Dont know if I've understood all of trp, but here is one thing I dont understand

bh3244 · 2014-08-22T23:33:01+00:00

nothing is unconditional.

themoor · 2014-08-23T01:32:10+00:00

Not everyone on TRP have been unlucky with girls. In fact, many guys there have tons of experience with women. So, first, rid yourself of that notion (though, true, many newbies there are inexperienced and have been burnt... it's the nature of the sub).

As far as your question/issue, here's the gist: The Blue Pill world is taught to believe a woman can and will love you for "who you are"... soulmates, blah, blah, blah. The RP take is that women love how you make them feel, and they love the idea of being in love, and they also love you so long as (1) you give them good emotions (and sometimes even exasperation can be a good emotion for a woman) and (2) your sexual market value is high enough, usually meaning at least equal to but often higher than hers. Women usually don't fuck down.

Guys, on the other hand, can love a woman for who she is. Men and women are different in these regards.

It's not that a woman "can't" love you but she typically can't love you the way you would like or expect.

Nothing wrong with that. It's not their fault but it is a trap our society sets out for us to fall into.

Increase you value and make sure the emotions you give her make her feel you are worth her time, that you are a man worth her pursuing.

therandomthrowaway · 2014-08-23T01:50:54+00:00

Remember the Colorado theatre shooting? FOUR men died by shielding their girlfriends with their own bodies. Not even their wives, girlfriends.

Now think to yourself, how many women did that for their men? Really try to imagine a woman putting her life down for her man. Now try to picture a woman shielding her son or daughter. That comes to mind much, much more easily.

4 of the 12 shooting victims were guys laying their lives down for their woman. Those are just the ones that caught a bullet. How many more men did so, but weren't shot? Men can love a woman to the point they will sacrifice EVERYTHING, including their very lives for them. Be honest with yourself, you really see a woman doing that for a man? Stop being stupid. The vast extreme majority of women can not love a man as much as the average man can love a woman.

Meglomaniac · 2014-08-22T22:41:08+00:00

I think its more about how a womans needs focus on herself and her offspring. Its an evolved trait to encourage the survival of the young and women which have historically been extremely valuable.

If a man loses his ability to protect and provide for the family, the woman needs to be able to find a new mate to help provide and protect her young.

You need to stop looking at women as being "pretty much the same" and being completely and utterly different, yet equal. Two halfs of the ying yang so to speak. They are not lesser or beneath us, but they operate on a completely different hormonal and evolutionary line of behavior because they are a different gender.

redpillshadow · 2014-08-22T22:14:50+00:00

Give /r/purplepilldebate a go. Here is not the right place for you.

You made your choice and popped the blue one and now are trying to debate others into your choice. That is not what /r/asktrp is about.

steveob42 · 2014-08-22T22:12:46+00:00

I take it to mean that realistically we aren't mindreaders, and we shouldn't act like solipsists.

Whatever attachment or commitment you might feel for another, you cannot expect the same in return, ever. Only actions have true meaning, words do not.

I don't know if it is biological programming or social programming or just internalized BS, but women and children first is a thing. I don't doubt a parent's ability to love a child unconditionally, but in that hierarchy women also tend to take unconditional love from men for granted, as well as being told that changing their mind is their prerogative, and sets the stage for male disposability.

lloopy · 2014-08-23T00:26:59+00:00

Men and women are not very much alike. From basic chromosomes to physical hardware, to reproductive processes, they are very different.

Why would you think they think the same? Do you think that men and women are physically equal? Why would they be mentally/emotionally equal? Do you see that what constituted being a genetically successful male through history (from the advent of homo sapiens) is different from what constituted a genetically successful female?

BluepillProfessor · 2014-08-23T02:23:01+00:00

Don't throw up the pill and try to plug yourself back in. It never turns out well. I wonder if this is a Cypher?

I'm also a mensrights activist and I do believe men and women are very much alike

You demand scientific proof and then throw this? Men and women are NOTHING alike when it comes to sexual strategy. Thousands of studies show gigantic differences between boys and girls beginning before birth. The specific issue of sexual strategy has been explored almost exclusively from an equalitarian perspective. TRP is the first modern attempt to explain sexual strategy without the cultural Marxists howling in the background.

This is not a dictatorship. You are free to disagree on any specific point in TRP theory. Your objection is that TRP says women love transactionally and for what you can do for them now or in the future while you are basically saying NAWALT.

Your problem is that ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT. Men are like that too.

If you turn into an asshole, treat your wife like shit, refuse to get a job, and sit around all day playing X-Box would your wife still "LOOOVE" you after a few months?

If your wife turns into a frigid, harpy, sex denying shrew who shit tests you every second of the day and undermines and disrespects you whenever possible would you still LOOOOVE her after a few months?

That doesn't require scientific proof from biased researchers employed by feminists. That is obvious.

Doesn't mean she will leave, divorce you or cheat on you. It DOES mean she will lose sexual attraction for you. AWALT.

DirtyD27 · 2014-08-23T00:23:17+00:00

The basis for the theory is extremely strong anecdotal evidence.
Just think about it, if a woman has an opportunity to move from one relationship to another with a guy who is much more attractive, wealthy, or both, why wouldn't she? The only reason you think she wouldn't is your pre-conceived notion of unconditional love.

DanG3 · 2014-08-23T14:22:36+00:00

[permanently deleted]

a_nus · 2014-08-23T02:01:46+00:00

The majority of the people of the red pill has just been unlucky with girls, and then try to think up reasons why, and think "girls cant truly love anyone, and they also biologically want to make fun of your weight, and make you sad!".

Do you have proof on this? Also, following your logic, would that mean that believing in unconditional love from a woman means that you've had good luck and experienced it before? If so, she better still love you, or else it was conditional. If not, then is your belief in unconditional love backed up by any proof?

realityczek · 2014-08-23T02:44:23+00:00

No love is unconditional, period. If it was, it would be horrific and a sign of dysfunction. As with so many things, Ayn Rand had it about right.

It is often said that true love is “unconditional,” or that “love is blind.” If this were true, falling in love would be akin to throwing darts, and we would simply happen upon certain people whom we loved for no reason whatsoever. And if love were unconditional, nothing they ever did, no matter how hurtful or evil, could make us abandon that love.

Objectivism contends that love is actually our response to those few people we meet toward whom we feel the highest respect, admiration, and attraction. It is not a blank check granted to random passersby, but instead the result of our careful examination and approval of another’s character. Granting unconditional love is like appraising a piece of property without examining its size, quality, or location: one is likely to grant unearned love to the unworthy and withhold love from those who deserve it most.

DanG3 · 2014-08-23T04:52:19+00:00

"But I still dont see that as a proof of they not being able to love, and dont see how that is necessary knowledge you'd need to continue on the red pill."

It is necessary knowledge you'd need to continue on the red pill because if you don't know/understand/accept it you will allow yourself to become unfit/undesirable/unattractive (in one way or another), while thinking that the (non-existant) unconditional love of some (non-existant) woman will be the reason she will takeup or stay with you.

Research great Alphas who were known cheaters to their wives (and others) - JFK, FDR, Clinton, even Ray Charles and WA Mozart. RP says that their wives didn't stay with them because of unconditional love, but rather, because they were top Alphas. How do we "know" that? We don't, it has not been, and can't be, tested. That's why RP is "theory." You can take it or leave it. For my money and life, I'm running with the Big Dogs.

niczar · 2014-08-23T10:31:35+00:00

Everybody's different. There are exceptions to everything. The point of "AWALT" though is that generalization, knowing they have exceptions, are useful, even if they're not true only 80% of the time.

Title	Dont know if I've understood all of trp, but here is one thing I dont understand
Author	LoudHydraulics
Upvotes	11
Comments	41
Date	August 22, 2014 9:53 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/askTRP
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/2ebe8j/dont_know_if_ive_understood_all_of_trp_but_here/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/askTRP/dont-know-if-ive-understood-all-of-trp-but-here-is.141569 https://theredarchive.com/post/141569

Comments