625,770 posts


The article: https://archive.today/ocr0k

This article is a great example of the male hamster at work. Here we have a male feminist realizing that he doesn't trust his wife, because she is a woman. This of course is a huge social issue, for which men are entirely at fault.

Trust. Well, the lack thereof. Generally speaking, we (men) do not believe things when they're told to us by women. Well, women other than our mothers or teachers or any other woman who happens to be an established authority figure. Do we think women are pathological liars? No. But, does it generally take longer for us to believe something if a woman tells it to us than it would if a man told us the exact same thing? Definitely!

This conversation is how, after five months of marriage, eight months of being engaged, and another year of whatever the hell we were doing before we got engaged, I realized I don't trust my wife.

This is a pretty good point that he makes, yet rather than go into why that is, the author chose to ignore that completely and make a sales pitch for the "Listen and Believe" mentality, and dive into some racial politics for good measure (this is huffpo after all.)

Here is how he wraps up the article:

So how do we remedy this? And can it even be remedied? I don't know. This distrust of women's feelings is so ingrained, so commonplace that I'm not even sure we (men) realize it exists. I can do one thing, though. The next time my wife tells me how upset she is about something I'm not sure she should be that upset about, trust her. After five months of marriage, eight months of being engaged, and another year of whatever the hell we were doing before we got engaged, it's the least I can do.

Again, rather than address why this "problem" exists, the best thing to do is just Listen and Believe.

The author is absolutely right in his assessment that many men have a hard time believing women, especially when their feelings are involved. The reason for this is pretty apparent to anyone willing to look.

Men, even those raised to be a good supplicating beta, understand at a basic level the difference between power talk and straight talk.

If you haven't read through Powertalk and other Language Categories from the sidebar, now would be a good time.

Women are usually far more skilled at powertalk than men. Most of them instinctively understand that you don't say things because they're true, you say things to get what you want. If they're true, that's just a coincidence.

And most men, to some extent, realize this. This is what the author is dancing around. The simple fact is, men don't trust women because women have repeatedly shown that they are not deserving of trust. Life experience teaches men that women's default method of communication is geared not toward the truth, but toward getting something they want.

They're afraid of the creation of a sort of hybrid, a man who understands powertalk well enough to see through their bullshit, but not well enough to create his own bullshit and actually thus BE attractive. That's why they use the term "rapist"... because such a man is indeed frighteningly like a rapist... he ignores social defenses against unattractive men (because he can READ powertalk), but he can't make the leap to being an attractive man (because he cannot WRITE powertalk).

This is what is happening more and more. This is why Listen and Believe has to be pushed so hard. With the internet allowing information to be shared, men are increasingly becoming aware of the way that women use power talk, but are not learning how to use it themselves. More men becoming this "hybrid" as /u/Whisper calls it means less BB, but not more AF. Basically, these are the MGTOW, and this is the reason why they are so disgusting to women.

Women's power is manipulation of men. The mere existance of a man who won't be manipulated is an attack on the feminine primacy that feminists have worked so hard to build.

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar283 points284 points  (97 children) | Copy

The author gave his own TLDR buried in the article:

Until she convinces me otherwise, I assume that her emotional reaction to a situation is disproportionate to my opinion of what level of emotional reaction the situation calls for. Basically, if she's on eight, I assume the situation is really a six.

That... is... COMPLETELY ACCURATE. Women's emotional freakouts are almost always overreactions compared to the severity of the situation. That is why, as this man does, you have to probe into the situation to see if any response is warranted.

None of this is a goddamn problem. When women can stop being "the boy that cried wolf" every time something triggers an emotion, then we'll start taking them more seriously. Of course, I don't believe that will happen.

[–][deleted] 147 points148 points  (13 children) | Copy

When I first got married, I went through this adjustment phase. I'd be working in my home office and would hear my wife scream from downstairs, "Oh, my God! On, no!" I'd race down, expecting to have to eject an intruder from my house. I get down and look around...

Me: "What's wrong?"

Her (gasping for breath): "I saw a bug!"

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil204 points205 points  (6 children) | Copy

A lot of older men in their sixties and seventies simply dont respond to their wive's yelling. Fourty years of marriage have shown them that whatever she is yelling about is less interesting than the newspaper.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours61 points62 points  (2 children) | Copy

Shit, two years of it and you tune them out like bells and whistles in pinball.

[–]1oldredder8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I can't unhear that now, any time it plays, I hear cowbell.

[–]the_one_demiurge23 points24 points  (0 children) | Copy

We just tell them we are going deaf.

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

You just described my BP grandfather. He's married to a feminist psychopath who has literally said for as long as I can remember statements such as: "men are useless now that we have sperm banks", "we should get rid of men", etc. etc.

Forty years of marriage and he now "forgets" to put in his hearing aids half the time. Last time I saw him he actually confided in me that it was because he didn't want to hear her bullshit anymore.

And its funny because she literally told me "I hope he dies first because I don't know what he would do without me." You literally cannot make this shit up.

[–]BlackHeart892 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Either that or they're hoping she's being dragged away.

[–]Philhelm42 points43 points  (1 child) | Copy

Oh, God, this! Any time my wife screams I think that one of my daughters tripped and knocked out their teeth, but it usually turns out to be something like burnt popcorn.

[–]zikkitzo34 points35 points  (0 children) | Copy

I am a deep sleeper. My LTR has this way of sucking in her breath that will wake me from a dead sleep full adrenalin surge pumping ready to fight 20 armed attackers. She goes to work 2 hours before me so when I get woken up like this it's pretty much an hour or so of my day wasted on Reddit before I have to start getting ready. I've yet to get back to sleep. And to think, it was all because her childhood friend's dog died last night and it was on her Facebook feed... fucking hell.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (0 children) | Copy

Or, "My bestie just got engaged!"

[–]tif2shuz-5 points-4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well bugs are just disgusting...

[–]95wave40 points41 points  (3 children) | Copy

Learned this the hard way by observing my mother, probably one of the first things that led me down the path of redpill

[–][deleted] 50 points51 points  (1 child) | Copy

Lol this is exactly how I realized women can't help but to overreact to shit. When I was a kid, I thought my mom was just out of her mind. Come to find out most women are out of their mind.

I'm thankful for my mother though. Dealing with her taught me how to calm these bitches down.

[–]95wave6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

one of the few good things my mum taught me

[–]asdfghjkltyu5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

They overreact to meaningless shit but underreact to important things.

[–]ErenYeager9160 points61 points  (11 children) | Copy

A lot of guys are asking themselves, why do they exaggerate everything and often go nuts?

The answer is simple. They enjoy it. Women's love drama. And no matter how disturbing she seems, don't be fooled by it. She feels very comfortable in those situations. Now, why do they do that? I think they are just addicted to it, they make drama so they can feel alive.

But it does not matter why they do that, we only need to know that she is enjoying it and everything is just fine.

[–]DoctorsHateHim40 points41 points  (5 children) | Copy

Half right, my friend. They create drama not to feel alive (that is just a byproduct), they create drama to get attention. They thrive on attention.

[–]2wiseclockcounter22 points23 points  (3 children) | Copy

It is a product of their evolution. Everything about a woman from a SMV standpoint is designed to ensnare male attention and capitalize on it. Emotional volatility is the tool with which women trap men and get them to fall in love with them. Bonding is achieved through hardship. By creating trials for a man, she is both testing to see if he is easily manipulated and wiring him to care for her, which is really the essence of a male loving a female.

It may seem paradoxical at first, but by luring a man into comforting her, she's systematically rewiring his brain towards maintaining the role of provider and caretaker which enables him to love her in the first place.

[–]asdfghjkltyu7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yep. Spot on. Notice how basically every woman has a sob story when you first meet? Of course, later down the track you learn its usually of her own causing.

[–]1oldredder3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

They do it even when they don't get/expect attention.

[–]Pantek5111 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

I completely agree but I've met a lot of guys with the same bitchy mentality

[–]the_red_scimitar6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy

I think there's more to this. I think women in our society are told they should be self-sufficient, but that's lip service. In reality, most are incredibly incompetent to carry out day-to-day tasks, like doing necessary paperwork, fixing something barely broken, etc. The overreaction is possibly contributed to by the fact they really CAN'T handle the situation - even a trivial one - and this is how anybody will "help" them.

[–]asdfghjkltyu0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

The overreaction is possibly contributed to by the fact they really CAN'T handle the situation - even a trivial one - and this is how anybody will "help" them.

Men jump to their assistance all their life. I know women with low SMV who are very self sufficient.

[–]the_red_scimitar1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Right - the only self-sufficient higher SMV ladies I've known were "ugly ducklings" - fat or otherwise physically unattractive until adulthood. They developed actual skills, abilities to deal with things, a real sense of humor, etc. Even when they became quite beautiful, they were fun, interesting people in their own right.

[–]BlackHeart892 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I concluded a while back that women love drama. They need it. If it isn't there, they will create it. Before TRP, that was what I would now call a shit test.

Part of me still thinks that its really just them craving drama, rather than them testing us. But like you said, it doesn't really matter. Bullshit is bullshit. Who cares "why" its there....

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon103 points104 points  (33 children) | Copy

Basically, if she's on eight, I assume the situation is really a six.


No it's not. If she's emotionally reacting on a 9, it's really somewhere around a 2 or 3.

Having seen female emotional reactions change within less than a second and have no future consequences or regret for her... having seen a woman in tears and the next day say "oh, that was nothing"... nah.

Her feelings and emotions are transient and have very little to do with the real world. They exist to get something, or exert control, like a child crying to get a toy.

[–][deleted] 92 points93 points  (25 children) | Copy

Her feelings and emotions are transient and have very little to do with the real world. They exist to get something, or exert control, like a child crying to get a toy.

Often the woman is just as manipulated by her own feelings, rather than using them to consciously manipulate. Women can fully believe something is true, because their feelings make it feel real for them.

[–]_the_shape_46 points47 points  (8 children) | Copy

Hence why they tend to gravitate toward mysticism and astrology so often, and not toward the hard sciences - the former invokes feelings and emotions, the latter, not so much..

[–]occupythekitchen20 points21 points  (4 children) | Copy

you must known my grandma she said she saw an angel of death around me on new year's eve and prayed it away. thanks grandma for saving me from your imaginary devil.

[–]TreePlusTree13 points14 points  (3 children) | Copy

Well, you're not dead, so I think you owe her a real thank you.

[–]xyoloboyx3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

This ungrateful prick has absolutely NO respect for the elderly.

[–]TreePlusTree3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Nor their ghost removal powers. Seriously, when this guy gets old, he's gonna look back and feel like such a dumbass for dissing grammy's bitter brawl with the angel of death. If that doesn't impress him, what will! I'm just hope when I one day have a grandson, he's not nearly the ungrateful prick this kid turned out to be. SHE FOUGHT A DEATH GHOST FOR GOD SAKE! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

[–]Modredpillschool10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy

For women, their emotions define reality, and not the other way around. If she's feeling a certain way, then there must be a real objective reason she is feeling that way. Whereas for men, we base our feelings on reality.

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

I honestly question that it doesn't apply to men. It's just easier for women since they get a pass for it. For how much bullshit that comes out of people's mouths, it's hard for me to believe that it's very much different.

[–]trpobserver0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Probably also partly why unpopular political or social movements are made up of 95%+ men: those tend to be based on ideology more than emotion. Once a movement becomes popular enough to develop a public image it begins to draw in women. They aren't there for the politics, even though they will repeat slogans like they've been reading about this stuff since they were born.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon15 points16 points  (14 children) | Copy

Women can fully believe something is true, because their feelings make it feel real for them.

Unknown to me. I don't know if they know the truth and hide it, or can't see it, or have no real concept of truth.

[–]sensitiveduck58 points59 points  (13 children) | Copy

I have met 2 women in my life telling me this literally: "When I lie about something important, I truly make myself believe the lie. The lie becomes truth in my head"

[–]Gaffots_cuck_central22 points23 points  (0 children) | Copy

Ah, the ol George Costanza tactic. It's technically not a lie if you believe it.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon12 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy

Wow. I am amazed. That they realise they do this and they admit they do this. I think most do the same trick to persuade themselves that they are honest and good.

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's an act of consensual doublethink, so not a form of cognitive dissonance but something more akin to wilful compartmentalisation.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy

I wonder if they can convince themselves it's the truth enough to pass a polygraph.

[–]LaconicHistrionic 13 points13 points [recovered] | Copy

Interestingly, polygraphs only work if you believe that they work. Otherwise, you can easily trick it.

[–]1 Endorsed Contributormordanus17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy

Or you simply ask yourself another question on top of the question being asked.

Did you murder your wife?

-do I want to go to jail-


[–]MagicGainbow0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Easy to trick anyway, hide a thumbtack in your shoe, lean down on it during the test questions (therefore throwing off the sensors when you spike as lying after confirming your own name).

[–]1DRMMR7610 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

Funny you say that. My very first super LTR, which lasted almost 5 years, told me the same thing. She was a pretty sheltered girl and I actually swiped her v-card (saw the blood and felt the tear) so I don't think her hamster was fully developed yet*, and she told me something very similar. She told me at one point that when something in her life doesn't go her way, she basically imagines that what she wanted happened until she really believes it did and then feels better. It seemed kinda odd when she said it but I was much younger and much much more BP so I didn't see it for what it was. But she pretty much bluntly told me about the hamster process, but unfortunately I didn't see her admission for what it was at the time.

*I say not fully developed because while she clearly had the feminine ability to invent new realities in her head and convince herself they are true, she was still too naive to know as a woman she's never supposed to admit that to a man.

[–]SilentForTooLong1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

That is truly the only way to lie.

I do the same thing, it works unbelievably well.

[–]DarthRoach0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Men can do that too, you know.

[–]BlackHeart897 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yep. I had a chick tell me that I said her being sexually assaulted doesn't matter and she should get over it.

What I actually said is, "I understand how you feel. But what I'm saying is that it has nothing to do with this particular situation".

Later, after she calmed down, she admitted to being over emotional and very irrational and apologized.

Thats when I learned to never argue with a woman when she is upset. It will only cause more trouble.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (5 children) | Copy

Or merely to get her emotional nut off. Just for the sake of experiencing emotion.

[–]the_red_scimitar4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

I feel you are completely spot on here.

Not only do they obviously use extreme emotion to control people or get something, that gets mixed with the general pussy-pass lack of responsibility allowed them by the so-called "patriarchy".

Oh yeah, and don't forget the complete mental inability to see the hypocrisy of their own "arguments" against these points.

[–]mister_barfly7516 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy

You said "triggers." That triggered my triggers. I don't care if that's the only word I saw when I was scrolling down the page, you better tone you language down or I'll get a warrent out for the internet police and then you'll be raped in jail.

Oh no! I've just said raped, now I've triggered myself!



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

But that too, is deliberate. Women want you to be a 6 emotional-freakout-level and therefore they must be an eight. They know instinctively how emotions are not perfectly transmissive. When she can be an 8 and you are a 2 emotion-level, she gains mad respect for you.

[–]DaphneDK4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

That... is... COMPLETELY ACCURATE. Women's emotional freakouts are almost always overreactions compared to the severity of the situation. That is why, as this man does, you have to probe into the situation to see if any response is warranted.

I've learned not to take it too serious, but I love that bubbly happy/emotional/enthusiastic quality about women. Jaded/sarcastic girls do nothing for me.

[–]SilentForTooLong12 points13 points  (14 children) | Copy

The thing is, women are fully capable of controlling their emotions. If they weren't they wouldn't be able to hold jobs, yet clearly they can hold jobs.

So it's quite weird. They only do it because it is socially acceptable to do it. Just have to shut it down hard and make it clear that it is shameful to do.

Slight thoughts though: I feel like this could also maybe be declining with the generations. My mother freaks out about incredibly small shit all the time = learned to ignore it a long time ago. But younger women don't seem to freak out nearly as much. Same seems to go for generally older women I interact with versus younger women.

[–]Redpillc0re7 points8 points  (6 children) | Copy

Women do bring emotions to the workplace. They will shun responsibility forcing men to do the work when they feel inadequate. It's common place in my field, IT. And then on top of that they complain that there are not enough women in IT. It's called pussy pass.

[–]SilentForTooLong1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy

Why can't they be fired for not doing their jobs exactly?

[–]Redpillc0re5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy

Because their beta male colleagues do help them stay there.

[–]SilentForTooLong0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

The hell?... Is there no way you can file objective reports?

Surely this can't be true in all circumstances.

I guess I am lucky to have never worked in these environments. I will always try to make damn sure this is never tolerated in any companies I own though.

[–]Hoodwink0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Is there no way you can file objective reports?

Probably not. In my small experience, most places with an over-representation of hysterical women tend to be government and easy corporate jobs not directly connected with product. Those also attract pushover men.

[–]SilentForTooLong0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Weirdest shit I have ever heard in my life...

[–]Hoodwink0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It's not about being 'objective' when writing. It's whether you will be taken as objective. Writing about women and how their feelings are getting in their way of doing their job can probably get you fired in a number of places because feminist conditioning is strong. You honestly can't critique women objectively because it can be taken against their gender.

[–]1oldredder1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy

Having seen numerous women who can't hold jobs I'll go with the combined population and say you're just witnessing the ones that get past interviews. Plenty never will.

[–]SilentForTooLong0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

I mean, it seems like we shouldn't deny reality...there are examples of successful businesswomen in the world, aren't there? Isn't one of them the CEO of reddit?

Same goes for men, too in regards to some of them not being able to hold a job it seems like.

[–]1DRMMR763 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy

If by successful you mean blatantly incompetent, hell-bent on twisting reddit into a SJW echo chamber, and so utterly in love with her own self-perceived perfection that she blames every one of her own shortcoming on male sexual harassment, then yeah, one of them is the CEO of reddit.

Thankfully the court saw through her bullshit. Hopefully the reddit board will soon enough and boot her on her ass.

[–]SilentForTooLong2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

By successful I mean she worked at a premier venture capital firm, which is a goal that is unachievable for 99% of the people in the world, and is now the CEO of one of the largest websites in the world, something unachievable for even fewer people on the planet.

Maybe she is a shitty person, but it's ludicrous to sit there and say she isn't successful because you disagree with her personal politics. It's the kind of ridiculous hamstering I would expect from a full-retard feminist on TwoX honestly. It's the kind of shameless, self-serving shit that men on here are constantly calling women out on.

You can hate all you want, but you should not deny objective reality in trying to make some self-serving point.

[–]1DRMMR767 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

The reality is that it's on record from her court case that she's a terrible person to work for, with, and have working for you. She's a bad employee and and even worse boss. She had no problem filing a false lawsuit just to get her way when actual hard work was too much for her. That's not just my opinion. That's the opinion of people who actually testified in her court case, and a major reason why she lost. Enron was successful too...until it was revealed to be a sham that was rotten to the core underneath a shiny facade. She is a human Enron. Her success to this point has been entirely through manipulation and not at all from being an actual effective leader or employee, and it's just now being revealed.

[–]SilentForTooLong0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Awesome, she's an asshole. Big deal. She has occupied, and currently occupies positions in the top 1% of the world's elite job market.

However she got there, she got there. She's objectively insanely successful. Unless it comes out that she was somehow like Bernie Madoff or some shit...idk... tons of rich, successful men would probably be called lunatic asshole psychopaths in a courtroom where they were trying to be discredited.

On the other hand, if you can so easily manipulate your way to that level of wealth, well, fuck, sign me up!

[–]Poldonis7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Please refrain from using the word "trigger", it triggers me

[–]CMidnight1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Men are socialized to be stoic in the face of danger. In the past, loss of social acceptance was a fate worse than death. It usually resulted in exclusion from society. Think of the outlaws of Medievil England. It was completely legal to commit any crimes against them. Women rarely had face such punishment since the survival of one's society depends on their ability to carry children. This is the reason why men rarely fear the treat of violent crime despite that we comprise 80% of its vicitims.

I also think that 90% of the red pill philosophy is bullshit.

[–]Redpillc0re6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

Men are stoic by nature. 70% of men in this subreddit were socialized to be the opposite of stoic by overprotective/manipulative parents and media. Most discover they true potential by saying "fuck you" to all this, and going stoic. I find it hard to believe that it's all constructed by society. Are women not socialized to be stoic? They absolutely are. Are they ? Hell no.

90% of every philosophy is bullshit. TRP is better than any other philosophy though.

[–]the_red_scimitar2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

To paraphrase Ted Sturgeon, 90% of anything is crap.

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor151 points152 points  (16 children) | Copy

Women lie all the time, especially about anything related to sex.

How does this fact become the problem of "distrust of women?" It would be like claiming murder is a problem but the REAL problem is that we get nervous when we are alone with murderers.

We distrust women because they lie constantly. The problem isn't that we don't trust women. The problem is that women are not trustworthy.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon82 points83 points  (13 children) | Copy

Women lie all the time, especially about anything related to sex.

"I have the right to change my mind!" 

Yep you do. And we have the right to not believe a word you say after you've been proved a liar.

[–]mister_barfly7549 points50 points  (5 children) | Copy

"I have the right to change my mind!"

"Cindy, who was that gross looking dude you fucked at the party last year?"

"Which one?"

"You know, the one with the zits and the cheese breath."

"Umm... which party?"

"Lol, yoooooooouuu know, Brad's party."

"Which Brad?"

"The hot guy in English."

"Oh yeah! Awesome party!"

"Yeah, but you fucked an ugly dude though."

"I thought he was cute at the time."

"No way! He was hideous!"

"Really? I kinda liked him"

"No way, they only way you could have liked him is if you were drunk."


[–]GC0W3011 points12 points  (3 children) | Copy

Would slap this on my Facebook wall if there weren't chicks on my Facebook I'm trying to fuck.

Got a good laugh. Thanks.

[–]1oldredder6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy

That's why anon-only online presence is best. Fuck facebook: if they won't let me use a fake name I don't need to be on it.

[–]2wiseclockcounter7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

tangent here- without a free reign internet, the kind of controversial ideas we talk about here wouldn't be possible because everyone would have access to your opinions. not an internet I want to participate in.

[–]BlackHeart890 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I assume they're all full of shit until I'm constantly proven wrong. I've only had one chick in my entire life shut down all my arguments and left me feeling stupid each time without even realizing it. lol

[–]TheRealMouseRat16 points17 points  (1 child) | Copy

Your example with murder is a bit flawed. A better example is: Murder is a problem, but the REAL problem is that when someone is running towards you with a knife screaming "I'll fucking kill you!", that people actually run away. No people have to trust the person to not kill you. Even if the person has stabbed you one time, you should just stand there and keep getting stabbed. To phrase the article title in the same analogy it would be:

"People run away from people who try to kill them - And it's a huge problem"

[–]2Overkillengine0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Knife blaming is such a problem, omg triggered.

[–]eaton8058 points59 points  (51 children) | Copy

A "real man" by their definition is a willing and unconditional cuckold.

[–]TheReasoner9429 points30 points  (50 children) | Copy

Lol I was reading an article on the HuffPo a while back about some dude who had a 3some with his girl and another chick and he couldn't handle them both, he was warning other guys not to do it because after all "we only have 1 penis". The amount of cuckolds that replied saying they like to invite another man for MFM "3somes" (thats a gangbang cuckolds not a 3some) was crazy, of course all the slutty women were agreeing with them and giving them thumbs up whilst down thumbing the dudes talking about MFF. I've not read anything from the HuffPo since, it caters to cuckold betas and feminazi sluts, i'm not about that life.

[–]foldpak11122 points23 points  (8 children) | Copy

I'd never do mfm lol that's pretty pathetic

[–]TheReasoner9412 points13 points  (3 children) | Copy

You would have to be beta as fuck to even consider it, i'd drop the slut on the spot if she even asked for one.

[–]SpeakNoTruths19 points20 points  (2 children) | Copy

I'd never do a mfm with a girl I was dating, but my buddy and I double-teamed a chick we had both been fucking before she ran off back to university. It was fucking hilarious, at one point I said "we are ruining you, no guy is going to want you after this" she just laughed, eventually swallowing both our loads.

She still messages us both on Facebook whenever she's in town bahaha

[–]TheReasoner943 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Lol that's an epic story, she probably has some beta on a leash as a bf now whilst she msgs you, these hoes aint loyal man but fuck it if she's not one of my friends chicks i'm gonna smash and make her my bitch before sending her back to beta provider. :D

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

I exerpienced these hoes aint loyal from the other end of the stick last week. Before TRP i remember when i got cheated on. Last weekend i drove up to meet this girl whose had a bf for 6 months now that she 'loooves soooo much' and right when she hopped in the car was all over me, and the rest is history boys. Gg TRP

[–]1oldredder-2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy

how's that? My bro has a girlfriend that needs 2 holes filled at once and I'd fuck her so he said "ok, we'll fuck her" and she's in so why not? I enjoyed shooting my load into her mouth right after he did. If it's not for you that's fine but there's nothing pathetic about fucking her mouth while he's fucking her pussy. It's sex and it's fun.

[–]TheReasoner941 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

I hope your little buddy had fun kissing his girlfriend after you shot your load in the skanks mouth lol, what a classy chick he's found there she's a keeper! I bet you fuck eachother too right you little bitches, bet you have all kinds of diseases. There's some really fucked up people in this country lol.

[–]1oldredder-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'm sure he did - makes her brush her teeth like a good pet slut.

"this country" - which country is that? I'm in Canada, are you?

[–]HeyZeus1213 points4 points  (25 children) | Copy

Good god. That sounds absolutely hilarious.

[–]TheReasoner946 points7 points  (24 children) | Copy

There are some funny strange people out there, cuckolds have to be the most pathetic human beings on earth, I just can't justify in my head how much of a weak pathetic bitch you would have to be to let a woman walk all over you like that, nor do I understand why any woman would date a loser like that. Scary to think we breathe the same air as these people and more than likely work with these types of "men".

[–]HeyZeus1219 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy

Weakness, inadequacy, complacency, self-satisfaction, and irrationality are all celebrated qualities these days.

[–]TheReasoner944 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

We live in a soceity of beta males and feminazis. Men are becoming women and women becoming men due to these betas catering to women and putting pussy on a pedastal.

[–]GC0W300 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

The only possible defense I've ever seen is that some of these guys are bi and are getting off on seeing the guy fuck.

That being said, I don't think that's the primary motivation for this shit. And the sane solution if you really find these guys hot is to... fuck those guys and leave your wife at home. A threesome is nothing besides an exercise in someone in the room getting neglected....

[–]1oldredder-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy

A threesome is nothing besides an exercise in someone in the room getting neglected....

Only if you're doing it wrong.

[–]GC0W300 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

At the risk of hijacking the thread, how do you do it right?

[–]colovick1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Keep everyone engaged and doing something. If it's mmf, the girl has 2 holes active at once and is switching it up every now and then. For mff, you're either fucking and chowing or the girls need to be into each other because all the focus being on your dick means not everyone is getting theirs.

[–]1oldredder-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

No one needs to sit out and just watch, that's one tip

although with MFM I guess there's 2 tips!

[–][deleted] -2 points-2 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheReasoner945 points6 points  (15 children) | Copy

So you would be fine if your girl asked for another dudes dick inside her? You see nothing wrong with that, you would want this woman to be the mother of your kids and take her home to meet your parents? Are you serious? You don't think that's slutty or beta to let another dude give your woman pleasure making her scream his name in front of you? You would be happy to kiss her knowing she's just sucked another dudes dick? Lol. You're the reason theres so many whores out here doing what they want acting like sluts and being so "free", because of cuckold little bitches like you that are happy to see another man smash his girl in front of his face, what a little bitch you must be. Also it has NOTHING to do with ownership and EVERYTHING to do with self respect, respect for me and class. That's the 3 things I look for when dating, any chick that mentions wanting to fuck another dude is a ho and not wife material and is therefore dropped on the spot.

[–]mistakesarelessons-1 points0 points  (10 children) | Copy

its called a fetish, retard. you dont pick them out of a hat at random. cry that others like things you dont lol. its called democracy deal with it fuckboi.

[–]TheReasoner940 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy

Yeah I realise that, that doesn't change anything I said. I'm not a hater I really don't give a damn what other people do just saying what I think about those particular type of "men". Clearly you're butthurt because you're one of these betas, time you logged on bluepill.

[–]1oldredder-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy

No, you just don't know what "beta" means. It doesn't mean "everything I don't like".

It's totally alpha for 2 bros to spit-roast a ho.

[–]TheReasoner942 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

A ho yes, your own gf? Hell no, the fuck are you messing with a whore like that? You gonna marry and have kids with her? Fuck that shit she's nasty, you have to be pretty messed up to even consider her wife material.

[–]mistakesarelessons-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy

what if i told you those type of men are getting off to the whole thing and still fucking their gfs non stop. ur just making assumptions like most of the garbage posted here

[–]TheReasoner940 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

What if I told you I don't give a fuck if they're getting off to it or not, the reason they get off to it is because they're cuckolds, anyone who gets off to watching another dude fucking their girl is beta and the woman a tramp who i'd drop in a minute.

[–]SilentForTooLong-3 points-2 points  (2 children) | Copy

So you only sleep with virgins?...

[–]TheReasoner942 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

That has nothing to do with what I said, I like how you tried to divert the conversation though because you know i'm right. In answer to the question though no i'm a realist however if I know she's been with 20 dudes she's nothing more than a sidechick, I don't date sluts. Enjoy your beta lifestyle though.

[–]SilentForTooLong-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

You can't handle the idea of a woman eve having another penis inside of her, so how can you date non-virgins?

[–]RedHeimdall3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

MFM "3somes" (thats a gangbang cuckolds not a 3some)

Exactly. I always correct them whenever I hear a chick talking about her "threesome" with Tom and Steve.

[–]1oldredder-3 points-2 points  (13 children) | Copy

gangbang is 4+

but anyhow 2 girls will be awesome. Never got it yet, looking forward to it.

MFM I did, twice, was fun but will not even near compare to 2 women.

[–]TheReasoner948 points9 points  (12 children) | Copy

No it's 2+ and anyone who's cool with their girl taking another mans dick is a bitch and his girl a worthless slut who deserves to be passed around and gangbanged like the piece of trash she is. We call that shit a train where i'm from.

[–]1oldredder-2 points-1 points  (11 children) | Copy

No it's 4+ and that's always been the rule.

Since when is r/redpill also a conservatard hide-out?

[–]TheReasoner94-1 points0 points  (10 children) | Copy

No it's 2+, if you're fine with your girl being gangbanged and taking another dudes dick inside her she's a slut and you a little beta bitch, like I said we call that a train and you do that with whores not your own gf wtf is that shit.

[–]1oldredder-1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy

no, it's 4+ and always has been. 3 is a 3-way / threesome no matter what, that's not optional. Your opposite opinion simply makes you stupid.

No girl is "my girl" - I am off the dating market forever, have been since 2002. A girl's sole purpose to me is to put my cum in her. I don't need to know her name, I don't want her to ever know where I live. Ever.

[–]TheReasoner94-1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy

No 2 guys 1 girl is not a 3some you retard, only a beta would say that. No guy I know calls that shit a 3some we call it a gangbang or a train and is only performed with the sluttiest of all sluts, any woman or man claiming thats a 3some gets laughed at and treated like a little bitch by us. You're one of those bitches. The only point I agree with you on is your second paragraph as I'm the same, I don't get into relationships cos I know what vile sluts women are, i've experienced that shit first hand with chicks i've dated and chicks my homies have dated so I wouldn't be dumb enough to catch feelings, women are skanks and deserve to be treated like the subhuman cum dumpsters they are.

[–]1oldredder-1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy

it's always a 3-way.

That rule has existed since before your parents were born. You don't get to make your own definitions for words.

[–]TheReasoner94-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy

We do, because we don't cater to what women say or think that's a gangbang and most alphas would tell you the same.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c50 points51 points  (67 children) | Copy

Trust is largely a function of expectations. The higher the expectations, the more it necessitates trust. The author of the linked article clearly still pedestalizes women, he has high expectations of them, which thus demands a certain level of trust in the authenticity of them as people and their actions.

The key from a TRP perspective is having more realistic expectations of women. Less trust is necessitated in that case.

Your comments about powertalk are spot on. Part of powertalk is also about having realistic expectations of the other person and their goals in any interaction: there is something they want, something they desire. You have to be prepared, have the right tools. You don't come to a swordfight with a wiffle bat.

[–]welpcomma 20 points20 points [recovered] | Copy

Your mention of authenticity is very apt, I feel. This is something I've been struggling with recently. As a student of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, I find it very difficult indeed to move beyond the "hybrid" mentioned in the OP to a true Alpha mentality. As a participant in the conversation, do I act without authenticity by accepting the other's duplicity and responding in kind? How can I in good conscience use language for deceit and coercion? Yet, as we are discussing now, these are the tools of power. Even used with the best intentions, does not the tainted means corrupt the end?

Both parties are supposed to "get it" and thus the conversation becomes a dance, truth being revealed in the tension between what is said and what is meant. But what if both parties aren't on the same page? I certainly know how that feels as a transitioning Beta. Language is sacred, even to the lowest animal and insect. Does not the communicator have some duty of honesty toward his or her audience? The internet allows us to see how rampant misinformation can easily and quickly contaminate a conversation and have dire real world consequences, from Facebook-related depression to anti-vaccine nonsense.

How does one reconcile personal ethics with the demands of The Game? Are most women unworthy of such consideration simply because they were not well bred, or because they are "just women?" To apply such a maxim would be a true moral crisis above and beyond the one we face presently. I do intentionally break my own ethics specifically because it works and I will not be held celibate for eternity for the greater good. But it pains me every time - I'm sure I grimace visibly with each new absurdity I have to pour out to women, and they nonetheless lap it up eagerly, so apparently starved are they for the comfort of untruth. I lost the best girl I've ever had (physically speaking) a few months ago just because I couldn't keep my damn mouth shut and continue playing along. What a world.

[–]alucard457118 points19 points  (40 children) | Copy

Dude, you and me are on the same page. Had a girl visit on her break from school out of state. Last time she came down for a break one of the first things she did was mention her new boyfriend. This time, no such mention, she's sending me winky faces, so I figure "game on".

She shows up, cuddling ensues, I ask her if I shouldn't be so familiar with her and she says it's fine. I look at her phone and her background is still her and her boyfriend. I open a dialogue and apparently they're still dating, but it's ok, she's "flirty" with all her friends, she just doesn't have sex with them(standard ASD) even starts adding extenuating circumstances (unless I got so drunk I forgot I had one). Then she said "treat me like I'm engaged"(WTF???). I didn't lay a finger on her the rest of the night.

Could I have went ahead as planned, tripped with her and banged her brains out? Totally. But I was so put off by the whole process I had no interest in it. Before TRP I would've sighed and accepted what she said as truth, but now that I know she's lying I don't want her enough to bang her. If she had sat down and said "I'm still dating my boyfriend, but it's not serious anymore and I want to have some fun", we would've had some goddamn fun. But all the duplicity, all the bullshit just made me not want her.

I remark that I may not trip cause I don't want to stay up late if I'm not gonna have an absolute blast (work night) and we leave for the concert venue. I haven't become hostile or anything, I've just withdrawn my sexuality from the whole situation, the way I see it we're just friends now, by my choice. She goes on trying to explain that she likes the flirting and stuff but isn't that interested in sex anymore. I just nod and say "I understand".

It's been fucking with me man. I don't know if I just need to learn to enjoy the game more or what, but I felt genuinely dissapointed when she started in on that shit.

I could've been AF, but I didn't even see that value in it that night. After that night I guess I still don't, entirely.

If you figure it out, man, let me know.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face19 points20 points  (23 children) | Copy

Bringing up her boyfriend and asking all about him? If she wants to fuck you, she doesn't want that brought up. She either sees you as an upgrade or at least temporary AF. As far as she's concerned, he doesn't exist while you two are interacting.

"Should I be so familiar with you" - asking for permission, essentially. Least sexiest thing ever. It's like asking a girl if you can kiss her.

Her saying, "Unless I was so drunk I couldn't remember" was an open for you to drink with her and then fuck her, to remove culpability for her. If she was drinking it wasn't her fault, right?

You're judging her by male values and expected male behavior. She was acting as women do - if something happened with you, well, THAT is what was supposed to happen, full stop. To sorta get inside her head - if she fucks you and her boyfriend wasn't man enough to stop it, how is that her fault?

It's a twisted way of thinking, but it's how they think.

To a girl, a commitment doesn't specifically matter. The commitment is somewhat irrelevant. You can hate it all you want, but that is how it is.

I don't want to tell you not to judge this girl any which way you want - do so. But just be aware that you're essentially judging the entire gender and finding them wanting. Just about all of them will do AF/BB and branch swinging if given the opportunity.

[–]the_red_scimitar7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy

I think you stated one of the HUGEST mistakes even some RP men make with women: Expecting them to have values or behavior similar to men, resulting in outcome expectations that aren't realistic.

They are their own thing, and RP has more truth about their actual behavior than any other behavioral models I've heard of. Understanding it and setting expectations to exactly those truths will result in automatic amused mastery at their antics.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

Agreed entirely. I turned Redpill because the evidence made me. I adopted PUA and tried to slap it onto a feminist (I was that deluded) worldview. Massive cognitive dissonance. I'd hear a feminist claim and I'd be like, "Well, that doesn't work. I have direct experience it doesn't. In the fact the opposite does!" Found the Redpill, started testing out its tenets, and I was like, "Well, shit, these guys CAN'T be right!"

Lo and behold, after testing claim after claim in my life, it worked out exactly as predicted by TRP. I was sold.

[–]the_red_scimitar7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yup. In my early days, I used basically a DGAF attitude, negging, and shit-test handling in a "test to destruction" of one plate. I kept upping how much I was an asshole to her, well beyond anything like a comfort zone for me. I was doing and saying things that made me certain I was going to get a horrifically bad response.

But I didn't. Interest kept going UP, insistence on seeing me kept getting more intense from her. I was being the exact type of alpha asshole who seemed to get those girls, but I was doing so entirely as an act. At the time, I was increasingly scared of just how gigantic an upset she would have, and it just didn't materialize.

And since, I've found how to integrate that and use it more naturally. And I found there was an untapped well of alpha characteristics waiting - basically, that being alpha was more the natural state, and had been perverted by female-centric upbringing.

Getting over that disbelief hump is vital. We will find ourselves after that.

[–]alucard45710 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I know, believe me, I know. I guess it's just one of those things you know, but have to experience a few times to believe and accept at your core.

I knew, but for some reason had to verify, then got disappointed when I turned out to be right.

[–]RosewoodPill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

What if everytime she brings up her BF it's complaining how bad he is in bed and how he can't get it up? What's the proper response to get her to come to the dark side for an affair?

[–]SilentForTooLong0 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy

I gotta say, maybe this makes me "pathetic", and maybe it's because of my Asperergers, or just Feminist propaganda, etc... but I have asked the majority of women I've been with for permission to kiss. I've never met with anything but insane turn on from it. I get one of three reactions:

  1. "Obviously, yeah..." wait for me to kiss them

  2. "YES!!" possibly like almost jump at me...

  3. "Holy fuck, it's so hot that you would ask, I've never been asked before! = proceed immediately to sex as they grab me.

After the first time, I just assume it's always desired, but the first time, I always ask to be sure. Life is a real bitch not being able to pick up on normal cues, and I am not abut to go to prison for rape.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy

Your results are not consistent with my experience, but hey, if it's working for you, keep doing it. It's just not advice I'd give to men here. You won't get a rape charge for kissing a girl.

If you want a good heuristic to know if a girl doesn't want to kiss you - check if she turns her head when you go in for the kiss. If she does, she doesn't want to kiss you - at least at that moment.

[–]SilentForTooLong1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy

It's more of a worry for me. I am a very large guy. Women can always claim they were under duress due to my physical stature.

I just prefer to live with certainty.

It's also a defining moment for me. If a girl doesn't want to kiss me, then it's over for me. I would rather know flat out.

I guess maybe I've just been super lucky, but it probably also helps that I'm pretty attractive I guess.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy

They can do that even if you don't kiss them, too. But hey, again, to each their own.

And asking a girl if she wants to kiss you increases the chance that she will not want to kiss you, is all I'm saying. The very act of asking permission is unattractive and frequently repulsive to a woman.

If you're very attractive you'll be given more chances than an average guy would on this. That may be why you're doing fine despite asking.

[–]SilentForTooLong0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Yeah. I would probably be fucked if I wasn't incredibly attractive by default I imagine.

Oh well. It's like being wealthy and choosing to waste a ton of money on an expensive sports car. It's just a luxury I am able to afford I suppose.

It's just weird, because it forces my experience to align with the pro-feminist narrative more than any other kind of guy I imagine... even though it's just an accident.

[–]RosewoodPill1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

It's not an accident, it's blue pill brainwashing and one of the main reasons this sub exists.

[–]RosewoodPill1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

I know exactly where youre coming from, but you need to understand that you've been brainwashed to be this scared. Were you this way at 16?

[–]SilentForTooLong3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I was told as a kid that all women hated sex, sex was evil, and that basically the only way to get a woman to have sex was to marry her/pay her/rape her.

At 16 I was still too afraid to even ask a girl to kiss me...

I lost my virginity on my 18th birthday though thanks to a very aggressive woman. Ever since then experience has proved the exact opposite of the intense religious brainwashing I received, but it's pretty tough to shake.

I haven't experienced any negative effects of asking about that first time kiss, so I doubt I will stop doing it. If I ever experienced women getting turned off by it, I would stop doing it. But since roughly 8/10 times it has resulted in them being more attracted to me, my experience with it tells me to go ahead and keep doing it. I like knowing for sure I am not committing rape, and they seem to enjoy being asked by me, so my experience says it's a win-win so far. I'm not sure the rest of you guys realize how hard it is actually proactively dealing with Aspergers either. I get that you all like to make fun of it, but it's not something I find funny, or enjoyable to deal with. I literally cannot perceive social cues. I have to just operate based on scripts, and with intellectualized contextual logic patterns I have developed through experience, and from research. So just "go with the flow" is not an option for me to be successful. Not sure why everyone is intent on forcing me to fit into a neat little mold here...

Anyway, I never ask after that first kiss though. I would never beg a woman for a kiss, or for sex. I would literally dump any woman that even didn't want to have sex when I wanted to have it. I have literally never encountered that situation though... once I've kissed a girl, I can't even imagine her ever not wanting to have sex with me. Or, for sure once I've had sex with her. Hell, I have the opposite problem constantly when I have girls on the line, they like having sex way too much for me to handle usually. Women don't have limiting mechanisms on their pleasure sensors...makes shit difficult.

[–]the_red_scimitar2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy

These are consistent with my own experiences. That first kiss is often something like, "you need to kiss me now" (I say that to them). Huge smiles and soft lips ensue.

But hey, timing is everything, and just about anything you can say can be put into a frame (delivery style) where it works.

[–]SilentForTooLong0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

Yeah, I mean, you probably don't want to sound like a pathetic piece of shit when asking these kinds of things. I mean, more often than not it's kind of like, "well, are we going to make out now or what?"

I don't know. I can't imagine a woman that was actually attracted to you being pissed off that you asked about kissing. At the very least they want to see themselves as feminists, and "respected" and they just hamster it away as that.

I mean yeah, if you're begging, like "please, let me kiss you, I want to so badly?? =(" then, yeah, it might not be going too bad, but if you're in that position, you're already fucked I would say.

[–]Senior ContributorSkorchZang3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy

The feminist agenda includes the re-education of men to ask for the woman's permission to do absolutely anything. For example initiating an intimate moment that the two both want to share - the man has to always supplicate to the woman, seek her permission first. It is supposedly a heinous crime to do anything without permission. Think about that. These are morals meant for slaves.

Women themselves will almost never initiate things for that crucial "first time". Nor are they required to ask men's permission for anything. So on the one hand, this is deliberate derailing of the entire psychology of sexual relations, an agenda meant from day one to result in total sexual dysfunction in its host society. This is necessary because the family unit has to be destroyed in a way that it can't be reconstituted again. Men and women must be so confused and misguided, that they are psychologically unable to form sexual bonds and families, at which point the government will step in to institute scientific breeding programmes for the populace, for everyone's common good the children will belong to the state and not the bewildered biological parents.

On the other, feminists are thereby inflating the value of the woman's whim astronomically. This flatters short sighted women (nearly all of them) enormously of course. She is the decider, the man is the fearful supplicant that comes stooped and submits to her whim unconditionally. What in the actual fuck makes this utterly unspecial cunt that metaphysically important, that now every male who's much stronger, smarter, and more able definitely has to seek her permission to do what he wants, i.e. create an enjoyable romantic situation with her? The answer gets a little tricky: this dynamic is desirable because the elites are threatened by those unruly uncastrated groups of men presented the way they are in their natural state, with all their initiative, courage, love for freedom and risk taking. Our owners know very well that there are certain natural processes in the environment that are causing populations to become more and more unruly as time goes on, the people being born now are going to be nearly completely unbrainwashable in just a generation or two, if left alone. Something must be done to counteract this tendency, indeed everything must be done that can help with this in any way imaginable.

Thankfully women are much easier to control (and fool) compared to the men, so men must be tamed and reigned in hard using every progressive means available. Easiest way to control the men is through the women, change the perception about what women want, and you've just changed what most men are consciously or unconsciously striving to be. Women are being shamelessly used for this bigger underhanded purpose without their knowledge or consent. Feminism is fooling the women, in order to slowly turn all men into slaves mentally, ready and willing. Meanwhile, the women in their infinite childlike innocence (stupidity?) seem to think that those enslaved men are all going to be meant for them, to serve them, the women. What a horrible mistake those women are making without knowing it, because the price of their avarice today is that their granddaughters are all going into the stables, and only the prettiest ones will perhaps have the honour of sucking the Master's dick, wherever the future Heirarchy ordains it for them. The men by then won't be able to save our damsels in distress from such a fate, having themselves turned into slaves, nor will they particularly want to be saved, being depraved and degraded, utterly dehumanized by being cut off from the family of man.

That's the scam in a nutshell. I did not discover it in a smoky room with thick curtains and world domination maps, as better men like Huxley & Orwell perhaps had to do once. I read what they had to say and thought about it a little.

[–]SilentForTooLong-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy

I mean, no offense, but I get the feeling that you secretly realize that objectively women are worth more than men, and in order to prevent yourself from having a mental breakdown from that fact, you have built up this narrative that makes it all make sense.

I agree that it is a bitter pill to swallow, but if we are truly to be better people, we have to swallow hard, bitter truths. You ask:

"What in the actual fuck makes this utterly unspecial cunt that metaphysically important"

It's the fact that she was born with a vagina, and all of human biology is rigged so that vaginas are sacred things, and we cannot transcend our biology. We live in a world where men are worthless, and women are gods.

I'm not saying that that is wonderful, or how things should be, I am saying that's how they fucking are. Look around you man. We are typing words on a forum that is literally dedicated to nothing else but shaping mens into beings that are worthy of female attention. If we are to be even remotely honest, that's all this is. Do you see women on forums talking about the most effective ways to completely change themselves, their bodies, their behavior, and their innermost desires/passion/beliefs etc... in order to be with men? No. The very thought is somehow absurd in this universe we inhabit.

Perhaps from some super abstracted view there is nothing metaphysically special about women, but you aren't a super abstracted being; you are a consciousness situated in a male body. The metaphysics don't matter. Sexuality is intertwined with ontology, and it is from the very fabric of the universe that we are in that women derive their superior status.

Maybe on the surface men appear smarter, stronger, etc... but in the end they are, and always have been slaves of women, and certainly in any time where violence isn't status quo, women are de facto rulers.

There is no grand conspiracy unfortunately. It's just that the true bitter pill to swallow is that women are born better than men in every way that matters in this universe. For some reason they have inherent worth, and men have none. Asking why that is seems to be like asking why the universe exists at all; we have no idea, but we can see the universe is here.

But hey, in the end, if you need to believe in some grand conspiracy to avoid reality, more power to you I guess. I wish I could believe in something like that, but far too much of my experience in this world tells me otherwise.

[–]Senior ContributorSkorchZang2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Bud, that's not right, you're in this woman worship very deep aren't you. I'm a bit older and so I can't even imagine the brainwashing and hoops you had to jump through growing up, that I probably never had to. But you can still see with clarity, for example that you're letting yourself just forget that all this "women are just inherently superior it's the law of the universe" shit is all less than 100 years old... Your own grand-grandfather would've rightly fallen over laughing to hear such a thing said by a man.

I'm telling you that the eternal battle of the sexes that is normal and never stops (where women naturally have their incredible pussy power, and men have every other kind), has just "recently" been abnormally hijacked by a third force, which is profiting from both men and women struggling in a web of lies.

[–]hebola4lyfe0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

So you think women are better/worth more than you inherently ?

jesus christ dude , are you into cuckolding ?

[–]swoleo_dicaprio12 points13 points  (11 children) | Copy

When job hunting, it's always good to look for counter offers -- dating is a similar process for women and they don't take it personally (as you shouldn't).

[–]alucard45710 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy

I struggle to understand what you mean as it pertains to my comment. Please elaborate.

[–]mister_barfly7510 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

She had a job (boyfriend) but found herself in the position where she had some time to do some temp work (you) to earn a little extra on the side but failed to do because she failed the interview.

[–]swoleo_dicaprio2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy

She's making you aware of her competing opportunities with the same professional courtesy that you might use in the workplace. It's similar because the goal is the same -- namely not to burn bridges if the other opportunities suddenly dry up.

[–]SilentForTooLong1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy

Are you supposed to just fuck girls with boyfriends, or what?

[–]swoleo_dicaprio5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy

There's nothing wrong with what they're doing, that's my point. They're just exercising their negotiating power. It's a shit test. Getting caught up in it like OP is failing the shit test. If you're not familiar with shit tests read the sidebar.

[–]alucard45713 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

I wouldn't say I was caught up in it. I could've chose to ignore it, but curiosity got the better of me, then when I saw the hamster I got disinterested.

Gotta learn to accept the hamster is always there.

[–]SilentForTooLong0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

What do you mean exactly?

Unfortunately, I've never done it before, but I have an opportunity to I guess.

How does one go about this? It seems so easy for her to regret it, and then cry rape instantly in this kind of situation, and the boyfriend will obviously support that charge.

[–]swoleo_dicaprio4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

When girls want to cheat on their boyfriends they usually have a reason. That means that you don't have to work hard to convince anyone. You just have to spot the girls looking for a revenge fuck. Generally these fucks are reserved for AF not BB since she doesn't want you clinging on afterwards; you need to be chill enough not to blow up her plot.

If you go the other route -- hard selling sex to a girl who wants to be faithful but has no self-control -- then indeed you're waking in the zone of danger.

[–]Hoodwink0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I've learned that many women don't really take their 'boyfriend' seriously from ages 16-25. (If they're not religious types looking to get married at 20-24..)

I have fucked so many girls with boyfriends, I'm getting sick of it. It's not just some small percent like 10% or something.. it's closer to at least 40% of girls with boyfriends will more or less fuck guys as the opportunity presents itself. Remember, they have lots of guys presenting themselves... especially if they're social.

You might find introverted, paranoid, anxiety-prone women to be the most committed. But only because they don't present themselves and are scared of strange men.

(All girly-music basically worships being a slut these days. Feminists glorify it. Men encourage it for a quick fuck. Basically, there's a reason why American Evangelicals make their own media and shun/shame the mainstream. Evangelicals aren't really religious if you know anything about religion-as-mysticism; it's mostly a anti-mainstream cultural movement - namely as a reaction to the 60's.)

[–]SilentForTooLong1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Hence why I don't commit to women without dating for like 1-2 years first, if then. Honestly, I'm beyond the belief that a woman could ever be monogamous, I only ever see myself in some type of open relationship unfortunately. But then again, the severe inability of women to get me to 100% commit to them gives me a whole host of different problems from those commonly discussed in this sub.

I have never had a woman gradually decrease sex with me, or try to control me, or anything... they just nervously work up the courage to never speak to me again one day. So I get to go from effusive proclamations of love, and on-demand-sex to "never speak to me again, I never loved you" just out of the blue.

Real fun.

I am now realizing that is always the end game with women I guess...although the only thing in the world I really want is a woman that I could share my life with, I don't think there are any women in the world that want to share their lives with a man anymore, not even the best of the best.

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

Your problem is expectations. If you can't go into the situation outcome independent, then don't go into it. In this situation that probably would have been not having her over.

[–]alucard45712 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I think you're correct. I guess a had an image of her in my mind that I expected to see/my perception of her from last time was incorrect, and the difference between my expectations and reality was too jarring for me to stay interested.

I'm trying to be a more goal driven person, so I guess outcome independence is something I have to reintegrate into the new mindset.

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

Expectations are preconceived disappointments. Other than business I don't see the point of expecting anything from anyone. It's much better this way. I got ok action as a beta, but I was killing myself in the process. Since making the change I've passed up more action than I've gotten. It's not easy to do, but my head is clear and I'm true to myself for once. Other than action, it's great. Before, other than action everything was horrible. And even the action was just ok cause at the best it was plan c fall back sex. What chick is going to get hot over that? Not many. But I had a bit of fun still.

[–]mister_barfly750 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

She goes on trying to explain that she likes the flirting and stuff but isn't that interested in sex anymore.

Meaning: "We cool, right? Please don't tell anyone I'm a slut."

[–]Modredpillschool18 points19 points  (2 children) | Copy

As a participant in the conversation, do I act without authenticity by accepting the other's duplicity and responding in kind? How can I in good conscience use language for deceit and coercion?

I think the problem is assuming that this system in which you exist cares about your good conscience.

If morality stated that only sinners drink water, only the immoral would survive. At what point would you start wondering what place morality has in a system that rewards those who do not follow it.

In other words, you're trying to fit your new findings - that people are duplicitous by nature, and trying to squeeze it into an old world view- that being duplicitous is bad and you will be rewarded for being good.

There is one code that I tend to live by- and that is one of success and personal value. Within my world view I value honesty, integrity, and honor... among men. These are values that when embraced provide me success and value to my person. And it happens that being cooperative with other men is beneficial to me (and they find the reciprocity beneficial too). I tend to consider these traits good rather than bad because they benefit me, not because they are ethical. Although they do happen to coincide with many's understandings of ethics, it's because people found it beneficial to adopt these values as ethical, and not the other way around.

So why embrace such values with those who do not? They do not provide you value, nor success. Does failure equate to being moral? If so, you may want to reevaluate your moral framework, and take a good look for who might be profiting from you falling on your sword. Answer that and you'll figure out your ethical dilemma.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

In other words, you're trying to fit your new findings - that people are duplicitous by nature, and trying to squeeze it into an old world view- that being duplicitous is bad and you will be rewarded for being good.

Could not have said it better myself.

[–]thisjibberjabber3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

An interesting point made in the excellent book The Righteous Mind is that many well known moral philosophers were likely pretty far out on the autism spectrum. Therefore, and I'm just making this link for myself now, their ethics don't prepare one well for dealing with the real world of power talk.

Personally I think there is a big difference between telling someone what they want to hear to build comfort, vs. blatantly lying about important things.

As long as the underlying message conveyed is accurate, the details are less important and it falls into the white lie category.

E.g. Q: do these jeans make my ass look fat? A: your ass looks great in those jeans!

This might be strictly inaccurate, but if the underlying message (I think you're attractive) is accurate, it's ok. It's a big difference from say, lying about having an STD.

[–]welpcomma 3 points3 points [recovered] | Copy

Thanks for the book suggestion, I've added it to my reading list, looking interesting. I agree that there are shades of falsehood. What I'm getting at is, is one being honest with oneself?

[–]thisjibberjabber0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I suspect the author would say that people are generally bad at being honest with themselves. He describes our conscious minds often acting as press secretaries for the actions that our deeper motivations produced.

I'm not saying it's not a good ideal to have integrity and understand your own motivations. It's just harder than it appears at first. It's also handicapping yourself if you act with total transparency when dealing with people who do not.

[–]RPMav1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Thanks for putting into words the aspect of RP that I find distasteful. I agree it works, and don't judge men who fully embrace it, but I do not enjoy intentional deception so there are parts of it I am not willing to fully adopt.

[–]the_red_scimitar4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

I think you may be referring to some PUA stuff that is only sort of tangentially RP. And just like any body of knowledge, you can decide the morals of its use for yourself. I have not found any deception to be necessary to have all the plates I want, and I do it even by ensuring they know I actively see/have relationships with/date others.

There are many styles of how people express their RP understandings, and it probably says much more about the person wielding the knowledge than about RP itself. I'd direct that distaste at the individuals.

[–]RPMav1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

You are right, it is a conflict within myself more than in RP itself. Thanks for the feedback.

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

Both parties are supposed to "get it" and thus the conversation becomes a dance, truth being revealed in the tension between what is said and what is meant. But what if both parties aren't on the same page

That's called "rape culture".

Alternatively, "misogyny".

[–]SilentForTooLong0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

How do you see Nietzsche as relevant to anything you are saying?


I really wonder how you are relating these writings to your apparent situation here though?

[–]welpcomma 5 points5 points [recovered] | Copy

I absolutely see the need of your question, and I hope this is a satisfactory response. With Nietzsche it depends on your perspective and the context of the situation, since he was certainly against systems of morals. From The Gay Science, Aphorism 116:

Morality trains the individual to be a function of the herd and to ascribe value to himself only as a function.

Nietzsche is very RP of course and would probably be in favor of many of the ideas we discuss here. In Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter 5, section 203, he rightly puts it:

...Where have we [who reject the herd] to fix our hopes? In NEW PHILOSOPHERS--there is no other alternative: in minds strong and original enough to initiate opposite estimates of value, to transvalue and invert "eternal valuations"

Arguing here for the individual whose "conscience should be steeled and a heart transformed into brass, so as to bear the weight of" the responsibility of choosing one's own path (cf. Kierkegaard's "Leap of faith"). Sounds very much like what we're talking about presently. Yet he cautions:

...On the other hand the necessity for such leaders, the dreadful danger that they might be lacking, or miscarry and degenerate:--these are OUR real anxieties and glooms .... There are few pains so grievous as to have seen, divined, or experienced how an exceptional man has missed his way and deteriorated.

I experienced something of this in myself around this time last year, when I first started reading TRP, working out, gaining confidence and strength. I started using this power wantonly, with the many years of repressed willpower expressing themselves as unbridled rage in some cases. Telling off friends who meant well. Berating minimum wage employees who made a small mistake. Getting "my way" and using the voice and posture of an Alpha became an obsession. It was effective as hell, and intoxicating.

However I was given pause when a girl I was seeing at the time, when put to the question, confessed she rarely spoke out of turn because she was afraid of how I might react. Certainly she was mine entirely, but I never wanted to be the kind of person who inspires loyalty out of fear. It made me sad that she felt uncomfortable freely sharing her opinions, however idiotic they might be. In controlling her absolutely and bringing her into my frame, which at the time gave no margins for error or weakness, I had taken from her the very humanity I was trying to express. In effect, I used my power to take away her right to choose. This disturbed me greatly and led to a relapse period from which I am only recently recovering, due to other events in my life that caused me much distress and sidetracked my progress.

...But he who has the rare eye for the universal danger of "man" himself deteriorating... He sees at a glance all that could still BE MADE OUT OF MAN through a favourable accumulation and augmentation of human powers and arrangements; he knows with all the knowledge of his conviction how unexhausted man still is for the greatest possibilities, and how often in the past the type man has stood in presence of mysterious decisions and new paths:--he knows still better from his painfulest recollections on what wretched obstacles promising developments of the highest rank have hitherto usually gone to pieces, broken down, sunk, and become contemptible. .... He who has thought out this possibility to its ultimate conclusion knows ANOTHER loathing unknown to the rest of mankind--and perhaps also a new MISSION!

Nietzsche asks us to consider ethics not as a traditional system of morals but as a continually evolving process of discovery. The above paragraph describes my own feelings absolutely. My desire above all else is to elevate not just myself but the whole of humanity. I see in each person all that they could be, and it pains my heart to look at the "mere reality" of things. Of course this is not useful in a daily, practical sense, but when I ask myself if what I'm doing is right or wrong, this is the perspective I take. Rather than operating from naivete, this position has been rigorously considered. I feel that we must see the good in others, we must seize upon the potential of humankind to transcend the mundane, up to and including our very biology.

Thus returning to my original post: when I must play the fool to win the prize, I act not only against my own wishes but against my interpretation of humanity's transcendence, which for some reason does not include rapidly fabricating reality and trust like the latest iPhone off the assembly line, and rather calls for a return to authentic human community as we first evolved it for survival millennia ago. I could of course be entirely wrong about all of this, and actually a couple responses here have made me examine at least how I put in to practice these fundamentals, but I do the best I can. I am open to constructive criticism at all times.

[–]SilentForTooLong0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

You're kind of missing Nietzsche's point if you think he was against morals. He thought that you should create your own moral system. The mark of the ubermensch for him was the total creation of one's own morals, though he admitted that even he could not manage it.

I don't know where you are getting this whole bit from though:

"does not include rapidly fabricating reality and trust like the latest iPhone off the assembly line, and rather calls for a return to authentic human community as we first evolved it for survival millennia ago. "

If you believe in something like that you are more of a Rosseau follower than a Nietzsche follower.

Nietzsche would unequivocally tell you that you are acting like a slave in doing something you yourself deem immoral by your own standards though. You should question how it is possible that you have setup your own standards so that you are an immoral person though.

I don't know. The problem with what you're saying ultimately, and I am actually mildly sympathetic to it, is that you believe, and feel you must believe, in women having humanity. Unfortunately, experience will tell you that women don't really have any humanity... I am pretty sure that is The Red Pill you are supposed to swallow.

You can't transcend biology. =/

There are a few posts on here that are truly Nietzschean, but not many. Sometimes I have seen posters say that being RP truly means just that you survey all options, and then choose whichever you want. If that means choosing to be a beta blue pill, then so be it, as long as that is what you choose. That's practically the essence of Nietzsche. That's the only philosophical thing really worth taking from TRP in the end, besides specific kinds of advice, and generally having a place to share experiences.

But for you, you still have failed to grasp Nietzsche's absolutely most important point: that you are the one who creates good and evil.

[–]welpcomma 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy

If you want to take me as missing Nietzsche's point i can only assume you didn't read what I wrote, as I said exactly that. Also if you believe that biology cannot be transcended you are completely without imagination, or vision for that matter given current advances. Thanks anyway. See ya.

[–]SilentForTooLong1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well, biology might theoretically be transcended at some distant point... but not right now, and not by like just thinking about shit.

[–]Redrog10 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You are missing the point of power talk, that is to transmit a point that only someone "in the know" will get. When you are both talking in power talk, you are not dancing without a purpose. You don't know how much the other person know, so you are testing the waters without compromising yourself or reveling how much you know.

At the end it gets kind of stupid and direct talk becomes much more productive, but powertalk has a purpose, its not just a dance you have to play just because.

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]1mojo_juju-2 points-1 points  (5 children) | Copy

we can finally agree...

people who think ETHICS has a place in GAME...

....have no place on TRP.

people who talk about ETHICS of a 100 yr old+ political philosopher, as if they have some bearing on real life interactions...

....have no place on TRP.

people who are unwilling to go out into the world and learn from experience...

....have no place on TRP.

[–]Nantafiria3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

What are you going to do.about it, huh?

If your objection to AWALT is 'it can't be true, it'd be wrong!', you're in denial.

If you want to tell people women couldn't possibly like Dark Triad men because obviously women know what's good for them, that's silly.

If you go around saying marriage is still totally a good thing because God says it is, you're using a non-fact.

But even so, TRP being immoral doesn't mean what you think it means.

When the sidebar reads TRP is immoral, it doesn't mean 'there can be no such thing as morality.' You're free to argue that there isn't, but that's not the poin. Instead, it's a statement of disinterest. "Here is a collection of tests, guides, experiences, maxims and essays full of information we think are true. Maybe you think it's very wrong. Maybe you think it's holy and Divine Law. We don't care. Neither such a thing affects the truth or lack thereof in our information.'

Sure, saying TRP's facts must be wrong because ethics is silly.

But morality in general is something discussed on TRP constantly, be it by newbs or ECs. If you don't like it, read other threads, or come up with a better objection.

[–]1mojo_juju0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I hear ya man.

I'm just asking for some originally. Im saying-- hey, stop reading political philosophy and attempting to apply it to your thought process as it pertains to women, society, and/or feminism.

Why do I say this? A couple reasons and you May not agree with me here, but all good.

  1. You are using it as an intellectual crutch. You are relying on the sentiments of these dudes 100+ yrs ago, rather than just going out and experiencing enough women to understand to patterns underlying their mentalities.

  2. These philosophers were pretty badass dudes, nonconformists MGTOW types. But remember that they existed before the day of feminism, ubersluts, "the patriarchy", and our postmodern society in general.

And so... I really think you would be better off not having such esoteric political philosophies cloud your judgement, especially when you are out macking on babes. Instead, go with the flow-- your own flow. Wing it, learn on your own.

Maybe you have a different goal when considering such philosophy/ethics of dead writers. Interesting shit, yes, but also esoteric and pertaining to a different era and different society. Same humans, yes, but very different environment for them these days.

Also, all of the intellectual, well written "I need to write reddit posts the same way I wrote my thesis" shit just makes you look like you're trying a bit hard. I'd suggest backing off of investing so much energy into strangers. I hope you don't do this irl...

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Forty_Deuce30 points31 points  (3 children) | Copy

I commented on this on HuffPo. There was a lot of, "well when I talk to my boyfriend, he always has to confirm with his father or brother about if what I'm saying is true." As much as this post annoyed me, that is not what it was about. If I'm talking to a woman about sneakers, and she says that guys wait in line over night just to buy a new pair of Jordan's, I'm not going to doubt her just because she's a woman. Now relationship wise I will doubt something a woman says. I know their game and how they are wired. You have to probe into what the situation is because a lot of times they are overreacting. Or they just won't outright say what the problem is.

I have a few female friends. I care a lot about one of them. She has helped me out with a whole lot of shit. I trust her to have my back, and she has proven that she can be trusted for that. But I don't trust her when she says that she won't sleep with some guy for whatever reason. I know she would. I don't trust when she goes on a rant and calls other women sluts, and she wouldn't do what they do. I know how many men she's been with, and the shit she's done, to know she's full of it. She would drop to her knees for the right man.

[–]TheReasoner949 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

You hit the nail on the head with this man!

[–]colovick1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

And calling her out on that will only cause you problems. Just stay silent through the extreme bullshit

[–]Forty_Deuce1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

We're both 36. We've known each other for 15 years. She knows that I don't care if she gets upset or throws a tantrum. Because I will always tactfully tell her the truth, knocking her down a peg or two, and sometimes tactfully telling her to go fuck herself. She always comes back though because I'm her rock that doesn't sway to her ocean of emotional bullshit.

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper26 points27 points  (9 children) | Copy

All trust is inspired. Not owed. Not earned. Inspired.

Anyone who acts entitled to your trust is unworthy of it.

[–]1youngone 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy

Inspired by what or who exactly? I need clarification.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy

Precedent and character. People trust you when you give them reasons to trust you.

By default, you should not trust others until they've been properly vetted.

[–]BowlOfCandy-3 points-2 points  (5 children) | Copy

Inspiration is everything. A man is designed to protect and provide for the woman, all the woman has to do is inspire him.

What inspires you?

[–]1youngone 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

Okay well thanks for that lovely explanation, but I was asking for a concrete example. Inspired by god? Inspired by beauty? Inspired by her behavior? (in which case, I would argue that it is similar to "earning" trust, be that its based on actions)

[–]BowlOfCandy0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

I can't answer that for you personally, but I'm inspired by gratitude, integrity, and a hot body.

[–]1youngone 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy

You're inspired to trust a woman based on her hot body? Really?

[–]BowlOfCandy-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

Sorry there was a degree of separation in my comment with regards to the original context of inspiration. Those three I listed were mechanisms for inspiration, the first two would contribute to trust.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW1673 points74 points  (2 children) | Copy

HuffPo writers are either vaginas or faggots. This guy somehow manages to be both.

[–]1mojo_juju31 points32 points  (1 child) | Copy

I had to stop reading HuffPo about 5 years ago because the direction it was moving towards pussitude and bitchification.

HuffPo is sensationalist hamster diarrhea .

[–]newls16 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy

They make their money (I don't think they're in profit AFAIK) from women sharing clickbait title articles on Facebook. They're a fancy feminist Buzzfeed.

[–][deleted] 61 points61 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (3 children) | Copy

Clueless men trust women.

[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt28 points29 points  (2 children) | Copy

Which is something women are accustomed to, men trusting them as a matter of course. Basically a female privilege that's gone unchecked for ages. Now that men are wising up they're breaking the female primacy hegemony and it threatens them on a primal level. What do you mean I can't have another man's child and pass it off as yours like women have done for eons and is the foundation of our pluralistic mating strategy?!!!

[–]foldpak1114 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Be threatened. I'm building an empire and no woman will ruin it.

[–]1oldredder0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Cory C for Southwest Regional Warlord

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy

This is the best comment in this thread. Agree.

[–]RPthrowaway12316 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy

I love how his solution is for us to just blindly trust them, rather than actually acknowledge that maybe our lack of trust is there for a reason. But that's what happens when you live in a feminist fantasy land instead of reality.

[–]WardlyHasted 8 points8 points [recovered] | Copy

He basically says that we should trust women at their word, even if there is zero evidence to support what she says. Fuck the burden of proof and preponderance of evidence I guess.

I don't take what anyone says at face value -- not men, not women -- unless it's an empirical/factual truth. This is why TRP clicked with me because I was able to compare behaviours and field reports to things I have personally experienced. If red pill knowledge was bullshit, this sub wouldn't exist.

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

"to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake".

[–]through_a_ways5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is also why feminist subreddits repeatedly censor comments. When polite, thoughtful comments point in the direction of female supremacy/privilege/powertalk, it is dangerous for the feminist collective.

[–]the_red_scimitar7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy

You can trust women, but what you can trust from them is this:

  • Hypergamy

  • Lack of accountability

  • It's corollory: Blaming almost anything and anyone than themselves when they are even obviously and clearly in the wrong about any kind of behavior.

  • Inability to use logic when resolving a dispute.

  • And the wider phenomenon: Hamstering to justify any of the above.

I've chosen my words carefully. When I wrote "Inability", I mean you can count on it as much as you can count on a rock not having the ability to write a novel.

And I've seen this, and come to expect it, even from TRP-aware women who agree with TRP, who are mindful and competent in many other areas of life. But these things are constant.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yep. You can trust a dog to be a dog. Women fail at being men because they aren't men. Loyalty and integrity are concepts they have to be taught, they're not innate for them.

[–]the_red_scimitar2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

And yet, they always believe they are loyal, and have integrity. And with the sort of thinking that passes for "logic" and "truth" that they use, they actually do. The ability to accept their own cognitive dissonance is extreme, and if looked at coldly and impartially, just as a psychological evaluation on its own merits, would be considered pathological if not actually psychotic.

[–]NeoreactionSafe28 points29 points  (0 children) | Copy

"Women's power is manipulation of men. The mere existance of a man who won't be manipulated is an attack on the feminine primacy that feminists have worked so hard to build."

Charm is manipulation. It's a woman "looking up" to a man in the hierarchy. This is actually a good thing because it means the man who holds the leadership position can exercise Amused Mastery on her Charm to keep things in check. This is our "ideal" LTR.

Betas are never Charmed... but they are manipulated in another way.

The Beta is given reinforcement that women are authority figures like mothers to their children. He writes:

"(Trusting) ...women other than our mothers or teachers or any other woman who happens to be an established authority figure."

The Beta male is locked into the childs mental state. He loves mommy. (a "motherfucker")

MGTOW is actually a step up in the process of growing "up" to becoming the leader in the hierarchy.

The Misandry Bubble collapses when enough Betas turn into MGTOWs.

"Enjoy the Collapse"

[–]yougotshitonyourass6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Women's power is manipulation of men. The mere existance of a man who won't be manipulated is an attack on the feminine primacy that feminists have worked so hard to build.

Women want power

[–]therock66587 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy

Depends on what you mean by "trust". As far as relationships go then in many cases, it's perfectly reasonable to have some sort of doubt about what your girlfriend or spouse says when it comes to emotional issues. However, if you tell the female cashier at Burger King to place cheese on your Whopper, why would she lie to you about something like that?

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy

Women lie pragmatically. They're far more Machiavellian than men in that regard. If she stands in a position to gain from a lie, it's a trivial thing to do so. If there's no benefit to her then she's more likely to tell the truth.

Men actually tend to lie more than women overall, natural defensive precaution, but women are more likely to lie about important things.

[–]therock66580 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

Perhaps you are telling the truth about that, but I'll still need citations for it personally since I usually hear that kind of thing from guys that have a completely negative view of women overall, including women that want to help them.

Often times though, I look at these websites and articles discussing lying and can only find that women are lying about trivial bullshit that nobody cares about. It would be something else entirely if we were talking about divorce and what lies women can say to get the most out of her ex.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

Women are much more likely to lie when there are social consequences. Men simply lie more overall, could be that men are simply more risk-taking and willing to lie about smaller issues.

For what it's worth, I love women, I just don't lie to myself about what they are.

[–]therock66580 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Well that's a fair point as when it comes to sexual partners, it's believed that society would be more accepting of women that have not had as many sexual partners as she actually has. I can see how something like that can be of importance when getting into relationships and shit as it pretty much is true that a girl that has had a lot of sexual partners isn't what a lot of guys would want to hear. That's fine though because something like relationships to me is pretty much a personal thing that doesn't translate into something giant such as women lying about statistics in order to manipulate laws into their favor.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

it's believed that society would be more accepting of women that have not had as many sexual partners as she actually has

True, but men aren't unaccepting of female partner count just to be mean, it's because they have standards imprinted by their genetics. The same way that women have a preference for tall men. If women were more accepting of short men, men wouldn't have to lie about their height as much either, but neither is a realistic proposition.

[–]asicw 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

cause one lie leads to another maybe she told you shes allergic ....

[–]therock66580 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

And if she's allergic to something than why would she lie about that cause she'd only be putting herself at risk (I wonder how anyone could be allergic to cheese). She could always get someone else to make your hamburger.

[–]TheRealMouseRat6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

What this author (and many other people in this world) fails to realize is that trust is not a choice. You can't choose to trust someone, it's a natural occurring thing. Either you trust someone or you don't. However, one can choose to ignore ones feelings of distrust, however that would be uncomfortable and unwise.

[–]1oldredder1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

opposite of me. Trust is earned by proof otherwise it doesn't exist. It is a choice at every step.

[–]symko6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Wow women are starting to bitch and moan like a spoiled brat at Disneyworld. You can't discipline her but what you can do is leave.

Leaving gets their attention so fucking fast! I have had stubborn women blow my phone up after I walked off.

I bet everything I own the minute you walk off, "MarriageLand Park USA" and leave that bitch winning at the gate, she'll immediately straighten the fuck up. But don't go back, go home! They won't ever do that shit again. We are almost there men.

[–]1 Endorsed Contributormordanus3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

What a great post. I really like how your mind works. First off,

Women's power is manipulation of men.

This is well said. In addition though their power also comes in the form of submission to powerful men.

If they can control us like you said then they have everything that we are capable of. This is when they manipulate betas and milk them for everything they have. This leaves women dissatisfied because a beta isn't worth much.

A high value man though has a lot more to offer and gives her the tingles too. If she submits to him then all he has can be hers as well due to our programming as protectors and providers. If they can't manipulate you they submit to you to get what they want.

Another thing that I noted about this is how damn stupid people seem to be about trust. You see people in r/relationships every day talking about how they think their SO is cheating on them but they refuse to search their phones or feel guilty doing it. If someone acts in a way that is untrustworthy then you don't give them your trust.

Trust is something that takes a long time to build and can be destroyed by a hunch. People who convince themselves that they have to trust someone with no reason to do so are retarded and deserve getting cheated on. You get hunches because your subconscious is putting together clues and you should act on those unless you have mental problems. Don't keep trusting until the bomb drops.

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

Good observation

Women are parasites and their first attempt to take a mans power is through manipulation. If this doesn't work then submission becomes an option.

[–]1oldredder4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

wha? I can't trust a creature who lies to herself, to me and fucks up her life without male societal structure & personal guidance?

Oh, how about that.

[–]GoinOutWest16 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Why don't men trust women? The same reason women don't trust other women.

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

I didn't care for the insidious bait and switch of the article. Yet this sort of thing is typical of HuffPo and of the progressive agenda as a whole.

In other words, the author gets the "question" right...that is he brings up a valid problem that men can identify with. But that's the point. It's to get male readers who are starting to unplug to go, "fuck yeah! This guy gets it!"

But then the author drops the ball on the "answer", that is, the solution to the fact that he doesn't trust women. He dare not speak the obvious solution heresy that women could change their behavior and become more trustworthy. No, he turns it in on himself in self-deprecating fashion.

Moreover he does so in a sneaky, vague sort of way. Instead of just outright saying, "I don't trust women, therefore the problem is me and I must squash my inner misogyny and be a good little supplicant." He just sort of implies it in a vague, superficial way. This is meant to invoke the feelz and get readers to go along without actually articulating the choice internally.

This is the worst kind of con game. This is how groups like MADD and the WCTU work. This is how Cracked magazine works. This is how so many women have been taken in by feminism.

These clickbait articles pop up that speak to a mark's woman's past abuse or potential rape. The authors tell women what they want to hear so that they feel it and go, "It's about time. Here's someone who understands what I'm going through!"

Then once the con artists feminist instigators get marks women to essentially sign on to their view, they then stoke the feels to get these marks feminists to dance to their tune. They tell you to stand up and "make your voice heard!" and these women end up shilling their agenda, thinking feeling that they are doing the work of like minded people.

Of course once this agenda has had it's way and the instigators have victims dancing to their tune, they change the tune. This is why you have a specific set of beliefs tied to political Left (or the Right...they are just as bad). It's implied that once you align yourself to a particular perspective, such as feminism, you are automatically in line with an associated perspective in regards to other progressive issues.

This is why you see SJW types suddenly throw in the non-sequitur of race or class issues into a debate about feminism. The con artists pulling the strings already have a bunch of useful idiots unthinkingly shilling their perspective. Why not get them to unthinkingly shill other social justice issues while they're at it?

Moreover, the women that fall for this tactic usually still have an unresolved issue that they were seeking a solution for. Not only do they end up shilling for feminists, they never do the emotional and intellectual work that they need to to help them resolve whatever trauma the feminists used to draw them in in the first place. The original issue (past abuse or whatever) remains unresolved and the victim's personal development is compromised.

Now we see an example of the same tactic at work to keep men in the dark, and to keep men unthinkingly shilling a feminist agenda based on a very real observation (that women can't be trusted). Instead of a practical solution, such as employing game, these men are expected to defer to their feelz and follow along with the SJW agenda.

The solution is simple....THINK! Think about your motives. Think about why you agree with someone or disagree with someone. Engage those analytical skills so that you don't fall into an emotional trap and not only become a social justice white knight, but compromise your own personal healing and development as well.

Don't get taken in! Venues like HuffPo are the factory that churns out defeated beta/omega manginas as well as angry, stupid feminists. Don't get caught in that emotional meat grinder.

As an aside, I think I'm going to quit using the term Social Justice Warrior and start calling them Social Justice Shills. "Warrior" is too good a term for them.

TL;DR this HuffPo article is a classic example of the cultural marxist tactic of drawing people into agreement over a specific issue, replacing the real solution to that issue with emotional nebulousness, and taking advantage of the resultant emotional loyalty to get people to shill the SJW set of agendas.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy

another year of whatever the hell we were doing before we got engaged

Beta Orbiter on the shelf ready to come to the rescue when she crashes into the wall and Alpha bad boys start passing on that pussy. That's what he was before.

[–]smokeybehr3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Women's power is manipulation of men. The mere existance of a man who won't be manipulated is an attack on the feminine primacy that feminists have worked so hard to build.

This is why feministas hate RP and RP men. If you reject their shit tests and call them out, expect every epithet and invective to be hurled at you.

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

I trust the shit out of her

Foolish but also why is crap writing like this accepted?

[–]Booksarefun6662 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Because journalism is shitty at times.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Have you spoken with liberal feminist hipsters in their 20's? This is how they talk. It's clear that this is the demographic they're targeting.

Professional journalistic writing seems to be becoming less and less prevalent.

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

Trust is earned and not something to be freely given away.

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

Women have not emotionally developed since the time they were babies. They act out or cry to get what they want. Just like new parents learn to distinguish a baby's outbursts to gauge what they want, you too have to decode and translate a woman's bullshit to comprehend their motives as well. When you know what she wants, you withhold, otherwise you are training her how to get what she wants by going batshit crazy on you.

[–]MGTOW_player9 points10 points  (34 children) | Copy

You can't trust a being who puts their gender above their own family.

And who says MGTOWs aren't alpha?

[–]FrameWalker1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Is he an agent of good or evil? A sheep or a hungry wolf? This male feminist may not even know his own nature. My guess is that he's just blending in for his publishing business.

[–]Redpillc0re1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Again with the same bullshit. "We must absolutely trust each other the same way because we are all equals and pigs fly farting yellow macaroons". Why are these people so inhuman, not wanting to let people go by their nature but pretending everyone should fit in the same mold? Women are manipulative, and it's kind of not their fault, they mostly do it subconscioustly, it's their nature. That's why you should not trust them the way they trust you. This guy's has subconsciously discovered the truth, yet he wants to be consciously blind to what he already knows. It's just weird.

[–]1oldredder1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

This guy's has subconsciously discovered the truth, yet he wants to be consciously blind to what he already knows. It's just weird.

It's the very nature of the blue pill: I want that juicy steak and it will be because the Matrix tells me it is!

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

powertalk is so fucking key. it was strange at first to start talking gibberish and acting like I believed it, but once I started, I didn't look back.

[–]texan11moore0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

and another year of whatever the hell we were doing before we got engaged

sounds like someone jumped straight from being in the friendzone to becoming engaged and married, it is probably not because his wife hit the wall and realized that she is not able to score a better man than him, after riding all the cock carousels that she could of course.

Basically, these are the MGTOW, and this is the reason why they are so disgusting to women.

u wot m8?

jokes aside, I consider myself MGTOW, and frankly I don't give an atom of a shit if women are disgusted towards me or not simply because they are not in my list of priorities, my personal health and financial success are more important in my eyes.

[–]watersign0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

yes..women can be trusted..as far as they can be thrown

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

Natural selection. Men don't trust women. No relationships, no commitments, no marriages and no kids. Only the best women will find partners to have kids. And nature removes feminists. Unfortunately many guys won't experience the rewards of having a family.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Feminist ideology is keenly adapted towards creating and supporting single mothers. Sadly this doesn't remove them from the biological pool at all.