Female youth and beauty is the most valuable commodity in the world: "Women converted their youth and beauty into resources by having sex with a man who would provide those resources. This social contract was upended and replaced, however, and very recently so."

AutoModerator · 2019-11-01T15:01:42+00:00

Why are we quarantined? The admin don't want you to know.

Register on our backup site: https://www.trp.red and reserve your reddit name today.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

iLLprincipLeS · 2019-11-01T16:17:18+00:00

What fascinates me the most about the red pill is how we are - both men and women - being lied to. The lies creates - in both men and women - later regret. Beauty and time fades from the woman. Time to enjoy and succeed fades away for men awaiting payment for “doing as they’re told”.

At least men can turn it around by seeing the red pill. For women, the lie is even more regretful. Because you can’t get time back, your youth back, the attention back.. That train left the station while you believed you’d become fulfilled by following a (well intentioned?) lie.

What other lies are we being fed?

liberules · 2019-11-01T17:40:19+00:00

Sure, I agree with virtually all of this. It's plain observable economics. But it doesn't properly answer the question of where we're headed. We can all agree on the tenant that all versions of the social contract are centered around men trading resources for sexual access. So what is sexual access? It's getting off and reproduction.

The first issue (getting off) is foreclosed on by sexbots. Sex robots are ridiculous now, but so were cell phones in 1999. If you brought your phone today back to 1999, they'd think it was some scifi movie prop. Same with bluetooth headsets and dating apps... what was socially unacceptable even 15 years ago is now the norm. Sex bots don't have to be perfect. They just have to be better than their meat based competition. And for many guys, they already are. And as the bots become more realistic over the next 20+ years, that percentage is only going up. This is why sexbot brothels are being protested or even vandalized out of business whenever they pop up. Silicone blobs are already beating out the meat women, and it's only going to getting worse for women.

The second issue (reproduction) is only a part of it. Look at Japan, where over 70% of men are already foregoing women entirely, not reproducing because they believe the juice is not worth the squeeze. So now you're left with a percentage of men who want children, divided by those who are willing, and those who are unwilling to take the legal liability of divorce rape. This is currently addressed in very limited form by surrogacy. To do a surrogate in the west, you basically work with an agency in eastern europe, and they mix your sperm with the egg of a girl (usually who looks like a supermodel), a girl gestates it, and then 9 months later you get a baby that's legally yours in every way, free and clear. It currently costs $40-75k to do this, depending mostly on the quality of the lawyers helping you out. That's significantly cheaper than the expected value of marriage (and coin flip divorce rape). Surrogacy is so damaging to the economics of all iterations of the resources-for-sexual-access contract that many western countries have made it illegal to do in most forms. While they can't make it illegal to do abroad and bring back a child that's biologically yours, it's usually illegal to pay for it or be paid for it domestically. But the day that artificial wombs become a reality, it's game over for women. When the tech catches up to demand, the cost will come down massively, to the point where an artificial womb will cost less than a real live pregnancy, never mind the legal risk.

And at that point, what does anyone need a woman for? Not even the top 10%+ of guys who can get women will need one. That's when you're going to see harpies pushing for full-on communism. They'll be removed from the social contract provisioning sex for resources, and they still won't want to produce/accumulate resources via labor (female labor force participation rate is almost 20 points lower than the male rate). Hell, that's why feminist societies today are all far left leaning... they require wealth reallocation from producers (mostly men) to non-producers (mostly women).

iLLprincipLeS · 2019-11-01T15:03:52+00:00

TLDR:

If women did not exist men truly would just be living in caves, occasionally going out to hunt for food and at best, AT BEST, some creative cave man might have created poker along the way just so we'd have something to do inside the cave during downtime.

The larger point is since men have built civilization, created and discovered nearly everything, and work harder and in harder subjects, we earn and make the lion's share of the world's income, giving us the most purchasing power in the world. And the number one thing we demand is female youth and beauty, making female youth and beauty the most sought after, and thus most expensive commodity on the planet.

Converting Beauty into Money

The problem facing women in the past was how to convert or "cash in" on their youth and beauty. Traditionally, and across all cultures, this was done through marriage. The "social contract" was that women would provide men their love, affection, support, and sexual access, raise the kids and keep the home, while men would go out, work, make the money, toil in the fields, get killed in war and provide for the family. Some might argue this was barbaric. But whether this arrangement was good or bad is moot. It was what it was. Women converted their youth and beauty into resources by having sex with a man who would provide those resources.

This 2 million year old social contract was upended and replaced, however, and very recently so. Because with rapid advances in technology, women's suffrage, democracy, and the elimination of traditional gender roles, women were no longer relegated to the home to rear and tend to the children. Like men, they were allowed to go out and work, support themselves, own property, etc., freeing them from the expectation that they would have to exchange sex for resources, putting their own livelihoods in their own hands. Furthermore, to cement this "new contract", the traditional role of men was replaced with the government. The ultimate authority and responsibility in providing for a woman (and any children she might have) would no longer be men or an individual man, but the taxpayer through the state. Thus, while men still made the lion's share of economic production, individual husbands would no longer pay individually to support an individual wife in exchange for sex. Men (and working women) would pay communally for all women (and any consequential children) via the government, and sex would be incidental. For the first time in human history women were truly free from men, and it was thanks to this "second social contract."

But before women get too excited about this "second social contract" and the freedoms it has afforded them, it gets even better. Because the internet has provided for what could be considered a "third social contract" that combines the best aspects of the previous two with the drawbacks of none.

Old habits die hard, especially 2 million year old ones. And just because women no longer need men, and men no longer need women, it doesn't mean men's genetic and biological desire for female youth and beauty has gone away. Furthermore, men still make the majority of money, produce the majority of GDP, and control the majority of wealth. So whatever success feminism has had in freeing women from being resource-dependent upon men, the fact still remains female youth and beauty is still the most valuable commodity in the world and men have most of the purchasing power. Thus, even if women are taken care of via themselves or the state, they can still convert their beauty into cash as an "added bonus" if they wish to do so.

The problem was in the past (whether under the "first or second social contracts") directly converting your youth and beauty into money required either prostitution, stripping, or mistressing, all of which come with an abundance of problems and complications of their own. Prostitution was (and still is) largely illegal, socially shunned, and the risk of STD's doesn't need pointing out. Stripping may be legal, but there's the risk of drugs, slipping into prostitution, abuse, stalkers, pimps, mental illness and the whole underworld of stripping. And though mistressing is perhaps the "healthiest," it also takes a toll on marriages and any children unfortunately indirectly involved. But all of these problems have one thing in common. One thing, that if eliminated, eliminates all these drawbacks without lessening the benefits - the physical presence of a man.

So if you can get rid of the physical presence of the man, all these drawbacks go away, but the benefits remain.

And the internet allows women to do precisely this.

STD's, pimps, drugs, abuse, stalkers, possessive men, and even the inconvenience of the physical presence of an annoying man, all these problems are eliminated by the internet. We highlighted these pro's before by delving into the revolutionary business model of "Chaturbate." But the ramifications (and benefits) that the internet has for women goes well beyond the mere obsoleting of the strip club industry. Additionally, there have been some sociological changes as well that makes this "new and improved third contract" a drastic improvement over the previous two.

First, underpinning all of this is the increasing reliance (and preference) for digital relationships over real world ones. It is no secret that Millennials-and-younger increasingly rely on social media for their social lives, but it is also the case with sexual ones. Impossible as it may seem (since sex by definition is PHYSICAL), millions of Millennial boys prefer to jerk off to internet porn than engage in the daunting and costly task of pursuing a girl in the real world. "Why spend all that time in the gym, classroom, traffic and office when I can just jerk off to this girl on Chaturbate for free in my mother's basement?" And young women's counter to this is "Why should I have to physically have sex with a guy or show up for a date when I can get attention and resources by flashing my boobies on the internet from THOUSANDS of men at the same time?" It is part economics, part fear, part laziness, and part technology, but also simply a change in generational behavior that younger people have moved their relationships online (including sexual ones). And though this has resulted in a lot less real-world sex, a lot less dating, even a lot less kissing, it does not negate the fact that it is now more socially acceptable to "have sex online," removing traditional social stigmas surrounding porn and selling one's bodies online. Thus you old, antiquated Gen X'ers and Baby Boomers might think it's shockingly "risque" your wife sends you a nudie pic on the phone. For Millennials-and-younger a girl masturbating herself online is just another Tuesday.
Second, if you look at it from a purely "resource-extracting" perspective, the digital world is just as profitable as the brick and mortar one, just without all the drawbacks. In the US the prostitution industry is estimated to be about $14 billion, while the porn industry (the figures of which are not as precise) are about the same. However, these statistics only measure what has been traditionally considered "porn." It does not include all the money girls make today online through booming sites like Chaturbate, Seeking Arrangement, Name Your Price, and a score of others. Furthermore, it's practically impossible to measure the millions (perhaps billions?) of private financial transactions online between men and women where women simply "send nudes" or "send pics." Furthermore, if you're going to focus on mere "resource-extraction" a lot of things that aren't porn still are women trading their beauty in for money (cute pics, attention, subscription services, and patreon donations - which we will discuss below). I'm no economist, but given this wider definition of resources-for-beauty, as well as the booming growth digital female beauty is experiencing online, I would very conservatively estimate the "Digital Female Beauty Commodity Industry" to be 5 times larger than the analog one today, easily reaching 10 times that in the next 5 years. So yes, most girls today won't be pulling tricks on the street. But what percent of girls today and in the future will pull metaphorical "digital tricks online?" It's safer, easier, and multiple times more profitable, so much it will become the norm.

AnyHead · 2019-11-01T15:30:39+00:00

I guess I'm old fashioned because I don't consider watching a girl on a webcam to be anywhere close to the same experience I would get with a lap dance. Obviously the former channel is way more attractive to the "suppliers" (for the safety, capital, labor, etc. considerations mentioned) but damn... I guess we as the "demanders" are being less and less demanding.

andreas-mgtow · 2019-11-01T20:49:17+00:00

Good article overall, but I disagree with the conclusion that men would live in caves if the mating imperative did not compel them to build shit to impress women with resources.

A common trait of many hyper productive men is refusing to waste time and resources on women.

You have (Science/Tech) Sir Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, the Wright brothers; (Philosophy) Sartre, Thoreau, Voltaire, Descartes, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Plato; (Art) Beethoven, Vivaldi, Da Vinci, Kafka ...

Without these men and many, many others, We would certainly not be living in a modern society.

JihadNinjaCowboy · 2019-11-01T16:24:26+00:00

All social contracts are invalid now, including marriage. It serves the elite in the short term to divide and conquer and demoralize potential competitors/adversaries.

Feminism was highly financed by Carnegie, Ford & Rockefeller groups, which incidentally all have CIA ties. For the world economic implications of elites, read 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman'.

The only real valid social construct now is that there are elites, and there are free-range slaves, with some of those free-range slaves serving as useful idiots for the elites. (feminists, economists, journalists, law-enforcement, etc)

waxrivers · 2019-11-01T21:40:40+00:00

I thought the one point the author missed glaringly is in how these economic trends shall play out in future generations. He suggests that there are "Piles of Money" for female beauty, but doesn't touch on the fact that much of that wealth was built up by past generations. This is wealth that is being "squandered" by Boomers, etc. The money came from a generation where men worked hard and invested (The parents of Boomers); built and produced goods. Now the money is being "pulled from the wealth bank account".

So I'm not so sure that a THOT will be able to make 150K a month on Patreon so easy in another generation. My Generation X is broke as fuck. The Millennials are a joke as the author states. The young men today, who are not building up wealth, will be looking for much more economical solutions like VR Headsets and Sexbots that go the long mile. I scarcely believe that women being pretty will grant them a career because wealth will be scarce.

Perhaps a small group of 10/10s can make a life career of camming, but where does that leave the rest of women? There will be no Welfare State because young men will not have built up any wealth. That is less property to tax; less income tax; less money to go into female welfare. Not ALL women will be pretty and young. And once they loose those two traits, they need traditional welfare (eg: Marriage; State Welfare; FoodStamps; etc) that are all paid by male taxes.

TL;DR I believe that by the time the Millennial men come of age to build wealth, they will already be "leaving society" and fucking off playing vidya. This will kill the Female Welfare State within one generation. We are literally watching the collapse Right Now.

AtlasHJack69 · 2019-11-02T02:37:38+00:00

Finally, these are the type of posts I subscribed to read. Kudos to OP!

I would suggest that I don't entirely agree that without women men would not have developed civilization. Isaac Newton is largely rumored to have died a virgin as were many of the royal academy back in the day. Nikola Tesla also thought women were a waste of time and died a celibate, there are couple of other famous physicists that died virgins, or barely cared about women found them superficial and only useful for sex. Einstein fucked his cousin and was extremely mean to his wife he didn't care. The dude who won the Nobel prize in 2012 said his children were alone most of the time. Because he was in the library most of the time.

Men are motivated by abstract and other non superficial things. Women are blank slates and will build themselves in the image of whatever man she wants to attract and keep.

hoopingblob · 2019-11-01T17:54:30+00:00

It angers me to see that some people in Suits and with pink hair are trying to stop the human progression because of their laziness and envy.

We have so much potential and yet we are being stopped for developing it to it's fullest. I will break these limits and like this going against the system and showing it a big fuck you.

It's time to win this war.

russian_nlgger · 2019-11-02T03:49:35+00:00

seeking arrangement is not just for sugar babies. most girls on there will literally hit you up with a price and you go from there. they're straight up hookers

Skuggasveinn · 2019-11-01T20:31:35+00:00

Given that it's true that online female beauty is getting more valuable. How can I invest (and hopefully profit) out of this?

quieroser · 2019-11-01T21:47:18+00:00

beauty fades fast, very fast

RelativeTeal · 2019-11-01T21:44:52+00:00

Lol. “As an economist,” and then “I’m no economist?” Like, reread and edit your own content, dude

dr_warlock · 2019-11-01T23:52:45+00:00

Aaron Clarey doesn't get the cred he deserves.

Putin-Nanny · 2019-11-01T16:29:09+00:00

From a female perspective, the value of this commodity can depend on how it's sold and on what market. Jeff Bezos's wife is decent but how much would she make in porn? Why sell the milk on the cheap when the cow could be worth it's weight in gold?

Sorry this knowledge won't directly get you laid but can give more perspective in female game.

Spicychickenaholic · 2019-11-02T13:53:08+00:00

I really can't agree with this. I think female beauty is the most valuable commodity in a few places, such as the US. There are places where female beauty means a lot less than what class you come from or how you speak.

> Men (whether you like it or not) have single-handedly built civilization. We build buildings, roads, aqueducts, bridges, and forges all so we can get a beautiful, young woman.

This completely insane and reductive. You would be right to argue that reproducing is the primary drive of everyone and so in a sense all other endeavours are inherited from them but that is the absolute limit you can take that. Men have built society because it was the correct thing to do in that time and that place. Not because they were trying to get some pussy. Henry Ford didn't mass produce the first automobile so that he could get some pussy. Edison didn't invent the lightbulb for some ho's. This is a case of drinking too much TRP coolaid and trying to view the world in terms of a univariate analysis.

SKRedPill · 2019-11-03T18:01:32+00:00

For all those wondering, at a global level, the mass of humanity is still operating in a woman's frame (which as we've seen, has no solidity or long term idea where it's going) - aided by the legal system. At a macroscopic level, all men are guilty of surrendering their frames and power to women for pussy.

The only solution lies in bringing them back into our frame again. Or else gets ready for an eventual insane future and a very hard crash of society.

mtriad · 2019-11-02T01:32:24+00:00

If women or man did not exist... no one would exist. This post put them in a huge pedestal even tho it’s not intended too

Fenarth · 2019-11-07T18:43:58+00:00

Read the whole article and while it was an okay, but very entertaining read; I find it hard to agree with.

It severely overestimates the practicality of what it implies

Just because you are pretty and pretend to be a conservative for example, doesnt mean you'll be popular

Having a presence on social media to reach financial sustainability requires an AMPLE portion of luck as well as hard work. Work is work. Even if it's not in the traditional sense

A very small portion of women can achieve the kind of easy life he makes seem so easy to obtain as a woman, even if they want to