Toggle Dark Theme
logo
235,172 posts archived

542
543

Red Pill ExampleJack Nicholson talking Hypergamy in 1994 (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by waking-life

“Men don’t leave,” he tells me, and I sense that his thoughts have re-turned to Rebecca. “Women leave and when they end the relationship the other guy is already there. They always know where they are going.” Source

  Jack Nicholson always struck me as a natural alpha. Probably a lot to do with his age, as men were built differently back in the day. Of course, high SMV means he always had his pick when it came to women and if he wasn't naturally alpha, he damn sure could have adapted to the role after years of fame.

  Thing is, after reading the article I linked above, it seems the guy is a goddamn romantic who loves hard and suffers after a breakup. So maybe a little beta mixed in with the alpha.

  That said, he does have the SMV to tell them it won't be exclusive.

  Another interesting thing is that he seems to have worked out a lot of stuff on his own.

  The interviewer mentions that he doesn't cohabitate:

They had always kept separate houses, a necessity for Nicholson, a man who has made no secret of his war on fidelity, a man who after a quarter-century of trying “every form of living together” realized he just wasn’t good at cohabitation of the traditional variety.

  He mentions the high testosterone man is fading away:

Nicholson moans, starts nervously pulling up the tops of his expensive argyle socks, and begins to talk about books. A voracious reader, he reads everything, even The Bridges of Madison County, “a beautiful little book.” “The guy in the book feels his kind of guy is the problem—too much testosterone for society to control. His kind of male is going to become obsolete, and I can identify with that. I know what he was talking about.”

  Here's Big Jack on the nature of women:

“Men always want to please women,” he says, “but these last 15 years, women have been hard to please. If you want to resist the feminist movement, the simple way to do it is to give them what they want and they’ll defeat themselves. Today you’ve got endless women in their 20s and 30s who don’t know if they want to be a mother, have lunch, or be secretary of state.”

  And, of course, there's the big quote on hypergamy that made me want to post this.

  (I have no idea where he's at now. His Wiki page hasn't got any info of him being with any one woman right now, and I have no real interest in continuing to search.)

  Oh, and here's a quote about Jack which reveals his Chad-like nature:

“When I worked with Jack on Carnal Knowledge,” Nichols recalls, “we were both very young. But it became clear to me right away why Jack was so successful with women. All the rest of us were two guys: one, as it were, by day, and another when we were thinking about or near women. Jack is always the second one.”

  ^ There's a lesson in there.


[–]AManIsBusy 1 points1 points [recovered]

Today you’ve got endless women in their 20s and 30s who don’t know if they want to be a mother, have lunch, or be secretary of state.

Can we get a sidebar quote of the day going? That's fucking great.

All the rest of us were two guys: one, as it were, by day, and another when we were thinking about or near women. Jack is always the second one.”

This is classic "How to Win Friends and Influence People" material.

[–]person8445 21 points22 points  (38 children)

I am only halfway through the book - how does that quote relate?

[–]AManIsBusy 1 points1 points [recovered]

It's been a while since I read it, but the single interesting idea from it, for me, was 'transmuting the sex drive' into other activities. He talks about how people become successful when they take their sex drive and start doing everything with it. So, Jack Nicholson, if he always acts like he does around women, is using that energy for all of his pursuits. This increases his success, and it naturally builds up a stronger energy that helps his pursuits with women too.

[–]redblueninja 1 points1 points [recovered]

This is in 'Think and grow rich' not in 'How to win friends and influence people' if I'm not mistaken.

[–]AManIsBusy 1 points1 points [recovered]

Very well could be. I read them at the same time and get them confused.

[–]LeDolceVita 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think so. That idea has come up in a few different books I've read recently, including Headstrong and one on Taoism

[–]diamondstudz 13 points14 points  (1 child)

i don't agree with the "porn is evil and disrespectful to women" yadda yadda aspects of NoFap, but there is a certain element of truth to not jerking it multiple times a day and using your pent up sex drive to accomplish things and improve yourself

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

Freud called this sublimation. He thought sex drive was primary if not sole motivator.

[–]Mr-Ed209 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I remember hearing Joe Rogan saying something along those lines. That if everyone became the person that they acted like when trying to get laid the human race would achieve so much.

[–]PM_ME_UR_NIPS_GURL 1 point2 points  (1 child)

This makes sense because when you waste your sexual energy on masturbatory acts, you feel drained (in every sense of the word).

[–]Morphs_ 0 points1 point  (23 children)

Donald Trump once said in an interview that he doesn't masturbate. Regardless of what you think of him, with all his success, that does make you wonder. If he was a guy jerking off a few times a day, he simply wouldn't have had the energy to do all the things he does.

[–]MoDuReddit 1 point2 points  (20 children)

Can you provide a source that shows that " jerking off a few times a day" depletes you of energy?

[–]Morphs_ 5 points6 points  (8 children)

How about your own life? I'm sure you've attained this knowledge by personal experience by now. If not try recording your lifting sessions. One session after jerking of 3 or more times that day, the other session after a week of nofap.

[–]MoDuReddit -3 points-2 points  (7 children)

Ok, so you admit there are no scientific sources to back your claim. Then you suggest I follow my own confirmation bias to find something science says doesn't exist. Are you a preacher, by any chance? Or is it just the your cognitive dissonance acting up, as you create inner tension in your brain from denying basic human function?

[–]Morphs_ 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Are you do retarded that you need a scientific article to learn something you can observe yourself in your own body? Stop acting like a tool and go lift.

[–]artificialfather 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Fucking love it. Morph is not talking about God and that you should believe it exists. He is telling you to not believe his or anybody’s word on the matter and just fucking try by yourself.

And if you feel “scientific”, the scientific method is based on experimentation, follow your damn advice and experiment by yourself then.

[–]MoDuReddit -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

you need a scientific article to learn something you can observe yourself in your own body?

For me to advise others to do it? Yes. Think that through, preacher.

[–]aaasssaaa11 4 points5 points  (1 child)

stop wanking 4 times a day modu you fucking slimy weaboo

[–]leselfhelpmeme 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Do you have a source on that? Source? A source. I need a source. Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion. No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered. You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence. Do you have a degree in that field? A college degree? In that field? Then your arguments are invalid. No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation. Correlation does not equal causation. CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION. You still haven't provided me a valid source yet. Nope, still haven't. I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.

[–]MoDuReddit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you know that vaccines cause autism? I have loads of anecdotal evidence to support it!

[–]1empatheticapathetic 1 point2 points  (10 children)

You can find bucketloads of user experiences. Why don’t you try it for yourself?

[–]MoDuReddit 0 points1 point  (9 children)

Citation please. Otherwise, anecdotes are not a source.

Here's a hint: you won't find any scientific sources supporting your claim.

[–]1empatheticapathetic 2 points3 points  (6 children)

I literally just said the same thing. ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE. Please learn to read before using the internet.

[–]MoDuReddit -3 points-2 points  (5 children)

you won't find any scientific sources supporting your claim

Until you show me I'm wrong on this, you're just snake oil salesman's tactics.

[–]AshyLarry27 0 points1 point  (3 children)

TRY it and see what happens! What's the worst that could happen? Seriously? Are you just such a wank-a-holic that you need every excuse in the book to not, god-forbid, go one week without jerking it and assess the results?

EVERYONE understands the purpose of a study or research, but do you know how often studies contradict each other? Do you know most studies attempt to come to a conclusion only because a "large enough" amount of people in the study were proving a certain result. We could easily find you "studies" but what if you pertain more toward the people in the study who were in the group that didn't support the "concluded" results?

[–]leselfhelpmeme 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Heh, I just asked you for a source. What now, buddy? Oh, you didn't realize? Everything you say on reddit is an invitation for a debate. Heehee looks like you were unprepared for that. Next time I want a 12,000 word write-up with a clear thesis, many supporting paragraphs, evidence, and arguments. Oh, and don't forget your fucking SOURCES! Hehe catch you later ;)

[–]MoDuReddit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did your science teacher hit you with a bible or something?

[–]sebass1223 0 points1 point  (2 children)

So everything he does revolves around women? Like I’m going to go the gym so I’m better looking for women. I’m going to start cooking classes so I can cook better for women? Is that what you mean?

[–]AshyLarry27 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I imagine he means if a woman was watching you in that moment, not so much doing it for a specific girl. Men go the extra mile not to fall on their face in front of women.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Side bar quote of the day is an amazing idea

[–]pandaholic23 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Can someone explain that second quote?

[–]Haymus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Seconded, I cannot make heads or tails of it.

[–]zyqkvx 230 points231 points  (11 children)

Jack has a line in one of his movies that I'm not sure who wrote.

Receptionist: How do you write women so well? Melvin Udall (Nicholson): I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

[–]PhaedrusHunt 45 points46 points  (1 child)

As Good As it Gets. Classic

[–]RedPillJohnny 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Great movie. Another good line is when he walks out of the therapists office and looks around at all the sad fucked up people and says, "Is this as good as it gets?"

The redpill taught me that no, this does not have to be as good as it gets.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist 14 points15 points  (7 children)

I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

This is a perfectly written line because it doesn't fall into the women don't logic trap that guys love to cling on to which is not true at all.

Smart women will demolish you if they need to. Rationality is the exercise of restraint with regard to the entanglement of emotion with logic.

That's why women are and can be heads of state. To claim men are "more logical" than women is false, and a signal that you're a butt hurt simpleton. Slight difference in the number of genius men which is offset by the female mean IQ being slightly higher. But more or less, men and women, in terms of equity, don't show a difference in intelligence.

Yet there is truth that women, on the whole, are decidedly less rational, which we call being feminine. It's gone back and forth on whether that is pejorative.

But if you're not a hypocritical prick, you have to embrace this part of female nature. I picked what I thought was the closest thing to a man I could find, and you learn sooner or later that female emotion can not be extricated from her being.

Doctor, scientist, mathematician, it doesn't matter. She'll still at times revert to a 13 year old girl giggling, crying and being irrational, just in the same way you'll revert to a fire starting, music blaring, tire smoking teenager at times.

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

Doctor, scientist, mathematician, it doesn't matter. She'll still at times revert to a 13 year old girl giggling, crying and being irrational, just in the same way you'll revert to a fire starting, music blaring, tire smoking teenager at times.

One of the best takeaways I've gotten from this place is the fact that most of what is discussed is also mirrored in myself, just in a different way. Ying and Yang.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Smart women will demolish you if they need to.

Never met one and I'm in academia. I regularily trounce women intellectually. Where does one find such unicorns?

[–]Ibanezguitarrocks 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I have the same sentiment. Sure there are exceptions but I've never met or observed a woman who could demolish a man intellectually, unless we're talking about a disparity like a female judge versus some uneducated thug with a room temperature IQ.

Typically, in like minded company you won't ever see this. Women are very good at verbal sparring and agitation but rarely ever does it involve deconstructing an argument with cold logic.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Men are superior to women on the same level as them, maybe a level above too.

Women are adept at rote memorization but are absolutely incapable of unstandard (innovative) thought. I have seen this time and time again where they serve to maintain the status quo.

[–]dimmy666 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Where does one find such unicorns?

You're seriously overrating them. Being in med school, I work with smart women all the time. Some are a pain in the ass to deal with, others are great people. All of them are prone to doing dumb emotional shit. They're women, for fucks sake.

One of my female teachers is a brilliant infectologist. She's a probably a better doctor than most men on her field, she's an author of many research papers, and is currently leading a team working on cutting-edge virus research. She still does emotionally charged dumb shit sometimes. If I could see her private life, I'd probably see a lot more of those moments.

Being female doesn't stop a woman from doing cold hard logic. It's just that they'd rather not do it.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (1 child)

One of my female teachers is a brilliant infectologist. She's a probably a better doctor than most men on her field, she's an author of many research papers, and is currently leading a team working on cutting-edge virus research. She still does emotionally charged dumb shit sometimes. If I could see her private life, I'd probably see a lot more of those moments.

Being female doesn't stop a woman from doing cold hard logic. It's just that they'd rather not do it.

Yeah I've seen women doing "cutting edge" research and always the men on the same level do it better. Sure they can logic, but non-standard thought necessary for innovation is not common with them, even in high-iq women. They just become better at memorizing difficult concepts with an increase in iq

[–]dimmy666 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I've seen women doing "cutting edge" research and always the men on the same level do it better.

Of course, and I'm sure that if a man who were just as smart as her put on the same hours to his craft as she did, he would do it better.

But that's like saying men can run faster or lift heavier than women. Of course we do. My point was that sometimes very high percentile women can perform impressively, even to male standards; particularly in logical skills where their disadvantage is not as enormous as in physical skills. For instance, peak female chess players can challenge and sometimes beat male grandmasters.

Sure they can logic, but non-standard thought necessary for innovation is not common with them, even in high-iq women.

Agreed. They seem notoriously poor at innovation for some reason.

[–][deleted] 173 points174 points  (20 children)

“Women leave and when they end the relationship the other guy is already there. They always know where they are going.”. In my life I've never heard of a woman leave her boyfriend without an option lined up already. I'm sure it happens sometimes but when your girl leaves you, no matter what she says, there's a very strong chance she has someone else.

[–][deleted] 151 points152 points  (13 children)

That is the main reason they freak out when you dump them and they are caught off guard without having a new branch lined up. They quickly grab onto a beta orbiter that they don’t really want to be with.

[–]zyqkvx 34 points35 points  (8 children)

Women are often demonized for things that men should be doing the same. Men usually lock in to one woman (as social convention), and shut out other women, if for no other reason for 'appearances'. Men shouldn't. It sets them up for a hard fall when she leaves him. Men also should know a few other women enough to comfortably talk to routinely as a minimum. The women should be equivalent to an orbiter, or some kissing on the beach. More so, when a man is dating or in a LTR with a woman he should freely talk to other women, flirt. Whatever the fuck he wants. The same applies to him as when women say to their LTR, "I can talk to anyone I want. It's wrong to try to control me just because we are dating. I can have male friends, bla bla bla". Same thing works both ways. The catch is as a man you have to have enough SMV to do this on the same level as a woman without blowback or her leaving you. Solution: maximize your SMV. All short comings is a call to further your SMV. And abundance, of course.

[–]OneCovah 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, was divorced by his wife, a horse-faced bitch. What was she thinking? "I'm too good for the most famous man in the world, I'll divorce him to show him I'm better". He promptly married another woman, much more beautiful and sexy. Then he died.

Point is, SMV and your "Men usually lock in to one woman per social convention, and shut out other women, if for no other reason for appearances. Men shouldn't". Case in point, Armstrong did not, plenty of women were hot for him, his wife was a fool.

[–]Paladin2903 11 points12 points  (4 children)

The catch is as a man you have to have enough SMV to do this on the same level as a woman without blowback or her leaving you.

This is an extremely important part of the equation. Without it, rest assured, she will leave.

[–]zyqkvx 1 point2 points  (3 children)

With high SMV she will be less likely to leave, but my point is who cares, if you have a high SMV and know other women one can take her place till you find something better without the 'break up crash' men usually go through.

[–]lorum_ipsum_dolor 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Abundance mentality at work.

[–]zyqkvx 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Women have abundance mentality. Abundance is a profound notion to men because the way their were raised overlapping with the fact that women are beautiful and the sense that one is all a man needs (which quickly devolves in to oneitis)

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

Women have abundance reality

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

When a woman has called off a relationship she has checked out months or even years before

[–]2Dmva100 23 points24 points  (2 children)

That's why when a chick says she wants a break/time off you gotta get smashing a new chick fast and then she'll try and branch swing back to you and get you back into her vagina to fuck up your new relationship, but you don't entertain such bullshit and she will often end up losing her new man in the process in her freakout mode

[–]HerefortheTuna 4 points5 points  (0 children)

hahah that happened to my EX. She also lost her job and crashed her car shortly after we broke up now shes living at home with her parents

[–]OneCovah -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

"she'll try and branch swing back to you"? fat chance. What does a woman say when you try to hook up with an ex-girlfriend? Get lost. Too bad for her. Over time, men get manlier and women lose their looks. There is not reason to go back, a real man never does. A real man finds a younger and sexier woman.

[–]Ibanezguitarrocks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm laughing because of how many times I've seen this.

I end up feeling bad for the rebound because I know he's getting dumped sooner or later leaving his head spinning.

[–]totoro_make 54 points55 points  (2 children)

This is exactly what my last exclusive girlfriend did. I got her attention while she still had a boyfriend and when we broke up she had already been talking to her now husband for months. Awalt.

[–]willowhawk 55 points56 points  (1 child)

Rip in peace her husband lol

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorVasiliyZaitzev 17 points18 points  (0 children)

“Women leave and when they end the relationship the other guy is already there. They always know where they are going.”. In my life I've never heard of a woman leave her boyfriend without an option lined up already. I'm sure it happens sometimes but when your girl leaves you, no matter what she says, there's a very strong chance she has someone else.

"You know the next man to fuck your woman, you've met him, he's been in your house, he ate your food, he drank your wine...and he shall betray you."

[–]OneInAZillion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know tons of girls who say, as if it's just a cute little character trait:

"I tend to not be single for very long".

...yeah, because it's because you just fall in love so quickly and deeply because you're such a romantic person. I mean you just can't help the way you are, amirite?

..No wait, it's because you designed it in a way so that there's not that long of an interim between guys. You always, ALWAYS have a backup plan - some silver medal guy that you can jump to when things go south with your current #1.

[–]chrisname 89 points90 points  (12 children)

Lots of guys who do well with women and have redpill beliefs also get emotionally attached easily. The alpha/beta dichotomy is a simplification, it doesn't accurately describe the social behaviour of any animal, let alone us.

[–]steveblahhh 17 points18 points  (10 children)

A beta with alpha tendencies would totally say that. Everyone knows true alphas are one dimensional, emotionally stunted and have no less than 20% Neanderthal DNA.

[–]chrisname 25 points26 points  (2 children)

Yep it's totally reasonable to group humans into broad categories, except when it's not, in which case you just prop up the faulty idea by saying there's an overlap, instead of realising that your model is inadequate. This makes the model unfalsifiable, which means it can't be proven false, which means it must be true.

[–]RedwallAllratuRatbar 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Actually the neanderthal DNA is what makes us, cough, white

[–]OneCovah 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Asians have more Neanderthal DNA than whites. Non-Africans also have Homo erectus DNA. Apparently as early modern humans spread out of Africa they encountered groups of Homo erectus as well as Neanderthal. This genetic diversity makes non-Africans healthier. We know blacks do not live as long as whites or Asians, and it's not just life style decisions.

[–]RedwallAllratuRatbar 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Actually these are probably valid arguments, what I meant was fair skin and things like redhead, autism, higher intelligence, introversion

[–]OneCovah 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Although off topic, I'd just like to point out that early modern humans out of Africa were the smart ones. And just why there are no blue eyed or blond Asians, I have no clue.

You mention introversion. Since I am typing anyway, I suggest looking up introversion as originally defined by Jung. He uses the term to define "internal locus of control" that is, confidence, as opposed to extrovert, "external locus of control" that is, depending on approval of others. That is different from the popular definition.

The ancient Greeks had better definitions- sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric, and melancholic. You can set up a paradigm: Sanguine = plus intelligence, plus sociability; phlegmatic (nerd) = plus intelligence, minus sociability; choleric (hothead) = minus intelligence, plus sociability, and melancholic (dullard) = minus intelligence and minus sociability.

Wouldn't we all like to be sanguine? That's the best. Let it be a goal.

[–]HerefortheTuna 1 point2 points  (1 child)

idk man my great grandmother lived in Ghana her whole life and was 107 years old when she died

[–]EmotionalChicken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same, I'd wager its the opposite actually, all of the African older people I know live much much longer despite "poorer" living conditions

[–]KizahdStenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My theory for the black death and disease rate is their inability to get enough vitamin-d at most lattitudes.

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

"The alpha/beta dichotomy is a simplification, it doesn't accurately describe the social behavior of any animal, let alone us."

Except it does. Alpha males are proficient at the mating dance, betas are not. Say a bird flutters down and starts his mating dance, strutting around, and the female flies off. That's a beta. When the male becomes proficient with his mating dance, he can attract a mate.

A human male who is proficient at the mating ritual is alpha. He attracts a mate, marries, and leaves the dating pool. This means the generic male is not proficient (beta), and the alphas who turn down marriage- playboys- do not commit. Funny how women complain men do not commit, showing they are attached to playboys and turn down betas who'd be happy to commit.

[–]Redpillandrew 8 points9 points  (2 children)

If you want to resist the feminist movement, the simple way to do it is to give them what they want and they’ll defeat themselves.

An alternative take on what is often said here at TRP, that is "treat feminism as a global scale shit test" (and ignore)

[–]lorum_ipsum_dolor 2 points3 points  (1 child)

This is basically the tl;dr for "The Misandry Bubble".

[–]indeydius 7 points8 points  (1 child)

He Alpha-Widowed Angelica Houston. http://archive.is/HYIj1

"Apollonia van Ravenstein told her that she slept with Nicholson the week before and that they used to be in a relationship. When Huston confronted Nicholson, he replied, 'Oh, Toots, it was just a mercy f***.' 'That was the first time I'd heard copulation described as an act of compassion,' writes Huston."

[–]wrightm403 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Hypergamy is human nature. It's both innate in men and women. If you had employers messaging you daily offering you new, better more exciting jobs you would display similiar behaviour as a female does in relationships. When you have options you choose the best. And if the options are constantly presented to you, you will be forever choosing.

That's my thoughts anyway!

[–]King_Booga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But just because it's our "human nature" doesn't mean we should discard a s/o like a leaf in the wind at the drop of a hat does it??

[–]Dextline 16 points17 points  (1 child)

I suspect Jack experienced the beta -> alpha transition differently than most. Unlike people who want more, and work towards that goal, finding that the red pill can lead to that goal.

With his looks, status and personality, you're probably not the first to look at him as an alpha. Especially if women just start assuming he's an alpha, regardless of how he sees himself, and show their true colors to get his attention, it wouldn't matter if he'd been brought up thinking a blue pill beta is what a man's supposed to be. If he'd keep making small life adjustments with happiness as his goal; becoming a red pill'ish alpha would lie on the same path.

[–]JohnGalt316 7 points8 points  (1 child)

look up Jack Nicholson and how he ended up with Laura Flynn Boyle while she was with David Spade to see hypergamy in action

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/08/jack-nicholson-dating-lara-flynn-boyle

[–]OneCovah 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"Nicholson.. shamelessly flirted with Jennifer Lawrence—50-odd years his junior"

Sounds good to me.

Lots of movies have romantic leads decades older than his female love interest, no one minds. A wide age variance might seem creepy but in the real world it's fine.

[–]oldrunnerguy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“Women leave and when they end the relationship the other guy is already there."

That hits at home, now that I am divorced. But I when I met my ex-wife, she was still legally married. Unfortunately, I did not find this out until much later. Although, I haven't been able to prove anything (yet), there was some very suspicious behavior on her part before she left, coming home much later than expected from work. She moved in with her daughter, but I still can't help but feel that there were things going on that I don't know about.

I can't argue with the other quotes you've posted, they are very insightful and pretty much fit the narrative, if not in my relational history, at least in the history of my male friends and what they have dealt with throughout life. Kudos to Jack!!!

[–]darkstar1031 3 points4 points  (2 children)

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

He is playing a character. The description literally says misogynistic. Don't take examples from fiction too literally.

[–]ImmortalAl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What movie is this? Forgive me for living under a rock.

[–]petechamp 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Red pill or no red pill, Jack Nicholson is more alpha than anybody on this thread.

[–]OneCovah 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I'll match your Jack Nicholson and raise you a Dean Martin.

The book "Dino: Living High in the Dirty Business of Dreams" uses the life story of Martin to riff on sex, music, business, underworld, Rat Pack, on an on, a brick of a book you cannot put down.

Now there is an alpha male who used music to charm the ladies and used indifference and confidence as a laid-back attitude that made him millions.

[–]EscortSportage 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Guess im heading over to Amazon and order another book.

[–]Flpgneves 13 points14 points  (4 children)

He strikes me as a blue pill alpha.

Blue pill alphas know many of the "ugly" truths about women, but they never connect all the dots to get to the bottom of it, aka, they are not RP. So they still believe some of the blue pill lies about women, while displaying alpha behavior based not really on clear information (RP), but on the direct experience of being naturally good with girls.

A friend of mine is like that. He's tall, good looking and has good game, but when his girlfriend broke up with him, he cried like a little bitch and begged to get her back.

[–]rebelde_sin_causa 13 points14 points  (0 children)

That can be true. If you're rich and famous, you're automatically alpha, even with a blue pill mindset.

[–]mishasam89 2 points3 points  (0 children)

i don't know why you're getting down-voted. Your comment is spot on.

[–]Hltchens 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eh. Love is a drug. It’s more potent than heroin. Withdrawal from love (oxytocin) sucks ass. RP is about keeping that withdrawal to yourself and living through it. Not making it not happen at all. That would be pointless

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

Also known as the female unicorn or natural.

[–]bettereveryday1985 1 points1 points [recovered]

This needs better wording

I couldnt understand the fucking half of it srsly

[–]XeRefer 12 points13 points  (0 children)

To do cardio, or not to do cardio and have a stroke while reading, that is the question.

[–]waking-life[S] 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Formatting on Reddit is not my strong point.

[–]1dongpal 9 points10 points  (3 children)

its not just the formating. the last quote, the fuck does that even mean?

“When I worked with Jack on Carnal Knowledge,” Nichols recalls, “we were both very young. But it became clear to me right away why Jack was so successful with women. All the rest of us were two guys: one, as it were, by day, and another when we were thinking about or near women. Jack is always the second one.”

??

[–]nomogoodnames 10 points11 points  (0 children)

When you work and live by day, you behave in a certain way.

When you are chasing women, you behave in another way.

Jack behaves the same way at all times.

[–]Panos96 6 points7 points  (0 children)

"we were both very young. But it became clear to me right away why Jack was so successful with women." Mike Nichols is saying he was young and inexperienced with the world, lacked "social street-smarts", and so at that point he didn't know how to look at successful people and abstract what it was that made them so. He didn't yet understand how to analyse personalities and read human behavior. And yet with Nicholson he still figured out immediately why he was successful with women.

Then: "All the rest of us were two guys: one, as it were, by day, and another when we were thinking about or near women. Jack is always the second one.” here he's talking about how most guys pretend to be alpha around women (outward Chad behavior with little to no frame), while in reality they are beta in their normal everyday life, so it's easy to see through them. But Nicholson didn't pretend, he was alpha regardless of women being present or not cause that's who he really was.

Pretty straightforward quote tbh, and good demonstration of someone naturally coming to red pill conclusions without being familiar with the online movement, which clearly didn't exist in 71.

[–]dutch411 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Its about ‘flipping the switch’- trying to impress women when ur around them - or just being an impressive person

[–]halfback910 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Jack Nicholson, Bruce Springsteen, and Billy Joel are three people that I always think are dead and are still alive. How odd.

[–]LightFarron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What if I told you that in reality Chaddad doesn’t exist? What if I told you that Chaddad is actually much younger that a lot of the alphas he’s encountered. What if told you that this unusual true lone wolf. Has read and applied all of the knowledge all the alphas gave and played them in their own game. Chaddad doesn’t have time for alphas he plays by his own rules, maybe he was out fucking chad’s mom, sisters,daughters or any other plate he wants, maybe he has mastered and perfected everything he’s learned and now he’s just looking for revenge.

See the light for what it is, is it real? Or was it placed in order to test something?

A wolf in a sheep disguise.

[–]ADeadDawg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Random Fact: It was his birthday yesterday.

[–]Throwaway_5252 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He’s also a HUGE user of escorts now in his old age. Mcmuprhy in One Flew Over the Cookoos Neat is my favorite charachter he’s ever played. Such a quick witted punk/rebel and all together it’s the perfect individual vs the establishment film, similar to Kubricks A Clockwork Orange.

[–]waking-life[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Edit: Source has been updated and is now working.