450
451

Red Pill TheoryNever Feel Bad About Using Women for Sex (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by [deleted]

One of the most important rules of emotional intelligence (my version at least) is never to treat someone better than they treat you. This can be in 'micro level' interpersonal relationships or on the macro level - group to group relationships. Specifically, I'm talking about the relationship between men in general and women in general.

Most sexually attractive guys feel bad about using women for sex. We know women often want more than this, and society shames men relentlessly for this sort of behavior. If you feel bad about using women for sex, stop right now. I'll tell you why you should never feel bad for women in the dating game.

BODY

Dating, on a generalized level, is a transaction of sex for commitment. The prototypical female waits for a man to commit to her before having sex, and the prototypical male waits for a woman to be 'worthy' of commitment before he commits. The friend zone occurs when a man commits to a woman too soon, and the woman is free to use him for his commitment without giving anything in return. Women, and society, in general, have absolutely no empathy for such men - in fact, they are often mocked and abused by the very women who should, theoretically, be merciful to them.

A woman who is 'cruel' (I don't think it's cruel, personally) enough to put a man in the friend zone is essentially no different than a man who uses women for sex. Both parties fulfill their evolutionary programming at the expenses of someone who wants more. The only difference is that, while most men feel bad about using people like this, women do it gleefully with practically no guilt - in fact, they rationalize that they are doing the guy a favor. No matter how 'sweet' or 'innocent' a girl looks on the surface, almost every single one of them has played dozens of men in this way. She doesn't feel bad because of the female's naturally reduced empathy for males.

Teachers Note: It is the fact that women have reduced empathy for males that gives them greater power in the SMP... Also note, the men with the greatest empathy for women (mangina's male feminists, etc.) almost invariably lose while the men with the least (pimps, gigalos, etc) win. Those rare women who have an abnormally high empathy for males are the closest things to 'unicorns' and are the only ones suitable for LTRs - such heavy-handed tactics need not be used on such women.

CONCLUSION

When you come across this girl, and you want sex, but she wants a relationship, what will you do? You will play her just like she would have played you if the roles were reversed. And you won't feel bad about it. This message is intended for alpha males only; betas need not read or respond.


[–]1StuttBuffer 256 points257 points  (59 children)

I don't even buy that a man "plays" a girl by withholding commitment. As soon as you use the phrase "use someone for sex", you've already bought into a narrative (frame) of victimization.

Having sex with a girl obligates you to committ to her the same way giving a beer to and making small talk with a person entitles them to endless amounts of your beer and conversation. In both cases, you've given someone some degree of pleasure. The fact that they might quite like more of it does not represent any kind of obligation on your end. If anything, they should be grateful for whatever pleasantries you provided them.

Next time you "use" a girl for sex, she better say thanks.

[–]AmazingMalice 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Once had a tinder chick, who after I dropped her off back at her dorm said word-for-word: "Thanks for the fuck" kek

[–]abbafishhead 79 points80 points  (47 children)

Yeah, I've never bought into the whole idea that a man gains something while a woman loses something in sex -- why is a woman always referred to as "giving" sex while a man "getting" sex? Sex is win-win. Period.

[–]aanarchist 24 points25 points  (1 child)

just treat her the way she deserves to be treated. if she behaves like a loyal and loving girlfriend, treat her as such. if she behaves like a wild branch swinging whore, treat her as such.

also unless you're as much of a chump as op and just mindlessly thrusts away like an ape, she's definitely winning getting to experience orgasms from you.

[–]_JustASnowFlake_ 36 points37 points  (12 children)

Yes, period sex feels good for both. Win-win.

[–]Demand-A-Sacrifice 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I've experienced period sex with a few different women and I must say that shit is the tits. Unbelievably gross, but goddamn boy it sure feels good.

[–]MagicGainbow 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Somebody got their red wings lol.

[–]mdcrubengonza 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Up there with pregnant sex.

[–]ValhallaShores 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Up there with asian tranny lubed latex furry pegging... my friend told me... don't judge.

[–]_JustASnowFlake_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Before or after they are pregnant? Heeeyyy

[–]Insydeinformation points points [recovered]

I would rather suck my own dick than fuck a girl on her period. My brain can't even process how disgusting that is...

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Weird. Just put that towel down and go to town.

[–]timbosliceko 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Actually, it feels really really good. Hotter and even wetter. I've even had a threesome with two girls who were both on their period before, I shit you not.

[–]trpppp123 11 points12 points  (19 children)

Then why do people around here say a woman loses her value the more men she has sex with?

[–]GC0W30 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Alpha widows: these chicks will probably be "in love" or strongly impressed by a past man of greater value than you.

They won't be able to fall in love with you, they just "love" the comfort and companionship you'll bring them. You'll never get their best sex, and the good sex you get will fade once you bring commitment/marriage to the table.

[–]RedsideoftheMoon 2 points3 points  (1 child)

This doubles for men and relationships. Yeah you can fuck tons of bitches, but you don't get that sweet sweet bp disney high once you're out of a good relationship and swallowed the red pill.

[–]GC0W30 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is no spoon.

There is also no Disney princess.

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

Oh! Does it bother you when a widowed woman can't bring herself to glorify you as the one and only and the best? :o

Defo something to look into...

[–]helgisson 5 points6 points  (10 children)

Studies have shown that the more sex partners someone has, the less likely they are to feel happy and secure in a long term relationship. The effect is much greater in women, though iirc it can manifest in men too.

[–]-Bonobo- 5 points6 points  (0 children)

My interpretation: fucking more than one person at a time is just more enjoyable. Anyone, man or woman, who experiences the excitement of maintaining a rotation would be reluctant to return to monogamy.

[–]1SeemedGood 1 point2 points  (5 children)

though iirc it can manifest in men too.

Actually I think there was a slight negative correlation in men.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

no there wasn't. it was mostly the same in both genders, but redpill pretends that doesn't exist because it goes against the narrative. i dont know why though, marriage and monogamy is fucking boring, who cares?

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

Not sure to which studies you are referring, but all the ones I have seen had a zero to slight negative correlation for men.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

lets face it, there are only like 2 studies on this and they are the ones everyone quotes, and lets also face it, you're lying. the same effect happens to men.

[–]LethalShade 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Link? Sources? Don't call him out for lying if you can't provide anything to back it up.

[–]1SeemedGood 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are more than 2 studies but the NSFG data was only collected on women so you must not be referring to any of the studies in which the analysis is done on that data (Wolfinger/Utah, National Heritage, etc).

And the UVA/The Marriage Project study report makes this specific claim (emphasis mine):

Further, for women, having had fewer sexual partners before marriage was also related to higher marital quality.

They also claim that men who were virgins prior to meeting their marriage partner have higher satisfaction rates.

Men and women who only slept with their (future) spouse prior to marriage reported higher marital quality than those who had other sexual partners as well.

However, they remain silent on men who were not virgins in their report. Why might that be? Perhaps because the entire grouping of men showed no correlation?

Math time: Virgin men have negative correlation & all men have no correlation = non-virgin men have slight positive correlation.

As that doesn't fit in line with the looked-for results from a sponsor called the Marriage Project, it's conveniently left out of the report summary. I believe that I did actually see some data breakdowns from the UVA/MP study confirming that logic, but have been unable to find them, thus my initial assertion:

Actually I think there was a slight negative correlation in men.

N.B. - I originally wrote "slight negative correlation" because I was associating the variables previous-partners and marriage-difficulty when I possibly should have been associating the variables previous-partners and marriage-quality. This may speak to the fact that the data I was recalling might have come from a different study - but until I can find it I can't be sure.

[–]goldishblue 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Got any sources for that claim?

[–]helgisson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tried to reply but the auto-mod bot deleted my comment for using a link. Just google "multiple partners unhappy marriage" and the first few results are what you're looking for. A psychology study was done a few years ago on this subject.

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

All women (not just AWs) are constantly comparison shopping mates and that energy has a deleterious effect on a relationship. So to the extent that a woman has more past choices with which to comparison shop you even if she's not shopping you against new present choices, it presents more of the deleterious energy to the relationship.

Also, every time a woman has sex with a man she takes on a part of him - both literally in the natural sense and metaphysically/energetically. The more different energies she takes in, the less she will be able to effectively connect with one. Different way of saying the same thing.

[–]Degener0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The more men a woman has sex with, the more bad past experiences she has had with previous partners. More barrier and hoops to jump IF you chose tp wofe her up. Essentially, pairbonding is more difficult. You are soooooo BP if you wife a reformed party girl.

[–]SetConsumes 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The OP is saying to act like women do and not care.

Yes it hurts women to have casual sex, but if you care or not is up to you.

This whole OP is rationalizing immoral or amoral behavior. Even though the principles it talks about are true.

[–]maniclurker 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Dude, even when they go on and on about how they "love your dick" or how "your the best they've had", they'll still try to pull that bullshit playing off that dynamic.

I got into it with my girl the other day, and she said something along the lines of "you better appreciate this, I can go and find another man." I looked at her, and said, "That's not even an impressive feat. Any woman can go out, shake her ass, and have a man in minutes. You drive an hour to fuck me." She shut the fuck up, and hopped on my dick.

I don't want to just straight ghost her, as she is fun to hang out with. But, I'm thinking about it.

[–]ArkAngelEV 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's supposed to be, but women have warped beliefs of the whole mating game

[–]TheReformist94 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Absolututely.this sub many times confirms that men are but the gatekeepers of commitment and women don't want it. "Oh boohoo she didn't get commitment". Its not like women don't get anything out of NSA sex.if anything they actively seek out NSA sex and hate clingy guys and monogamy

[–]LSF-Juni 1 point2 points  (3 children)

absolutely not, a woman always loses in casual sex, because it is their sole commodity.. women are the keepers of sex, and if they just give it out for squat and to have fun they are? ... a slut

think about what does a women really bring into your relationship other then her vagina? and dont say mouth now.. however a man always supplies more then just his dick e: added "casual"

[–]Buchloe 4 points5 points  (0 children)

And a man always loses be becoming friends, when he really wants more. And men who let it hapoen over and over will never really be happy about it, they will feel used, even though it's their own fault. Just like women who don't demand what they want and give up sex for free are making a similar choice.

[–]-Bonobo- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yea yea water's wet, fish swim, and women are sluts. You say this like it's a bad thing but it's neither good nor bad. It just is. The idea of all women having an inner slut might sting for several reasons:

  • You're counting on women to behave like disney princesses
  • Women aren't being a slut for you
  • You're insecure about your performance in bed so you stress out when women have other experiences to compare you to

Conveniently, Sex God Method addresses all three of those problems. Get that book, read it, practice it.

a woman always loses in casual sex if the guy sucks in bed

fixed that for you

[–]maniclurker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Money. Not sure if you've heard, but those girls are getting jobs now! Crazy world!

But seriously... fuck a girl right, and she'll pay for your shit. I have to try to talk my girl out of buying groceries and dates for me all the time. I really don't like feeling financial disparity. Maybe I just don't want to go dark triad, and fall into what I think of as a "trap" of playing off that sexual energy to get everything I want.

[–]Redsnow3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well her n count goes up which as we all know counts against her when it comes to ltring

[–]Modredpillschool 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As soon as you use the phrase "use someone for sex", you've already bought into a narrative (frame) of victimization.

Yup. Ain't nobody saying women just used a man for commitment. +1 ♂

[–]CHIPPENDALESIXNINE 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is great. It goes to show the hypocrisy of women. They don't want to feel "obligated" to do anything else with a guy if they "allow" him to buy her a meal. In that case why should men feel obligated to a relationship if we have sex with a woman? Oh that's right, cause in their mind they're doing us a favor, since women don't recieve any benefit from sex. I guess we have to accept that they don't perform logic very well.

[–]goldnhorde 1 point2 points  (0 children)

well its the tale of "women's prerogative, isn't it?" when you talk about what you OWE a woman after sex.

first, the real answer ... nothing you didn't promise. and what I mean by this is are you a liar? did you "sell her the moon?". ok, we're going to put that to the side and say you just met a girl, you two hit it off, no commitments or verbal promising was done .... and here we are the day after.

now what is owed to you .... the girl thinks it is up to her. if she thought you were the kings pajamas .... she of course assumes you two are a couple. If you were someone to scratch her itch ... you may be a FWB. If you were "The last guy at the bar" then she just was flexing her powerful womanhood and you should move along post haste. and the guy and his views have nothing to do with it.

this is a common selfishness I have experienced in my life, through my friends over hundreds of encounters.

and it's not new. it's the same thing I talk about all the time. women set up this narrative and play to their own narrative .... and become completely enraged when it does not play to their end. when the guy "they love" says "hey it was just a one nighter" or when their drunken mistake knows their number. not that they will not try to keep that guy on the hook in the friend zone ... they might need someone to buy them dinner next week.

[–]SetConsumes -1 points0 points  (4 children)

If she wants a relationship and you want sex, then if she gives you sex and you don't give her a relationship, how are you not using her for sex?

I'm not judging, but don't bullshit yourself.

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

She may want a relationship but she also wants sex. What if me and a girl go dancing and I'm hoping for sex after. The girl decides she just wants to dance and then never have sex. By that logic, she "used" me for dancing. But of course, I was a willing participant and had received no promise of sex. Just because you don't get everything you wanted, doesn't mean you didn't get something you wanted. And at the very least it doesn't count as being used.

[–]SetConsumes 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The dynamic of dancing is wholly unlike the dynamic of sex and relationships.

If a women's N count didn't matter we wouldn't hold it against them. You're simultaneously saying her n count does and doesn't matter because because you both want sex and that's all that matters, which is purposefully misleading yourself.

[–]1StuttBuffer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not that sex is all that matters. It's that a woman should be responsible for representing her own interests sexually. If it's made clear that she is having sex with you because she expects a relationship, and you mislead her, then I agree you have done her wrong.

Now what I disagree with is that this arrangement is the default tacit agreement between sexual partners. I don't doubt that was at one time. But nowadays, at least with young women, you would be wrong to assume that any one girl expects a relationship in exchange for sex. And girls that do want a relationship would be naive to assume that their sexual partner is aware of that expectation without it being told to them.

The way I look at it, I'm essentially playing by the rules that modern liberated feminists claim to be in effect. Now whether those norms are generally beneficial to women, that's another story.

[–]brinkleybuzz 88 points89 points  (5 children)

If women didn't like being "used for sex", they wouldn't enthusiastically bang Chads who obviously only want them for sex.

"You only use me for sex" is usually nothing more than a shit test and/or negotiating ploy.

Plus, if you catch a woman at the right time, like when she's ovulating, she might just use you for sex.

[–]harsha_hs 20 points21 points  (0 children)

"You only use me for sex" is usually nothing more than a shit test and/or negotiating ploy.

Bang on. it's just a shit test.

[–]Buchloe 8 points9 points  (0 children)

"You only use me for sex" "I agree, that is one beautiful ass"

[–]TangoZulu 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Disagree. All women use sex as their currency to barter for a relationship. Even (especially) when they bang Chads. The entire theory of hypergamy is that women are always trying to swing branches to a more beneficial relationship; in the AF/BB model the woman has secured the relationship support of a lower SMV male (BB), but fucks the Chad (AF) with the express purpose of attempting to secure the relationship from him, the higher SMV male, and improve her position. The fact that his SMV is higher than hers' makes this a losing proposition for her, for he has no need to trade his currency (support) for her's (sex). But don't think for a second that isn't her objective. She would lock the Chad down in a heartbeat if she could. She doesn't want to be "used for sex" by Chad, but she is forced to pay upfront for the chance to secure a relationship with him. She doesn't like doing so, but she has no choice if she is going to compete for his long-term support.

[–]brinkleybuzz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nah. Sometimes she just wants a high quality sperm injection.

[–]kankouillotte 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Plus, if you catch a woman at the right time, like when she's ovulating, she might just use you for sex.

or when she really wants a guy who ignores her for whatever reason, so she bangs you to pass time

[–]roeddit points points [recovered]

With the understanding that TRP is morally agnostic, I personally draw the line at lying.

Girls don't mind being "used" for sex from a very attractive man - in fact, it paradoxically, turns them on, as you know - and usually they don't have a problem if you're explicit about your intentions and expectations.

Sidenote: that's why BP guys got so upset at the "grab her by the pussy" thing, but most women secretly understood exactly what he meant.

[–]Docbear64 30 points31 points  (1 child)

Right ? Betas equate the statement to rape because they can't grasp that a woman would be attracted to a man enough to enjoy being treated that way .

Women however if you let them salivate over a man that turns them on enough will talk about how "I'd let him do whatever he wants to me" , which includes grabbing them by the pussy .

It's only creepy if she's not into you dude .

[–]iFrozy_ 8 points9 points  (0 children)

it's only creepy/humiliating when you are bit too low than her smv

[–]Kalidane -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

OP didn't suggest or imply lying.

Lying is a good way to have a girl decide it was rape days later because you weren't good enough to have undressed her in the first place.

[–]Godspeed311 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not sure why people are downvoting you. If you lie to a girl why would that not make her more likely to have those "regrets" that turn into "rape"? People reap what they sow, and if you sow lies from the outset that is all you are going to get back.

[–]prodigy2throw 120 points121 points  (10 children)

Women have absolutely no remorse for using men for free dinners, nights out, free rides and venting about who they're fucking atm.

Do you famsss.

[–]logicalthinker1 55 points56 points  (4 children)

In fact, they feel the opposite. They feel proud about it and brag about it.

[–]harsha_hs 3 points4 points  (3 children)

I am sure, I am very proud about having 4 plates and my ability to bang them when I want. And guess what, I brag about it to my close guy friends too.

[–]Docbear64 10 points11 points  (2 children)

True but then we have to go back to the drawing board , what do YOU have to be to get laid and what does a woman have to be to get laid ? You probably had to have a certain level of game , be some kind of attractive, and actually engage and capture their attention to have them ready to fuck you on a whim . A woman doesn't have to do anything other than be there .

[–]_the_shape_ 2 points3 points  (1 child)

A woman doesn't have to do anything other than be there.

...until that no longer works (on men she is attracted to), and then she has to "go back to the drawing board":

a) settle for a beta

b) get a cat

c) join the man-hating feminist brigade

d) blow my brains out

[–]BoyWhoreWithASword 0 points1 point  (0 children)

until that no longer works (on men she is attracted to), and then she has to "go back to the drawing board":

100% WRONG

He asked what does a woman have to do to get LAID. All she has to do is show up.

He didn't bring up relationships or commitment. He simply compared what men need to do get laid, and what women need to do to get laid. Women get sex merely by existing.

[–]tilnewstuff 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Women have absolutely no remorse for using men for free dinners, nights out, free rides

I don't see it as them "using" men; they're just taking part in old social customs. Remember: it's men who offer those things to women, and men who begun these customs.

[–]prodigy2throw 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I mean when women do these to men they have zero interest in fucking.

[–]slay_it_forward 10 points11 points  (1 child)

If we're talking old social customs they wouldn't even be able to vote. We've abolished all the old norms that were disadvantageous to women but everything that's advantageous remains. Why? Because women like using men.

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

Sad thing is, a lot of it backfired on them. Now you have a lot of single moms having to raise their kid(s) alone. Instead of being partners with men, they wanted to be competitors.

[–]grass_cutter 41 points42 points  (4 children)

Women use men for sex as well.

I think you missed that vital point.

Not every girl is a TV Sitcom stereotype. Many women have used me for sex. I'm not saying I made them orgasm in every encounter here but they wanted a release and never to see me again really.

Happy to oblige most of the time.

[–]cashmoney_x 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Literally every human interaction boils down to "using" in the end.

[–]hot-breakfast -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Ever heard of anonymous organ donation? Voluntary blood drives? Voluntary firemen or militia? There are myriad counter-examples.

[–]DrNextAHoe 23 points24 points  (1 child)

Similar to how women think they are doing the guy a favour by friendzoning them, I've increased my SMV to a point that I feel I am doing my plates a favour by keeping them around for sex. In my mind, they are with the best male possible. It is a privilege for them to be part of my soft harem. Achieve this level of self-confidence/delusion of grandeur and you won't feel bad at all. In fact, you'll come to see yourself as a generous man.

[–]AndHaole points points [recovered]

Do betas read the absolute last flipping line in an article first to see if it applies to them or not before proceeding?

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

why the fuck did you post then

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Most sexually attractive guys feel bad about using women for sex / woman is free to use him for ...

Oh yes... women however have no qualms about using men for everything, up to and including using the whole of a man's life to support both themselves and someone else's children.

It starts with "buy me a drink" and ends up with "and in the divorce settlement after I take your car and your house I will also be using the rest of your life to pay for child support and alimony".

Those rare women who have an abnormally high empathy for males are the closest things to 'unicorns'

No woman has empathy for men. AWALT. The apparent exceptions are women who are very attracted and they temporarily give the appearance of "caring", but there is always a completely selfish motivation.

If you want to see how much women care for men, look at how they are treated when the woman has nothing to gain from the relationship itself, ie divorce. Women extract the maximum possible at the end of a marriage, every. single. time. (Men on the other hand generally want a clean break but do want the woman to be happy and almost never enact any sort of revenge or attempt to extract the maximum possible from her).

When you come across this girl, and you want sex, but she wants a relationship, what will you do? You will play her just like she would have played you if the roles were reversed.

All is fair in love and war.... sexual strategy is amoral. Women have had enough attempts from me to be nice to them, it's all about me now.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (7 children)

Good post , I had a little bit of guilt for doing this. Mainly because she seems too innocent and very religious. But this post came around for me in the right time!

[–]detachedbymarriage 11 points12 points  (3 children)

I had a similar girl recently. Usually when I want then to go away, I do the aloof thing till they get the hint.

This girl didnt. She got needy as shit, so I had to actively let her down. I did the "let's just be friends" card. She flipped the fuck out and started yelling about using her for sex.

I'm still not sure if maybe I should have tried a different tactic but at least I know I was right about needing to get rid of her.

[–]needadviceman1 points points [recovered]

My friend used to say. Without breaking up with her make her break up with you. I have never tried it though but what he does is he behaves differently till she lose her shit and breaks up. Wonder this tactic really works though.

But still in your case , good move because last time anyone needs is a cringy bitch behind your back.

[–]DouglasPR 2 points3 points  (1 child)

once I did this and relationship improved. I acted chad (yes act, because sadly I'm not chad) and she responded better, really made me think...

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

Fake it till you make it sometimes works. The truth is , after follwing chad rules for example " not giving a fuck who she dates" I ended up getting that girl. Even acting like a chad gives us a lot of benefit.

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

Anyone who uses anyone for anything is just a shit person. Sounds like this woman didn't deserve the treatment you gave her and you knew it, so you're even worse than a shit person.

[–]BoyWhoreWithASword 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Human society is just people using each other. Your employer uses you for labor and you use him for a paycheck.

[–]Godspeed311 1 point2 points  (3 children)

One of the most important rules of emotional intelligence (my version at least) is never to treat someone better than they treat you.

If you can't see that this philosophy is a race to the bottom in terms of "emotional intelligence" then I know what to say to convince you to see it otherwise.

[–]cashmoney_x 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Shit, she massaged my dick for 3 minutes and 23 seconds and then I reciprocated by massaging her dick for 3 minutes and 24 seconds. I'm such a blue pilled faggot.

[–]SovereignSoul76 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not necessarily. If expectations are different for both players, and the payoff scale is not common knowledge, then the payoff may be asymmetrical.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I find your definition of emotional intelligence silly and contradictory. Why should your individual attitude towards another individual be determined by what goes on at a macro-level?

For example (and coming purely from hypotheticality): If white men were statistically demonstrated to participate in mass violence against black people, does that give a black individual justification to be violent towards another white individual? And no matter how "friendly" or "kind" one white person may seem, "almost every single one of them" has beat a up a black person. Right?

The point of this example was to show you how stupid your reasoning is for applying "macro-level relationships" to individual situations, because it entirely ignores those individuals who do have good intentions, regardless of how "scarce" you think they are. This is exactly the type of shit SJWs and feminists pull, and you are no different.

And you top it off with "alphas only, no betas allowed lulz" as if betas wouldn't benefit from what you're trying to contribute. Seriously, this is ridiculous.

[–]Insydeinformation points points [recovered]

You almost had a good point, but then you messed it up with your childish emotionalism. Think a little bit harder; this is how it works:

Imagine in white people didn't let black people eat at white restaurants. Under my version of emotional intelligence, black people shouldn't let white people eat at black restaurants. This concept is far from silly - its actually an act of self-respect and boundary establishment group/group.

You clearly like to argue, but I'm not going back and forth with you about this. Blocked.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I "conflated" groups with individuals because how a group is treated correlates with how an individual of the group is treated, and you are proposing that an entire group, and therefore all individuals should be treated the same as any other. Please tell me, how the fuck does this make you any different from an SJW or a radical feminist?

You propose this is as a consequentialist solution to the problem, but here is why it will never work:

You understand that one group wants A and another group wants B. This works under a perfectly reasonable evolutionary model - men don't like women who give sex too easily, just like women don't like men who give commitment too easily.

However, you take a huge step in logic by assuming that ALL "passable" women use commitment whores, and therefore all passable men should use all women.

What about the passable men who want LTRs and would prefer not to sleep with sluts? What about all the passable women who don't maliciously use their orbiters?

If you were to accomplish what you said in the OP, all that would happen is that the passable guys aren't getting what they really want, and the passable girls have to resort to either chasing the dragon in the CC, or being unhappy with a BB and, either way, giving them more incentive to be sluts - in other words, not getting what they really want.

So, tell me again, how the fuck is supposed to solve anything? You're just creating a reality where, literally, all exceptional passables aren't getting what they really wanted in the first place, and they end up joining the majority.

However, this is only if you're proposing it as a solution. If you're proposing your OP as justification, then it's an automatic no, because not ALL of them use their orbiters.

[–]yoyo01323 1 point2 points  (7 children)

To me. This is all very much ridiculous. Im a woman. And no one should put men or women in a box like this. Although it can be "easy" for a woman to have sex with anyone, doesn't mean its anything different. Sex is a need for me as well, tgough I prefer to have an emotional attachment with who im showing my sexual side to. Im a reservd person in general dont like to be treated as a object or even the idea. And although men in general dont care about who they have sex with rmotional or not; Im sure some would not want to be used in another way.

And on the friendzone topic. You guys tgink too much on this shit. For some women these things arent purposely done. Just rather stay friends. People can be very sensitive on these things and its hilarious

How about just treating people accordingly? Is that such a bad thing?

[–]Insydeinformation points points [recovered]

How about you just stop being so sensitive to being used for sex? I'ts hilarious.

[–]yoyo01323 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Theres two type of people, those who like more meaning to sex and thoxe who just like having it. That doesnt make one more sensitive or insensitive to the other. Which is why everyone should treat everyone accordingly lol.

[–]Insydeinformation points points [recovered]

You can't even see your fucking hypocrisy

[–]yoyo01323 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I dont want anyones sympothy, especially from someone as butthurt as you lmao.I never said it was wrong for people to view sex they way they do. I think its wrong to use people period. But its idiocrcy to stay friends witbh a girl or boy when you want something and complain about it. The same as its idiocracy to not be prepared to not ecpect that people just want sex. so...calm down dude lmao

[–]Insydeinformation points points [recovered]

Stop 'LMAOing' it comes across as fake when you type it so many times. What is your point?

Women can use men in the friend zone and men can use women in the friends with benefits zone. I'm starting to actually get off on it, after seeing how degenerate and hypocritical you women are.

[–]yoyo01323 0 points1 point  (1 child)

lmao you need to chill. Lmao im getting off on how much stigma you have on one group of people.

let me stop before you get mad. But seriously. I think men and women are both degenerate and hypocritical about these things sometimes. Not all men "use" women for sex and not all women use men in the friendzone. Theres many people out there, and no one can just believe everyone is like that. Personally, I dont think either is right or fair. But it is part of the world, and its not wrong for people to believe in these things. All we can do is not be naive and underdtand that people can do this. Its not a woman thing or man thing that are hypocritcal of thix, sooner you lay off this "woman are all the same" attitude sooner yoi might see theres woman who dont do that all.

[–]aanarchist 5 points6 points  (5 children)

your message is intended for betas looking to pretend that they are alphas. golden rule. be upfront and honest about your intentions, it's that simple. if you wanna pump and dump a hoe great, knock yourself out that's what they're there for. on the other hand it's a beta move to try to create a win/lose situation for someone who just wants to find happiness. a true alpha creates happiness and prosperity, his interactions are voluntary and win/win for everyone involved. a woman that has been in your life should feel grateful for having gotten to experience you, and become a better woman for it. if you're just looking to bust a nut like it's the only purpose you have in your life, you're just another beta chump masturbating his life away. nice quip at the end btw, 5/10.

[–]helgisson 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Great point. Not enough people around here have read Models by Mark Manson, but that's basically the point he makes in the whole book. Be upfront about your intentions and you'll find things go a lot smoother than trying to be conniving and manipulative.

[–]BoyWhoreWithASword 0 points1 point  (3 children)

be upfront and honest about your intentions, it's that simple. if you wanna pump and dump a hoe great, knock yourself out that's what they're there for. on the other hand it's a beta move to try to create a win/lose situation for someone who just wants to find happiness. a true alpha creates happiness and prosperity, his interactions are voluntary and win/win for everyone involved.

What Disney movie did you learn this garbage from? Sure it's great to create happiness and positivity but that's not always the case. Furthermore, many men who are highly sought after by women do the exact opposite.

Nice fantasy and idealism to look up to, but ultimately not some undeniable truth.

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

don't be the kind of pussy who goes out of his way to seek low value women, that's all i can say if you think i'm bullshitting you. not all of us are as beta as you and have our only options as used post wall sluts and party whores. i don't like playing mind games and i don't like dishonesty and taking advantage of people, because i'm not some honorless bitch who'll sell his soul for the opportunity to smell a vagina, and the chance to pump and dump some bpd manic depressive hb9 isn't worth the cost to me. at the end of the day people want to be happy and feel good etc. what do you think a woman prefers, some chode who tries to "put her in her place" and fuck with her head by being a dipshit, or a dude who makes her wake up with a smile on her face every day and has him on her mind all day, heart full of joy.

one great mistake the red pill subreddit made was it gave a bunch of bottom tier betas tools to become upper tier betas who can attract beta women, and didn't actually bother to write out how to use those tools and why, so that they aren't children playing with a gun.

[–]BoyWhoreWithASword 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You sound butthurt and you're obviously projecting.

All I did was disagree with you and you went on an emotional tirade about beta males and manic depressive women and selling my soul.... Pretty womanly reaction to resort to projection, shaming language, and namecalling.

You even top it off with a NoTrueAlpha fallacy and how your ideology is the only way to think or live life, everyone else is a pathetic disgusting beta bitch.

Amusing.

[–]aanarchist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

no bro not projecting one bit, and not emotional at all either, i'm just telling you the honest truth. you may not like hearing it but that's what being a man and red pill is all about, truth. but hey your life your rules, if your life is fulfilling and satisfying to you, if you wake up every day looking forward to the day and grateful for what you have in your life, then more power to you. me personally, i'd want more, not really a settler.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is an apt comparison. I believe the sidebar or a previous post includes such a comparison, but it is good to be reminded.

[–]NotNormal2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But I don't want to hurt her feelings

[–]kankouillotte 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I have this problem... in this situation I always feel compelled to explain "I'm not looking for anything serious right now"

More often than not, it successfully respells the woman ... Even those who maybe didn't want something serious either !

I know I shouldn't and will act this way more. Nobody gets hurt as long as everybody is able to handle themselves (emotionally speaking), as is to be expected of a grown adult, male or female.

[–]highenergysanders 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think you owe anybody that. Don't lie and manipulate people to close the deal and you're not doing anything wrong.

[–]The_M0rning_Star 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Alright let's get one thing perfectly clear. Women can only put you in the friendzone if you let them. Period, end of story. That's up to you. Not the woman. I'm so sick of hearing about the goddamned friendzone.

[–]Insydeinformation points points [recovered]

OK? ROFL... I couldn't care less what happens to men in the friend zone, just like I couldn't care less when men use women for sex.

All is fair.

[–]HandsomeCub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"They friendzone you only if you let them" ----> "they use you for sex only if you let them"

OMG you are right on. Fuck! Both are painful, and prey on wishful thinking, possible deception, and little communication.

What really hit me hard was that women can guiltlessly use men for sex as if it would be a favor. Perhaps this is the way i should think about women? Doing them a favor by allowing them to touch my golden penis... oh wait society tells everyone a mans genitals are worthless and it devalues everything it touches.... despite this i like this "golden penis" approach, it just feels right. Its the perfect defense against shapeshifty women that feel your value and positivity. If sex happens, i'm helping them have a fun moment, and not holding out on them. If it werent for me, they would have had a longer dry spell... do they not like having fun? As for commitment, she has to prove she's more than a vag to me, just like i have to prove i'm more than a penis to her, without weaponizing sex which is immediate grounds for nexting. I mean if she holds out, maybe it is friendzoning, because it is displaying that they arent that interested in my body. The funny thing is that commitments can be broken by women seemingly guiltlessly because they've 'fallen out of love', so it should be likewise with men as they perhaps try the love thing out and these women are just not doing it for them.

I think sex and commitment are two different realms that should not be crossed. Doing so is pure manipulation.

[–]TheRedStoic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sex between two informed consenting adults should have no additional requirements on either side.

So there's no guilt to ever be had. Ever. If either one is using covert contracts, then they're not being transparent or keeping the other informed, the contract is void. Pretty simple.

Tldr never feel guilty for sex under informed consent.

[–]billsmashole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't worry, I never feel bad for women.

[–]TehJimmyy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She doesn't feel bad because of the female's naturally reduced empathy for males.

Finally someone who read the sidebar.

Post is really short and to the point. Saving for later reread. Thanks

[–]ana_989 points points [recovered]

This is honestly so warped. Sometimes men are friend zones because a woman doesn't want to be with them or lead them on. As a girl, I've always been honest with guys and have said "I'm not interested romantically but if you'd like we can stay friends". It's THEIR choice to stay in the friend zone at that point and they know all of the facts.

In contrast, I fell in love with someone who broke up with me, insinuated that we were getting back together just to hook up with me, then left me the next day.

Not all women deserve to be used for sex. Honestly this whole generic all-encompassing "let's treat one group of people as if they are all the same" only leads to a breakdown of empathy, sociopathy, and general pin for everyone involved.

[–]HandsomeCub 0 points1 point  (9 children)

Do women not enjoy sex? And do men not have times where they are as fickle as women on commitment? What if roles were reversed, and you had sex with an ex with possible intention of restarting, but flaked out afterward because you were reminded of why you broke it off to begin with, perhaps that deadweight feeling. What would you feel? There is a reason why he flaked on commitment. If you think your worth sticking around on the merit of your vagina alone, consider whether a guy is worth sticking around because of his penis. Seriously, work on yourself to be more attractive, seductive, and fun... perhaps lead and stop relying on men to provide everything in a relationship. Having sex doesnt devalue you, outsourcing your happiness does.

[–]ana_989 points points [recovered]

Agreed..there is a reason and I wouldn't blame him if he hadn't so blatantly used me. He could have been respectful and said "listen..I'm sorry about last night, I was drunk (he was), but I dont think we should get back together". I'd be pissed, but still appreciate him (and probably respect him more). He basically told me to walk to work so he could sleep, then told me he wouldn't mind getting a one night stand pregnant, and ..to add salt in the wound.. that he'd dated girls younger than me.

[–]HandsomeCub 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Agreed..there is a reason and I wouldn't blame him if he hadn't so blatantly used me. He could have been respectful and said "listen..I'm sorry about last night, I was drunk (he was), but I dont think we should get back together". I'd be pissed, but still appreciate him (and probably respect him more). He basically told me to walk to work so he could sleep, then told me he wouldn't mind getting a one night stand pregnant, and ..to add salt in the wound.. that he'd dated girls younger than me.

He must have drove you to his place? And perhaps it was a short walk? Was perhaps being honest about a pregnancy fetish? And definitely sounds like he was trying to push buttons and raise your desperation for him as he shows he doesnt need you. He loves your body, possibly playing a game to keep you attracted to him, and pushing the boundries of his selfishness, keeping attention and affection at bay so you feel unvalidated and need him to validate your attractiveness so you can devalue him and move on. I feel you are still attracted to him, so whatever he's doing is working, or at best doesnt matter, because you'd probably do it again, but still resent him for not committing to you because of his high quality. A guess is that you knew what he wanted but you were dishonest or silent about what you wanted and now you just blame him for your insecurities and regret afterward. Sex is sex and shouldnt be mixed up with commitment. Be independently happy, invitational, and radiate positivity. Use him for sex and if relationship develops it develops. stop regretting how he hasnt a shred of commitment towards you just because of sex. Both men and women do this... you would do this in the right situation. He did it and you are bitter, but still enjoyed yourself. He gave an experience that he didnt owe you, and you took it. He's not ugly, he's beautiful and you know it. He added to your life. The thing you probably hate the most is not being validated, like is custom with nice guys that make you vomit.

But to swing back to the original point of OPs post: the best way to avoid being friendzoned or being heartbroken is to use the opposite gender purely for sex. All OP is saying is don't assume any commitment just because of sex. Dont feel bad or ashamed of what you want. Women like you that shame us to assume commitment makes high value men like me become pretty much MGTOW not realizing i could have participated in the hookup culture thru my 20s because i could not make time outside study to maintain entertainment in a forever committed relationship that would just destroy me emotionally over and over. Its your mentality that kept me from helping out some lucky women in the dating game back then. Hell, I barely even recognized just how much women enjoy sex until recently... you portray it like you hated the sex, that his penis in worthless, and all you care about is his role as a commited provider, entertaining you and taking care of you, but the truth is you loved it so much you wanted this guy to commit, so you demonize him for it and the empathetic men that hear your rants turn into nice super committed men that worship the ground you walk on, try to be nothing like the men that hurt you, and have no clue you want them to seduce you and to worship their penises redpill style. Stop shaming men into commitment, enjoy sex for what it is, and aim to be more independant and entertaining while you remove your female inferiority complex and develop into a woman.

[–]ana_989 points points [recovered]

"pushing the boundries of his selfishness, keeping attention and affection at bay so you feel unvalidated and need him to validate your attractiveness so you can devalue him and move on."

Unpack the last bit. Isn't he insuring that he is the only one to give me validation, by this logic?

"you knew what he wanted but you were dishonest"

I asked him beforehand if we were getting back together. he said yes.

"You enjoyed yourself"

I didn't. I ended up crying myself to sleep after he passed out because of things he said/how he acted during. We didn't have sex, but we hooked up.

He didn't add to my life. I wish I'd never met him, given all the pain he caused and his inability to take responsibility for it. Seriously, the emotional stress of it left me in the hospital a few weeks later. He didn't care.

Re OP's post... "Dont feel bad or ashamed of what you want." Agreed. My point is, just make salient what it is you want instead of leading someone on.

[–]HandsomeCub 0 points1 point  (1 child)

"pushing the boundries of his selfishness, keeping attention and affection at bay so you feel unvalidated and need him to validate your attractiveness so you can devalue him and move on."

Unpack the last bit. Isn't he insuring that he is the only one to give me validation, by this logic?

Yes, in a twisted way, if you are spotting his game you see what he cares about and he is actually validating your desirability, despite replaceability alluded to.

"you knew what he wanted but you were dishonest"

I told him beforehand I hadn't been with anyone since we broke up and asked if we were getting back together. he said yes.

I admit there was assumption here, he sounds more manipulative.

"You enjoyed yourself"

I didn't. I ended up crying myself to sleep after he passed out because of things he said/how he acted during. We didn't have sex, but we hooked up.

I have no idea how cruel he was, or if you deserve any of it... but that doesnt sound like a fun time for you or him

He didn't add to my life. I wish I'd never met him, given all the pain he caused and his inability to take responsibility for it. Seriously, the emotional stress of it left me in the hospital a few weeks later. He didn't care.

Im not sure i buy the hospital bit, but this guy is starting to sound not just manipulative, but toxic. Seriously, i dont allow anyone in my life that would make it as rough as this sounds.

Re OP's post... "Dont feel bad or ashamed of what you want." Agreed. My point is, just make salient what it is you want instead of leading someone on.

The problem is often that we dont always know what we want, emotions and subconscious attractions/turnoffs can make the best of us fickle. Assuming no form of commitment is the safest way to approach sex, so you dont get emotionally burned. In practice, you wouldnt have to assume if there was a conversation, but women hate this kind of conversation and so do men because its clingy and forces answers that may make you feel trapped. Obviously your guy lied about intentions... like it doesnt even sound like he was on the fence, or fickle, but had pure intent to lie to you and make you feel like trash afterwards, an immediate dump.... emotions arent that fickle. I'd never have the heart to treat anyone with that level of disrespect. I would not advocate what you state this guy has done, so perhaps we are in agreement. I found this post to be good because ive always assumed every girl everywhere always wants an everlasting LTR/marriage, and that ive never felt desireable to women enough to make negotiations about what happens. The theme of OPs post is that women like sex and often commitments, and that you shouldnt feel bad for just giving them the sex as only part of what they want if commitment intentions werent laid out. I have been fooled by my own assumptions before, so if there isnt talk about commitment i am not going to assume it and get burnt, i will only relish in the temporary nature, and if commitment issue is forced, and i don't feel comfortable with it, im out.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Women like you that shame us to assume commitment makes high value men like me become pretty much MGTOW

What I've come to realize through this forum is that a lot of guys on here make a lot of assumptions...when did I say sex was not fun? never. when did I say you need to have sex and commit? never. when did say you should feel shame for having sex? never. I am saying be clear with your intentions and dont have sex if she doesn't know it's just sex. Done. If you re-read all of my posts, that is literally the only thing I am saying. It's kind of like..a woman shouldn't accept dinner from a guy if he thinks its a date and she has no interest dating him. saying 'cool, but we're just going as friends' would be best to minimize pain for both parties. It makes me think either something I said hit a cord or you're only hearing what you want to... I'm not nor have ever suggested men need to be 'shamed into commitment'. Re-read..seriously.

edit: I think shaming a man into commitment is both the worst and stupidest thing a woman could ever do. I know someone who trapped a man into marrying her by lying about being on the pill and then subsequently getting pregnant and therefore married. Their lives are pretty much as close to hell as one could ever imagine.

[–]HandsomeCub 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Women like you that shame us to assume commitment makes high value men like me become pretty much MGTOW

What I've come to realize through this forum is that a lot of guys on here make a lot of assumptions...when did I say sex was not fun? never. when did I say you need to have sex and commit? never. when did say you should feel shame for having sex? never.

You didnt say these things, but many men assume them because women dont approach, woo, or seemingly initiate sex, they definitely dont proposition for anything temporary. In highschool i was actually shamed by a woman i was wooing for showing sexuality, but i see now it was really because i lacked social skills, smv, and the ability to entertain, regardless of how cute they thought i was. Men must be bold enough to approach and define the interaction, so you only ever hear women criticize and it is only the safest most innocent version of them, not the actual truth. Your anecdote reminded me of this, cutting out the redpill truths that bluepill men dont quite grasp. My former self would've instantly sided with you, as if you dont have any agency and desire for sex regardless of commitment, which all women do.

I am saying be clear with your intentions and dont have sex if she doesn't know it's just sex. Done.

Its not the burden of the man to state how temporary or fickle he feels the interaction will be, nor the woman's. If anything, if its important to you, you bring it up and demand answers, and if you don't like the terms or intentions, leave. The natural assumption is the safest, no commitment, and using each other for sex, because otherwise someone gets to be an emotional wreck when assumptions are mismatched. I hear what you are preaching, which is empathy, but emotions and attraction arent as clear cut. You probably draw a line between sluts and traditionals, but the theme of the post places all women in the same category... we know you are all sluts and like sex with attractive studs, and if commitment wasnt an option, all women would sleep around to have their fun.

If you re-read all of my posts, that is literally the only thing I am saying. It's kind of like..a woman shouldn't accept dinner from a guy if he thinks its a date and she has no interest dating him. saying 'cool, but we're just going as friends' would be best to minimize pain for both parties. It makes me think either something I said hit a cord or you're only hearing what you want to... I'm not nor have ever suggested men need to be 'shamed into commitment'. Re-read..seriously.

It appeared that you would be in this camp of shaming men, or weaponizing sex to coax men into some form of commitment they would otherwise not have wanted if the sex wasn't held over their heads. Perhaps i was wrong, but im still not sure. The thing is in commitment women will freely do what they want anyway, while men feel locked down... how do you breakup with someone that is vulnerable and depending on you? So given that one person is more temporary leaning, the other must decide if forcing commitment is worth it if the attraction is high.

edit: I think shaming a man into commitment is both the worst and stupidest thing a woman could ever do. I know someone who trapped a man into marrying her by lying about being on the pill and then subsequently getting pregnant and therefore married. Their lives are pretty much as close to hell as one could ever imagine.

You seem to be somewhat decent.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"You seem to be somewhat decent."

I loled at this hah.. thanks.

[–]highenergysanders 0 points1 point  (24 children)

Yeah op's post reeks of frustration and resentment. I get taking the stance of "I'm not going to feel guilty about having sex. It was your choice to get in bed with me and I don't owe you a LTR."

The whole post though is one big tirade to dehumanize women and explain how op thinks women are inferior so it's okay to be a shitty person.

Basically one time a girl did something that made op feel like shit so now he uses that as justification for doing things he knows are shitty.

[–]SovereignSoul76 0 points1 point  (3 children)

And here comes the ad hominem attacks...."frustration and resentment". If you state the way things really are, you're a loser who is full of hate.

It's called reality, toots, not frustration and resentment.

[–]highenergysanders 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You're doing mental gymnastics justify preemptively punishing a stranger because you assume they would commit an imaginary crime if they had the opportunity.

Either you're frustrated and resentful or you're a shitty person with a broken moral compas.

Based on the fact that you felt compelled to take time to type up and share this weird rant and the fact that you seem to take criticism very personally I'm going to guess the former.

[–]SovereignSoul76 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yeah, actually I didn't write the original comment there, genius.

[–]highenergysanders 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well it seems like it applies to you too anyway

[–]ana_989 points points [recovered]

Honestly it's this mentality that makes some men grows resentful or dangerous if rejected by a woman. Think of acid-throwers in certain parts of the world...

people are people. period. feel bad if you're duping them for selfish reasons.

[–]highenergysanders 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Which mentality? Mine or ops?

[–]Insydeinformation points points [recovered]

I don't even know what you are talking about at this point. Not every male struggles to get laid, get that through your estrogen saturated brain.

I don't even have to approach women.. you are speaking to alpha males babe, save the "who hurt you shit".

[–]ana_989 points points [recovered]

Who said I'm suggestion that all men struggle to get laid? I think you've misread...

I'm saying sleeping with someone who isn't aware that all you want is sex is morally wrong and selfish. Period. Don't do it if its not in your moral code to hurt someone and not care (ie: a psychopath).

[–]Insydeinformation points points [recovered]

Whatever, ill care about women's dating problems as soon as they start caring about ours, and that will never happen.

Why do you think the TRP even exists? Because dating as a man is a hell hole for 90% of males. This is due, in large part, to women's behavior. Those of us lucky enough to have a high SMV have the right to enjoy it just y'all enjoy yours without giving a fuck about what men think.

[–]ana_989 points points [recovered]

I actually don't understand why you're so angry at women or at me, specifically. I understand that dating is hell for many men, it's what I'm trying to understand so that I don't contribute to it.

[–]Insydeinformation points points [recovered]

I'm not angry, I'm just blunt. And the fact that there may be a few exceptions (every woman says this) doesn't really matter. The rule is the rule.

It is simply not a good idea to empathize with a group of people who don't empathize with you. We, as men, have a natural favoritism for women. Women don't have this for men in fact, y'all also favor other women. This empathy gap has put men at a severe disadvantage in the dating game, and people like me are exposing it.

Here is a link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

And the only reason you even give a shit is because you think "bad men" like me will hurt you or other women. It's not an empathy for men that brought you here, save the bullshit.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

lol don't project... I don't have value judgements against you. I used to date guys like you. I'm trying to figure out how they felt when we broke up... if they gave a shit. This forum tells me no and everything I felt for him was wasted.

I'm a research scientist by profession and a lot of studies are flawed just FYI... look into meta analyses for more accurate results.

[–]Insydeinformation points points [recovered]

Flawed my ass. When a man is hitting a woman what happens? When a girl is hitting a guy what happens?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRCS6GGhIRc

Conversations like this are honestly what makes me (and I'll admit it) not like women very much. Y'all are so biased and full of shit.., you can't even admit the most obvious examples of female privilege.

I'm just glad I learned the truth about women at a young age. Men and women are not teammates, we are in competition, but only women have been playing to win. This needs to change

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Also by sweeping generalization you make it impossible to be any other way than what you state. Again not every single person follows this dogma. As at least a reasonable/intelligent person surely you can appreciate outliers as a mere existence.

[–]Insydeinformation points points [recovered]

This is 2017 and you still don't understand the purpose of a generalization. The fact that I'm not talking about every single individual should be implied to anyone with an IQ above 80.

For example: Dogs bark, but this does not mean every single dog on planet earth barks - this is implied.

[–]highpothasize 0 points1 point  (2 children)

"We can still be friends" That's how you justify it? It's their choice? If they admitted to having feelings for you, then obviously "remaining friends" is the next best thing for them, because those poor saps will honestly believe there is still a chance where their is none. Release the stupid man, female.

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

What else am I supposed to say? I'm asking seriously. How would you prefer to be rejected?

Also, "there" is none..not "their".

[–]HandsomeCub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Be blunt, warm, and perceptive, "i'm not attracted to you, but you are awesome to hang around, perhaps if you were more like guys A, B, and C, you could attract women like me, perhaps if you read the TheRedPill, but as for me my first impression of you is already used".

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

You should feel no guilt at all because, spoiler alert, women enjoy sex too.

As long as you manage expectations with a girl, there's nothing to feel bad about. If you never give her even the slightest inclination that you are looking for any kind of LTR/commitment, what is she going to be upset about?

Yes, I know most women are just mindlessly following their genetic urges and want to hook the highest value mate they can and pump out kids. However, that's not your problem if you don't make it your problem. It's not "playing" her. It's being real with yourself.

The whole idea of "playing" a girl is just more of the same "Women can't be held responsible for any of their decisions regarding their sexuality" bullshit we hear everyday in the media.

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

Most of the time women only conditioned to think what they want(relationship, the one, marriage) But when they get what they want and nature kicks in. They would be the one to finish the relationship first. I think men are more attached to their biological behavior than women. We don't care being man sluts.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The very sentence is adopting their frame. The term 'used' implies they had more to offer. More often than not they don't, and if they do, it's negligible and irrelevant. More importantly, who cares.