall. Because once they reach that point, women start to actually desire commitment more than men: they realize their biological clock is ticking, that they finally have to settle down before it's too late. However, due to the fact that they aren't alone, the tables are turned against them, probably for the first time: basically, every year you get a new age group of wall-hitters who have postponed settling down until it's too late (now we all know the NAWALT stories of how individual women started blossom only in their late 20s and where more desired when they should have hit the wall, but regardless of these outlier stories, women collectively are in a harder place around that age than they ever were before).

The men in the same age group who up until that point were mostly in an inferior position when it came to dating suddenly get the upper hand: not only do they have younger women who are potentially open to the idea of dating them, but also women of the same age (and also a few older ones) who are far more compliant and interested than they ever were before: it's at that point that male commitment truly becomes as valuable as TRP says it is; and a man may be able to poach a (matured, but still good-looking) woman in a higher percentile of attractiveness when he's willing to wife her up.

[–]Jani1157 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Thanks, it just dawned on me that "Commitment with no strings attached," is to women what "sex with no strings attached" is to us.

[–]Schrodingersdawg 113 points114 points  (25 children)

That he fulfills none of the requirements identified by evolutionary psychologists as what women supposedly look for in mates—he’s neither rich nor tall; he also lives with his mom—doesn’t seem to have any effect on his ability to get rampantly laid. In his iPhone, he has a list of more than 40 girls he has “had relations with, rated by [one to five] stars…. It empowers them,” he jokes. “It’s a mix of how good they are in bed and how attractive they are.”

Topkek. Attitude above all

“They say in their profiles, ‘No shirtless pictures,’ but that’s bullshit,” says Nick, the same as above. “The day I switched to a shirtless picture with my tattoos, immediately, within a few minutes, I had, like, 15 matches.”

Insert "women don't know what they want" here

[–]cdtCPTret 47 points48 points  (12 children)

Found the same thing about shirtless pics. Immediate matches. Nothing new I guess.

[–]vicious_armbar 33 points34 points  (4 children)

Same deal. Women loved muscled up shirtless pics. What puzzles me is why they pretend that they don't.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face 77 points78 points  (1 child)

Because it destroys their good girl image.

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (4 children)

Oh look, somehow you dropped this part:

Nick, with his lumbersexual beard and hipster clothes, as if plucked from the wardrobe closet of Girls, is, physically speaking, a modern male ideal.

Wow, maybe it's not attitude, it's looks. Nick is apparently ripped and muscular. Also, the woman says he's not tall, which in woman probably means he's 5'11'', but even if he's not, he just posts pictures of his muscles and that's enough for women.

[–]RedHeimdall 82 points83 points  (0 children)

he's not tall, which in woman probably means he's 5'11''

Lol he also has a small dick at only 7" and he doesn't make much money, only $100k.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Insert "women don't know what they want" here

They know what they want. And it's not any beta dumb enough to actually believe what they say they want.

[–]through_a_ways 103 points104 points  (14 children)

Analyze this article, and you'll see "Women are Wonderful" throughout the entire thing.

The whole narrative is about how Tinder devalues women, and women are complaining how they aren't "treated like priorities".

There's absolutely zero mention of the hordes of beta/unattractive men out there. Women are always the victim.

[–][deleted] 81 points82 points  (0 children)

Because the men in the bottom 80% don't exist.

[–]IGoYouStayTwoAutumns 73 points74 points  (5 children)

Exactly: the article interviewed a few alphas and then a whole bunch of women. Looks like they skipped the part where they interview the betas and the guys are all like, "Yeah, I've been swiping right all day long here for a few weeks now, got like 3 matches so far, none have written back yet but I'm still hoping!!"

Granted in NYC the odds are heavily in your favor (as a man) but still, this article was almost a parody of itself. Like: "Meet Mr Awesome, only 25 years old, President of Big Cock Capital and Yacht Racer Extraordinaire... Women are dying to have sex with him right and left, but for some WEIRD reason, he just DOESN'T want to settle down!! So I interviewed him and asked him why..." I mean Jesus...

[–]Rooi_Aap 26 points27 points  (4 children)

This is what makes Trainwreck such a fantasy film. There is a Chad(s) throwing commitment to Ms Below Average, and she is the "commitment phobe."

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Yeah exactly pure fantasy for females.

[–]SexistFlyingPig 35 points36 points  (0 children)

women aren't "treated like priorities".

Bitch, you're a woman in your 20's on Tinder. Unless you're a 1 or a 2, somebody is going to want to talk to you. If you're a 5, you're getting hit on by 8's. If you're an 8+ just about everyone is willing to put you as a priority. So how do you sort 'em out? You don't actually have a good sense of taste in what makes a good man, so you base it on which guy won't talk to you, because that must mean you're below him!

bwa hah hah hah.

[–]Redpillc0re 20 points21 points  (3 children)

They neglect to mention how all the "Women-first" anti-tinder apps launched (in which women get to initiate contact) have failed miserably. Not because men don't use them (men will follow wherever they see women going, like sheep), but because women don't want to use them. The psychosis and cognitive dissonance of modern feminist writing is enough to make your mind explode.

[–]Endorsed Contributorgekkozorz 3 points4 points  (1 child)

What ever happened to those apps anyway? I remember reading about how these "women-first" apps were going to "revolutionize online dating" and all that. Are they still a thing?

Edit: this answers my question: https://archive.is/bXGuw

Basically, even though it's an app specifically designed to give women the first move... women don't make the first move.

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

Where's the cry for the men who get 1/10th the matches, likes, and follows? Tinder is brutal for 50% of men

[–]IGoYouStayTwoAutumns 90 points91 points  (24 children)

Been in LA for the past 2 years but before that lived in NYC for 12 (downtowner, in Tribeca), 39 years old now and absolutely couldn't agree more re: the "dating" scene in NYC. Tinder wasn't quite out yet when I was there, it was all Match and OKC but regardless, you had like 6 single women to every 1 single guy (or 10 to 1, some kind of outrageous ratio like that), as a result I was doing EXTREMELY well in the hooking up department, but when it came to any kind of real, honest, meaningful relationship, forget it. Hell, when it even came to DATING (like, just going on a single "date”—taking a woman out to dinner, or an art opening, or a play or whatever), forget it, they just don't want it. There is no wall in NYC: women ride the carousel from the moment they arrive until about 44, and then one morning they wake up, get two cats and call it quits. That's it--there is no “seeking a beta” phase, it's just alpha fucks all the way and then a hard slam into the wall right at the end.

And you know, the funniest thing is: myself and most of the guys I knew, we were actually LOOKING for relationships. Or at least open to the idea. Running around is fine in your 20s and early 30s, but once you get to the mid-30s it's like, "OK, I'd really like to see someone for longer than 2 weeks here, just to know what it's like, so let's see if I can find a great gal and girlfriend her up, let’s just try for something longer term and see how it goes..." And then the craziest thing, you'd think the girls would WANT this (since, you know, they all say they're not looking for casual sex with random strangers, that they really do want a real relationship with somebody great), but when you offer that to them, or even suggest it, they're gone--it's an instant ghosting. And we're not talking about a desperate “BE MY GIRLFRIEND!!" here, we're talking about, "Hey, let’s grab a bite sometime…” And the younger the girl, the more horrified they'll be at the mere suggestion of anything that even resembles a date. Text her at 1:30am and have her come over for a quickie (then boot her out 20 min later) and she's totally fine with that; suggest that you go out some place and, you know, TALK to each other for a bit, and good God, you might as well have suggested the two of you run a barefoot marathon through a field of broken glass...

And it's not even an SMV thing either--I was rockin' and rollin' back in NYC, kicking ass in my career, best shape of my life etc but it just didn't matter, the girls, despite all their protests to the contrary, just didn't want to be locked down, and "dating" (in the traditional sense), as far as they saw it, was just a step in that direction. Casual sex, fine, but don't you dare suggest that you two go somewhere and do something fun together, because that might mean you LIKE her, which clearly means you're a beta, which means she shouldn't be having sex with you, which means you're out. Wasn't just me, every guy I knew in NYC had the exact same experience--and some of these guys were EXTREMELY high SMV, like top of the pyramid, and still, nothing. Couldn’t hold a girl for more than a few hookups, maybe 2 or 3 weeks tops (if that). Women just didn't want to date--they wanted to have their little harem of bad boys, 4 to 6 Chads at any given time, swap out 1 or 2 every few weeks, repeat for 25 years, hit the wall and retire alone.

To be fair I had an AMAZING time with the women in NYC (and I tell every guy I know that, if he's never lived there, now's the time to go, the ratio is just getting better and better for men)—don't mean for this to come off as any kind of rant at all, as I really did have a great time back there. I think in the end what really pisses me off about articles like these, however, is the GROSS misrepresentation of women: they interview a few Chads, who giggle at how easy all the girls in NYC are, and then they interview a few oh-so-innocent young women (professional careers girls!! We're so awesome, we're gonna take the world by storm!!), who endlessly lament, "Oh gosh golly gee whiz, I'd love to go out on DATES, fall in love, and have a real relationship with a great guy, but all the guys want is sex sex sex, sooo..." Um, no--all the girls want is sex sex sex (the notch count for NYC women is now a badge of honor, they are competing with each other to see who can hook up with the most guys simultaneously, seriously, they're far worse than the men now), and on those few occasions when the guy actually LIKES the girl and tries to get her out on a proper date, even suggesting it, he's ghosted instantly. Saw this time and time again… (This is the hilarious Catch 22, actually—girls, I believe, actually DO want to go on dates, but the thing is they only want to go on dates with Chad, and if you’re on a date with Chad, then you’re not actually with “Chad” at all, because Chad, by definition of being Chad, does not go on dates… It’s rather like one of those Zen koans, if you think about it…)

So yeah, the new thinking is: only betas go on dates, alphas just hit it and quit it (and kick you out 5 min later), and we all know which of those two the ladies prefer. Girlfriends (in NYC anyway) are a thing of the past: it's just random hookups from here on out. (And don't even get me started on LA...!!)

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points  (0 children)

There is no wall in NYC: women ride the carousel from the moment they arrive until about 44, and then one morning they wake up, get two cats and call it quits. That's it--there is no “seeking a beta” phase, it's just alpha fucks all the way and then a hard slam into the wall right at the end.

Fuckin brilliant summary right here.

Women just didn't want to date--they wanted to have their little harem of bad boys, 4 to 6 Chads at any given time, swap out 1 or 2 every few weeks, repeat for 25 years, hit the wall and retire alone.

YUP. Women are not monogamous. They just pretend they are.

(This is the hilarious Catch 22, actually—girls, I believe, actually DO want to go on dates, but the thing is they only want to go on dates with Chad, and if you’re on a date with Chad, then you’re not actually with “Chad” at all, because Chad, by definition of being Chad, does not go on dates… It’s rather like one of those Zen koans, if you think about it…)

This + your entire comment is incredibly thoughtful, I would like you to make some posts on here dude.

[–]HS-Thompson 13 points14 points  (0 children)

There is no wall in NYC: women ride the carousel from the moment they arrive until about 44, and then one morning they wake up, get two cats and call it quits. That's it--there is no “seeking a beta” phase, it's just alpha fucks all the way and then a hard slam into the wall right at the end.

I can vouch for this statement as an extremely accurate description of NYC.

[–]vali1005 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Actually, I do want to hear what you have to say about L.A. :) (been an L.A. resident for 18 years now)

[–]aptway[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ditto. Moved to LA 3 1/2 years ago, so your experience is relevant to my interests.

[–]my_sfw_alias 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Fucking nyc girls.. I mean what really motivates a woman to leave everything she has ever known for dreams of material wealth in nyc?

[–]douglas_p 7 points8 points  (0 children)

They call NYC "The Graveyard For Ovaries" for a reason.

[–]icanhazTRP 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Make it four. You should write about LA and compare it with your NY experience.

[–]Letesse 3 points3 points [recovered]

"6 single women to every 1 single guy"....why does NYC have this ratio?

[–]FortunateBum 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Major cities are full of soft harems masquerading as businesses. Young guys find it harder to get work. It's easier to even get an apartment since more people want female roommates as compared to male roommates. And being a woman, you can just not pay for all sorts of things. Some girls can get free cars.

[–]1Ronin11A 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Huge city nightlife, major media exposure (Sex and the City), fashion/modeling capital. It just pulls women in from adjacent states.

[–]Zachar1a 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Please tell us about LA!!! I am thinking of moving there.

[–]russtafarian10 58 points59 points  (6 children)

"Sex should stem from emotional intimacy, and it’s the opposite with us right now, and I think it really is kind of destroying females’ self-images,” says Fallon.

First they want to have as much sex as they want in the name of sexual freedom. Now they've got that, they cry over not being taken seriously for relationships. By all means jump on the CC, but don't cry when no one decent wants to wife your used up ass.

You reap what you sow.

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

They want it every which fucking way.

Society: But gee, let's make this one more change, it will surely placate them and we'll never hear of this again! retarded smile with fucked up teeth

[–]Redpillc0re 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Historically women don't reap just what they sow, they also leech as much as they can get away with.

[–]Red-Zen 51 points51 points [recovered]

Young women complain that young men still have the power to decide ...

This bears deeper rumination. Women are complaining that men have agency in their relationships. Women want to take that agency away from men.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face 36 points37 points  (3 children)

Of course they do. That's the whole point.

Taking agency away from powerful sexy men, and making them want her above all else. Find the sexiest man EVER, and turn him into the best provider EVER. That's the dream.

[–]redpilldude 86 points87 points  (69 children)

If you're in the top 20%, online dating is a gold mine. Take your pick of who you want to fuck- just make sure to be Chad.

Absolutely. Guys in the top 20% are drowning in pussy, and all the other guys are starving.

Obviously the problem is that women only want to have sex with the best guys, which means that Chads all have harems and everyone else isn't getting anything.

[–][deleted] 86 points87 points  (24 children)

This is female nature truly unleashed. I don't get how we're literally the only people who know this.

[–]netgrey 63 points63 points [recovered]

Only women and the 20% know about this outside of trp.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (1 child)

And the women ain't telling nobody.

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

Women and secrets are like a horse and carriage.

[–][deleted] 47 points48 points  (7 children)

IT's fucking amazing, isn't it? You read this entire article and get the idea that they have no idea. The conclusion the article is trying to draw is that men aren't able to handle tinder because men aren't mature enough to go into relationships. They have no clue that they're only talking about the top 20% of men, they're just oblivious to it. If they got what they wanted, they still wouldn't get what they wanted. If those top 20% started dating any girl they fucked off tinder, they'd be taken out of the dating pool within a month, and the majority of the poor, put upon women, would be stuck with the bottom 80% of men they don't want, and just go back to complaining about how there are no good men left.

[–]HappyHerpes 7 points8 points  (5 children)

I wonder about that. What would happen if the top 20% got out of the dating pool?

Me bet would be the women would readjust to the new market and to after the "new" top 20%.

[–]1APookIsAPook 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Men in the new 20% would begin acting similar to the old 20% once they suddenly have an abundance mentality.

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

it's like being the baller in a little town. you're not really a baller, but comparatively you are. if are surrounded by losers, you'll be hot shit. women respond to the boss, even if you're just lording over a bunch of skinny dungeons and dragons type of incels.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face 19 points20 points  (2 children)

Because to men who don't act like we do, the idea that women could be fantastically easy to bed is a fantasy. You might as well be talking about Santa Claus. Even when men literally see it in action from me I've only seen them rationalize it as me "going after a particular type of girl" (utter bunk).

The idea is so strongly ingrained in society that women are perfectly innocent sex angels and everything bad they do is ultimately the fault of men.

[–]quelques_heures 13 points14 points  (0 children)

That's because if you acknowledge the biological imperative of human females you're a sexist MRA troll misogynist who wants to control womyn's sexuality, instead of, you know, a rational person capable of interpreting the actions and intentions of other people.

[–][deleted] 22 points22 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Dravous 6 points7 points  (0 children)

we can reason. but there's a fine line between reason and rationalization, and crossing it isn't that hard.

[–]turmoggy 19 points20 points  (4 children)

There's no middle of the pack guy. You have chad and then you have the rest. 90% percent of the woman want 10% of the chads. The rest have to fight for the scraps.

[–]my_sfw_alias 17 points18 points  (3 children)

I'm here for the scraps. I've got my magnum condom, wad of hundreds and I'm ready to plow.

[–]averageredditor123 5 points6 points  (13 children)

Why does everyone say top 20%? It's probably more like top 5%.

[–]enkae7317 74 points75 points  (24 children)

Welcome to the SJW society.

[–]Hoodwink 35 points35 points [recovered]

I'm really wondering how family life is going to look like in the future.

[–][deleted] 49 points50 points  (14 children)

I'm not a religious man, but I thanked God when I found out my child was going to be a boy. I didn't name him Chad, but at least our last name is already Thundercock.

Point is, raising a girl in today's society has got to be one of the most challenging things I can think of.

[–]ferengiprophet 22 points23 points  (3 children)

Raising girls in today's environment is not worth it. Despite of all the time, resources, and effort you spend on her, chances are she'll grow up to become an empowered cum dumpster promiscuous girl like a lot of women out there.

[–]PlanB_pedofile 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is probably why fathers invented arranged marriages to curtail such a thing.

[–]NecroticFury 9 points10 points  (5 children)

raise her with standards, eventually she will place them on herself. Less problems would exist if more women were introspective.

[–]1thiasus 16 points17 points  (2 children)

raise her with standards

That's the challenging part. You can raise her with standards, but you'd be fighting against the immense mass of bad influence that modern culture consitutes. Media, the internet, her friends, possibly even her relatives will provide her with plenty of negative models, pressures and incentives towards being a slut.

[–]PlanB_pedofile 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Point is, raising a girl in today's society has got to be one of the most challenging things I can think of

I have a daughter. I know my challenge ahead. I think I'm going with the redpill truth amount. Give her the sex talk, tell her that men won't commit if she puts out too easy. Sleep with too many men and no one will want to marry her or consider her for marriage. Let her be aware that just because she's a girl, there will be betas, orbiters, and thirsty men.

Or hope and pray that she inherits her mother's celibacy and holds onto her virginity till she's 23.

[–]Mouthpiece 9 points10 points  (0 children)

at least our last name is already Thundercock

So you took your wife's last name then?

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (4 children)

For a bit I thought SJW stood for 'single jaded women'.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It does, but that's being honest and thus misogynistic. Hahaha

[–]Jack_Sophmore 38 points39 points  (3 children)

Interesting read. It's an apt comparison that the dating market has become online commerce. Basically you can be the lower 80% and be like shop owners that can't compete and go out of business. Or you can be the top 20% and winner take all like you're fucking Amazon.com drowing in pussy.

[–]TomDemian 11 points11 points [recovered]

Great analogy. I had this internet slapfight going with a guy who hates Amazon because he works for an independent bookseller. He's a huge liberal and you can just see the beta mindset at work. I destroyed him with logic over and over again and I think I'm shadowbanned from the books subreddit because of it. Oops.

The beta mindset really seems to come down to "this thing I'm doing should work because I feel more comfortable when I'm doing it". They're never willing to do what actually works because that makes them uncomfortable.

Like if you worked at a bookstore and you saw that the future of books is probably going to be 95% digital like every other form of media... the uncomfortable thing to do would be to find another line of work, because you're going to be forced to do so in the future anyway. An alpha mindset would have that person immediately start looking for a new career, a beta mindset would have them "wait and see" until it was too late.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 34 points35 points  (5 children)

New York sounds like modern Sodom & Gomorrah. When everyone is zigging it's time to start zagging. When everyone is buying in it's the right time to sell out. Did you realize that they wrote that entire article without mentioning disease or pregnancy a single time? It's almost a fete. There are 20 million new cases of STD transmission every year in the US.

Liberated feminist-indoctrinated women are human cum-dumpsters engaged in a death cult. Disease, loneliness, depression, abortion, and life long regret and an inability to feel love and commitment is the prize for their ideological crime. I applaud all of our red pill warriors risking disease, false-rape accusations, and pregnancy entrapment to deal a death blow to feminism's hateful ideology, one vagina at a time.

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

It is a death cult, almost satanic if you ask me. Solipsism is actually one tenant of satanism that is forbidden by it's practitioners yet used as tool for control.

[–]CruiseCruise 29 points29 points [recovered]

Sex should stem from emotional intimacy

I cant remember the last time I heard that in pop culture.

It actually looks kind of weird to see that written down, actually. All i see in pop culture is women saying it's silly to want intimacy and has nothing to do with sex anyway.

huh...

[–]ferengiprophet 20 points21 points  (0 children)

lol they say that to beta males while getting pounded by chad.

[–]LionLaw 28 points29 points  (13 children)

Pretty much just serves as motivation to get into the top 20. Fuck it, I'm goin for the top 10

[–]Squeezymypenisy 28 points29 points  (8 children)

People watch for one hour in a crowded area and you will see it is not as hard as you think. So many guys are beta and many others are doing MGTOW.

[–][deleted] 35 points35 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Squeezymypenisy 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Makes sense. I never really got into clubs, my scene was more bars or just cold approaches. My favorite thing is LTR though, you get one that will follow you anywhere and then bring her to the gym.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

In America? If you're not overweight you're in the top 40. Get jacked and you've hit the top 20. Learn to smirk right and perfect your (everyone's is different, mesh it with your personality) game, you're there.

[–]Squeezymypenisy 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yea America is not to hard. It's like 75 percent of men are overweight. You can even be ripped or look like david beckham body and pull.

[–]watersign 26 points27 points  (4 children)

what they dont talk about is how the hoards of beta orbiters are going nuts not getting any luck on tinder and uh....going on school shooting rampages lol

[–]Endorsed Contributorgekkozorz 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Notice how MGTOWs and male 80%ers are completely absent from this story. The article is all about how sad women are because they're sharing a small number of good looking alpha investment bankers with 10" penises. The author seems under the impression the the way to solve this problem is with less sexism, but I don't think she understands the larger number problem going on here. There are simply not enough women to pair them off with the small number of alphas available.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 50 points51 points  (4 children)

Oh fine, I'll do one quote. From a female Professor of Sociology:

For young women the problem in navigating sexuality and 
... skip hamstering...Young women complain that young men
still have the power to decide when something is going to be
serious and when something is not

No. Chad has the power to decide when something is going to be serious and when it's not. All other men are given the choice of "commitment or get the fuck out", manifesting as their pre-sex demands and the high costs (time and resources) of dating females for normal men.

[–]through_a_ways 26 points27 points  (1 child)

All other men are given the choice of "commitment or get the fuck out"

At least until the girl in question hits 28.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 11 points12 points  (0 children)

At least until the girl in question hits 28.

Especially when the girl in question hits 28.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (1 child)

Those men of course don't exist to them. Just like men had "soooo good in the past". Sure lots of them were dying in hellish wars by the millions and suffocating in coal mines, but .00001% got to rule everyone! (nevermind their queen)

[–]collidoscope 24 points25 points  (3 children)

All of the Chads in the article are banging hordes of chicks, but the author points out that the average number of partners per person has gone down. It appears that the rich have gotten richer, as they say. Let's say a certain number of guys are pulling astronomical number of lays, you'd think the average for all guys would go up because you have the top % who are killing it. It turns the top has the market so cornered, they've driven the average down! Think about that for a second.  

I find it interesting that towards the end, the author tries to give the dark cloud a silver lining by quoting some academics who are calling the Tinder dating scene "sex positive". What I see is the sexes playing the dating game in a world where feminists have set the rules and very few are left satisfied.  

I was expecting the article to cover some non-Chads. You know, to show that not every guy is getting 50 bangs a year off Tinder. Show how the non-Chads feel about the Tinder generation. Guess what? Non-Chads are nowhere to be found. Because to the author they literally don't exist. Instead she points out a rock star who has been banging girls since Craigslist casual encounters. Tough times for the 80%...

[–]BachelorYYC 9 points9 points [recovered]

Collodoscope: Here is the irony of modern Western society. The Lefties are so bothered about the concentration of wealth into few hands but have actively created the concentration of sex into too few males. And, as most men would agree, they would rather be poor with lots of quality pussy than rich an celibate. Hence, an injustice all around.

[–]Hoodtrackathlete 17 points18 points  (7 children)

Reading this piece of shit article depressed the fuck out of me. What the fuck has humanity done to end up in such a sorry state? Men are responsible for this bullshit?? Oh do tell. I hate bitches, and I mean that. You have to turn yourself into a god among men to get above average pussy and women get to skate by as is because they were gifted with tits, ass and a pussy. God help us.

[–]Tqbfjotlds 10 points10 points [recovered]

Reading this piece of shit article depressed the fuck out of me. What the fuck has humanity done to end up in such a sorry state?

I guess humanity decided to follow the female impeitive, which by its very nature destroys everything.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Gotta love how the victim mentality has managed to become the default in every situation now. "These poor women are getting used and abused for sex". Women have the power, but because Chad won't commit, they're the real victims....in other words when discussing men and women they automatically think Chad. Never mind poor beta bob who can't even get a single date off of tinder.

It's also funny how people seem so shocked and disappointed that being a cum dumpster didn't empower women in the way they thought it would. The irony is that the real winners are all the Chads out there who can take advantage of the $1.99 all you can eat pussy buffet that third-wave feminism has created

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

Yep...the people the "feminist" movement helped the most? Misogynistic philanderers!

The irony really is just too much.

[–]Modredpillschool 14 points15 points  (1 child)

I love this.. "men still have the power to decide when something is going to be serious and when something is not" is considered evidence that there "is still gender inequality."

Hear that? Gender equality is when women call the shots on who men date.

[–]ferengiprophet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They're aiming for supremacy and use words like "equality" to draw support from gullible men and women. Feminists and SJWs are masters at using language to get what they want while simultaneously suppressing it to prevent their ideological opponents from attacking them.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorVasiliyZaitzev 14 points15 points  (5 children)

For young women the problem in navigating sexuality and relationships is still gender inequality....

Translation: "Women don't get everything they want, all the time, with no cost to them."

“It seems like the girls don’t have any control over the situation, and it should not be like that at all,” Fallon says."

As it turns out, we're not playing "Should'ves".

Women got everything they wanted. And they're STILL not happy.....

[–]mrpCamper 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Women got everything they wanted. And they're STILL not happy.....

The sooner you realize the absolute truth in this the happier YOU will be. go talk to any guy.. literally any guy who has been married for over 10 years.

[–]skoobled 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Should is a word that should be banned

See what I did there? Boom boom

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Give them what they ask for and they're miserable. It makes sense in a way, because people crave what they can't have, the more effort required to get it the more value it has. If it's easy or common then it's not a problem to get it, so no worries about it.

Girls don't want to work for it, but it has to be special so they can feel special. That's why they perceive themselves as higher status when they have a high status man. He is special so she feels special too. It's not special if it's given away or everyone has one. That's basic human nature among all of us.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorVasiliyZaitzev 4 points5 points  (1 child)

You know when my plates are happiest? When I tell them what to do. It gives them a hierarchical structure that they understand and like b/c they understand what is expected of them (show up, look pretty, enjoy whatever I have selected for that evening's entertainment, and do whatever I want them to do, sexually), without the burden of leadership or decision-making.

[–]vicious_armbar 11 points12 points  (1 child)

“It seems like the girls don’t have any control over the situation, and it should not be like that at all,” Fallon says.

Yeah women totally don't decide if they're going to have sex with a man. Hey wait a minute...!!!!

[–]skoobled 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Can you imagine the uproar if men were quoted saying "it's so unfair that women get to decide if they want to fuck me or not". Lollercoaster

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (8 children)

Read the entire article. Cheap sex works for good looking guys who fit the mold of what women are raised to want. I used tinder for 3 months and swiped right around 2000 women and got back 3 replies from trolls.

I don't feel sorry for women who only fucked the top 20 percent and wonder why they will be single at 30's 40's 50's. I don't want sloppy seconds from you discovering your sexuality.

[–]thewrightstuff88 5 points6 points  (7 children)

It's not even being raised, its their nature, women are genetically prone to leaning towards guys like "chad." This behavior has its own evolutionary origins which have been explained on this sub a lot and it makes sense. Media isn't helping by mixing "how chad looks" with what "billy beta" does

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (2 children)

For young women the problem in navigating sexuality and relationships

Young women complain that young men still have the power to decide when something is going to be serious and when something is not—they can go, ‘She’s girlfriend material, she’s hookup material.’

It seems like the girls don’t have any control over the situation

it really is kind of destroying females’ self-images

But if you say any of this out loud, it’s like you’re weak, you’re not independent, you somehow missed the whole memo about third-wave feminism

All of which only makes sense if you accept the premise that women do not have agency.

[–]RPthrowaway123 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Exactly. And if men complain that women still have all the power to decide whether they're going to have sex or not, they're both complete pussies and anti-women for thinking they're "entitled" to sex.

They have control over the sexual aspect of every relationship already, but it's not enough. They want to control the sex and the commitment.

The double standard is real. If there's one thing I've learned from TRP it's that your commitments is valuable and you can't afford to give even an inch of that up. They will take a mile.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Jesus Christ these 25 year old guys in NYC are banging girls within 20 minutes of meeting them on Tinder. Crazy times indeed. Wow. That's why feminists are up in arms about it, the guys are getting all the free sex they want..

Guys who pay on dates are really suckers nowadays.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I've heard of cases where they'll use a guy for dinner, and bounce off to meet Chad via Tinder afterwards.

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

Yeah the classic dinner date + alpha fuck literally showing BB/AF

[–]snyderkurva 7 points8 points  (1 child)

“Yeah,” Danielle agrees. “Like last night I was having sex with this guy, and I’m a very submissive person—like, not aggressive at all—and this boy that came over last night, he was hurting me.” They were quiet a moment.

I smell rape accusation!

[–]Riddick_ 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Extract from the V article - remember this boyz: “Ew, this guy has Dad bod,” a young woman says of a potential match, swiping left.

[–]new-me123 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Just motivates me to shred more weight (final 10kg's ant wait) and get swole and slay tinder sluts

Blessing in disguise really, commitment is for jerks

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

“Sex should stem from emotional intimacy"

this if female code fpr "men should only be fucking after they are fully hypnotized in to being a beta bitch"

[–]wtfdizzy 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ah, I see someone else surfs Hacker News!

I read this article last night when I got home from work. Had basically the same thoughts that OP shared with us. I do, however, want to bring forth a comment from the original HN thread:

Let's be honest here, feelings of being devalued have everything to do with putting capital ahead of personality. Capital comes in many forms and in the case of Tinder, from the heterosexual male perspective, the goal is to acquire sexual capital (i.e. "fuck hot chicks").

However, as someone said, the door swings both ways, but the way women devalue men is far more subtle. From the perspective of the heterosexual female, the goal is to acquire mating capital (i.e. "catch a husband or sugar daddy"). What's mating capital? It's a man who is an ideal mate: good genes and conditions to be a provider (good job/career or money/power).

A guy being primarily interested in a woman because she has a great body and a pretty face is really no different than a woman being interested in a financially stable guy with a good job that is taller than her.

The double standard in articles like the one posted is that somehow it's bad if heterosexual men are out to acquire sexual capital but somehow it's totally acceptable for women to seek out mating capital.

How often do you see that it's perfectly acceptable for a women to reject a guy based on his height or the fact that he might be showing early signs of male pattern baldness. I'm tall and still have my hair, so I benefit from such "de-valuing", but I also recognize that for the same crap that guys get judged negatively for.

I recently came out of a relationship where I was clearly not a good fit long term for my partner because we had different values, life goals and lifestyle preferences. For example, I'm poly and she was monogamous. I eventually persuaded her to date another guy, who ended up meeting her needs in all the ways I didn't. Yet she still preferred me because I "had my shit together" and was a better option when it comes to raising a child. Because of that she couldn't imagine being with the other guy.

At the end of the day, heterosexual women treat men as options too. The difference is that the capital that heterosexual women seek in men needs to be far more "durable" value than that which heterosexual men seek in women.

Basically repeating what we all know: women willingly open their legs to an Alpha, and are willing to share him just for the opportunity.

(Emphasis mine)

[–]2johnnight 6 points7 points  (1 child)

they can go, ‘She’s girlfriend material, she’s hookup material.’ … There is still a pervasive double standard.

No, there is absolutely not. Women have the power to make exactly the same decisions. And they do.

It's just that they value the options differently then men and they resent men having power over their own ... bodies. They want to rape men, it's just a different form of rape.

[–]scarletspider3 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I can't believe she actually said that the problem is that "men still have the power to decide when something is going to be serious and when it's not". In other words she's mad that Feminism still hasn't taken away free will from men.

[–]Riddick_ 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The top 20% is structured like this: 10% or less guys with real money, and 10% Chads that have IDAGF, abundance (2-5 hood hoes they can bang on command), and tight game. This includes bad-boys, dealers/convicts, fighters/athletes and bi-sexual guys. The rest 80% are average beta peasants that are stuck with nothing for life, eating left overs, doing all the work and paying the bills... forever in debt. Forever in chains, they don't even know it.

The 80%: These guys are labelled pathetic, undesirable, losers, invisible, get no respect. If they have an average job, beta, average bod, beta, any remains of emotion, beta. Drive a sensible Japanese/American sedan, beta. These underlings are guilty even for suggesting they exist. Beta sentenced for Life. My point - These guys are so invisible they are not even considered in this article.

Here is the thing. These so called women are actually fucking themselves out of the gene pool. And Chad won't make any progress either, because educated/empowered TinderSlutTM will abort them all. As their SMV falls and Notch Count increases - the only real option they have is to support themselves and con others to contribute: family, relatives, beta raped in divorce, the state, business, etc.. This is not sustainable by any means. But don't worry - China and India will be ready to come over and "help" out. This is end times, indeed.

[edit/update] in my own experience, this rumoured 20% is more like 10-5%.

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

If you a girl and think tinder shifted the power of dating AWAY from you then you really have a feminist complex. I workout regularly, am 6'3 and above average in looks. Have no problem getting matches. But the short chubby do nothing girl I work with? Can land a hundred in a day if she wants. Women have more power then ever before. The difference is they don't want all of those matches, they want the few at the top.

If you're one of those guys tinder is great. Can literally get sex with a new girl on a weeks notice and no investment. If you want a relationship then it's also not a bad option. Can shop around much more than in the past. But if you want a relationship with a top guy? That's where the power dynamic gets turned.

Another example of women not realizing the majority of men exist

[–]5pecial 18 points18 points [recovered]

I'm not sure the top 20% are drowning in pussy. Maybe the top 2%, but not the top 20%. Of course, I live somewhere where there are a lot more men than women.

[–]aptway[S] 27 points28 points  (14 children)

Agreed, 20% is really generous. The Pareto Principle, applied here, means that it's more likely 20% of the 20%. So if we're talking 100 guys, it's 20% of 20, so 4 guys out of the 100 have Harems, the guys in-between probably have a few here and there, and the bottom 80 get nothing.

[–]collidoscope 25 points26 points  (5 children)

I'm a screenwriter and my mentor explained it like this:  

If you're a 10, you will work 100% of the time.
If you're a 9, you will work 20% of the time.
If you're an 8, you won't find work.  

Sounds like a similar situation.

[–]Senior Contributorexit_sandman 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah, 20% doesn't really cut it.

Let's assume the following: a woman wants a man who...

  • ...has facial aesthetics above the median (let's simply assume that you could objectively rate the faces of all guys on a scale)
  • ...has physical aesthetics above the median (same caveat)
  • ...is as tall as the median or taller
  • ...earns at least as much as the median

Assuming there was no correlation whatsoever between these four items, this alone reduces the amount of eligible men to 1 in 16. And this doesn't even account for the following:

  • we're talking about a guy who isn't necessarily great, but just barely made the cut to be average or better on these four items. For example if she wants a man who is not chubby or worse, the number goes down; if he should be ripped, it goes down even further. If she wants a guy who's at least 6', the numbers go down. If she wants a guy who makes at least 6 figures, the numbers go down. And so on.
  • the guy needs confidence and game in order to capitalize on his qualities.
  • the average woman will prioritize certain groups for her search and outright dismiss others regardless of how well they rate on these four items: age (most women generally prefer guys closer to their own age and only entertain the idea of an older/younger guy if he seriously aces her other requirements), ethnicity (women who won't date particular ethnicities) and type (women who won't date gingers/baldies/guys with glasses etc.).
  • ...and compatibility (of education, of interests, sexual, intellectual, etc.) isn't even included in that list.

So yeah, that's why many guys are frustrated with the dating scene. Being good doesn't cut it.

[–]nativeofspace 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I couldn't care less what any of these people think. It's genuinely a waste of my time and yours to listen to their thoughts or ideas. They could work their entire lives and not contribute an iota of value to society.

[–]ChiefReap 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I just search for novelty. I'd rather have a new 7 than an old 10 haha. I'm fucked up. Easy to dread though when you genuinely get bored.

[–][deleted] 20 points20 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]collidoscope 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Guess I'll have to get on that traveling model career. Thanks for the pro-tip!

[–]Redasshole 3 points4 points  (0 children)

“For young women the problem in navigating sexuality and relationships is still gender inequality, Young women complain that young men still have the power to decide when something is going to be serious and when something is not—they can go, ‘She’s girlfriend material, she’s hookup material.’ … There is still a pervasive double standard. We need to puzzle out why women have made more strides in the public arena than in the private arena.”

Women has the unfair advantage of choosing if sex happens or not. There is still a pervasive double standard. We need to make sure women have no power whatsoever in their relationship and private life by enabling any man to choose whether or not he have sex with a woman, whether she agrees or not.

Replace women by men and sex by commitment and you get what she says.

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

Once again, the female centric media misses the mark in order to fulfill their mandate to kiss women's asses and never hold them accountable for anything.

I'm amazed by all the issues that are important to women which go unsolved because everyone has to kow tow to the feminist narrative.

They could point to real solutions here and actually help women (and men) live better lives, but they won't either because they are brainwashed or if they actually know the answer are too afraid of politically correct backlash.

It's not just this issue.

Domestic violence is a mutual violence issue. The leading catalyst to DV is alcohol abuse, but they still blame men and the patriarchy and when alcohol is mentioned they say, "That's no excuse."

Or how about anorexia. It's a kind of obsessive compulsive disorder, but the politically correct elite still want to promote their "unreasonable beauty standards" driving women to be skinny. Except anorexia has been around for hundreds of years when there were no skinny standards (and quite the opposite).

Fuck 'em. Literally. Their downfall and distress is our opportunity. Let them shoot each other in the foot. Blame us all they want, they really can't do anything to stop us now.

[–]1aguy01 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Asking ""Is this good for women?"" already implies that women understand that men benefit more from casual sex than women do. This, stupid people of the world, is why women are sluts and men are studs.

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

I just want to reiterate how glad I am to be learning about The Red Pill. These sort of news stories used to depress me and make just make me sad about my relationship potential.

Now I just read them and think about how to use the information to my advantage.

I actually think I have always been TRP, I just didn't know how to understand it.

[–]Squeezymypenisy 11 points12 points  (11 children)

Put on some muscle, hell even have a six pack and tinder is easy. You can lie about everything else and most girls are dumb enough to believe it. If you want to change the decline of man then you would need an organization similar to the New Model Army in England. Its soldiers were extremely puritan and established a very rigid society. You would have to bring back moral laws. Which I doubt would happen.

[–]1sardinemanR 7 points8 points  (10 children)

I don't think most people on here want moral laws. Moral laws generally meant you got stoned to death for adultery, and whipped for fornication.

[–]Upvote_To_The_Left 4 points5 points  (2 children)

is it just me or does that article have a very clear narrative of "guys only wana fuck and girls want commitment".

I cant relate to that at all.

[–]mrpCamper 2 points3 points  (1 child)

They wanna fuck but they want it in the guise of a commitment. Girls of the previous generation would go on a date. If they were attracted to the guy and horny but didn't want a relationship, they'd fuck him. If they were into him for a long term thing, they wouldn't sleep with him on the first date. This is a generalization but mostly true.

[–]2RedPill4LYF 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think the biggest part of the downfall of dating is how entirely slothful women have become. It pretty much isn't even an exaggeration to say they're turning into literal Jabba The Huts anymore from all the overexposure of validation they get on social media. Raise your hand if you haven't encountered a fat entitled legbeard who thinks she's sexy. Just swiping through Tinder alone you're guaranteed to see tons of them. The Huts and single mothers make up a sickening majority of the selection. Am I lying? Call me out. I dare anyone to tell me I'm full of it.

Social media clearly has detrimental affects on a woman's mental as well as physical health. It's a public health crisis. Women and social media should be a crime against humanity.

load more comments (52 replies)