TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Bhorzo Archive

View 0 posts and 481 comments by Bhorzo on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Fair enough. I agree the diamond industry is full of shit. I regret including it in my post now.
/r/seduction20/10/13 05:16 PM
1

Of course it's not abundant. You need to look carefully and specifically to find diamonds (or coal). My comment isn't about DeBeers. It's about searching for something that's rare - and the fact that if you target your search properly, then it's much easier to find what you are looking for.
/r/seduction20/10/13 04:59 PM
1

No, I guess I haven't. I didn't realize this was an issue. Where is the gap exactly?
/r/MensRights20/10/13 03:36 PM
2

But that is the point, IMHO. If you care a lot about meeting "good people", you'll have to find the needles in the haystack. There's no way around it. I empathize with the OP, somewhat. But not too much. I changed careers for this purpose - because it was important to me. And the result was worth it (for me).
/r/seduction20/10/13 03:04 PM
3

He needs to grow up and stop being a child - and become a man. Treating him like a child to spare his feelings isn't going to help. You can't coddle someone into an adult.
/r/seduction20/10/13 02:42 PM
1

but I'm not like all those other girls! Some girls are not like those other girls. Just like some men don't fit the stereotype given to males either. Are they rare? Sure they are. Are they worth looking for? Sure they are - if it's important to you. Is there anything you can do to increase/decrease your odds of meeting them. Absolutely. I'm not saying it's easy, I'm just saying it's possible - if you care enough and are willing to put in the effort. Guess what... men and women - people in genera…
/r/seduction20/10/13 02:33 PM
3

While men's bathrooms have open urinals and penises everyword - women's bathrooms have private stalls throughout.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 12:36 PM
1

A simple problem has a simple solution. Trying to make it more complex than it is, is self-defeating. If you go digging in a pile of shit, you will find lots of... shit. What a surprise! The girls you will meet at church are going to be very different from the girls you will meet at clubs, and are going to be very different from the girls you will meet in a 3rd year feminism class, which are also going to be different from the girls you meet at your pink-collar office. Oh my god, different types…
/r/seduction20/10/13 12:30 PM
-1

Get a shovel, and start digging in your back yard, and let me know when you've found diamonds.
/r/seduction20/10/13 12:20 PM
-4

Gold and diamonds are rare too. But the people who know where to look find plenty of it.
/r/seduction20/10/13 04:29 AM
1

I would only set her up with enough resources to not have to freak out and to become desperate if I suddenly died. Why not just put her in your will... ?
/r/TheRedPill18/10/13 01:02 AM
1

So then where is the problem? Sounds easy to me...
/r/seduction17/10/13 01:15 AM
1

Sometimes it's hard to resist. I apologize.
/r/seduction17/10/13 01:14 AM
2

I'm trying to find the way to circumvent a woman's free will I'm a little unclear here. You're asking for advice on how to rape a woman? There's a simpler solution: Hire a prostitute.
/r/seduction17/10/13 01:09 AM
14

Why is there a horse peaking through the sidewalk? Photoshop or is there something obvious I'm missing.... ?
/r/MensRights16/10/13 11:00 PM
3

Flirting is not disrespecting the relationship. I don't suggest cheating - I agree that would be absurd. But you have to let her know that you are a sexual being, not an asexual.
/r/seduction13/10/13 05:54 PM
22

Next thing you know, breastfeeding babies will be charged with rape.
/r/MensRights13/10/13 05:25 PM
13

The easiest way to break the wall down is to step away from the wall and stop trying to break it down. The wall usually falls on it's own.
/r/seduction13/10/13 03:52 PM
1

Flirt with her. Make sure she knows your interest is not "just friends" but "something more".
/r/seduction13/10/13 03:39 PM
2

Adults are reasonably expected to. Children are not.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 05:56 PM
1

It's not about trusting your partner today. It's about trusting the person they may become 10 years from now.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 02:26 AM
2

This is the thing that mystifies me about this sub. Why is it full of men who marry unemployed and uneducated women? I mean seriously... wtf do you expect if you marry the equivalent of a homeless bum? Marry someone who makes the same or more than you - and then many of the issues people complain about here disappear.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 02:23 AM
1

Weaker sentencing for sexual assault vs rape? Do you have a source for that?
/r/MensRights07/10/13 02:32 AM
14

And in some countries - like Canada - there is no "rape" at all. It's all "sexual assault". To be honest, I prefer it this way, I think.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 02:31 AM
9

Probably has something to do with where you live...
/r/MensRights21/09/13 06:07 PM
25

And the reason many people get so defensive about circumcision is because they are circumcised - and don't want to feel like they're missing out on something (ie sexual pleasure). It's disappointing that men continue to support the infringement of the rights of males simply because it makes them feel bad.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 05:33 PM
4

Just because the perpetrator hasn't been caught/convicted, doesn't mean the victim isn't a victim.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 03:03 PM
3

Castration would be cutting out her ovaries. A better comparison would be chopping off her vulva.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 12:31 PM
9

"Additional" is such a weird way to put it. Imagine if you had your pinky finger cut off as an infant. Would you think pinky fingers are "additional" fingers?
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:46 AM
9

Just because you consciously don't remember it doesn't mean your subconscious doesn't remember it.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:44 AM
13

Because men are supposed to go through pain and suffering. That's what it means to be a man. To suffer and to sacrifice. (Even if it's just "symbolic".)
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:43 AM
7

Let's just chop off all male infants' pinky-fingers. It probably gets less use than their penises anyways. Totally a non-issue...
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:38 AM
12

Is it okay to chop off parts of a female's genitals? (Hint: society has decided that the answer is no.) Therefore it is a men's rights issue, since the laws do not apply equally to men and women.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:27 AM
14

Kids aren't property. Parent's can't do whatever they want with them. I can't kill my kids, or starve them, or throw them into the trash. They're not something I bought at Walmart. They're human beings.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:14 AM
12

To be fair, are parent's allowed to torture or starve their kids? Or is there a point where someone should step in... ? Children aren't the "property" of their parent's to with as they please.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:06 AM
-1

It says to me that over 97% of people do not give resources to random faceless strangers from whom they will get no return on the investment. It doesn't say much about the differences between men and women... other than the fact that of the tiny portion of women who give, 50% give because of social pressure. I have no idea why the tiny portion of men who give do so... it could simply be gullibility or greater resources. The study doesn't really say much at all, IMHO. You can't really generalize …
/r/TheRedPill25/08/13 03:40 PM
-4

What I'm saying is simply: A study which shows that 97% of men and 98.5% of women don't give to charity (when there's no social pressure) - is a shitty study to use to somehow prove that men DO have character and moral values, and women do not.
/r/TheRedPill25/08/13 02:35 PM
-7

What is the practical value of a study that shows that women are ~1.5% less likely to give to charity? It says above: There's a more realistic RP explanation for the disparity in women's giving: Lack of character. Lack of firmly held values. Lack of consistency in behavior. Susceptibility to peer pressure. Willingness to change your behavior solely due to what other people will think/say/write about you. But you can't really say women lack character, lack values, lack consistency, and are suscep…
/r/TheRedPill25/08/13 01:20 PM
-8

Yeah, but women are less so by like ~1.5%. That's a small and practically insignificant amount.
/r/TheRedPill25/08/13 12:55 PM
-5

While you could make arguments to show that women lack character and values... this probably isn't the study you want to cite. 97% of men did not give either. This study says more about people in general, than men or women in particular. 1.5% of women changed their minds about giving when they had the ability to opt out. 1.5% is a pretty tiny fraction. Also, why is it a positive thing to give to random strangers instead of giving to family and friends? Why is it so bad to invest in something tha…
/r/TheRedPill25/08/13 12:15 PM
8

Yup. To simply it even further, I'd just call it "confidence", and leave it at that.
/r/TheRedPill20/08/13 07:47 PM
5

But all of these problems are because you married a woman who has no net worth and no income. If you are financial equals - on the other hand - then most of the problems with divorce disappear, don't they?
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 06:53 PM
2

Fair enough. What if the woman makes the same income as you... are there any risks to marriage then?
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 06:51 PM
4

But what if you want to have kids? Common-law?
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 06:48 PM
10

I only said that because I've seen very differing posts on here from people who 1) think no one should ever get married, ever... but also from people who 2) want to have a family, and manage to do it and maintain it fairly well using red pill ideas. And then there's those who 3) do want to marry, but think very poorly of women who are pursuing their own careers, because that makes them feminists somehow. It's a bit of a dilemma: Career women are bad - therefore I'll marry a traditional 1950s non…
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 04:03 PM
36

I'm not sure how this fits into the red pill, but I wouldn't marry (or have a serious LTR with) anyone who has less than 75% net worth of me, nor someone who makes 75% less income than me. When you get married, you merge finances - so don't merge it with someone who has 150k school debt, and makes 0-25k/year (for example). I constantly read about this in MRA, but what confuses me is: Why would someone who makes 100k/year (and more in the future) marry someone who has 100k student debt, a degree …
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 03:51 PM
25

A family surviving on a single income... ahhh...the good olde days. I regret missing out on that.
/r/TheRedPill12/08/13 06:30 PM
1

Yes, our behaviours exist because of sexual selection, I agree - but that's a very different thing than suggesting that men accomplish things for the purpose of sex/reproduction. I do not believe evolution defines the purpose for anything we humans do.
/r/TheRedPill09/08/13 07:30 PM
1

This does not mean men do things, and accomplish things, and acquire power, because of sex or reproduction, however. Sex is not (always) the purpose.
/r/TheRedPill09/08/13 07:24 PM
20

But that's the whole point of a lawyer - to offer you counsel. Are you saying I'd need a 2nd lawyer to help counsel me on what my 1st lawyer is telling me? You can't really expect someone to judge/assess what their lawyer is telling them to do - you accept it because you assume they have your best interests in mind and have done all the assessment and analysis for you, since that is their job. TLDR: If you can't trust your lawyers, who can you trust?!?
/r/MensRights09/08/13 04:46 PM
9

Not necessarily. Productivity may have evolved for that reason, but I doubt it's always a conscious choice.
/r/TheRedPill09/08/13 04:21 PM
3

I find it difficult to believe you can't tell the difference between an 8 year old and a 15 year old. (Not saying it's impossible though.)
/r/MensRights02/08/13 10:11 PM
9

Lets fix a problem by creating a new problem.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 10:10 PM
12

In this case she was right, though. She's shifting the responsibility of sex onto the male, so she doesn't feel like a slut in the morning.
/r/TheRedPill02/08/13 10:07 PM
2

Our definitions do vary - as I define alpha as (basically) social power - and I consider sexual success as simply one of many positive side-effects of being alpha, not the definition of alpha itself.
/r/TheRedPill30/07/13 03:22 AM
1

The problem is that they've been taught that this is how you do it. Media, women, and even older men teach young boys that the way to get a woman to love you (and thus reach that sexual relationship) is to start with the platonic one. They're not faking a friendship. They start with a friendship because they've been taught that there's where you have to start. I don't have much sympathy. I mean - you just have to observe the world around you for... hell, just a couple of days to realize that thi…
/r/TheRedPill30/07/13 01:54 AM
2

Why would alphas have to lie? Serious question - I'm honestly curious.
/r/TheRedPill30/07/13 01:27 AM
3

faking an emotional connection for a night Yeah - most people just call it "flirting". I can't imagine anyone having a problem with that. And for that matter everyone lies. Alphas don't really have to lie, because people are attracted to them anyways. Betas are usually the ones who end up lying, because their truth isn't attractive enough.
/r/TheRedPill30/07/13 01:21 AM
4

Who does that? They want a relationship, they aren't faking anything. They want a romantic relationship, but are faking a platonic friendship. Faking it is totally alpha. Lots of women won't put out unless they think you're serious, so you pretend to be serious, then hit it and quit it. I think that's pretty beta. I tell them I'm going to hit it and quit it, and they put out anyways... that's alpha. Alphas don't need to lie or fake or pretend anything. The women are actually bitching because the…
/r/TheRedPill29/07/13 09:39 PM
3

To be fair, there's a pretty big incentive against saying "no".
/r/TheRedPill29/07/13 08:53 PM
20

I agree, the men talked about in that post are actually looking for relationships... which is why their response ("He just wanted me for sex!!") is completely misplaced. If a man wanted a relationship and the woman didn't, then he's within his right to cut off all contact - and the woman shouldn't get upset or offended or feel objectified. No idea why they started down that road in that post. Some people just wanna find a reason to be upset/victimized I suppose.
/r/TheRedPill29/07/13 06:14 PM
30

To be fair, men who are only interested in sex with a particular woman shouldn't be faking a friendship for months/years, hoping she'll give in at some point. Only be friends with a girl if the friendship provides value on its own. If you're just looking for sex, there's a lot of more direct (and less deceptive) ways to get that. Faking friendship in an effort to get sex is a pretty beta move... and women do have a right to be upset when it turns out your "friendship" was a sham just to get sex.…
/r/TheRedPill29/07/13 05:58 PM
1

That's irrelevant, since the judges in the USA disagree.
/r/TheRedPill28/07/13 08:43 PM
0

Going off-topic to encourage child-porn and incest... haha, what did you expect?
/r/TheRedPill28/07/13 05:27 AM
3

Church!
/r/TheRedPill22/07/13 06:54 PM
1

I think a lot of it has to do with social communication and reading social cues. Women seem to get this naturally, but men... not so much. It's probably not genetic, but men who lack basic social skills seem so prevalent that sometimes I wonder.
/r/seduction22/07/13 06:11 PM
1

Fair enough. I mean, I do take everything with a grain of salt. While the information is valid - I would certainly do some digging before endorsing the poster, however.
/r/seduction22/07/13 05:59 PM
3

If the content is good - then does it matter?
/r/seduction22/07/13 03:02 PM
1

Most girls know the concepts naturally. All it takes to know the terms is reading a book, however. Sometimes I think it's only men who are often born completely clueless and need to work/study at figuring this shit out.
/r/seduction22/07/13 03:02 PM
4

If you're a part of certain crazy religions/cultures - then sometimes I'd say the clear answer is yes.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 02:10 AM
2

To be fair, they sometimes do. At least when you use certain medical definitions.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 02:09 AM
15

How is this not debatable? Why do people sometimes choose death over life then?
/r/MensRights20/07/13 02:08 AM
0

How would it make the world better if they were to die cold and alone? Serious question.
/r/TheRedPill18/07/13 12:45 AM
3

There's a difference between opportunity and equal opportunity. That said, it's possible women have an inherent weakness when it comes to painting, philosophizing, or composing... not sure how this is relevant here, however.
/r/TheRedPill18/07/13 12:44 AM
2

I think his point is that if you are going to generalize rules and behaviour, you should base it on the 90% majority, not the 10% minority.
/r/TheRedPill16/07/13 02:30 AM
0

Can't you make up for a smaller salary with personality? I honestly don't get all this bitching about men getting divorce-fucked... when they're the one's who married unemployed/unemployable/underpaid women. Marry someone in your own economic bracket, and then you won't get all your assets taken away from you in a divorce. This is such a simple solution that men so rarely acknowledge. Sure, a woman who makes as much money as you probably isn't as hot - but I'd rather marry an 8/10 who makes 70k …
/r/TheRedPill16/07/13 02:28 AM
11

I'm not really sure what some of these things have to do with commitment. I don't think most of these apply, to be honest: • The freedom to view and appreciate the beauty and sexual appeal of any and every woman I see with impunity – never having to worry about inciting anger, jealousy, resentment or passive aggression. Unless you're girlfriend is a teenager, they'll understand that people look at others of the opposite sex, if they are attractive. Mature adults don't get angry or jealous over s…
/r/TheRedPill15/07/13 11:56 PM
3

You'll make more money as other school drop-outs. I wouldn't necessarily consider that a positive outcome, however.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 12:34 PM
1

Well obviously. It's an approximation. But if person A makes 150k, and person B makes 40k (or even 0), then the divorce will get messy.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 12:33 PM
1

I wouldn't go to extremes - but yes, having money allows you to simply do more things in life. It doesn't mean by default that you do (I know plenty of engineers/programmers that make over 100k and still do nothing with their lives other than play video games). But you can't live a very diverse, exciting, and activity-filled life if you are making 25k. (It's not impossible, but it's certainly much more difficult.)
/r/MensRights12/07/13 12:32 PM
1

I'm honestly not sure there is.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 12:30 PM
0

Well that depends on your skills in "picking a good one", and your definition of "good one". My skills are pretty good, and the women I'm looking for are easy to find. And if it still doesn't work out in the end... that's okay, because I haven't lost anything to it.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 10:54 PM
0

I'm not sure why I should be worried in the least. And if we do get divorced in the future because we choose to go our separate ways - that's okay - as I won't have to financially support her if that happens.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 10:37 PM
1

There's billions of people in the world. There's probably thousands, if not tens of thousands of "perfect girls" for me out there right now. I'm not really worried to be honest. And I don't blame women for filtering for men that make over $100k+. Like I said, I filter women for income too... and I don't even bother going out of my way to date women who make less than $70k. (Because marrying a woman who makes less money than you is financial suicide in many places in the world.)
/r/MensRights11/07/13 09:22 PM
1

I don't really understand why not. If there's 1000000 to choose from, and 1000 of them that would be at least "near perfect" for me... why shouldn't I start to reduce the numbers in whatever is the easiest and fastest way to do so? In the end, I'll probably find what I want anyways, so what does it matter? I can be as picky as I want, and still end up with 1000 women left over to date.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 09:07 PM
1

I agree with this, and I don't think this is objectification at all, to be honest.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 08:47 PM
1

I somewhat prefer black haired women over blondes or brunettes. Therefore I will completely ignore and filter out all blondes and brunettes from okcupid. Hair colour is near the bottom of my list of important traits in a woman, but I'll do this filtering anyways... because there are millions of black haired women to choose from, and this filtering is quick and easy. Even though I do this, it still says nothing about how important black hair is to me overall. (It's not really important at all.)
/r/MensRights11/07/13 08:45 PM
19

Yup. Lots of studies have shown this. The taller you are, the more money you make.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 08:34 PM
2

I'll only message good-looking chicks on okcupid. Does that mean I only care about good looks? No. All it means is that I am filtering out women quickly and easily to save time, based on an assessment/judgment that is really easy to make (ie through photos). If I'm looking for a wife to raise kids with on okcupid... I'll still filter out all the ugly chicks... but that doesn't mean that her personality and other character traits are less important than her looks... it's just that looks is a quic…
/r/MensRights11/07/13 08:33 PM
0

It could be that the bottom ten percentile only receive 20% fewer messages than average. It could also be that the bottom ten percentile receive literally zero messages. Generally this kinda info is left out of this sorta thing because it would somehow reduce the perceived differences. "Let's manipulate the stats so that things appear more extreme than they actually do! And we'll get onto huffpost and get free publicity on reddit!"
/r/MensRights11/07/13 08:24 PM
4

A poor man who is well educated and well groomed will do a lot better with the ladies than a poor man who also happens to be a dumb fuck and looks like a homeless beggar. To dismiss intelligence/education and grooming as "merely proxies" for wealth is a bit silly. Those things have intrinsic value and attraction on their own. Someone who makes 100k+ but who's a computer programmer for 60h/week, and plays video games in his free time, isn't going to be interesting or exciting or attractive to wom…
/r/MensRights11/07/13 08:20 PM
1

I'm just going on the assumption that most people who are looking for a serious long-term relationship are considering marriage. I'd only ever date seriously someone who makes at least as much money as me.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 07:23 PM
36

So if women are attracted to men with more money - is that really objectification? How do you tell the difference?
/r/MensRights11/07/13 04:47 PM
5

I dunno. If you're looking for sex, I don't think it matters. If you're looking for a relationship... well... I can only speak about myself - but I'd rarely ever consider a relationship with someone who makes less money than me. Equal partnership and all that... and alimony, etc. It's a financially stupid decision to marry anyone who makes less money than you.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 04:41 PM
3

I think he's also getting at the point of why income is appealing. If you make more money, you are probably more educated, intelligent, well groomed, and do more interesting things with your life that are probably also on your profile. These are all attractive on their own and would also be directly linked with income. It's really hard to separate these factors.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 04:37 PM
12

They probably thought you were lying before.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 04:34 PM
196

Is being attracted to sexually attractive women objectification? I never really understood what this means.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 04:32 PM
0

Where I live in Canada, nobody can get raped. It's all sexual assault. It's very gender neutral... and I think I like it better this way.
/r/TheRedPill11/07/13 02:47 PM
2

Haha! While I don't think that's a foolproof plan, I would absolutely support a short quiz to validate/nullify a person's vote. :)
/r/TheRedPill10/07/13 04:35 AM
4

That's not really the problem. The problem is actually setting up a system like you suggest - which would be practically impossible. Who gets to decide who's smart enough and well informed enough to vote?
/r/TheRedPill10/07/13 04:28 AM
-5

Oftentimes men need to hamster and rationalize to themselves why women are subhuman. It helps calm their emotions and it makes it easier for them to do the things they do - it helps with their guilt. (If they didn't have any guilt, they wouldn't need to have such a weak crutch in the first place.) If you take the right away from women to vote, you'd have to take it away from 90% of men too. And at that point you wouldn't be living in "America" anymore but some shitstained hellhole in the middle …
/r/TheRedPill10/07/13 03:07 AM
3

... And you don't see any potential problems with this scenario?
/r/TheRedPill10/07/13 02:59 AM
8

There's lots of studies that show men "commit" to decisions much better and more firmly than women (who often flip-flop). Men make a choice, and then go through with it, and nothing will sway them if they are committed and invested in their choice. Women are more likely to reassess the situation periodically and make frequent changes as required. I'd say this suggests men need much more hamstering to persist in their (often bad) choices in the long-term, as men tend to often do. Men will stay on…
/r/TheRedPill07/07/13 03:37 PM
1

Depends on how you define "true love". As an emotion, both men and women can feel "true love" "in the moment". But as a form of commitment and loyalty, men generally hold onto it for much longer. It's much easier for a woman to "fall out of love" than it is for a man. A man can persist in his love if he chooses to - due to his sense of commitment and loyalty - whereas women let go of it much more easily. As mentioned in this thread, long term unconditional love is usually reserved for a woman's …
/r/TheRedPill07/07/13 03:05 PM
-1

prevents her from getting the judge to award her your assets Marry a woman who makes more than you. There's no way to avoid a situation where the male pays child support Get custody.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 03:03 AM
1

What I oppose is men forced to be fathers because they do not have the same opt-out options afforded to women. I think the problem here is biology, and not the law. There is no legal equivalent that can equalize the situation between men and women. I get it... women have many options and men don't, so maybe the men shouldn't have to face the same burden when it comes to supporting a child. And in a perfect world I'd agree with that. But in reality things are different... in reality there is a ch…
/r/MensRights06/07/13 02:55 AM
1

This is true. But abortion isn't always an option for everyone (medical, personal, religious reasons, etc).
/r/MensRights05/07/13 04:30 PM
1

if the father waives his rights to the child, the child still has the mother thus its rights aren't being violated because it still has a caretaker. Yes. But if the mother doesn't have enough money to support the child - then either the taxpayer or the biological father has to step in... and I just don't see how the taxpayer is more responsible for supporting this child than the biological father. I (the taxpayer) never had sex with the mother and never got her pregnant - so how in the world am …
/r/MensRights05/07/13 11:15 AM
1

This is still much less than a full 18 years of support, however. I'm okay with placing the financial burden of this process onto the adoptive parents.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:09 AM
1

This is false because a fetus doesn't have rights. A father opting out violates the child's rights, but a woman having an abortion does not because no child is ever born.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:08 AM
1

If a father wanted to be involved in their child's life, you'd have to assume he put in the effort required to be put onto the birth certificate. If the mother ran away and had the baby where the father couldn't know about it - then the law should allow him to do a DNA search for the child and get custody.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:06 AM
1

What if the child is not adopted, and it cared for by the state. Then if the parent's have the financial ability to pay support, then they should. (Though it's rare to see a child supported by the state for 18 years.) Why are the rules for adoption different than a parent who does not want to be a part of the childs life? This is the same thing. Only that she has to pay instead of the father. The difference is simply that adoptive parents take over the parental obligations for the child - so the…
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:05 AM
1

The real question is do you apply that equally to abortion? What does this mean?
/r/MensRights04/07/13 02:12 AM
1

When you give up a child for adoption, another set of parents voluntarily take up the obligation to support the child. Neither the biological father nor mother have to pay for it.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 02:11 AM
1

When a woman abandons their child, it gets adopted, and the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for it. When a man abandons their child to a financially incapable mother - then the taxpayer DOES have to pay for it.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 02:08 AM
2

Abandoning your parental obligations isn't the same as having an abortion. You can't make a law the allows men to have an "equal" abortion, because it can't ever be equal - biology and present-day science doesn't allow for it. A male having a financial abortion still results in a living, breathing, human being that needs care and support... a female having a biological abortion does not. That's a pretty significant difference that no law can equalize.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 02:05 AM
1

How is that victim blaming? Serious question. You should look both ways before you cross the street on a green light. That's not victim blaming either, that's just good advice. Sure, if you get hit by a car it's their fault, but that doesn't really help you as much as if you were just to look both ways before crossing the street and avoid getting hit altogether. Taking steps to ensure your own safety isn't victim blaming.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 02:02 AM
1

But if the father were to get the child back, wouldn't she have to pay child support?
/r/MensRights04/07/13 01:57 AM
2

What if for medical reasons she can't have an abortion, then what? I just have a hard time swallowing the idea that I should pay for other people's children, especially when they have the financial means to support them. I have an even harder time seeing how you'd convince society as a whole that this should be standard. Of course, your suggestion leads to an interesting example: My girlfriend doesn't want kids, but for medical, religious, or personal reasons won't have an abortion. While 3 or 6…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:13 PM
1

No different from adoption or abandoning the child at a church or police station. If you prefer, consider it an adoption - Man and woman put child up for adoption, woman alone adopts it. This is a bad analogy because one results in a biological parent having custody, the other does not. Also, one results in the state NOT paying for the child, the other one would usually result in the taxpayer supporting the child. (Also, it's illegal in most places to give up a child for adoption without the oth…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:01 PM
1

Yeah, if the woman tells you she is pregnant, or when she is going to give birth, or where. You don't have any right to be there, you are only allowed in based on her say so. If you actually want to be a father - why would you put yourself into such a position where you don't know if she's pregnant, or when she's giving birth, or where? If someone is determined enough, they can kidnap a child. In fact, most kidnappings are by family members. To be fair, kidnappings are illegal. As they should be…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:43 PM
-2

As it stands currently, the woman's options are to abort or have the child and force him into paying child support. All we're discussing is the removal of the "force into paying child support" part; after that, it's up to her to decide if she wants to have the child as a single mother. A mother or father should be forced into paying child support if they can afford it. It's better than me - the taxpayer - paying for child support.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:40 PM
1

Putting an infant up for adoption doesn't place the 18-year financial burden onto the taxpayer though. Should a mother be able to put up a child for adoption against the father's wishes, however - obviously the answer is no.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:38 PM
2

Parent's are allowed to transfer that obligation through adoption. You can't, however, destroy that obligation. A child has a right to care and support in most civilized nations across the world. If you fail to provide such support as their legal guardian (when you have the means to do so), then you usually end up in prison - as it should be. The onus and responsibility for the child's well-being therefore falls on her. And if she can't afford it, then what? Then the taxpayer should pay for it? …
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:34 PM
1

I'm saying that legal means can't somehow "equalize" the fact that a fetus resides in a woman's body, and thus it's outcome is under the control of the woman.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:30 PM
2

Sorry, I just posted an edit above. Giving a child up for adoption doesn't put the $200,000 (or whatever it is nowadays) financial burden onto the state - it put's it onto the replacement parents who voluntarily decided to take up that burden. Financially incapable parents should have the state support their children, yes. Financially CAPABLE parents, should not be allowed to have the state support their children. Currently, such parents cannot do this - and it should stay that way.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:27 PM
0

Yes. But one of these unilateral decisions results in depriving a human being of their rights, the other does not. That's a pretty big difference.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:24 PM
1

But there is nothing, absolutely nothing, stopping a woman from not putting the father's name on the birth certificate, and then giving the baby up for adoption. Good luck in that scenario. Uhh... it helps if you're there for the baby's birth and signing of the birth certificate, which you should be. You would certainly have trouble, though. If my girlfriend takes my child to the firestation while I'm at work - then when I get home I'd call the police and report my child abducted/missing. When t…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:08 PM
2

The only thing that would change is that the man who donated biological seed material would not be obligated to take care of those needs. Instead, of course, the mother, or the state would be so obligated. So you're saying that I (the taxpayer) should pay for other people's children - even in situations where the parents are financially capable of paying for them? Seriously? I'd love to hear a good argument in support of this - and I'd especially love to hear one that would be positively receive…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:02 PM
1

She could. If they bothered to try and find a father, which is unlikely, you would have a tough time getting him back, and would likely need to go to court. You would eventually get your child back, but it might take years, and that is if you could find it. All of this is as evidenced by the recent Utah court case. Where I live, I'd call the police and report my child abducted/missing. And I'd have the child back in a fairly short amount of time. Having my name on the birth certificate helps, of…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 02:18 PM
2

How is that different from abortion? In that, you pre-emptively "sign away" a child's right to, well, everything before they are born. Please explain the difference. Because the child is never born, and therefore there are no rights - whether present or future - to consider. But signing away your parental obligations is like your parents signing a document before you were born stating that you - once born and a fully living, breathing, adult, human being - will have no rights to life, property, …
/r/MensRights03/07/13 02:17 PM
5

There are no rights of a child to consider when the woman is still pregnant. Yeah, but when the child is born, those rights activate. You can't pre-emptively sign away a child's rights just because you did the signing before they were born... that's a bit absurd and completely illogical. Additionally, we allow any woman, at any time, to give up her child for adoption at any local fire department of police station by leaving it in front of the door. Not sure how this is different. I'm pretty sure…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 02:02 PM
-3

A mother can't give up a baby for adoption against the father's wishes, and vice versa. Abortion is the prevention of a child being born. "Removing your claim to fatherhood" is abandoning your parental obligations towards a living, breathing, fully-human child. That's a big difference.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 01:58 PM
0

Doesn't that mean your problem is with biology? Biology isn't fair... yeah... not much we can do about that though.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 12:02 PM
-2

There's a difference between victim blaming and good advice.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 12:01 PM
2

Technically (in most places), a woman can't "remove her claim to motherhood" like you are suggesting either.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 11:55 AM
4

It's not fair Biology is not fair. You can't use laws to "equalize" the situation. It is illogical and irrational to compare an abortion (which does NOT result in a child being born) and signing a legal parental waiver (which DOES result in a child being born). When a woman has an abortion, there are no rights of a child to consider. When a man were to sign a legal waiver, there ARE still the rights of a child to consider - two radically different scenarios. Practically: A woman having an aborti…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 11:54 AM
-1

"They"? You mean me - the taxpayer, right? Should a man be allowed to "waive" his parental obligations and place that burden onto me - the taxpayer? This will never fly, and the public will never accept such a suggestion.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 11:44 AM
8

Would you say that if the sexes were reversed?
/r/MensRights28/06/13 02:11 PM
2

I absolutely agree. I've always thought that when people say "women are more emotional than men" that they are idiots. Men and women simply differ in their emotions (how, when, why, etc). Most obsessive stalkers are men. Most emotional violence is by men. Most murder is by men. Most suicides are by men. If aliens visited earth, they might conclude men are significantly more emotional than women. That said: The most driven and hardworking people are men, the most idealistic and dedicated people a…
/r/TheRedPill26/05/13 03:26 PM
5

Who gets more jealous and bitter and lonely? Who gets more angry and full of rage and irrationally murders people? Who get's oneitis and "falls completely and madly in love"? While women may be emotional more frequently, I'd say men are way more extreme in their emotions. That's why I've always considered men to be way more emotional then women any day.
/r/TheRedPill25/05/13 07:53 PM
2

But then he'll have to pay for children he's not allowed to spend time with.
/r/TheRedPill25/05/13 02:46 PM
8

But generalizing is more fun!
/r/MensRights25/05/13 02:35 PM
1

HR Departments were created to give WOMEN job opportunities in corporate America. You can't honestly believe this, do you? Is there any evidence for this? (edited for clarity)
/r/MensRights25/05/13 02:34 PM
3

Okay fine, fair enough. Maybe I've just been going to places where it is the norm, and over time it's skewed my perspective. To me, however, I see this all the time, and assume it happens everywhere... but I guess I might be wrong.
/r/seduction25/05/13 01:57 AM
1

You're clearly implying it by suggesting that anyone who does any of the above is apparently lying. Also: Not everyone on reddit is a virgin.
/r/seduction25/05/13 01:50 AM
6

People are fucking all the time, everywhere. There is sex happening all around you. There are probably a bunch of people having sex within 100 yards of anyone reading this post. If the world was truly as anti-social and sex-less as reddit would suggest, the human race would have died out millions of years ago. Men and women are hooking up all the freakin' time.
/r/seduction25/05/13 01:45 AM
5

Guys do this all the time. It happens all the time. The world is full of sociable people. Only on reddit is the "average" person a basement dwelling WOW-playing overweight neckbeard who is frightened and terrified by girls.
/r/seduction25/05/13 01:08 AM
-1

Probably because the murderer isn't just a woman. The murder is other (possibly relevant) things as well. This is an absurd simplification.
/r/MensRights19/05/13 02:38 AM
1

True, but I'm not sure that would really improve the situation for anybody.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 12:36 PM
0

As much as me NOT donating my kidney is murder too, yeah.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 02:05 AM
1

I think society agrees that the right to control your body > the right to control your money.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 01:58 AM
1

destroyed by what?
/r/TheRedPill13/05/13 11:32 PM
2

Yeah... but what kind of justice?
/r/MensRights08/05/13 11:03 PM
7

Different types of foods create different levels of satiety, even when they contain the same amount of calories.
/r/TheRedPill07/05/13 09:54 PM
9

Wow... that's scummy.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 07:18 PM
17

Interesting. So what exactly does a father have to do to make sure he is on the birth certificate... so his kids don't get given away without his consent?
/r/MensRights02/05/13 07:17 PM
30

A mother can't legally give up her child (for adoption) without the consent of the father. Or is there some weird thing in the USA where she actually can... ?
/r/MensRights02/05/13 06:30 PM
6

He's just saying that "nice guys" don't actually do "nice things", like volunteer at charities etc.
/r/TheRedPill01/05/13 03:44 PM
11

I think he's just saying that you need to demonstrate your value, otherwise they may not realize that you have any value.
/r/TheRedPill01/05/13 03:42 PM
1

So that's a yes I assume.... ? If you don't want to have a discussion, that's fine too. /shrug
/r/TheRedPill28/04/13 07:54 PM
2

So you're saying women are gatekeepers of sex because some of them can charge for it, and men cannot?
/r/TheRedPill28/04/13 07:47 PM
2

But this behaviour that women have... it only applies to beta males. That's why I don't like the analogy/generalization, because it completely ignores the concept of alpha/beta males.
/r/TheRedPill28/04/13 07:41 PM
0

Ah, so you're saying men never exchange sex with women for .... anything of value? If that's true, I wonder why that is.
/r/TheRedPill28/04/13 07:38 PM
2

Men have no sexual oligopoly among them, alpha males included. I'd love to hear an explanation. It would seem alpha males are scarce too, by definition.
/r/TheRedPill28/04/13 07:33 PM
2

But this only applies to beta males. Women will have unlimited sex with alpha males. At which point, don't the men become gatekeepers?
/r/TheRedPill28/04/13 07:24 PM
4

You're saying women as a whole artificially make sex scarce?
/r/TheRedPill28/04/13 07:21 PM
4

Can someone remind me why women are the gatekeepers, exactly? Is it purely because there's more men than women that are lonely and desperate for sex? Is it purely a numbers thing? ETA: Or is it that women simply have higher standards for sex, and men have very low standards?
/r/TheRedPill28/04/13 07:14 PM
2

You're imagining a confrontation where none exists.
/r/TheRedPill28/04/13 06:50 PM
0

It is illogical, that's correct. Though for the record, promiscuity appears to affect men's LTR chances less than it affects women's.
/r/TheRedPill28/04/13 05:23 PM
-2

Some would also suggest the promiscuity prior to a LTR increases the chances that the LTR will fail. ETA: There are studies to suggest this.
/r/TheRedPill28/04/13 05:01 PM
0

If you're promiscuous during a long term relationship... then that probably negatively effects it, yes. Not necessarily, but probably. Or do you think that's an unreasonable assumption?
/r/TheRedPill28/04/13 04:47 PM
-4

Probably because promiscuity negatively affects most long term relationships.
/r/TheRedPill28/04/13 04:12 PM
2

But the thing I don't get is... what is the purpose for him marrying? What does he gain from marriage? Did he actually think he wasn't going to have sex with other women?
/r/TheRedPill28/04/13 10:59 AM
2

Why do rich men who like to sleep around get married in the first place?
/r/TheRedPill27/04/13 10:59 AM
7

Murder her? What for?
/r/TheRedPill27/04/13 01:04 AM
3

I thought you need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt in the USA?
/r/MensRights25/04/13 07:15 PM
5

Pulling out? Not really, but it is ineffective. If she doesn't want children, condoms and/or pills should do the trick. Pulling out is only like 2% less effective than condoms, just for the record. Obviously you have to do it right and "follow the rules", but then the same applies to condom usage too.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 07:14 PM
3

not that that really works anyway, but that's an aside Why not? When done properly, it's very effective. If you have regular sex with your partner for a full year - and use the withdrawal method every time - there's only like 4-5% chance she'll get pregnant.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 07:09 PM
1

Nobody likes needy and clingy people. And generally low-value people are clingy & needy. Also: Stalkers. Nobody likes stalkers either.
/r/seduction19/04/13 11:05 AM
1

So let's say women have more control and therefore more responsibility. What does that actually mean though? If an "accidental" child is born, and we agree the woman is more responsible... so what? What effect would this have?
/r/MensRights13/04/13 06:32 PM
2

Men can get a vasectomy too.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 06:28 PM
2

I think people who smoke should have to pay a higher insurance premium.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 12:13 PM
3

Not saying this isn't a valid idea... but man, that'll be a tough sell on election day. Taxpayers just won't buy into this.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 12:20 AM
6

There's only one serious flaw with regards to the idea of financial abortion: By a man not supporting his child, he puts that burden onto taxpayers to support the child. And no one wants to pay for another man's baby. I mean, if you knock up some chick, and don't wanna be the father... why should I have to pay to take care your child? The suggestion is absurd. That's why no one who'd allow "financial abortion" will ever get elected, and why it will never be allowed into law.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 09:09 PM
3

If he actually did it, great. Uhh... I don't think that's how it works in civilized society. Use the law instead.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 06:28 PM
1

I'm referring to social value - the value that people give to the relationship they have with you. In simplest terms, in the context of this subreddit, being "alpha" will raise your value. Outside of this subreddit, I'd just call it "confidence".
/r/seduction10/04/13 08:26 PM
1

The way to be super confident without being arrogant is to recognize that everyone is awesome in their own way, including you. Everyone is awesome, sure. Everyone's a human being, and I respect that. But of the relationships I have with people, not all of them have the same value to me. Some relationships are worth more to me than others. And by extension, people whom I don't know have no value to me. Our relationship has no value, because there is no relationship present. ...which is nothing mo…
/r/seduction09/04/13 06:47 PM
2

This response is better than mine. This is a good response.
/r/seduction09/04/13 06:34 PM
2

In simple / oversimplified terms: What is value and how do I get it? Respect from other people. Other people's desire for you and your attention and your skills. It's when other people value their relationship with you. and how do I get it? That's a harder one to answer. But at least you're in the right sub. The easiest way to start is to be & act confident with yourself. How other people value & respect you depends on how they see you valuing & respecting yourself. How do I give value without b…
/r/seduction09/04/13 06:32 PM
2

What a crappy way to go through life-- trying to figure out if someone has a higher or lower value than yours. Trying to figure out what "value" people have. I never try to figure this out. I never assess this. I just go with the assumption that I have a lot of value to the people around me, and they reinforce it. I believe all humans have the same value. Intrinsic value, sure - I don't disagree. It should be clear that is not what I meant, however. you will meet people you view as having more "…
/r/seduction09/04/13 06:18 PM
3

You wholeheartedly believe the fact that you are better than those around you. Absolutely not. When I use "value" in this particular context, as shorthand on this particular subreddit, I'm going with the assumption that people know what I mean. But to clarify: I mean sexual market value, social value, the value other people give to you and their relationship with you, etc. You delude yourself by thinking that you are helping people, but you don't take into account that some of those people might…
/r/seduction09/04/13 06:03 PM
4

I don't mind the substitution for treat & view. But ultimately it's actions that matter and have the most impact. How do you even begin to quantify someone, let alone do it accurately upon just meeting them? You can determine very quickly how they quantify/value themselves within the first 10-100 seconds. This isn't always accurate, but it's what human beings do, all the time, everyday. And it's how you are being evaluated too. but it's incredibly arrogant to think you can objectively measure th…
/r/seduction09/04/13 03:37 PM
14

Honestly I'm not arrogant, I'm just coming off as arrogant in my post because I'm being extremely direct and to-the-point. strangely seems as if arrogance is working for you in such a way that it makes you a better person I don't believe I'm arrogant. I never put other people down. (The ONLY exception to this is when I encounter a low-value arrogant individual who is trying to put my friends down. Then I step in and put him/her back into their place. But I still do it "graciously" and indirectly…
/r/seduction09/04/13 12:59 PM
62

Allow me a bit of arrogance to share my views on this: I'm confident, but I do think most people have less value than me, because let's be honest... they just do. But because I know they have less value then me, I don't need to push them down further. If anything, I'm so high value that I can afford to pull them up. What's the result... ? They feel better about themselves, realize that I raise their own values, and still demonstrate extremely high value myself. I have so much fucking value overf…
/r/seduction09/04/13 12:33 PM
3

it wasn't legally rape. In Canada, legally, there is no such thing as rape. Also, in some places, if a male forces oral sex on a women (cunnilingus), it could still be considered rape.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 12:13 PM
7

If you want to come off as confident you have to give value to those around you and not just yourself. 100x this! Confident people raise their own value, and often the value of those around them. Arrogant people just push down the value of everyone else, and make them feel like shit. In the long term, confidence > arrogance.
/r/seduction09/04/13 11:59 AM
248

Confidence is about how you treat yourself, and how you think of yourself. Arrogance is about how you treat other people. Confidence is about raising your own value. Arrogance is about lowering other people's value.
/r/seduction09/04/13 11:57 AM
1

She does it because she loves you, and receives emotions, validation, and approval from you. Yes, but my point was that these things don't make her "selfish" in the way that word is typically used.
/r/TheRedPill08/04/13 01:35 AM
3

But I mean come on, if a girl wants to fuck you just let her. What if she has AIDS or herpes? What if you have no birth-control and she wants to have your baby? What if she's just really ugly and disgusting?
/r/TheRedPill07/04/13 10:56 PM
7

1) A man doesn't need to be psychologically aroused. He can simply be physically "aroused". Big difference. You can not want to have sex, but still have an erection. 2) If the guy is drunk/drugged, then he may not be stronger than a woman.
/r/TheRedPill07/04/13 10:52 PM
2

Maybe it's to protect the victim's privacy.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 08:49 PM
2

The Canadian legal system doesn't have "rape". It only has "sexual assault".
/r/MensRights07/04/13 08:35 PM
1

your mother is genetecially programmed to help you because you are carrying her genetic legacy and she wants you to bring her genes into the next generation. That doesn't make her selfish, however. exactly. but their genes will live on, which is the main interest of every single cell in your body. The genes may be "selfish", but that doesn't make the person selfish. There's a significant difference. we help our children for example to make sure our genes contnue to live and continue to reproduce…
/r/TheRedPill07/04/13 03:14 PM
1

we help others in hope they will pay us back one day. My mother never helps me because she hopes I'll pay her back. The only benefit "she" gains is that her genes have a better chance of getting passed on. She never consciously thinks that, though. People do non-selfish things all the time... often without thinking about it. Humans are often very altruistic. A parent will sometimes risk / sacrifice their own lives to help their children. And they won't get anything back because... they'll be dea…
/r/TheRedPill07/04/13 02:49 PM
1

I think this is false. only if working together provides the individual with a benefit are they going to do it. Not so much individual benefit, but genetic benefit. we all are inheretnly selfish. only if we benefit we are going to help others. Maybe our genes are "inherently" selfish, but as individuals we aren't always.
/r/TheRedPill07/04/13 02:24 PM
3

Your talk about dancing is a feminine trait, calling sex "making love," and "thinking about her," are as well. Are you sure you don't have low test, or are not infact female? I think you're reading too much into it. He has an alpha state and enjoys women.
/r/TheRedPill07/04/13 02:21 PM
1

satisfying biological imperatives rewards you with positive emotions But taking the shortcut to that satisfaction, often does not. I think that was a part of the point of the top comment.
/r/TheRedPill07/04/13 01:32 PM
2

There's lots of factors that reduce the chance of divorce. Like not getting married at 17. Like not getting married after 3 months of dating. Like marrying someone from a similar cultural background. Like marrying someone with the same life goals as you. If financial ruin is the main fear... then simply marry a woman who makes as much or more than you. Of course not all women are crazy. Just like not all men are rapists. Don't believe the hype. It's not impossible to determine who is/isn't crazy…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 01:00 PM
1

That's 100% true, I agree. But sometimes I'm looking for other things, like an accountant, or a graphic artist, or a cook, or whatever. Don't get me wrong, if my accountant is attractive, I may still wanna fuck her! But at the end of the day... I will still need an accountant.
/r/TheRedPill06/04/13 03:27 PM
1

I agree that you (or anyone else) can have a relationship with a woman where the only value she provides is sex. And of course you're right, that does not mean you hate her. But the other posts aren't talking about a specific woman that you're fucking... but women in general. There's woman who provide no value but sex to me. There's men that provide no value to me... at all. But when I'm looking for things of value (food, water, shelter... entertainment, music... accounting, legal advice... food…
/r/TheRedPill06/04/13 03:09 PM
2

Okay, that makes sense. So you use women only for sex, and men for everything else? That's probably not the most efficient way to live, but it could work - so that's fine. I use women for sex... but for everything else I use both men and women. It gives me more choices.
/r/TheRedPill06/04/13 02:37 PM
2

If someone is willing to pay a woman to do something, they pay them because whatever the woman is doing has value. Whether it's the cashier at Taco Bell or whether it's your lawyer or accountant... they're certainly providing economic value to other people, both men and women. Sure, it's possible to be in a relationship with a woman where all she provides is sexual value... and that happens a lot - I ain't saying it doesn't. The the original post dismisses a woman's economic value too, however..…
/r/TheRedPill06/04/13 01:48 PM
2

Yeah, but nobody only values sex. You wouldn't survive 10 days on this planet if you only valued sex.
/r/TheRedPill06/04/13 01:29 PM
8

Here's the train of thought people will go through when they read that post: 1) The only thing of value women can provide is sex. 2) Non-sexual things that women provide therefore have no value. 3) But when men provide those same non-sexual things, that does have value. Therefore the person making the suggestion is clearly biased against women. 4) Rationalizing could lead to a minor bias against women. But this is an extreme bias against women, and therefore must be completely irrational and emo…
/r/TheRedPill06/04/13 12:55 PM
1

I don't get what this means, honestly. I work at company with 100 employees. About 50 of them are women. They all get paid good money, so obviously they're providing value. Women have jobs, and people pay women to do things, so obviously they have economic value. On a more individual level, I have lots of friends, and many of them are female. And plenty of them provide similar value to me as my male friends do (ie non-sexual). So I don't really understand what the statement is supposed to mean?
/r/TheRedPill06/04/13 12:32 PM
4

What does this mean? Everyone provides value of some kind... that's why people can have jobs and get paid for things. Not everyone has sexual value... but that's a completely different metric.
/r/TheRedPill06/04/13 12:25 PM
1

Nothing more really. Time provides the opportunity to increase your value. If you are doing things right, then your value will increase over time. Time will give you an advantage compared to a random stranger who has had no time to build & demonstrate value.
/r/seduction05/04/13 04:44 PM
22

I don't get why these women don't date a 50-60+ ordinary divorced man who is looking for some companionship. If I was 40 and still looking for a relationship/wife, then I wouldn't be looking at 40 year old's either... maybe I'd want kids or something... and so I'd be looking at max 30 year olds. These women aren't hot, they can't have kids anymore... all they can provide is companionship. There's value in companionship... but the market for that is... well... with 50-60+ year old men. It's a gre…
/r/TheRedPill04/04/13 08:27 PM
3

Keep in mind that sometimes being around longer gives you a chance to increase your value to very high levels... to the point where random super-alpha strangers can no longer "out-alpha" you within 10 minutes.
/r/seduction04/04/13 07:15 PM
2

Totally unrelated: There's good reason to hate pre-selection in general. It's what all the 100k+ Ivy League schools go on. And then it follows you into your corporate career as well. Your resume is basically a pre-selection tool for employers. Luckily, it's relatively easier to get some female pre-selection for a random night out... than it is to call a friend and have them print me a Harvard degree that same evening. /end rant
/r/seduction04/04/13 07:13 PM
5

The 2/3 system is great. But personally, I wouldn't want a long-term relationship with someone who is keeping a financial spreadsheet in their head at all times.
/r/TheRedPill04/04/13 03:39 PM
10

To be fair, I think most people would find this outrage worthy as well.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 03:28 PM
2

I'm going on the assumption that "not giving a fuck" (ie being confident) will not collapse civilization down to the level of the American ghetto. I could be wrong though.
/r/TheRedPill04/04/13 03:15 PM
3

I'd love to see a sociological study on this!
/r/TheRedPill04/04/13 03:13 PM
2

If you have the wrong attitude, of course it won't work. The right attitude is implied in the statement though.
/r/TheRedPill04/04/13 03:10 PM
1

"Being alpha" doesn't have to be a zero sum game. And generally, it isn't.
/r/TheRedPill04/04/13 03:07 PM
6

If everyone was confident and self-assured and just didn't give a fuck, then I think everyone would be happier over-all. That said, I think people have a built-in genetic & social programming that leads to them being beta. Being beta is a reasonably successful (evolutionarily and socially) character trait. I don't think it's going to go away, to be honest.
/r/TheRedPill04/04/13 03:05 PM
4

To be fair, women often dress sexy and wear make-up purely for the inter-female social status that it gives. If there were only women left in this world, I'm pretty sure they'd still try to dress "sexy" and still wear make-up.
/r/TheRedPill04/04/13 02:59 PM
2

Nothing is free... and some rights are just too expensive. This might be one such example.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 02:38 PM
3

This is why you have to secretly videotape all of your sexing. (Okay, no, don't do that. It might be illegal where you live!)
/r/MensRights03/04/13 12:39 AM
3

I don't think that distinction is necessary in this case. Having unwanted children around would would have negative impacts on the individuals within society. He's just saying that aborting these children would eliminate those negatives.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 12:37 AM
5

So children - with parents who can't afford to take care of them - should just starve and die on the street? I'm not sure that's an appropriate stance to take in a civilized society, IMHO.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 12:28 AM
2

Perhaps he just means "a benefit to society as a whole".
/r/MensRights03/04/13 12:22 AM
3

If a woman "opts out" and gets a state-funded abortion... that costs the taxpayer what... a couple thousand dollars? If a man "opts out" and gets the state to pay the child support, that would cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. When a woman opts out, there is no child, and a non-child is pretty damn cheap to take care of. When a man opts out, there's still a child to support for 18 years... and that takes a shit-ton of money to care of. That's probably why few will ever…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 12:17 AM
7

Women opting out probably costs significantly less tax dollars (free abortions) than men opting out (18 years of child support). That's a major difference to consider.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 08:37 PM
4

Because the citizens would probably have to pay more if the abortions didn't happen.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 08:35 PM
1

If 10 guys are satisfied to share 1 woman, and 1 woman needs 10 guys to satisfy her... then yeah, in the end they'd average out. The 1super-horny woman and the 9 non-horny woman would average out to the average of the 10 guys too. (Assuming sexual frequency = horniness.) I would argue that low standards is excellent in demonstrating true sexual desire. I'd love to hear the reasoning behind this suggestion. Obviously the less sex someone has the less they like it. This isn't really true. If I'm s…
/r/seduction02/04/13 07:06 PM
1

I simply pointed out that men and women have the same amount of sex. My main point is still that "low standards" doesn't equal "horniness". (But that's just my definition and opinion, of course.)
/r/seduction02/04/13 06:55 PM
1

Not true. In a group of 10 men and 10 women, if only one woman has sex with all 10 of the guys, then 100% of the men are having sex and only 10% of the women are. The total quantity of sex men and women are having is exactly identical. .... is exactly why women don't like sex because she needs so much more to be aroused. She doesn't need "more" she just needs something specific. Ergo, men like and want sex way more than women. Unfortunately I don't follow your logic.
/r/seduction02/04/13 09:45 AM
1

To say that guys are so horny they would have sex with other men is wrong because heterosexual men are not attracted to homosexual men. Heterosexual women are supposed to be attracted to heterosexual men. Evolution would suggest that women are only "supposed" to be attracted to alpha men, and not just ordinary heterosexual men in general. I'd say that a woman's specific attraction for alpha males is comparable to a mans generic attraction towards women in general. This is a great point. Yes, wom…
/r/seduction02/04/13 02:46 AM
1

And I'm saying the more horny someone is, the less selective they are. That's your definition, but not necessarily everyone elses'. I completely disagree with this idea, to be honest. Like I said... really horny hetero men don't go around having sex with other men, children, or animals. A person's horniness doesn't necessarily make them less selective. This is especially important when considering the fact that women possibly evolved to be particularly selective. I think the only fair way to qua…
/r/seduction02/04/13 01:24 AM
1

I don't think that really matters. All I'm saying is that being selective and being horny are 2 completely different and unrelated things.
/r/seduction02/04/13 12:33 AM
1

Girls go for penis all the time. The girls I know are constantly getting laid. Catch is, they only go for alpha-penis. Being selective doesn't mean you're not horny. I'm horny as fuck, but I still have no desire to have sex with men, children, dogs, or sheep.
/r/seduction01/04/13 11:43 PM
1

How could you possible come to that conclusion? That makes no sense, at all. I'm honestly confused by your response.
/r/seduction01/04/13 10:35 PM
1

I bet there are 100 horny average guys for every 1 similar horny rare girl that wants to sleep with them. Fixed that for you. Girls just have higher standards than guys. That's why 80% of girls bang the top 20% of guys.
/r/seduction01/04/13 09:31 PM
2

Well obviously. Men who get no sexual attention from women, think that all women are asexual. Men who get lots of sexual attention from women, think that all women are nymphos.
/r/seduction01/04/13 07:55 PM
1

You think I give a fuck what you or any other woman thinks? See, this is the problem. MRM wants to change other people's views, and enlighten them, teach them, etc... but then comes across as saying "We don't give a fuck what you think! Fuck off!" That's not how education works, unfortunately. But I guess you just don't give a shit about men's rights after all...
/r/MensRights01/04/13 07:52 PM
1

The 80-20 "rule", or something like that. Most men are attracted to most women. Most women are attracted to a FEW men. Yes. But the strength of that sexual attraction/desire is pretty comparable for both men and women.
/r/seduction01/04/13 07:09 PM
6

I remember when unsatisfied women had to go to doctors to get their sexual needs met... otherwise they might succumb to dangerous "hysteria"! Women would go to doctors to be "relieved" of their "frustrations"... Ah yes, the good olde days.
/r/seduction01/04/13 06:54 PM
3

If girls were as horny as guys they would be less selective, too. I don't understand where you get this from? This is false. But guys are less selective because they are more horny. Why don't really horny men have sex with other men? If they're really really horny, they should! (But they don't.) It's because hetero guys aren't attracted to other men, no matter how horny they get. Women are the same way... they can be really really horny, but they'll never want to have sex with men that aren't at…
/r/seduction01/04/13 06:47 PM
0

Proof?
/r/MensRights01/04/13 05:55 PM
5

Women are horny, but they are selective about the targets of their sexual desire. That doesn't mean they don't have strong sexual desire, it just means they're selective. Big difference.
/r/seduction01/04/13 05:54 PM
4

They were as sexually interested as the men were... but their interest was more focused. All of the women wanted the top 20% (or less), true... but they wanted to fuck them just as badly as the average guy wanted to fuck in general.
/r/seduction01/04/13 05:24 PM
1

By 'a fun time with their friends.' do you mean making out with strange men, grinding their crotches into strange men's crotches, and then going home with these men for a night of wild and crazy sex?
/r/seduction01/04/13 05:21 PM
0

Nazis murdered innocent minorities, and gassed them, and then roasted them in ovens. Most feminists haven't done any such things. And to suggests that feminists are Nazis does a disservice to those that were actually killed by actual Nazis. Calling people feminazis gives others an immediate reason to dismiss you and your claims... and that's not really something the MRM can afford to do. You are upset that some suggest: the MRM is seen as a group of whiny, bitchy little boys but then you support…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 05:17 PM
-1

Well I know plenty of non-feminists who think of MRM in that way. Which suggests that it's not just feminists. It's an important thing to be aware if you want people to take MRM seriously.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 05:09 PM
16

Their needs are very obvious... have you never been to a bar or a club or a party filled with semi-drunk girls on a Saturday night?
/r/seduction01/04/13 11:31 AM
-1

I'm not sure I can buy into the idea that we need to "make a problem worse, before it can be made better". We need stronger punishments for murder, because murder is bad... so let's go out and kill more people!!!
/r/MensRights01/04/13 11:16 AM
1

Fair enough. He could have been more tactful. But I think he cleared up his viewpoints in his other responses to come across as less of a jackass/troll. I don't think he's a troll at all, I think he's just exceedingly frustrated - like a lot of people here.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 11:08 AM
1

Yes!
/r/MensRights01/04/13 01:01 AM
7

It's an accurate assessment of how MRM is perceived by others.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 01:00 AM
-1

To be fair, I think he mean "be adults" instead.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 12:53 AM
1

If you find out, let me know too!
/r/MensRights01/04/13 12:42 AM
1

To be fair, it is accurate. That is how MRM is perceived. Steps should be taken to avoid that perception - instead of submitting to the stereotype.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 12:38 AM
2

This is a great term to use while in a circlejerk with your friends, but it's a terrible term to use out in the real world. Why? Because you can't move a debate forward when you resort to childish name-calling. It doesn't matter if you do not think it's childish name calling - because that is how it is perceived. "I want to further intellectual debate and fight for everyone's equal rights.... but fuck it! You're all Nazis!!!" Yeah... that doesn't work.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 08:13 PM
2

The truth isn't in what one says, but in what one does. Words are meaningless, and especially prone to misinterpretation.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 08:03 PM
-5

You sound angry. All that emotion can be used as motivation for good... but instead to blast someone with the same goals as you. Seriously? You two are on the same team ffs...
/r/MensRights31/03/13 08:01 PM
20

The insinuation exists only in your mind. And that says a lot about you, and no one else.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 04:38 PM
3

Fair enough. Just saying what you think without trying is an exercise in pointlessness. I agree with you 100% on that. Just saying "it's not gonna work" isn't very valuable unless you can say "I tried it, and it didn't work..."
/r/seduction25/03/13 07:15 PM
0

Getting angry isn't gonna convince anyone of your point. Nor does your response rate apply to everyone, to be fair.
/r/seduction25/03/13 06:58 PM
1

Truly and amazingly awesome people don't really need to say much at all. Their actions and presence convey the awesomeness... without have to tell the people around you "Hey! Psst! Look at me! I'm awesome! No... really! I am!!! Look!" I understand this is supposed to be funny and childish, and that's fine... but there are lots of adult women who would not respond positively to this. So it really depends on the context - and whether it's congruent with your personality that she is familiar with. …
/r/seduction25/03/13 06:55 PM
1

don't TELL her you're awesome, you SHOW her that you're awesome Yeah... this line breaks the rule. Not that there can't be exceptions to the rule... but only people who struggle to show awesomeness have to resort to telling people about their supposed awesomeness.
/r/seduction25/03/13 05:57 PM
-1

We are not irrational like women, we are logical. Ahahahhaa. Hahaha...
/r/seduction25/03/13 05:55 PM
5

I thought about it a bit, and I think maybe this is okay. Maybe people have to be socialized to not be rapists... just like perhaps they also have to be socialized to not be thieves and murderers... and socialized to be civilized people in general. Maybe humans in their unsocialized state are violent and barbaric?
/r/MensRights25/03/13 01:46 AM
1

Sorry, but you're basically denying an incredible well defined part of the theory of evolution here. No I'm not. You were implying that people modify their appearances for the sole (evolutionary) purpose of attracting the opposite sex, for reproduction, and I was simply disagreeing and asking for proof. But when it comes down to generalizations about gender, there is no reasoning for women wanting to impress other women as the end point. Women may seek to raise their (non-sexual) status with oth…
/r/MensRights25/03/13 01:20 AM
1

The primary function of and desire for social status will always be to find a mate. Primary function as defined by whom? By evolution? By the women themselves? Do these behaviours have a purpose at all, or are you simply observing the side-effects of such behaviour from an evolutionary perspective? I know you might think that I'm being pedantic, but what you ascribe to evolution cannot simply be transferred to individuals - and that's the main point I was making. I eat because I am hungry. Women…
/r/MensRights24/03/13 08:38 PM
2

There are a few holes in your argument, but I can agree that women may have evolved behaviours that focused on gaining status through their bodies. That's not an unreasonable suggestion. That's still very different, however, from the suggestion that women who only see other women all day / every day, dress up for the purposes of impressing (non-existent) men. What I'm really driving at is that evolution did not hard wire women to compete with other women to impress women, it did it to impress me…
/r/MensRights24/03/13 01:16 PM
1

You appeared to be suggesting that there's no evolutionary purpose for women to compete against each other. That's really what I was asking about.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 12:51 PM
1

evolution did not hard wire women to compete with other women to impress women, it did it to impress men. Proof?
/r/MensRights24/03/13 04:37 AM
3

Yet women do this when there are no men around. Why?
/r/MensRights24/03/13 04:36 AM
1

The distinction made previously was "stranger", I believe. It's possible to be invited and still be a stranger. That's why I generally don't point firearms at strangers, because you know... it may turn out that they were invited after all!
/r/MensRights23/03/13 12:24 AM
1

If I'm having a cup of afternoon tea, and I notice a stranger standing in my dining room... I honestly have no idea if he's breaking into my house with the intent of stealing something or hurting me... or if he's the plumber I called last week who said he'd drop by if one of his appointments cancelled. My first response would be to ask him... and not to pull out my shotgun... rofl. But I can understand that in certain American neighbourhoods, maybe the shotgun approach would be more appropriate.…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 12:23 AM
1

I appreciate your honest response. I understand where you're coming from. My point is that I simply draw the line at responsibility. There are many factors that influence people's decisions (like hunger), and I understand that, but as long as the person still has the mental capacity to make decisions, they are still responsible for those decisions. That's not to say your explanation of "I'm fat because I'm fucking hungry all the time" isn't a valid explanation - it is. I just don't view it as a …
/r/MensRights22/03/13 08:24 PM
1

Because men are hard wired to have sex as much as possible to make as much off spring as possible. So the reason you're fat is because you're human, or is it the product of the choices that you've made in your life? Being human - or male - is not an excuse for stupid/bad decisions that you've made. People want to offload the responsibility of their choices onto something ambiguous and vague and something that can't easily be changed or affected... like "I'm just human", or "I'm just a man"... as…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 06:58 PM
2

I'd love to see a few studies that show that males want sex more than females -- ones that shows that it's based on biology and not society/culture. ETA: Though it's still irrelevant if we're just comparing men to other men. If some men are victims of their sex drive, but other men aren't... then using the argument that "it's because men have strong sex drives" is no good.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 06:21 PM
0

I live in a culture where people share their homes with friends and family. And that sometimes means that people who've you've never met before will come into your home unexpected. This is why I find it odd that some people think that a stranger in your home is somehow automatically a threat, rather than a pleasant guest. But I'm willing to accept that this is an American thing, and drop the issue. America is a dangerous place - I get it - and sometimes living in a dangerous place requires takin…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 06:10 PM
2

This is a silly explanation. Everyone is hardwired to have lots of sex. If it applies to everyone, then it's not much of a useful explanation.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 06:02 PM
1

It depends on the context. If it's mid-afternoon and I'm working from home, having a cup of coffee in my living room, and I'm expecting a plumber, or my wife's mother-in-law to bring cookies and pie at some point during the week... then of course I'd ask questions first. If it's 3am, and some dude is in my bedroom with a mask and a baseball bat... of course the reaction will be different. But that's the point... the reaction depends on the context. Let's say I break into your house to loot it an…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 05:25 PM
1

What sort of mentality? If someone is in my home, and I can verify he is a burglar, I still would not shoot him in the back of the head - just because I happen to live in a place like Florida or something. Sure, I'd confront him, and if during that confrontation my life or my family's lives are threatened, I'd use force. But I'm just saying that the "shoot first, ask questions later" method is a bit silly and unnecessary. (Unless you live next to a crack house and a heroin dealer, or something s…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 04:42 PM
0

i dont know the specifics, but what i do know is that i hear about home invasions and assaults and murders far too often to assume that an intruder is not going to physically harm me. I've heard the violent crime is down almost everywhere... but I might be wrong and your neighbourhood might be the exception, so I won't argue that point. im not planning on asking an intruder what theyre doing in my house. theyre in my house, and im going to defend my house. If someone is in you're home, you're no…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 04:13 PM
-1

What are you talking about? If I call a plumber, and he says "I'll come by this week", then he's invited, yes. But that's the whole point... at any point in time, there is always someone invited to my home, and often it's someone whom I've never seen before. Of course, I'd prefer they knock / ring the doorbell first, but sometimes I don't hear it, and they might let themselves in.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 03:58 PM
-1

I don't understand, could you please explain? If someone is in my house stealing my shit, I wouldn't do nothing - that's silly. But I wouldn't shoot them in the back of the head without warning either.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 03:44 PM
-1

I'd have to check the crime statistics, but I thought the murder rates were lower than ever... ? very often do home invasions result in the murder of someone in the family, if not all of the family. What is "very often"? 0.001%, 1%, 50%? I don't mean to be a dick, but that number (whatever it is) is probably important. violent break-ins are especially prevalent in bad neighborhoods or places near bad neighborhoods. If someone lived next to a crack house on one side, and a heroin dealer on the ot…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 03:42 PM
-3

Or maybe it's a kid that entered your house by accident, or maybe it's the plumber come to fix my pipes but whose doorbell I didn't hear because my music was playing too loudly? If someone is in my home - it's a bit of a stretch to assume they're there to hurt me or steal my stuff, isn't it? The second of hesitation that is necessary to determine the intruders motive is enough to give the intruder the upper hand on you and hurt you if that is his aim. Why would someone enter into my home with th…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 01:32 PM
-9

Why would anyone break into your house to murder your family? Isn't that a bit of a silly assumption to make? You can't actually believe this, can you? (Or is this an American thing that I don't understand. If so, please explain.)
/r/MensRights22/03/13 01:24 PM
-1

How so?
/r/MensRights22/03/13 01:05 PM
-1

Maybe in America. But the rest of the world prefers to not support deadly force, unless lives are threatened.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 12:44 PM
2

If a man has accepted paternal responsibility, how exactly can the mother give the child up for adoption? Isn't that illegal, even in the US of A?
/r/MensRights17/03/13 10:49 PM
3

Fair enough. I respect your opinion and appreciate you sharing your viewpoint.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 02:16 AM
0

That's such an odd way of looking at it. It's confusing on so many levels, to be honest. 1) Why am I disrespecting myself for not picking a long term partner? 2) Having sex with multiple people is self-destructive? How so? 3) 1% of women meet my standards, if that. But 1% of the world is still millions and millions of women. So it's possible to have lots of sex, and still maintain high standards, I believe.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:11 AM
1

Your observation might be true but it's far from meaningful, given that others have observed the exact opposite, and that there are no scientific studies to validate or explain your observation.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 11:53 PM
1

No. But I've met enough to absolutely confirm that not all women are like that. 50% of women? Well I dunno. I suspect neither of us have met 50% of women, so I guess we can't confirm either way. I can live with that. I guess it just so happens that you're surrounding by bitches, and I'm surrounded by non-bitches. Perhaps it's just random good luck & bad luck. (I'm certainly not claiming nor suggesting that you are lying about being surrounded by bitches.)
/r/MensRights13/03/13 11:50 PM
1

Have you met all women? I'm confused. Please explain.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 09:22 PM
2

Then I pity you for whatever terrible circumstance has given you such bad luck. Maybe you should consider moving.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:50 PM
1

Fair enough.
/r/seduction13/03/13 04:00 PM
1

I agree. Vulnerability helps to make someone not appear 100% perfect. It's difficult to trust someone who appears to have no flaws and have no weaknesses. I don't believe the vulnerability has to be overcome, however. Just the fact that it exists can strengthen the dedication and devotion of the other person.
/r/seduction13/03/13 03:49 PM
1

Desire is great. 100% obsession is not so much. It's a bit creepy. But maybe you didn't mean to use the typical definition of the word "obsession". If a girl tells me that her value is so very much below mine, then I will take that information and use it... to leave her and find a more valuable girl. She just saved me a shit-ton of time! I don't have to figure out on my own that she has low value, instead she shared it with me directly.
/r/seduction13/03/13 03:43 PM
1

That's a bit overly simplistic. Never take anything at face value, true, but suggesting that there is no information to be gained from the words of a woman is a bit absurd. If a fish started speaking, I'd listen. The only thing to be gained is more information.
/r/seduction13/03/13 03:26 PM
1

Vulnerability can help build trust. Trust can improve relationships.
/r/seduction13/03/13 03:18 PM
1

A solid relationship will come once she's 100% devoted and obsessed with you. Devotion is good, obsession isn't really. Someone who is 100% obsessed generally doesn't offer much. They're probably obsessed because their value is so low compared to mine. But then why would I waste my time on people with such low value? If I'm with someone who is 100% obsessed with me, then that's a sign that I should probably raise my standards.
/r/seduction13/03/13 03:15 PM
12

Meeting women.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:52 PM
3

You're hanging with the wrong crowd.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 05:58 AM
2

Don't take him too seriously. I don't think he is for real.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 05:48 AM
1

Why does having a lot of sex suggest lack of self respect?
/r/MensRights13/03/13 05:46 AM
0

People have sex for reasons other than just to make babies.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 05:15 AM
1

Men don't want kids. If they claim they do, they're liars. Get with the program dude... No man has ever chosen to have children!
/r/MensRights13/03/13 05:01 AM
1

Does that actually happen? Is this a USA thing... ? You actually get sent to prison for not paying child support?
/r/MensRights13/03/13 04:59 AM
2

Maybe I give too much credit to people....
/r/MensRights13/03/13 04:40 AM
1

Almost all women try to dress nice and wear make-up. Only a tiny minority go out to clubs and places like that. You can't really generalize women in clubs to the majority of women who don't go to clubs, though. But the women that do go to clubs, for the purposes of getting male attention, I think it's safe to assume they dress the way they do to ... get male attention. A half naked girl in a club shouldn't complain about men staring at her (though no one should really complain about other people…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 03:02 AM
1

I never meant to get off track from the idea of just looking. Men are fully withing their rights to look at whomever, and think whatever, they want. A woman has no right to be upset at this, whether she is dressed provocatively or not. Men may act differently depending on how a woman is dressed, but since looking/thinking isn't illegal, there's nothing "wrong" happening, and therefore there really isn't any "blame" to be placed either on the woman or the man. If women don't like to be looked at,…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:51 AM
1

A large phallus isn't very evolutionarily/biologically beneficial, nor is it a sign of something else that is evolutionarily or biologically beneficial. I'm sure you think your dick is great... but from a non-gay, female perspective, it really isn't all that important. A 12" cock won't help you make more successful children than the standard 6" cock. A man with a "V-shape" generally does mean that he will have better offspring... just like a woman's hourglass figure suggests that she will be mor…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:35 AM
1

I still don't know what it is you think I assume or what I have said to make you think so. Could you quote me? You say: It's quite simple really. Men are only going to stop looking at women when women stop looking so incredibly good. Men don't have to look, but women don't have to spend so much time with clothes, make-up, hair and so forth. To the vast majority of people out in the real world (ie not in this subreddit), the above statement subtly implies that women look good to get male attentio…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:19 AM
2

The main reason men wear suits, is because they have to. Occasionally it's to attract women, but usually is for cultural & work reasons. Women dress sexy, also because they have to. Occasionally they do it to attract men, but often it's for cultural & work reasons. If you've ever walked into an office or work environment that is full of women, you'd understand this... or if you've ever been to an all-girls school, you'd understand this as well. Clothing and appearance serves many practical purpo…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:09 AM
1

Men don't walk around with codpieces because codpieces do not show sexual fitness. A round ass and sexy hips and big breasts do show sexual fitness - but only on women. Men are generally not condemned for looking at women... if anything, women are more often condemned for dressing up "sexy" or provocatively, however. (Though it's possible this depends on when/where you live.) If you honestly believe the reverse is true, then I'm very curious where in the world you live in! Intention is important…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:02 AM
1

You have a point, yes. But what I'm saying is that - as you also mention - it's not conscious. A woman doesn't always dress a certain way with the specific intention of attracting men. Women will often dress sexy, even when they are only going to be around women, and no men will be present. So to me, the reason they dress the way they do is more complicated than some people make it out to be.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 01:57 AM
1

Fair enough. Point taken.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 01:15 AM
1

Lips, breasts, and buttocks are sexual because they are signs of sexual (child bearing) fitness. That is why the hourglass is sexual. Similarly the V is sexual because it shows sexual fitness as well: it is the sign of a healthy and physically fit male that can take care of a woman and her children. The focus on intention is important. Its part of the "logic" of victim blaming. From that perspective, it's very important, and that is why the distinction is relevant. As for your statement, I never…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 01:13 AM
1

Despite this ridiculous poster, I'm thankful that most men and women don't consider it sexual assault. The ones that do... well... they're crazy. And I'm content in ignoring them and their existence. Life is too short to waste too much time concerning yourself with crazies.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 12:42 AM
3

I don't accept that suits in men accentuate sexual or erotic characteristics. Can you point to some details? Suits accentuate the main human male sexual characteristics associated with fitness and maleness: Broad shoulders, full chest, flat stomach. Just as the hourglass is the standard female shape, the V-shape is the standard human male shape. Further, I find no necessary contradiction between the motives of conforming to cultural expectation and looking sexy. There doesn't have to be a contra…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 12:39 AM
2

You liken my taking care of myself in general (brushing teeth, cutting hair, dressing and washing etc) with her painting her lips red, enhancing the appearance of her breasts or dressing in a way that draws the eye to her hip waist ratio. The two are importantly unlike. Only the second is concerned with sexual or erotic parts of the body. Here's another example then, to help you understand: Men wearing suits have accentuated sexual/erotic physical characteristics. Most men who go to work in suit…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 12:16 AM
2

If her clothes weren't so revealing, I wouldn't have been staring like that! I think that's a reasonable statement to make... up to a point. But you staring at her is still a choice and action that you make and are responsible for, not one that the woman makes. The woman isn't controlling your actions, you are.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:53 PM
4

Because it's false. Do you brush your teeth, cut your hair, put on clothing, use soap, etc... only to get women attracted to you? Most people "take care of themselves" for reasons that go beyond simply attracting the opposite sex. To assume that women "take care of themselves" for the sole purpose of attracting men is a bit silly. That's why I wouldn't use such a false assumption as the basis for an argument/point.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:50 PM
2

This is beyond Beta. This is Omega.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:45 PM
4

The idea that women only have nice clothes, make-up, hair, etc in order to get male attention isn't "off-limits"... it's just that it's simply false. That's why it's not a useful thing to be saying and/or implying. Unfortunately I'm unfamiliar with the "too revealing" criticism. Could you explain to me what that is?
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:42 PM
1

Since the vast majority of people don't expect this, I don't mind ignoring the minority of people who do. They're generally crazy and irrelevant anyways, so not much is lost.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:34 PM
5

People will read into it and assume that you are suggesting that: Women exclusively spend time on clothes, make-up, hair, etc so that they can get male attention. Therefore, they must want male attention if they have nice clothes, make-up, hair, etc... and that's not a statement/argument that you'd wanna be making.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:09 PM
6

This probably isn't a good line of reasoning to pursue. Yeah, men like the way women look, that's why they look at them. That's as far as I'd take it though.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:00 PM
2

Uhh... yeah. Why? Everytime I've asked, they've agreed. (And it's not completely irrational either. People generally like attention from people they like, and dislike attention from people they dislike. Both men and women are this way.)
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:58 PM
18

Most women I've asked about this would agree.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:42 PM
3

Just pointing out an observed inconsistency, and the fact that it doesn't add to your credibility.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 01:11 AM
5

Perhaps I haven't read your other posts, but I fail to see how your mother is a representative for all children and all courts of law.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 01:03 AM
4

For someone who claims to be logical and reasonable, you seem to be very emotional.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 01:02 AM
5

Just making a friendly observation.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 12:59 AM
12

You're trying way too hard to prove yourself to people that shouldn't matter to you. You're weakness is showing.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:45 PM
2

It's a little silly to claim that child support has nothing to do with children.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:29 PM
4

Your personal opinion and "common sense" contradicts science, studies, and facts. If pulling-out is practised correctly, then: 1) There is no sperm in pre-ejaculate, 2) No sperm enters the woman's vagina. I'm not sure what you learned in your biology class, but you need sperm to have a baby. How can someone get pregnant without sperm? This is a serious question, since you appear to believe that pregnancy can happen without sperm. Only the OP knows how well he practised pulling-out... but if his …
/r/MensRights11/03/13 03:53 PM
5

The dude pierced the condom and got charged with sexual assault. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/09/28/ns-sexual-assault-condom-pin-hutchinson.html It may be possible, with enough evidence, to pursue such a sexual assault charge (at least in Nova Scotia, though I doubt in the USA or elsewhere). However, sexual assault (non-consentual unprotected sex) won't really affect the issue of child-support if she has the child... since the two are completely unrelated. He could win th…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 03:31 PM
2

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 03:24 PM
2

I wasn't talking about STDs, I was talking about pregnancy. I thought that was obvious.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 03:23 PM
3

Well... 50% of this story has already played out, and there's nothing that can be done to change the past. However, 50% is still ahead of him. His options are limited, and he needs to take drastic action in order to not get screwed. He still has some control over what happens to the 2nd half of this story. "He should have though about that before" is a valid criticism, but doesn't constitute meaningful advice at this point. This isn't about what he should/shouldn't have done - as I'm sure he alr…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 02:48 PM
3

He has a six figure income and she works as a cashier. This is literally just the height of "Come catch me! I.HAVE.MUNNNEEEEHHH!!!!WHEEE!" Also: People should think twice before starting a relationship like this... I mean seriously... what did they think the woman was thinking/planning? Basic rules of life state: Don't have relationships/sex with people half your age, or half your income, or with completely different life goals. There are over 3 billion women in this world, and so you have plent…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 02:32 PM
2

Well, he does say he has confirmed paperwork showing that she is pregnant. Still kinda risky/stupid... but I get the impression he is playing the "I love you, lets be happy, have a family (some other time), and live together forever" card. It might work, and help persuade her to get an abortion. But then again... the fact that the abortion is scheduled to happen so far in the distant future... suggests that this plan may fail anyways.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 02:28 PM
3

And frankly, because you have been an idiot, and are continuing to be an idiot, you kind of deserve what you get. He may have been an idiot... but I don't think he "deserves" it any more than a sexy woman "deserves" to get raped simply because she goes outside.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 01:57 PM
3

Unfortunately, I don't think that solution is a part of her plan.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 01:56 PM
1

Canada has quite strong AA policies. The government of Canada might, for government jobs, yes. But private industry? Pretty sure the answer is no. If I am wrong, then I'd love to see evidence to the contrary.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 01:41 PM
1

You are missing the point. Technically, if practised perfectly, pulling-out is almost as effective as abstinence. There is no sperm in pre-ejaculate. If he's never ejaculated in her, the chances of him impregnating her are pretty freakin slim. The "typical use" failure rate for pulling-out can get pretty high, yes, but that's due to not doing it properly. However, all that is irrelevant in this case, because we have the OP right here, right now, and he knows whether or not he's ever failed to pu…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 01:32 PM
0

Science.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:48 PM
1

What are you talking about? Please provide evidence that pulling out and condoms are not comparable. Evidence suggests that pulling out, and using condoms, are in fact comparable: The act of withdrawal -- the male pulling out before ejaculation -- is a long controversial method of birth control, one many sex education classes have condemned as risky. But Jones' findings, based on several studies and data from the Guttmacher Institute , a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive …
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:44 PM
1

What?
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:18 PM
-7

Also: If you always pulled-out, then there's a reasonable chance the baby isn't yours. Pulling out is just as effective as condoms... so it's possible that the father is someone else. Just keep this in mind in case the abortion doesn't happen and the baby is born. *For those downvoting, please note the quotes from below. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Economy/sex-study-pull-withdrawal-method-rivals-condoms-birth/story?id=7688558 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus#Effects coitus interr…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 11:42 AM
3

Thanks for the update man. I agree with the others here: You have to control the situation so that she feels that she is more likely to get what she wants by A) having an abortion, rather than by B) having the baby. After you've 100% confirmed the abortion has happened and that she is no longer pregnant, get the fuck away from her immediately.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 11:39 AM
2

What does that mean?
/r/MensRights11/03/13 11:28 AM
2

Many countries don't enforce any sort of affirmative action, yet still have a high population of women employed in senior positions. I'm not sure why that observation would be considered a joke?
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:48 AM
2

What about countries where there is no AA? I live in Canada, and I'm pretty sure we're in the double digits.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 09:12 PM
23

To be fair, most 16-year olds are incapable of independent thought.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 12:40 PM
4

Yeah but my waiter and landscaper have rights. And they can leave if they want, and live their own life without me.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 03:13 PM
3

The risks of sex, for males and females, are significant... but steps can be taken to reduce the risks significantly. Use a condom & and use a contraceptive pill. There are also tons of alternatives too. These methods are realistically very effective.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:46 PM
1

A few decades/centuries ago, women couldn't vote, didn't work, etc etc... they were effectively useless to society and were simply baby-making factories owned by the men in their lives, passed on from father to husband. But in primitive societies (eg hunter-gatherer), women had significantly more relative value, and therefore were given more respect, freedom, and rights.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:31 PM
1

The further you go back in time, the more rights women had.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 07:51 PM
8

I just talked to some dude who just came back from taking 37 weeks off. It's a bit extreme, but it should probably still be available (in moderation) to everyone.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 07:49 PM
0

Uh, no. Children have the right to not be murdered by their parents. They do not have a right to a particular persons income, especially if their mother chooses to have the kid on her own. This is absolutely false. The laws in most countries give rights to children to care and support from their parents. Whether the mother chooses to have the kid on her own or not, is irrelevant. That is the most goddamn retarded thing you could claim from my comment regarding property rights. No wonder you beli…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 02:06 PM
1

If you pulled out every single time, then there is a good chance the kid isn't yours. In general, pulling out and not going back in, is about as effective as condoms.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 01:59 PM
1

Children have a right to support from both parents. It's a part of the basic human rights given to children. Are you suggesting starving a child to death, or abandoning it in the great outdoors, be perfectly legal, and that the child should bear the full responsibility of keeping itself alive? I can't tell if you're serious or joking?
/r/MensRights17/02/13 01:56 PM
3

Don't get her drunk. That's horrific. All this might lead to is instead of having to support a child, he'll have to support a mentally retarded child. I wouldn't consider that an improvement for anybody.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 01:54 PM
1

Of course it wouldn't work. Child support is not for the mother, but for the child. So once the child is born, the circumstances of conception are wholly irrelevant.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 01:52 PM
-1

You should assess their character before you stick your dick into them and fill them with semen. You know... ask yourself a few "what if" questions beforehand. He's making over 100k, so I think it's safe to assume he's somewhat of an adult, and not some 16-year old. Adults should consider the consequences of their actions (as unfair as they may be). That's what it means to be an adult. Just like he said in his OP... he should have used a condom. So he already knew what he should have done, but c…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 01:48 PM
1

Generally yes. What kind of relationship do people expect to have when their friends or girlfriends make a fraction of their income. Why pursue such an unbalanced relationship? It rarely ends well.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 01:36 PM
1

I can't tell if you're serious or joking... ?
/r/MensRights16/02/13 01:44 AM
4

Possibly because women don't always make these decisions alone. The male often participates in the decision.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 07:07 PM
2

Because the woman's male partner never participates at all in the decision... ? I can't tell if you're serious or joking.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 07:06 PM
3

That's a bit of a broad generalization to make. I don't think a lot of the negatives from the USA apply to China.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 10:22 PM
3

How so?
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:32 PM
9

I assume in most cases it's the mothers and fathers who make the decision, not the mothers alone.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:31 PM
10

What's wrong with replacing "rape" with "sexual assault" in all cases?
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:30 PM
2

I thought when you get laid off / fired (without "good" cause), then severance is actually required by law? Maybe in the USA it's not... ? I agree that quitting generally does not give severance pay, however.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:47 PM
1

When you quit your (full-time) job after a few years, usually your employer has to continue to pay you for several weeks, if not months after your termination. I knew someone who got over 4 months severance after getting laid off. And then unemployment insurance kicked in. This is pretty much the same deal. I don't see too much wrong with it.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:30 PM
1

Exactly. Advertising can get poor people to part with what little money they have. It works on women too. It works on children, in the sense that they can convince their parents to part with their money, on the child's behalf. Of course, advertising works on men really well, also. But I think advertisers save their money for products that men exclusively purchase, and that are really expensive to buy... like cars, Rolex's, etc.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 08:38 PM
2

Why argue with someone who can't remove his/her emotions from their argument? It's very hard to take seriously someone who argues with emotion. I prefer people who stick to facts, logic, and reason.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 08:12 PM
0

Fair enough. But you have to realize that most human beings have a need for social relationships with other humans. We are a social species, and many find lack of social bonding & social relationships debilitating and a cause for depression, among other things.. Additionally, humans are much more productive and successful when then have formed bonds and social relationships with other humans. Yes... our present society has made some relationships more risky than they have been in the past (like …
/r/MensRights11/02/13 08:07 PM
1

The thing is, it all evens out in the end anyways. It's not like anyone has to pay any more or any less than anyone else. When I was in school, I obviously couldn't afford such a luxury however, either: It's hard to pay for 15 people's meal's and drinks in one shot. But since we all became employed adults, the days of BYOB are long gone.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 07:17 PM
3

If he was abused, he probably has it ingrained in him (on a subconscious level) that that sort of relationship is normal. People in adulthood seek out relationships/people that are similar to those in their childhood.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 05:58 PM
1

Probably the same as the number of men that aren't rapists.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 05:44 PM
3

What if the woman is sober, but the male is drunk? I wonder what that is...
/r/MensRights11/02/13 05:35 PM
1

Why is there advertising directed towards poor people? It's obviously not because they have lots of money... it's because they are susceptible to advertising. Not saying it's all simple, but that there are other factors to consider as well.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 05:15 PM
2

Social relationships are more valuable if there is trust in the relationship. The inability of some people to have relationships that have trust generally leave the participants less off than they would be otherwise.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 05:12 PM
3

Some guys have been abused by women, yes. Some women have been abused by guys, yes. Generalizing half the population is absurd and counter-productive. If all women are manipulative bitches, then I guess all men are rapists too, right? Right? Any woman I hear saying she hates men gets called bitter and irrational too. She also gets called out on generalizing all men. There's nothing wrong with providing support - but reinforcing a warped world-view that views half the population as garbage isn't …
/r/MensRights11/02/13 05:10 PM
3

Did you read his post? How on earth can it possibly be logical or rational? The vast majority of women are a waste of time and money? They are garbage? What an overboard generalization. How is someone to have meaningful and positive social relationships with other people with such an attitude? The poster sounds like someone who takes the easy way out and blames other people for his own failings. Sure - maybe he got screwed over a few times in the past - but how is it logical or rational to gener…
/r/MensRights11/02/13 03:46 PM
1

The person who asks another person out is the "host". The host should always pay, IMHO. If I ask out someone to dinner, whether a date, or family, or friends, I'll pay, since I'm the host. If I'm throwing a party at my house, I provide all food and drinks, since I'm the host. Same deal.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 03:38 PM
1

That's so sad.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 03:31 PM
2

How does one have meaningful relationships with people if there is no commitment?
/r/MensRights11/02/13 03:31 PM
0

Sounds like a great strategy to find happiness in life...
/r/MensRights11/02/13 03:22 PM
3

It's indicative that he's had a bad experience or two and it's coloured his views to the point that they're illogical and irrational.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 03:19 PM
2

as you don't get duped into any sort of commitment What is your recommendation for someone who is looking for commitment?
/r/MensRights11/02/13 12:09 PM
1

What advice do you give to men who want to have children?
/r/MensRights11/02/13 12:06 PM
1

Do not under any circumstances get married or have children. Well... umm... what advice do you give for people wanting to get married and have children then?
/r/MensRights11/02/13 12:03 PM
1

You sound emotional and bitter. Tip for others: Don't take advice from people who are irrational, emotional, and bitter. Their minds are clouded and unclear.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 12:00 PM
2

That was funny... totally dumb, but at least it was funny.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 11:58 AM
2

I can't believe this needs to be said... but I guess it does.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 11:55 AM
2

Equal rights.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 11:52 AM
4

Why are you generalizing? You work harder than an entire gender? No wonder people give this subreddit so much shit... it's because of absurd posts like yours. I don't think I need a study Maybe you don't need a study, because your views are based on emotions and/or prejudice, and not based on logic or reason. And whatever, no big deal... that happens I guess... but don't expect anyone to take you seriously, however.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 11:41 AM
1

All that might mean is that women are more susceptible to advertising.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 11:36 AM
2

Suddenly the poster makes more sense.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 12:22 PM
4

I wonder if the name of this subreddit has anything to do with that....
/r/seduction01/02/13 03:39 AM
2

For most people on the internet: emotion > basic logic
/r/MensRights28/01/13 10:14 PM
2

The fact that it's "garbage" is irrelevant. It's insightful.
/r/seduction15/01/13 05:47 PM
2

Why are you no longer her?
/r/seduction07/01/13 01:45 AM
1

You played into it by trying to prove yourself. Mentioning other girls just made it worse.
/r/seduction27/12/12 05:42 PM
0

I agree they're different, but I wouldn't say "180 degrees apart". Lots of AFCs here want relationships, while the guys in /r/relationships already have them, but want to make them better. In general the advice given here - and on there - is pretty good. Both are about how to successfully interact with people... so I wouldn't say they're universes apart. It's just that the men here and on there are at different stages.
/r/seduction27/12/12 05:34 PM
1

/r/relationships isn't that bad. Most of the advice there is very similar to the advice here, just with a slightly different focus.
/r/seduction27/12/12 04:43 PM
8

...which sometimes comes across as narcissism and vanity.
/r/seduction23/12/12 02:02 PM
1

A person doesn't have to think that the media is instructions to life for it to have a significant effect on them - whether they want it to or not. It may have no effect on you, and that's fine, but it does affect the vast majority of people.
/r/seduction04/10/12 12:50 PM
0

Are you saying that the media has no effect on people?
/r/seduction04/10/12 11:39 AM
1

Is testosterone the only thing that creates a desire for sex?
/r/seduction04/10/12 11:34 AM
5

Most people do...
/r/seduction13/09/12 02:36 AM
5

Is this a serious question? Introverted girls are probably at home in the evenings, duh. Where are they during the day? Probably at work. Having lunch. Doing groceries. Maybe at the bookstore.
/r/seduction13/09/12 01:50 AM
5

Hot girls who do NOT go to bars and clubs pretty much NEVER get hit on. Ever.
/r/seduction13/09/12 01:20 AM
5

Depends on what you're leading. Writers and journalists who are opinion leaders are frequently introverted. Leaders of scientific and research institutions are frequently introverted. All of my scientific and engineering managers, COOs, and CEOs, and CFOs have been introverted. If you're merely a leader of people, then extroversion is better. But if you're leadership also requires going back to the office to do actual work and understanding the work of your subordinates -- in addition to your pe…
/r/seduction05/09/12 02:57 PM
2

Are you confusing shyness with introversion? Leaders are very very very much NOT shy, at all. They're the opposite.
/r/seduction05/09/12 02:54 PM
2

Interact with people. Go out in public. Make eye contact. Speak to the sales person in the mall. Ask a small question.
/r/seduction05/09/12 02:53 PM
2

If you're an introvert but you want to go out and meet woman, then you don't get to say "but I can't do that because I'm an introvert." Intro/extro version is defined by what you prefer, not what you're capable (or in this case, incapable) of. I always find it funny when people say "I'm an introvert - please help me socialize and meet people! I want to go out and party!" In reality, they're an extrovert with social phobia - but they cling to labels and hope it's some kinda free pass to avoid hav…
/r/seduction05/09/12 02:28 PM
6

How do you over come a fear? You do so by desensitizing yourself through experience. Take small baby steps, yes, but you have to go out and confront your fears in order to overcome them. Look at how psychologists get rid of people's phobias. Read some studies, or get a psych textbook on the subject. Arachnophobia? --> Controlled spider exposure. Get into a room with a spider in a glass box. Get closer to the box. Open the box. Touch the spider. Pet the spider. Make the spider your pet. Small ini…
/r/seduction05/09/12 02:25 PM
1

And that excuse sounds better when you add a self-diagnosed label to it. That way you don't have to justify your faults and weaknesses - and often times it lets people chicken out and not actually do anything about it. It's kinda sad.
/r/seduction05/09/12 02:21 PM
6

true introverts whose largest fear is talking to people they don't know Being afraid of talking to people you don't know doesn't make you an introvert. It makes you shy and means you have social anxiety.
/r/seduction05/09/12 02:20 PM
9

Most leaders are introverts. CEOs, opinion leaders, presidents of nations, directors of science and research, popular and successful journalists, etc etc. These people are very alpha, lead large groups of people, make public presentations and talks, and are very much involved in the "social scene". They are not beta at all. Yet they are still introverts.
/r/seduction05/09/12 02:18 PM
3

I also find it odd that a male-dominated sub-reddit is called "seduction"... a typically female term, subject, and topic. Most people stumbling upon this place would probably initially assume it's purely for women trying to seduce men.
/r/seduction05/09/12 01:53 PM
2

I wouldn't say it's a woman thing. It's a world thing. I run a small business. I take business cards from almost everyone, and give mine out liberally as well. A short conversation usually ends in "let's keep in touch". But sometimes things get so busy, that I'm getting emails and calls from 10-20+ people per day. Well guess what... I don't call most of those people back. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm not arrogant, it's just that I simply have more important people to talk to, and not enough ti…
/r/seduction28/08/12 05:14 PM
7

What's so incredibly interesting? It's perfectly logical and reasonable, isn't it?
/r/seduction28/08/12 01:02 PM
1

You don't have to be confident, or good looking, or rich, or a 'bad boy' either. There's a lot of factors at play. Point is, it's evolutionary beneficial to mate with those with intelligence. Therefore it's perfectly logical to be sexually attracted to those with intelligence (as well as confidence, good looks, money, etc, etc).
/r/seduction23/08/12 08:44 PM
1

And you don't believe that stone age wiring would select for intelligence? The whole reason why humans are such a successful species is because of intelligence.
/r/seduction23/08/12 06:53 PM
4

And guys wonder why they have trouble with women. Sometimes this subreddit sounds like they're struggling to understand how to mate with a fucking giraffe or mountain goat or something.
/r/seduction18/08/12 02:21 PM
-6

Evolutionary psych is just a way to help explain why things are the way they are. Makes people understand things better. Is it an actual science? Obviously not. It's a dangerous slippery slope for the uneducated/stupid though. "Evolutionary science tells us women wanna get raped. Evolutionary science says murder is okay. Evolutionary science says... " etc etc.
/r/seduction18/08/12 02:18 PM
1

No idea what this has to do with /r/seduction either. You're not gonna be seducing women with particular brands of condoms...
/r/seduction13/06/12 03:28 PM
5

Preys on people's weaknesses? What do you mean? When you distill attraction down to it's core, "just being" is what it's all about. Women are attracted to men who aren't afraid of "just being" themselves.
/r/seduction28/05/12 03:33 PM
0

I'm not a fan of dancing naked for other men. But then on the other hand, if I made as much as some female strippers, sure why not, I'd whore myself out to the homosexual crowd. (But lets be realistic, the strippers that make the big bucks don't do it by following the rule of "look, but don't touch". I'm not sure I could do that.)
/r/seduction28/05/12 01:09 PM
5

"Live your own life" means finding the things that naturally give you confidence.
/r/seduction27/05/12 07:21 PM
1

But you would do it if you knew the guy then? Since you are doing him a favour and all? Well obviously not... I don't think the guy would be able to think rationally and logically about it. Why should I let him ruin our friendship simply because I'm doing him a favour? Just because he wouldn't appreciate it, doesn't mean I'm not doing him a favor though... it's just that he'll obviously be blinded by emotion. Also. It doesnt matter to me that she is mostly to blame. To me that sounds like kinder…
/r/seduction26/05/12 12:24 PM
1

Personally, I wouldn't pursue a girl in a happy relationship with another dude. It just bothers me when it's implied that somehow the PUA is responsible if she cheats on her BF with you. The relationship is between the BF and the GF... it's not between the PUA and the BF, and it's not some kinda 3-way between the BF, GF, and the PUA. The relationship is a commitment between two people who aren't you. They get to make the relevant choices that matter. If she cheats and fucks you, she was gonna ch…
/r/seduction25/05/12 11:40 PM
2

The relationship isn't broken if it's going through a "down" phase, true. But the relationship IS broken if she's cheating. Being drunk isn't an excuse. It doesn't work as an excuse for drinking and driving, and it doesn't work as an excuse for drinking and cheating either. If she doesn't want to cheat, she won't. If she's a horny bitch who can't control herself while drunk... then she shouldn't be drinking to the point where she is willing to fuck random dudes that hit on her. Either way, it's …
/r/seduction25/05/12 11:26 PM
3

Maybe you don't know what commitment means? If she's cheating, she's obviously not committed. That's the definition of committed.
/r/seduction25/05/12 05:56 PM
3

You're not the one doing the hurting, it's the girl. You can't take responsibility for the failure of HER relationship. Besides, it's already failed before you even showed up: If you're fucking a girl with a BF, you're not the cause of the failure, you're just one of many symptoms. The guy might be awesome for all I know. If he was awesome, she wouldn't be cheating on him. Also, taking the high road and passing up on the girl isn't doing anything to save/fix their already broken relationship. Yo…
/r/seduction25/05/12 11:22 AM
1

If you're looking for NSA sex, then you're probably better off fucking a girl with a BF. If you're looking for a life-partner, then probably not. If you would fuck a girl that has a man then that isn't saying much for your standards of who you fuck. Guys with GFs are more attractive, right? Works both ways. Girls with BFs are probably more attractive too. Most 9/10s have BFs, most 3/10s do not.
/r/seduction25/05/12 11:19 AM
-1

If they don't cheat with me, they'll cheat with someone else. If they didn't want to cheat and use alcohol as an excuse - and they know they get horny and loose when drunk - then they wouldn't put themselves into those situations in the first place. If I know I'm gonna be driving home tonight, I'm not gonna get drunk at the bar anyways. That would be irresponsible of me. It would also be a douchbag thing to do, since you know, I might kill someone on the way home. If I don't want to kill someone…
/r/seduction25/05/12 11:15 AM
6

Do you let drunk drivers off the hook too? No, because if you know you'll be driving, you shouldn't be drinking. If you kill someone on your way home... guess what... still your fault!
/r/seduction25/05/12 11:09 AM
12

While I sympathize and understand your perspective, I think you're wrong. The PUA is NOT the one in the relationship. If I pick up a chick with a boyfriend, I'm not the one cheating. I'm not the one breaking my word. SHE is the one doing those things, not me. Second, their relationship is already fucked if she's willing to sleep with me. Whether or not I pursue it and do the deed is completely irrelevant to the level of fucked that their relationship is already in. If your GF loves you and is co…
/r/seduction25/05/12 03:57 AM
17

This is somewhat irrelevant if he actually does decide to beat the shit out of you.
/r/seduction23/05/12 10:02 PM
7

WTF are you talking about dude? Making male friends won't REDUCE the number of female friends you have, it can only INCREASE it. The only way his statement would be false is if all your male friends and acquaintances have only male friends and acquaintances as well. I find that hard to believe.
/r/seduction23/05/12 09:57 PM
5

Some people have standards.
/r/seduction22/05/12 11:09 PM
1

There's plenty of things to neg a girl about, that she isn't even aware of. Surprise her with one! You're both lazy and a dick if you go for the low-hanging fruit instead. How do you know how far to go? Well... you make sure that despite your negging, she is still consciously aware that you are interested in her. If I call her a fat bitch, with cheap clothes from walmart, with a shitty job, and lame friends... she'll probably assume that I don't like her.
/r/seduction22/05/12 05:39 PM
2

You are saying that dancing is the ONLY way to communicate in clubs - but that is incorrect.
/r/seduction12/05/12 03:35 PM
3

Clubs are places where non-verbal communication is very important. If verbal is the only thing a person is good at... the person needs to learn some new skills, or change venues. Clubs are popular though because girls are drunk and easy (if you are good at non-verbal). If you know what you're doing, it's easier than a bookstore or a mall. That said, bars/pubs have most of the benefits of clubs, but less of the drawbacks.
/r/seduction12/05/12 03:29 PM
4

Nothing is happening... ? 1) If playing the game is the only thing that gives you pleasure & enjoyment in life, you're probably not going to find much happiness in life, I'm afraid. You should probably find some additional interests/hobbies. 2) Game-wise, plenty is being gained. Letting go, not caring, and dancing - for yourself - is something most women find attractive. Having non-game-related interests, in general, is something most women find attractive, and helps your game. Dancing can provi…
/r/seduction12/05/12 03:24 PM
2

Anyone who thinks tons of random pussy will somehow give them self-worth, or meaning in life, is not going to end well.
/r/seduction09/05/12 09:32 PM
1

Okay, I agree that EP is useful for creating models of how/why people work. And it works relatively well in our everyday lives. I don't want to be a nitpicking douchebag. If you have a study that shows that those in power want sex less, and that females are pursued more, and that this pursuit leads to disinterest. That all qualifies as being scientific, yes. I just have issues when people try to explain exactly WHY things are the way they are. And that's something that is scientifically impossib…
/r/seduction08/05/12 07:10 PM
1

Yes, but saying something like "men want sex more than women" and trying to use ev psych to "prove" it in reverse is not really science, as it cannot be scientifically tested. Same thing for statements like "men are more visual", or "women are more emotional", etc. A red flag goes up whenever you can "prove" the opposite of some statement that was "proven" in the first place using ev psych. I can "prove" that: 1) women want sex more 2) women are more visual 3) men are more emotional using ev psy…
/r/seduction08/05/12 06:58 PM
2

The reason people laugh at ev psych is because it's a "reverse science" where assertions can't actually be proven. The theory is legit, however, but that's a different matter. Of course evolution has had an effect on our behaviours... but trying to show WHY a particular pre-existing behaviour is evolutionarily beneficial and what "purpose" it actually serves doesn't involve very much "science" at all - it's mainly just biased guesswork. (At least when it comes to pop "scientists" trying to write…
/r/seduction08/05/12 03:05 PM
2

I agree. I can say "I'm sorry" without actually making it sound like an apology though. It's more like an "I'm sorry for you..." instead, than anything else. But I 100% agree that you should never apologize unless you have done something wrong. And even then, it's best just to acknowledge it, and move on. Never grovel and "get on your knees" when apologizing, obviously - though I assume most people already know this. People need to remain confident, even when apologizing.
/r/seduction08/05/12 02:54 PM
2

It's like saying "sorry" to your friend when you hear his mother died. You're not actually apologizing for anything.
/r/seduction08/05/12 03:08 AM
2

100,000 years ago women needed to be protected from... what again? This seriously makes no scientific/anthropological sense. There were no clubs and bars full of strangers 100,000 years ago. Women were not being approached by random men.
/r/seduction08/05/12 03:07 AM
5

If you've developed a habit of masturbating using the "grip of death", you'll rarely - if ever - finish from a blow job.
/r/seduction05/05/12 03:51 PM
3

The current (2012) environment where a man can go from 0-30 without having any sex at all is totally unnatural and probably never happened in the past. Men who are having regular sex - even if they hate their spouse/partner/gf - don't suffer from "oneitis". Oneitis is purely a result of sexual/social deprivation which never really happened in the "evolutionary environment" that we developed in.
/r/seduction04/05/12 07:33 PM
-1

Could be real, could be fake. Does it really matter though?
/r/seduction01/05/12 05:17 AM
-2

Nah. A girl like her wouldn't deserve my cock.
/r/seduction01/05/12 04:36 AM
5

I'd have to be paid to stick my penis into that. Paid a lot.
/r/seduction30/04/12 08:54 PM
12

Some people - apparently - never waiver on their laundry-list. And you know... if this woman was actually happy with her decision, it wouldn't be an issue. But she's not. She's angry, bitter, and resentful that life has somehow "forced" her to do in-vitro. Is the absolute and horrible misery of having to settle for a 9/10 mate really so bad that it's actually deemed worse than being forever alone? This woman clearly thinks that being alone is the lesser of two miseries. (Or at least she believes…
/r/seduction28/04/12 05:58 PM
15

People undervalue this, but it's HUGE: Sunscreen on the face!
/r/seduction28/04/12 05:34 PM
51

Article does have a point. Older women want men who are way out of their league. Of course, a 35-year old could try for a 55-year old, but that's not good enough for them either. Some of these women have been so blinded by entitlement and selfish greed, that they were completely oblivious to the fact that while they were having a good ole time, the rug got pulled out from under them. And while it's sad, it's really hard to have sympathy for these women. I know a 41 year old female. And to be hon…
/r/seduction28/04/12 04:29 PM
2

I agree. Evolutionary psychology isn't really a science. It's mainly a scam. The idea that our current behaviours may have been evolutionarily beneficial in the past is true. But that statement means much less than people think it does.
/r/seduction27/04/12 01:38 AM
1

You're missing the point. The question is whether or not you are acting / pretending.
/r/seduction26/04/12 03:30 PM
2

I agree. Even if you can 100% successfully PRETEND to be alpha... you're still pretending.
/r/seduction25/04/12 10:46 PM
6

The posts here are correct. 1) You're more confident. 2) You've already "passed the test". But don't forget: 3) If a girl wants some no-commitment sex, you are more attractive if you are already taken.
/r/seduction20/04/12 09:59 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter