Red Pill TheoryBait (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by ianpac

Summary Understand that you are being baited and you are the prey even if you think you are the predator

I have always got annoyed when I hear that men objectify women. When I interact with a female, I am very conscious this is a person before me.

Just because my sexual drive is visually based does not mean I objectify her. My visual assessment of her skin, hair, eyes, breasts, hips etc are all markers that inform me that she is a young, healthy, well nourished, fertile woman which is exactly what my sex drive is supposed to identify. Even facial beauty has been assessed as a desire for symmetry which indicates few defects in her DNA sequence. Male sexual selection is thus an evolutionary tool to keep the DNA gene pool in optimum shape.

So my sex drive identifies the best targets but when I approach I communicate with a person - I do not objectify her. She on the other hand does objectify her body. She is the one who decides to wear the most revealing dress so to expose as much skin and cleavage as possible, she is the one who decides to wear impractical high heels to make her strut, she is the one who spends a fortune on skin and hair products. Men do not force or ask women to do these things.

Women objectify their image becasue they use their bodies as bait. Women go fishing for the largest, juiciest fish in the pond and lure their potential prey by being flashy bait. But bait does not just lure victims over, it also serves to hide the barbed hook underneath.

Clever fish will taste and nibble on the bait then swim away to live another day. Stupid fish will chomp down on the bait and discover the hook from which there is no escape without serious damage.

Conclusion Be clever. Enjoy tasting the bait but never commit unless you are ready to be hooked and consumed by the fisherwoman.

[–][deleted] 148 points149 points  (18 children)

Nice post and cleverly worded. Schopenhauer has dealt with this exact topic succinctly. He said:

  • “nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. “

The bait and the hook.

[–]U-94 17 points18 points  (16 children)

Honor? LOL. I love Schopey but the last thousands of years of human history has men on military campaigns, knocking up conquered women, then never seeing them again. The whole support system is an imagined guilt system. Women used to really risk death in child birth too....so a fling with a random man could've been a death sentence.

[–]1CoupDeGrace22 14 points15 points  (14 children)

You know what else happens during war? Women will cook and eat their children, thanks to communism for proving that.

Your example is correct but arguing on a different basis and environment, war theaters and a regular functioning society under peace don't play by the same rules.

Men for the most part rely on rationality -> Rationality demands congruence -> Congruence is another term for "Holding your word" -> Previous phrase is used interchangeably with the word "Honor" -> Hence the word honor is very appropriately used in the text.

[–]memphisjohn 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Let's not forget the basics. We are animals first.

Biologically speaking, a few thousand years of "a regular functioning society under peace" does not override millions of years of animal instinct and the law of the jungle.

[–]general-heartless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right, and to make it even more dramatic, our society isn't even that peaceful. It's all an illusion. The only reason we have the illusion of a peaceful society is that people are lulled into this false sense of security and commit their entire lives to corporations. Because their safety is "covered" and "protected" by the police and laws, so they feel they don't have to worry. Those same police are the ones knocking on your door and throwing you in jail when you don't pay your taxes. And those cops don't respond to most calls, so you have a 20% chance that when you desperately need the police, they won't even fucking be there.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex -5 points-4 points  (11 children)

communism for proving that.

I dunno how communism proved that. If you are referencing the Siege of Leningrad, then you must understand that this was not a response to communism but instead a response to having ALL supplies cut off by the Germans.

If you are going to make statements, make them factual.

[–]warburgio 7 points8 points  (6 children)

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (4 children)


You do realize that the Holodomor was just blown out of proportion by the Ukrainian government in order to win victim points from the US allowing them to recieve more foreign aid money?

At the time, the entirety of the Soviet Union was starving. Everyone from Ukraine to Kazakhstan. Weather conditions and other factors came together to cause this.

[–]warburgio 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Well, there are sources saying about quite popular phenomenon of gangs of cannibals. If thats blowing smth out of proportion that means youve got a nice scale. It was a preplanned action, using hunger as a weapon. Cheap and effective.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 1 point2 points  (2 children)

If people are starving there will be gangs of cannibals - thats the case anywhere not just communist countries. I dont see your point.

[–]warburgio 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Did you ever hear or came across a written source saying that the police have to capture gangs of cannibals? So the structures of the country work great, farmers die of hunger in millions, grain is being extorted and send to warehouses thousands of km away. I understand that everyone in USSR was poor, opressed and hungry, but imho holodomor was a particular case of weaponing hunger. Additionally, what do you mean by victim points and money from the USA? When did it happen?

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you ever hear or came across a written source saying that the police have to capture gangs of cannibals?

What are you talking about? WW2 saw the breakdown of social order in cities like Leningrad under siege.

So the structures of the country work great, farmers die of hunger in millions, grain is being extorted and send to warehouses thousands of km away

What are you talking about? The entire country was starving, so the government had to take grain from the region that produced the most of it and divide it to feed the country. It wasn't weaponized.

but imho

That is your opinion but facts do not support this opinion.

Additionally, what do you mean by victim points and money from the USA? When did it happen?

Since the USA is big on the 'victim Olympics' domestically and internationally, for a small country playing the victim (like the Baltics, Georgia and Ukraine) of "evil" Russian oppression helps them get more aid money from the USA.

Its been happening at least since the time of Yushchenko.

[–]endertheend 0 points1 point  (2 children)

How about you just stop being a cunt?

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The willful blindness of these brainwashed Millennials never ceases to amaze me. We just saw how Communism works out and they continue defending it. We had One Hundred Million pieces of evidence in the last century and they keep defending this horrible system.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not being a cunt. If you are going to say stupid shit, i'll tell you its stupid.

[–]mrjoykill157 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats the definition of perfect love, from both ends.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 130 points131 points  (9 children)

I have always got annoyed when I hear that men objectify women

The irony of this is threefold: it's fundamentally not true of the betas they accuse of this crime - they're busy whiteknighting m'lady. And the Chads who do objectify them they positively love. And lastly women simply and concisely objectify all men: we are relegated to creeps, thugs, fucks or providers. If you hear women talking about attractive men, they are hardly saying "I care deeply about his inner feelings and dreams and aspirations".

As such it's a shit test, a powerplay: "Let's pretend I don't have a vagina for the purposes of your provisioning and protecting me".

Just because my sexual drive is visually based does not mean I objectify her

Ahhhh stop jumping through her hoops. "Be quiet object" is all you need to say to these tests, then laugh.

[–]HaoleBoyz 25 points26 points  (1 child)

I went to a dinner recently with a girl I am dating and her good friend. Her friend is having her new boy toy meet us, right away she starts talking about his dick size and how sexy he is. This becomes a running joke though out the whole dinner. They even asked me, do guys talk about girls this way? I said yeah, we always bring up vagina sizes when talking about our new partners... There is a funny double standard here, some people are very aware of it. Others not so much.

[–]Throwawaysteve123456 17 points18 points  (1 child)

That's the funny thing, women love being objectified by alphas. I know this first hand, because I've been a fairly strong alpha and a fairly strong beta at various points in my life.

It's the betas they are against, and ironically these are the people that defend this bullshit.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's the betas they are against, and ironically these are the people that defend this bullshit

Betas optimise their beta provisioning strategy.

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

Just a variation on the "they can know they want only the opposite of what they want", basically.

And, as you say, it's when you start to appeal to beyond-object parts that they feel "under pressure," that you are "demanding," and lose interest. Because being more than a body begins to imply serious responsibility, reflectiveness, ... and a few more things unberable to them (and, in any event, "not funny", lol!)

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 6 points7 points  (1 child)

and god forbid... responsible.

It is a major part of my sexual strategy to avoid being in any position where I have to make a woman responsible for her actions, because that will result in loss of attraction to me and a miserable time with her, as she starts on her defensive attacks against me for making her responsible.

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

Basically, they can't be taken for anything more than a vagina-equipped toy — and they won't bear it if one does.

Great, isn't it.

[–]boredgod 1 point2 points  (1 child)

What’s the “thug”? Is it another archetype? I’m guessing the gangster, the violent warlord (crossover with Chad) - the one who takes things purely by force without regard for the strategies of garnering and exploiting trust by appearing to follow rules.

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He has "Thug" tattooed on his left ab and "Life" on his right ab, rides a motorcycle, and sports a full neck web.

Thug = Exciting Fuck that I might be able to fix conquer with my mighty magical manhole.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 72 points73 points  (10 children)

Women's only power is sex. So they say and do whatever they can to assert control of the frame on the subject. 'Objectifying' is just one of many shaming tactics in their arsenal to have you willing relinquish frame on the matter. It works amazingly on most men. They take your programmed need for pussy and female intimacy and use it against you. Psyche warfare is the battleground of the female. Women are designed to manipulate and men are predisposed to allow it. Never take them seriously it's all just a big power game. Stop giving a shit if a woman feels secure and you're one step closer to freedom, mental freedom. Where the mind goes, the body follows.

[–]catluvr37 1 points1 points [recovered]

Women have far more power than just sex: intelligence, poetry, politics. You name just about anything a man could have power for, and that applies to women as well. Unless of course, you live in a 3rd-world country where women are still thought of as a lesser gender.

Furthermore, women aren’t designed for manipulation, we’re the most intelligent and evolved species, but let’s not give our evolution cycle too much credit now. Some women are manipulative, the same way that men, pimps, can manipulate women to be prostitutes. How men manipulate other men to a sketchy investment, a Ponzi scheme for example. How men can manipulate other men to fight their wars for them. I understand your point, but generalizing an entire subdivision of humans under an umbrella has shown nothing but regression in the past - blacks, Jews, big nose and little nose. You get the point.

[–]RedwallAllratuRatbar 2 points3 points  (1 child)

this post is hard to even read. is this poetry

[–]catluvr37 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m on mobile so I wasn’t too concerned about editing. If I lost you at any point, I’d be glad to help clarify.

[–]chaseemall 5 points6 points  (5 children)

In terms of what nature gives them, women's only sources of power are sex and manipulation. Why? In order to make up for their diminished physical capacity.

Generalizations serve a purpose, and ought not be discarded out of hand.

Blacks are responsible for ~51% of the violent crime in this country, despite being 10% of the population.

Marxism, Bolshevism, Neoconservatism, the Frankfurt School, etc were all dominated by Jews...and Jewish self-outgrouping and subsequent radicalization played a large role in them getting kicked out of countries 200+ times in 200 years.

[–]catluvr37 1 point2 points  (4 children)

51 and 10% aren’t a generalization though, it’s a specific number less than 100%, and it’s fair to say given sufficient data to back it up. Yet, statistics without context are useless. African Americans, Hispanics, and minorities in general have a higher rate of poverty, government aid, substance abuse, incarceration. The list goes on. So what does this mean? It can be interpreted a number of ways, as any statistic can. It’s easy to make assumptions that fit our agenda. But looking into the the concrete track record of how America has treated minorities, can we say the fault lies solely on entire races? Or can we say that it’s the fault of policy makers who have histories of corrupted personal interests in protecting and expanding their assets? What about both?

I’ve known people who can’t afford food, without lack of trying, take the route of commiting felonies. Whether another person lives or dies is second to them providing for their family. That, survival, has been proven to be encoded in our DNA, as opposed to female manipulation. Then, either due to regret, anger, or depression, each a justifiable emotion after murder, incarceration, or crime, leads a person to self-hate. When we can’t stand to be inside our own heads, the easiest and most accessible way in their environment to escape it is drugs. Now that person is accustomed to the easy route of making money, as they’ve been forced to do from abhorrent living conditions, and takes the easy route again of temporary mental improvement, a debilitating and disgusting drug addiction.

Each thing a person does has a verifiable reason to it. As nice and simple as it would be to say, “Minorities are drug addicts and shitty people in general because they’re an inferior race,” it’s just another example of taking the easier route, the same as plenty of my friends have done.

Now, I understand you’ve drawn your own line in the sand and have reasons to you that are justifiable as well. But just the same as I would consider your reasoning, I urge you to do the same for others you may initially write off because it’s just the easier thing to do.

[–]chaseemall 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Generalizations are not theorems.

Generalizations serve for setting policy when dealing in aggregate and rules of thumb and guidelines in one's own life.

The factual NAWALT does not strip the practical AWALT of its utility.

[–]catluvr37 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Of course, you can set aside reasoning, or theorems, as you describe to form your opinions. You’re welcome to your own ideals, it’s a perk of living in a free country.

However, you do not live your life on a generalized level. Nobody does. Reasonably, you make your ideas based off of your own experiences. And if that includes isolating yourself from the love of another because you think, “Well, you’re like all women because I have a generalized view of you before I learn who you are as an individual. I instantly see you as a deceptive woman,” you cannot place the blame of your loneliness and hate solely on all women. Because of your generalization, the impact of your thoughts in the community continue to feed the widespread idea that “all women are like that.” More to the point, you are the reason women are like that. Just the same as if I immediately think or say this sub, and believers of their ideals, are hateful and lost, you’ll become offended. The opposition of my ideas to yours instantly changes your opinion of me. However, in a different setting that may not be the case, because you and I can’t be generalized. You’re not a number. You’re not a statistic, and neither am I.

Do you think you’ve never met a person you like that someone else hates? Do you think you’ve never met a person you hate that other people like?

But again, you being part of the notion, “all women are deceptive” is fine. I don’t think more or less of anyone because of their opinions. Including you. But providing yourself immunity to the blame is where the destructive forces of ego and self-righteousness begin to take hold.

[–]chaseemall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you ever considered the possibility that the incapability of a woman to love as a man does is not a flaw? That a woman who speaks as she feels right now rather than any objective truth, or who is capricious, even deceptive (sans malice), or who uses her attractiveness to gain favor is not being unvirtuous? That a woman must be judged by standards of feminine behavior rather than masculine virtues, because men and women are different.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm lonely or that I hate women. I'm not, and I don't. This place has let me LIKE women, once I understood them to be women and not men. And once I understood them as women and not men, I could accept and enjoy a masculine-feminine polarity in my interactions with them that I couldn't before.

EDIT: I should probably clarify what I meant about theorems. In mathematical reasoning, a theorem is put forward, and then it is proven by formal logic. However, if a single counterexample exists, then the theorem is disproved, and the acknowledgement is made that there must be a flaw in the proof. Theorems are not really very useful in empirical reality as, when dealing with people in aggregate we are dealing with approximately normally distributed traits, where exceptions to any useful statement about reality almost always exist. When dealing with unknown individuals, we have to use Bayesian reasoning—start with probabilities of certain behaviors and revise those probabilities as new information comes to light. This process of Bayesian reasoning might be called wisdom, and the application of all ideas presented in this subreddit assumes the wisdom of the reader. Furthermore, readers here are encouraged to field test these ideas both to empirically verify them and also to develop the wisdom, the ability to revise the probabilities of certain behaviors based on acquired information, needed to use the information here well.

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 31 points32 points  (0 children)

I objectify women all the time and they objectify me.

Some objectify me as physically as I them, wanting to run their hands over my muscles. But more generally women objectify men as status objects. Something to prove to her girlfriends, parents or other people how attractive and succesful she is.

Women love bragging with the work their boyfriend does, if his work is something that provides status.

Women focus on appearance because it's effective in attracting status objects. Men attain status because it's effective in attracting fertility objects.

[–]1progressionoverload 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Nothing like a good metaphor to remember a good truth.

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

You're not wrong

But I'm gonna keep objectifying them anyway

[–]Jonlife 21 points22 points  (6 children)

You're trying to rationalize hypergamy in your own words. No matter how you put it so that it helps you explain female nature, it's still the same. Hypergamous nature in females hasn't changed for eons. And it won't.

You want to find the best way to attract women? The easiest way. Simply Aquire currency and plenty of resources. You will attract every psycho cunt and able bodied female on the planet.

Then you'll start complaining that you can't find a "quality" woman blah blah blah...

First world problems.

You sex drive is driving your agenda. You're letting your little head do all the thinking. This is why men post age 30 are much more suave and mellow. They arent trying to hump everything that moves.

The more you tame this urge the better decisions you will make. For one, you'll stop wasting money on these hoes who don't deserve it.

[–]monadyne 2 points3 points  (5 children)

OP's piece isn't about hypergamy. He's addressing a different issue. He's not offering "the best way to attract women." That's not what this thread is about.

[–]Jonlife 7 points8 points  (4 children)

He's lying to himself when he says he's does not objectify her. Men are visual creatures. We don't walk up to put energy into a woman unless they have something we're interested in (ie she's not a land whale).

Saying you don't "objectify" women only works when you are at the playboy mansion and they're all perfect 10s.

Besides that, most guys are lucky if they're around chicks with nice smiles who aren't too fat. This notion of bait indicates that he's looking. He wants to fuck.

You approach the woman. You are in drivers seat. You control the "frame" (lol). Objectify or not, what the fuck are you doing talking to her? Because. You. Are. Trying. To. Fuck.

OP could have just ended his post with saying something like "avoid all these cunts fellas, not worth it.." but he's still has a shred of hope that that unicorn is out there... But don't commit, remain indifferent... Which he's basically saying "play hard to get..."....wow, how fucking revolutionary (not really). .

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Exactly. Men who say they don't objectify and care more about personality are like women who say they just want a nice, polite guy.

[–]Jonlife 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yep. "where are all the good men..." when you've been busy getting railed by bad boys for the last ten years.

Fellas, just because the women you want to fuck are walking contradictions of themselves doesn't mean you have to mirror that sort of behavior.

Stop lying to yourselves. Ask yourselves what you really want. Being a chameleon will not help you get more pussy. It will only help you manipulate women more to where they come to despise you. This is why all "male feminists" are creepers and are currently being called out on all this #metoo shit.

A true "alpha" doesn't have to beat around the bush. He owns up to offending people. If you think anything I say is offensive... Then I'm glad you like it. Get fucked.

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

It's not necessarily always a lie for men, though. Women's is, but men's is.

[–]lopsidedlucky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Completely agree. I was wondering what the hell the big deal was about objectifying women that this guy was trying to hide from.

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

No dude.

Is the lion not the predator because zebras bait him with tasty flesh?

Predators have needs and take them. Somehow you equate wanting something with prey and thats incorrect.

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

Comment sections are shit holes without TRP endorsed users.

[–]ianpac[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Except the zebra does not want to be eaten so zebras never bait lions. Also the zebra has no hook inside of him.

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

women feel the same as zebras (dont want to be eaten) about 85% of men

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

The objectification issue is an issue of projection. I mean: they expect everyone to objectify them all the time because they do it to themselves.

[–]hiddenpersona 2 points3 points  (2 children)

It’s really funny we are living in an upside down world. I never objectifed women when I was growing up. As a child I was the funny kid of the class so girls kept me as their toy to laugh when it’s needed. In my teenage years I was in a band, we got kinda famous so girls used me to get drunk, get famous, party and all that jazz. In college I was ripped, strong and crazy. They used me as a fuck toy. Now I’m on my way to become rich, sexy and other shit. And they want to use me for all this shit. Since I was a kid I only objectified them as cute or sexy girls or women. I just wanted to be with them both “romance” wise and sexual vise. Now I see the picture. They are misdirecting their agenda when they use men for everything and they cover it up by talking shit about our sexual desire. It’s all different now. I play their fame. Met a rich girl with an expensive car and an apartment? I will manipulate the shit out of her until all of her bonding hormones release when she sees me so I can drive their cars, use their houses and shit. Even more, I will meet more of her friends and climb the ladder. Since there is always a better version in every circle.

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

Noob here. Started working out 4 months ago and I see a huge difference in how women interact with me. I don't even want nor need them to climb the ladder and at this point I might even get a surrogate and be a single dad rather than have some chic in my house. It's always savour what they want!!

[–]hiddenpersona 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Me neither. Just climb your own ladder and have those girls in your pocket. Going to another town for something? Jessica the girl with a nice apartment will host you and you will drive her car around the city!

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

She is the one who decides to wear the most revealing dress so to expose as much skin and cleavage as possible

Esthar Villar says something similar in a bit more detail:

Very successful men usually have abysmally stupid wives (unless, of course, one considers woman's skill at transforming herself into bait for man a feat of intelligence).

By the age of twelve at the latest, most women have decided to become prostitutes. Or, to put it another way they have planned a future for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make use of their vagina at certain given intervals.

[–]PhaedrusHunt 12 points13 points  (11 children)

Probably gonna get downvoted but here goes anyway.

I still think there are cool women out there worth building a relationship with. Love em and leave em isn't a bad thing to do. But I see it as akin to getting a car. Don't get the first one you test drive. But, test driving cars forever won't work either. You'll find the right car at some point. It may be the second, it may be the hundredth.

The thing to remember is you can always get a new car if you don't like the one you have. Or if you just want an extra car.

[–]1empatheticapathetic 2 points3 points  (8 children)

I think you need to read some /u/LastRevision

[–]PhaedrusHunt 0 points1 point  (7 children)

I read some of it. Nothing I don't know already. Anything specific you had in mind?

[–]1empatheticapathetic 3 points4 points  (6 children)

This idea of a cool girl is someone who has simply changed their personality due to a different agenda/end game. They can undertake whatever personality will fit the mould of whatever guy(s) they are trying to get into a relationship, if a relationship is what they are trying to achieve at that moment in time.

Some women are better than others, but they're all fake. The 'cool' part of them that you get on with is merely a (sub)conscious attempt at a persona they have realised works with you or guys like you.

[–]PhaedrusHunt 3 points4 points  (4 children)

I feel you, but different people have different personalities. I told my main chick straight up the other day that I like the persona she puts on and I know what she's doing. Women love it when you see through them and let them know. I mean, this is getting a bit Buddhisty, the idea of one universal personality or something.

[–]1empatheticapathetic 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Fair enough. I don't believe it applies to guys (unless the guy has zero frame). A girl seeing a guy change his personality to match a woman is getting cucked.

[–]PhaedrusHunt 0 points1 point  (2 children)

A girl seeing a guy change his personality to match a woman is getting cucked.

LMAO dude 😂 And I say this as much as a dad as a guy. I have two kids and they're born with different personalities. My daughter is 11 and her personality is starting to change a bit as she crafts it while entering puberty.

What I said to my girl the other day (knowing she had a shitty upbringing-- passive dad, BPD mom, dominant older sister-- BTW these bitches are wrecking crew, mine is a 10, sis is a 9.5-- and moved around a lot) was that I realized her persona was a defensive mechanism she probably came up with in high school. She likes that I see what she's doing. Pretty damn red pilled herself. Loves Bill Burr almost as much as I do, hates beta dudes. She just boy toyed along for a while and now I have her on her toes constantly.

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

I have to say I have lived with my nephew and niece (and their parents) for a while and although this theory was conceptualised well by LastRevision, it's been confirmed to me many times over by my experiences with these two kids. The boy is completely unaware of so many things but he is who he is and that is frame. The younger niece is straight up redpill/AWALT. She has no personality, it is designed to match whoever she is with at that moment in time and maximise whatever that person is offering (attention, resources(food/candy), time). She lies, makes false inadequacies, has zero morality, but she also needs to be lead by a strong frame constantly, and most of the time that is her older brother (when I occasionally show up its me, if she leads me to believe so). These kids are young.

You sound like you've masculinised your daughter somewhat if she's actually into bill burr. My niece wouldn't give a fuck about bill burr but she'd definitely lead me to believe she did if she knew it mattered to me because I am a resource to her. There really is nothing there but some sort of soulless manipulation mechanism that feeds on attention, validation and shit testing. She fucking loves humiliating her brother when he's acting beta and follows him like a zombie when he takes the lead.


[–]PhaedrusHunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You sound like you've masculinised your daughter somewhat if she'd actually into bill burr.

LOL I wasn't clear. I was referring to my gf/main plate on the bill Burr and rp stuff

My daughter is definitely doing her awalt thing though

My son is 6 and gives no fucks about anything other than impressing me. He's a natural born ladies' man. He's gonna be alright

[–]TheEagleAndTheSnake 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I personally like this mindset. Deeper relationships with women, ones in which you get to know her essence and all of its beautiful and disgusting components at once are certainly more interesting than spinning plates. Plates are definitely better for low to mid SMV guys who need to work on themselves first and foremost. EDIT: I'd like to add that the vast majority of women are not worth the first approach, since they are mostly uninteresting.

[–]PhaedrusHunt 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I feel there is a normal trajectory of relationships with women as you begin to understand how they operate. I'm the opposite of a MGTOW in that I actually LIKE women. This despite being divorce raped and cheated on.

Tenacity, grit, learning from your mistakes, and going back to the well again are good things.

It's like studying a fighter you're going to fight, or knowing the dance steps before you get on the floor. Don't hate women because you don't understand the dance. Don't say the guitar sucks because you suck at guitar.

[–]BonelessSkinless 1 point2 points  (0 children)

NEVER. NEVERRR catch feelings always AWALT and focus on bettering yourself for your own self

[–]pbgswd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That women are busy, obsessed with objectifying themselves for sexual power above other women, and then over men is very true. Women objectify themselves first and foremost.

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

I swear these posts are becoming more and more MGTOW everyday. I think that's friggin' awesome. We are rising!

[–]general-heartless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Clever fish will taste and nibble on the bait then swim away to live another day."

This made me laugh out loud, because it's true. Steal that delicious bait (delicious pussy), but don't get hooked, then swim away. Haha.