TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

If women actually enjoy being dominated... why is the society so angry with TRP?

[deleted]

October 12, 2014
13 upvotes
/r/askTRP

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title If women actually enjoy being dominated... why is the society so angry with TRP?
Author

[deleted]

Upvotes 13
Comments 61
Date October 12, 2014 8:31 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/askTRP
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/2j1z0u/if_women_actually_enjoy_being_dominated_why_is/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/askTRP/if-women-actually-enjoy-being-dominated-why-is-the.142777
https://theredarchive.com/post/142777
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill

Comments

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points40 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

In my opinion, one of the biggest reasons women hate TRP has to do with the same reason they hate Pick-Up Artists. Because we teach men how to be better with women than they are naturally.

They want to be dominated, but by a natural alpha. Having a lowly beta seduce them by acting like an alpha is trickery, cheating. They don't want betas to know there's a way for them to be alphas, they need the betas there for the beta bux.

Alphas know to dominate naturally, it's in their genes. But most of society is beta, and it's bad for business if word gets out.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

But only an idiot falls for beta who uses "cheats"? I discovered pickup about the year or two after it reached russia. A year later most girls already knew the tricks! Like "I'm your secret admirer" t-shirt, the "rose from nowhere", the cliche first phrases, the cliche approaches. It was like "oh you're a pickuper then, bye".

Well I guess I contradict myself since I was able to get laid but... I chose quite "low quality" girls. Not that pretty, not that desirable by other people. I didn't hit on 9s or something.

And I thought TRP is about BECOMING a better man, not remaining beta while using cheap tricks?

[–]USmellFunny6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's the difference between TRP and the pick-up scene. TRP focuses on becoming naturally alpha, while the pick-up scene focuses on being a nice guy while pretending to be alpha when trying to seduce women.

[–]KyfhoMyoba1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

They aren't tricks when they express your identity. I don't recognize any of the things you wrote of - secret admirer t-shirt, etc. I don't understand how any of what you described works to generate attraction or comfort. If that's pickup in Russia, I need to move there, because the market is WIDE open!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

IDK. They were like "memes" of pickup 10 years ago in russian community. Everybody knew them, it was in line with words like "next" or "oneitis" (our analogue would be "I love only her"). I'm not following (for a long time) so I don't know how it's right now.

"Secret Admirer t-shirt" was this idea that you leave certain small gifts like postcard or a flower signed "From your secret admirer" for your girl you are dating (I might translate wrongly here, literally it would be "secret follower" or "secret fan" but I think "admirer" fits better here). Then you'd approach her and get her to talk to you in private and unzip your (hoodie or w/e) to show the t-shirt underneath that says "I'm your secret admirer"

The "rose from nowhere" is when you have a walk with a girl in the park, you create romantic mood and kiss her, telling her to close her eyes, and your partner who you agreed with to help you quickly passes by and gives you a rose, so it's like you kiss her and then bam - you have a flower in your hand as a gift. Heart melted.

Basically techniques to woo romantic personality into really falling for you.

There were also common pick up lines (I think you had that in the west, didn't you?) and common answers to common shit-tests and such cliches. To be taught to newbies who say "I dunno what to say" or "I dunno what to respond". Don't remeber any and can't be arsed to look really.

Of course there were still people who told stories how they'd fuck a girl they met 40 minutes ago in a bus, without any effort by just talking and raw seduction, but as it was widely known back then, "the art of pickup begins with the art of writing field reports" - meaning, a lot of these were exaggerated and probably even false.

PS: As I said, all these techniques and lines, they were quite widely known quite fast and serve no use anymore :) Or at least you have a huge chance of it backfiring (which was fun as genuine nice guys coming up with cute phrases would get sudden aggro from the girl and later blame pickupers for "spoiling romance" =)

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

those tactics sound lame as fuck. it's not surprising they didn't work.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They did, until many girls (who obviously exchange their experiences) learned they were not the only ones on which they worked, and so started spreading the information.

TBH right now I think it's not the tactic that worked, but rather, man's personality. Everything else was just flavor. I personally find idea with the rose awesome and romantic (and I love giving small gifts to women - I know all about "i'm the prize" and stuff, but it's just awesome how they literally melt and hang on your neck in pure pleasure). But in the end, it wasn't what attracts her. So it shouldn't probably be called "tactic" in the first place...

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

they seem try-hard and needy to me

[–]LiveFromLiberia0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They want to be dominated, but by a natural alpha. Having a lowly beta seduce them by acting like an alpha is trickery, cheating. They don't want betas to know there's a way for them to be alphas, they need the betas there for the beta bux.

I think you give them way too much credit.

[–]g_gggg0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think this is absolutely true with regard to creating attraction. But OP is also asking why society demonizes being a traditional patriarch when it leads to better relationships.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And when you're not enforcing it on others! In any way!

[–]rebuildingMyself0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a different question and the answer is Feminism is one giant shit tests to weed out weaker men who actually listen to their whining

[–]paynehouse-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Acquired traits vs hereditary traits. Women want the actual alpha so her children will be alpha. A natural beta who has acquired alpha behavior will not pass on his acquired alpha traits.

Although, it's quite a leap that women know this and/or pick up on it subconsciously and is therefore the reason why they hate TRP.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Really? You mean even if I work out, change my psyche, learn to be more stoic, etc., have awesome relationship with my wife, we have kids and we raise them in this atmosphere, they'll still be beta males and cock-riding sluts? This looks illogical...

[–]paynehouse0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If you are naturally a "beta cock riding slut" then your children are going to naturally be beta cock riding sluts. If you train your children in an alpha environment then they will probably be as alpha as you are… but you're not actually alpha, you're just a disguised beta. Nature vs nurture, nurture isn't biologically passed on. That's all I'm saying.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Deleted

[–]paynehouse0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I am just speaking in the general sense.

My only point here is that Lamarck was wrong; acquired traits are not passed on. Which is why females do not want the man who only acts alpha. They want the alpha, so their children will be alpha.

[–]DoesNotMatterAnymore10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

On the D/s topic:

It's about they equality, men can't have more power over a women, that's unacceptable!

There was a woman on /r/RedPillWomen, she shared her "awakening" experience about TRP. Basically her fear about the captain/first mate concept was, she feared that if she became submissive, her man will "take over", and the guy will do all the decision making, and he will micro manage everything, this includes her life as well. The most important part is the micro manage thing. Because women love to micro manage everybody's else life, including her SO's life, her kids life. Just remember how you Mom behaved when you were young. Even if you did everything right, she HAD TO remind you the 100001th time. Because she had that unstoppable urge, to share her opinion on thing, etc.

But men on the other hand, we don't micro manage our SO's life, we don't want to, we don't care about the details, we will ask you to do something for us, and we don't care about the details, until you do everything fine.

Women fear that if they gave in, and take the submissive role of the relationship, men will control EVERY SMALL DETAIL in the relationship. We not gonna do that, because we don't give a fuck about the details. And this is the source of the confusion. You expect something about the other gender, because of your solipsistic thinking.

[–]bebopdebs2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

including OP I think there is some conspiracy going around where people use terrible grammar in controversial subs to make the sub users seem dumber than they really are.

[–]DoesNotMatterAnymore0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeap, i'm pretty sure you are right about this. The ultimate conspiracy! I will take your complain as an invitation to review my english grammar.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

1) Russian here. English not my native language.

2) I'm literally HIGH on TRP right now.

I think it's actually detrimental as I had problems sleeping last two nights (usually sleep like 9 hours, slept only 6 because had trouble actually falling asleep).

It's just that a huge part of my understanding of life finally clicked in place for me, I finally managed to connect lose pieces of the puzzle, I finally understand how I will improve myself, how I will improve my marriage, how I will raise my kids...

I had awesome sex with my wife twice this sunday and just a general blast of a time with her, I felt dominant with her and felt how she liked it, I feel how it's positively influencing her and... well, naturally I'm very emotional about it, so I may err on the gramatic side.

[–]1throwaway-aa26 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Because women want the benefits that come with being treated as an equal, without actually being equals.

Being dominated / submissive is basically double speak for "less value", which doesn't translate well into women getting treated respectfully, getting paid similar, having their thoughts and standpoints heard and respected, etc. We live in a society where woman have come a long way in terms of independence, overall intellect, etc. So here is the problem we have on our hands.

If you're a woman, how can you be respected like a man is respected if you're a woman who wants a dominant man (implying she wants to be submissive)? I don't ENVY the position women are in. Men on a whole are stronger, smarter, and better in just about every way (in general but not specifically... of course there are women who will be smarter than men, but if you look at both of our genders, we win on the smart / strong scale easily). Females on a whole generally are better emotionally and looks wise than we are.

So if you're women, what do you do? You FIGHT for that equality (even though there isn't true equality), and you use your makeup / looks to that extent... ever wonder why women ON A WHOLE are just much more better put together looks wise (makeup / clothes) than men are on a whole? We're taught "Oh, TV / Movies brainwash" but you realize that's bullshit. Women know that looks are their best overall agency... even the most fucking staunch feminists know how to use their makeup / hair / clothes to get what they want.

Society is angry with TRP because we downplay women. Society has women up on a pedestal, and we teach that women aren't that important. Think about it. Any guy that wants a girl... how often is he going to want her because of her mind? Even then, how many other girls are like her?

Go on dating sites sometimes. All girls are fucking similar. The same likes, the same dislikes (given minor deviation and changes in how they look and how easily they can get a man, environment, etc).

We basically are the Yang to society's Yin. Society places too much importance on women (because of the whole reparation dynamic, e.g. not being equal to men in prior societies). We put it back in perspective, and go so far as to swing the pendulum past the point in neutral, declaring that women aren't really that special at all (at least not in today's society). That PISSES PEOPLE OFF! They can't disagree with it logically, they just view you as a hate-mongerer / sexist.

Which honestly is fine. A lot of guys have success once they internalize what's here, which really is the proof that it's right. People can be MAD all they want, the thing no one wants to touch is... does this stuff work? Can you get a better response from women (especially women of HIGH VALUE) by internalizing "asshole" traits? I'm not interesting in talking about morality. If I can internalize what's outlined here and have better success with woman, it means that it's not simply hatred of woman.

The last thing I'll point out, which I think a lot of people miss. The thing that makes me mad, is that other women / men think all of us want the dynamic to be this way. To be totally honest with you, I would love if I what I knew before was true. I used to be with a women, and I really enjoyed being with her because she gave me a feeling of love that I felt I never got from my mother. I wish we could have been together. But she didn't love me. She loved how I made her FEEL (one of the key principles of TRP). She loved me because I had fairly high SMV, I made her laugh, I was interesting, and I fucked her really good... that's really all it takes to get a woman to love you. But through her actions and reactions to MY ACTIONS (and TRP upon retrospect) I realize that a girl can't love me like my mother can. I've had certain experience with women that has solidified EVERYTHING I've learned here. And the thing is... I started having success across the board once utilizing it. I don't like the way reality is, but after 20+ years of failure, I'm going to adjust to REALITY. Most people live in a state of "this is politically correct, this isn't" but really that's just basing your life off of theory. I wish what I know wasn't true but after failure of not knowing it, and success of knowing it, I'm going to adapt. TRP is about adapting to the way the world works, not the way people think it works.

tl;dr people are angry because their expectations don't accurately match the way the world works DEMONSTRATABLY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtVHnZX8E50

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for long reply.

The video you linked is awesome. It's disgusting, but that is very good because it shows us how disgusting the reality actually and gives us the urge to fix this shit.

[–]ioncehadsexinapool0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

thanks for that. How do i differentiate between being dominant and being an asshole?

[–]1oldredder8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Most women are weak thinkers & weak on initiative. That's why they need leading men to dominate. They enjoy having the benefits of good decisions without the responsibility of making them.

Much like turning to religion instead of being atheist. A strong thinker needs no imaginary tribe-leader, which is all a god is, because a strong thinking man takes responsibility for his own morals, decisions & consequences that follow.

Sheep need to be led by others. Women need to be led by men. There are exceptions but rare.

Angry: Are women angry with men? Or are they angry with their own self-realization of weakness and have no way to voice it because of innate programming that says no woman can admit her own wrong-doing in her own nature?

Much like the majority of sheeple have no capacity to admit the obvious fiction there is no god because they need a leader, can't be a leader, so they turn to the only available leader when there is a vacuum - a god?

"but I consider homosexuality a sin"

Which is more of religions' nonsensical conclusions in absence of knowledge. It's a condition caused by hormonal imbalance of the fetus. It's an environmental stressor put on an unborn child with zero choice possible. In theory a woman has the choices but in practice less than 0.00001% of women have the chemistry knowledge to choose every drop of food & water carefully to avoid exposure to whatever caused the imbalances. SOME of it can be genetic too.

"it's the female who CHOOSES to be dominated"

NO, it is not. It's actually a genetic REQUIREMENT. A woman can't be happy without this domination, can't lead her life. Exceptions do exist. The majority of women have zero choice and zero capacity to do otherwise.

"Why is TRP so controversial" EVERY FACT is controversial: you live in a society based on lies, including religion, which means every fact is an offensive terrorist act just for being true before anyone speaks of it and worse for being spoken about.

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

Let's not get into religious debate, man. I've stated my beliefs not to preach them as "ultimate truth" but just so that you understand where I come from with some of my views.

I'm also past the point where I was clinging to God since I needed a leader in my regular life, needed a miracle to hope for, and so on. That was what I truly did and I wholeheartedly regret it, not only because that made me remain weak and pitifu, but also because that has hurt my faith quite well and alsmost made me stop believing. Right now my faith is my choice based on my personal spiritual experiences and my own logical conclusions. I (try to) adhere to will of God because I choose so, because I understand that I can err and God cannot err. It makes me stronger, not weaker, because I learn to limit myself, I learn to make myself better and help others, I learn discipline and inner strength.

And please if you want to be so logical and true to the facts, don't cloud your judgement with cliche phrases that are often not true. There are no "lies" in religion, it's not there to control masses, I mean, nobody "developed" it to control masses, unless you're talking sects like Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientology (which quite literally lie to you in order to control you and exort money). Sure, religion was USED to control masses (like, Christianity duh), but that was NOT the original point and in the end it hurt the religion itself (you might know, Catholicism and Orthodoxy both started to develop and literally shine AFTER they were kicked off the pedistal and stopped being tied to governments and shoved down everybody's throats, but before that there was real decline in faith and everything was getting worse and worse). All the evil commited in the name of religion (muslim terrorism attacks, "holy" christian "warriors" in middle ages, inquisition, whatever you call it) was exactly the result of people misusing the religion, exploiting it. Still the case today. But not only with religion, let's be frank. Don't blame religion for being prone to exploit - eveything in this world is exploitable!

Finally, religion exists because it works, and not because people are weak. It exists because spiritual world exists, God exists, and there's more to this world than meets the eye. Sure, you can't study it because it's out of reach of your scientific tools, but you can't study many things you still acknowledge to exist. Ball lightning, for example? Still don't know how it choses where to move, still don't know how it materialises, still don't understand the laws behind it. We don't say "okay it does not exist since we can't study it on grand scale" - rather, we are intereted and eager to find out more. Well, many people all over the world have spiritual experiences and they want to find out more, and they turn to the ONLY way to KNOW spiritual - religion. You can't study spiritual with microscopes and you can't just deny something is where when you feel it. Question is, how to interpret it - that's why you see religion diversity.

[–]GreatWhite_Buffalo2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Since when does religion work? The US is a mess because of puritanical bullshit, and history is full of examples of extremism in the name of God. Shit, it's still a "debate" whether or not humans existed alongside dinosaurs despite all experts on the topic agreeing that they didn't.

I know you're from a country that equates homosexuality with pedophilia, but you're kinda strengthening OP's argument about people needing a leader to make decisions for them.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

What do you mean by "work"?

If by "work" you mean "do what the book tells you and you receive what the book tells you", it does work. It works for many traditional religions and always worked and continues to work. If you are truly interested in this, then I advise you to actually read the Bible once in your life, at least one of the Gospels (or really any traditional religious book), without anger, hate but with cool mind, logical approach. Jit down what you are supposed to do an what you are offered in exchange. Then actually examine that. It will be an awesome experience for you, trust me!

In Christianity, for example, you're supposed to "carry your own cross" (meaning, for one, to accept that you will have hardhips in life) , people will "insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you" which you are supposed to be happy about, you're supposed to "forgive your enemy and pray for someone who commited wrong against you", and so on. Of course we're no masochists. There are numerous benefits to being a Christian, both out of this world and in this world. But there's no promise of easy life or happy marriage or obidient kids or wealthy life (quite the countrary). I don't know where people get that from. Maybe they confuse the feeling of peace in the soul with actual wealth or success or whatever people often call "happiness".

You could read Quaran and you'd find again that it "works" for muslims. They do what they're told, and achieve what they're offered.

Puritanity is BULLSHIT. It's not religion, it's not in the books, and it's just stupid.

Tell me one place in the Bible where it says you're supposed to be puritan. Like "don't do oral sex" "don't do doggy style" "don't ravish your woman" "don't spank your woman"? You won't. There's no such thing! (And yes there's call to staying single by Paul but he clearly states it's HIS own opinion, not God's, and he never said you should abstain from sex in marriage, quite the countrary, he says if you want sex then marry)

But I'll show you the Song of Songs where it quite literally tells you to enjoy your woman (sexually) in quite a detail (and NOT only in missionary positions when clothed in puritan shirts and lights out). Now of course, it was poetic metaphor to God's love, but you are free to take it literaly, and it promotes quite good ideals (like, enjoy your wife who you married in youth instead of dumping her for some teen slut you got horny about, etc.

Neither Bible nor God wants to be a creep that tells you how to enjoy sex. All God really wants is for you to enjoy sex the way it was designed by Him to be enjoyed - in a unity of 2 people of opposite gender. To help you have healthy relationship with lots of good sex at no negative cost, not to limit your desires or whatever! God does not benefit from you abstaining from cheating or sex outside marriage, you (and your spouse) do! And, well, God also wants you not to put sex too high in your hierarchy of needs and goals too (because that would be just too stupid thing to do as a man - like say she has problems during childbirth and can't have sex for several months, you should be able to endure that or you'll ruin your relationship by cheating).

Extremism in the name of God is the same as extremism in any other name. Again, everything is exploitable. Feminism is extremism in the name of women, is it not? Say women are bad for someone misusing their name and nature?

In Russia it is true many people confuse pedophilia with homosexuality. I am not one of them and I make my best effort to educate those I find having this view.

[–]GreatWhite_Buffalo0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I've read the bible, bro. My mom's family is Irish and my dad is like three quarters Polish. Those are two of the most religious countries in the world, I was raised Catholic. I went to Catholic school as a kid and went to church every week until I was 16.

I've also read Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Those are two of the most hateful chapters in any book ever written.

It's very possible to "carry your own cross" and live a moral life without some biography about a guy that died decades earlier than the book was written.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Is it possible? It is. I never argued it is not. This is a choice. I choose to be a Christian because I feel better that way. If you feel better as an atheist please remain atheist! I'm not pressuring you.

But when you assault me with your "facts" and "logic" that are unfactual and illogical, I will point your your mistakes.

Leviticus and Deuteronomy (and the chapters I assume you speak of) contain a lot of outdated laws for specific people who lived in a specific age. Laws like taking your brother's wife if he died so that his genetic line continues were useful at that day and age and situation, but (obviously) no longer apply. Being angry at this is like being angry and people dealing with those infected by plague... the way they were dealt with historicaly. It was nessecary. As was all the (quite filled with gore) stuff that was done when jews entered promised land. And so on.

I'm sorry you're so annoyed with Christianity but please let's remain logical and reasonable. If you criticise us criticise us when it's relevant, don't say random crap about "Oh terrorism" or "Oh crusaders" or "Oh puritany"...

[–]GreatWhite_Buffalo0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

So you choose to believe only certain parts of the bible? That's the definition of a Cafeteria Christian, take what you like and leave what you don't.

What did I say that was unfactual or illogical? And the Puritans are a huge fucking deal in the US, every single political debate is marred by fundamentalism. Being the most powerful country in the world, the fact that a mormon (a ridiculously true-to-the-book religion) stood a good chance of being president is absurd.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

What do you mean "certain parts"? Of course not. I believe Bible is to be the word of God as a whole. But Bible tells you to carry a shovel with you, do you say a Christian/Jew that doesn't do it today, is an infidel? Come on! This is exactly what I call illogical. You must understand that even though this is written in a holy book, it's also a historical book directed to people who lived in exact age. It's obvious we don't need shovels with us anymore since we have WCs.

Puritans are a huge deal in US, I won't argue as I'm not from US. But what does religion has to do with it? If someone tells you he's child molester because Bible tells him so, will you say "religion is why we have pedophiles" or will you actually check what he says? Are you so naive?

[–]1oldredder-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Religion 100% is to control the masses & frequently with lies. Period. History speaks for itself as to how this turned out and continues today.

Religion "works" for people because they are weak very specifically for that reason.

There is no spiritual world and no god exists. Period. Everything that does exist can be studied with evidence including ball-lightning.

YOU don't know how it works but someone does.

I see no diversity in religion only different brands of nonsense that all have the same precise traits in common.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Can you "I hate religion for no apparent reason and think that it's logical" guys troll more obviously? You blindly state something, I refute it with reason and logic, you ignore it and again blindly state something.

Like, "There is no spiritual world". What makes you say that? If you start talking about "science" and "studying with evidence" you are obviously mistaking materialism for science. Materialism is a philosophy having less reason to exist than any religion. It's not science! Saying something in the lines of "spiritual/God/something does not exist because you can't prove it does" is not science, it's illogical crap.

Whatever, I'm done debating with trolls on this topic. If anyone is willing to discuss this reasonably, I would love to, but I'm not wasting time on trolls.

PS: No spiritual, see no diversity in religion? Your loss! You are bragging to someone who can see in full color about how totally blind you are. Don't you understand how stupid that is?

[–]1oldredder2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Religion is the sole core of mass warfare, tribe vs tribe, beyond neighbouring tribes. That's a solid reason based in fact.

Religion, like that from the Vatican, is the #1 reason for child rape. It's institutional. That's another solid reason.

No trolling. Proven, admitted facts - even the Pope apologized for it which means the Pope admits it's fact.

You're not debating anything - you're brainwashed and mad that others don't follow your same brainwashing. Religion is just another bluepill tool. Period. Those who follow it are manipulated tools, not leaders, not real men.

I see in full colour.

You see ONE colour - obedience.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Okay I'll try to make one more last effort to get this across.

Read history books man! Reason for warfare is to expand your fucking land. Did Hitler wage war for religion? No, he wanted more space for his "supreme race". Did USA wage war with Iraq for religion? Did South vs North fight about religion? Oh and just read about crusades too, there was no "war for religion", there were people misled (or hired) by other people into THINKING they're fighting a religious war, but actually they were just there to capture land for their "leaders".

I'm not mad at all at any of the arguers in this thread of this topic.

I am perfectly fine talking to atheists, agnostics, or even anti-theists (which you are, you're not an atheist because as an atheist you'd just ignore the fact I'm Christian and talk to me like a human being). I'm talking to people not from my religion constantly, they often know I'm Christian, and we have no problem whatsoever communicating like human beings. I'm not preaching to any of you, not trying to convert any of you, I just state the reason of several of my views and beliefs so you know what I will or won't budge on.

But you (in line several others) are acting like a troll and an asshole, not a reasonable logical person you think you are. That's why we have this argument.

See, "religion is bluepill tool" is debateable. I can say "I disagree" and we leave it at that (if you were a rational person, which you are not, you will burn with hatred inside and lash back at me).

"Religion is the sole core of mass warfare, tribe vs tribe, beyond neighbouring tribes." is just a BS lie since there is no proof whatsoever to support it and a lot of proof against it.

"Religion, like that from the Vatican, is the #1 reason for child rape. It's institutional. That's another solid reason. Proven, admitted facts - even the Pope apologized for it which means the Pope admits it's fact." is just a LOGICAL FALLACY. Educate yourself what that is, then come back. It's not "institutional" when the institution's core commandments and rules condemn it (and before you say "Bible does not condemn child rape" yes it does not, condemning rape and sex outside marriage is enough to cover the situation of child rape as well). If there would be no logical fallacy in that statement of yours, then I could take one convicted criminal from your country (assuming US), say, someone who raped and killed 38 children, and say "Child Rape and Murder is institutional in the US, even their judges admitted it's a fact".

Please, educate yourself, learn to contain your emotions and think with your brain, and you will be a better person! You'll win - not me! You don't need to convert to any religion to just stop behaving like a kid and an idiot - you just need a little self-reflection, and a little reading, and a little patience.

[–]1oldredder2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Educate yourself.

The reason for RELIGIOUS WAR is not to expand your land - it is to murder everyone who is not of your religion.

What are the Crusades? Was this to claim land? NO.

I am not using any emotions at all.

None.

You can't turn your emotions off. I don't turn mine on.

Because of this I exist in a reality you can't even comprehend. You therefore assume it's all my emotions that are on but it is in fact all yours that are on.

Institutional core rules are unspoken and unwritten because the very nature of the Vatican, the Mafia, the banking cartels, is to be criminally evil. That which is written is only written for propaganda to the sheep like yourself. From the outset those rules are for you only, never for those who wrote them.

100% USA wages war with Iraq for RELIGION, to wipe out Muslims and take their oil but not to keep their land.

100% Israel wages war & genocide on Muslims to wipe them out entirely and take any land, farms, water, gas in the process.

100% warfare between Sunnis & Shi'ites is holy war, not for land.

100% Hitler wiped out Jews, all that he could, because of a religious drive that had zero rationality and had zero ability to gain him land. Most of the land he wanted wasn't owned/controlled by any Jews. It was a religious holy war on Hitler's drive. That's about what I'd expect from him as he was a Catholic.

You dare flaunt your ignorance and tell others to read history? You have read none yourself

"you're not an atheist because as an atheist you'd just ignore the fact I'm Christian and talk to me like a human being"

Incorrect. You are a sheeple. For the concept of god "yes or no" the facts speak for themselves: no god.

For followers of a religion only 1 answer is possible: beta sheeple blue-pill minion-beast of burden with zero ability to lead, not a man, not a human, not a person, only a follower begging for a leader to drag him around by a collar as an obedient slave.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Women love to be treated like sluts but they don't like feeling like sluts.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't mean pick-up. I mean LTR and marriage (I get it some RP don't marry since marriage screws you over, here at my place with my connections I am happy that I can safely marry my woman and not fear divorce-rape).

Sure society can be hard about people who can fuck any girl despite her having boyfriend or husband. But from reading sidebar, I don't see that's the focus of TRP. Actually, there's a huge post about how it's BAD that women are giving sex up easilly, have too many partners before marriage...

For LTR, the ideals of TRP feel pretty healthy!

Of course one wielding power is feared for he can misuse his power. But that can happen anyone. You americans carry guns right, so anyone can kill anyone on the spot (the idea is stunning to me, in Russia we are only allowed rubber-bullet handguns). Why won't they freak out about that (oh well they do but for bogus reasons like "oh shit someone shot someone at the school" - well don't report it and it won't happen!). I mean, there's a LOT of power in the society. There's so much hierarchial steps right now almost anyone has power to screw someone over.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

TRP is about you fulilling your potential to be successful at life (and women are attracted to successful men).

[–]6482621 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Women do not like to be dominated just to be dominated. All they want is someone around to protect them. And any man able to dominate them is potentially able to protect them. If he could not dominate them, they might as well just protect themselves.

When you teach men to emulate the dominate traits, you end up with a problem for all these women. The men they meet might not be as able as they seem.

TRP is in the way of securing them a well functional protector.

The flip-side is that some of the men here might become fully functional protectors for the women in their life. Women would like that. But the ones who use this whole concept to show a side of themselves that instills security in the women, so that the women reward them, but then fucks off - that's an issue.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

I see. Very valid point. If we teach people to hack gender relationships, we destroy society. Well feminists do it all day and get away with it but nevermind that.

But TRP is about unlocking your full potential and becoming successful, right? Not about creating a facade? Maybe TRP could do some PR work to emphasize they're not teaching men to "emulate" traits, but to actually gain those traits (that in the end benefit women)?

PS:

And I disagree with "Women do not like to be dominated just to be dominated, All they want is someone around to protect them" because it seems like they do. At least I get this vibe from reading many TRP articles, from reading people's stories, and from what I'm feeling right now in the relationship with my wife I'm trying to fix.

If they wouldn't, why would you keep them a little bit unsecure so that they be jealous? Why would rough and forceful approach to sex be so exciting for them and so effective? Why would choosing where you go on weekend (rather than letting her choose and agreeing)(even if she had other plans) have such a positive effect? Why would playfully ordering her around be both fun and arousing for HER?

PPS:

Thanks for downvote. If I say something wrong or misunderstand please tell me what's wrong, that would be valueable for me as I'm still learning.

[–]6482620 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

TRP itself is amoral, meaning that how you, or anyone else, choose to use it should be up the individual. We talk about what, how and why it works. The number of people finding and appreciating TRP is only increasing so the need to do a marketing campaign is really not needed. It is also not in anyone's interest to spread this knowledge if we want to be selfish about it.

They do like to be dominated, but only because it serves as a constant reminder that their man is sufficient for her protection needs.

You keep them jealous because the opposite would mean you probably do not have other options. If you don't have other options you are probably not a good protector.

Rough sex shows you have physical strength and the resolution to use it.

Giving orders shows her you got control of the situation. "The situation" is "life" in this context.

The downvote did not come from me. If I was to guess it was due to the marketing concept. Marketing could quickly become sugarcoating and we had enough of that in our lives.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But isn't EVERYTHING that is a skill immoral then? Is it immoral to know how to swing an axe since you can go swing it at someone's neck or property? Is it immoral to grow muscle since you can suffocate a child with it or rob an old woman of her purse?

I think I get now how it works but it's so appaling to find out... That's why I considered maybe we can have something like "Read this first before you ever read anything else" where we, how do I say, indoctrinate people that TRP is not about being selfish, exploiting women, but about becoming a better man and building a healthy relationship the "natural" way.

I think society as a whole will benefit if more men become better men, no? Sure, competition will rise, but don't men love competition? And in the end we, as a whole, progress as a result? I mean isn't "ideal" RP relationship (with RP woman) about constantly challenging each other to be better versions of themselves? That's no threat (if you become weak I dump you for another alpha) that's a positive inclanation to continue growing and not stagnating... No?

PS: I thanked whoever gived me downvote to encourage him to tell me where I'm wrong. I'm a newb and I accept I might misunderstand something and I'm up for learning where I err.

[–]6482620 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Amoral and immoral are two different things. The point is that TRP does not concern itself with right or wrong. It says what women look for. With that information you can either become a guy like that, fake being a guy like that or just forget all about women and do your own thing.

Why would you give people a warning? Kind of like what Morpheus did to Neo?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

IDK I may be overthinking it. Maybe I'm just too "nice" guy? I mean, I don't want to sieze everything for myself, I want to share.

Warning more so that people don't immediately read about techniques and say "this is immoral" but first read that TRP is pro-woman and about self-improvement and is NOT pickup. So that they read about techniques with that in mind.

[–]6482620 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You could do that, but what do you get out of the sharing? I get the feeling you would do it to justify you being here some way, but I don't know.

amoral

adjective

lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

And

immoral

adjective

not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, I don't need any "justification". I'm just Christian, that's all. And also raised by parents who, despite making me into a damned wuss (not blaming them for it) still gave me very good moral values.

Sharing and getting nothing in return IS one of the best things in the world to do. By getting nothing I mean more than "I don't need him to repay me" - I don't even need thanks. I enjoy the fact I did the right thing.

With this TRP thing, the way I see it, is this:

  • Nature makes us behave like animals. Little alphas who get many women on their terms, some of the rest get women on women's terms, and others who either pay for getting a fuck every once in a while or get no woman at all. This is uneffective. Only little amount of males in the group have to make efford to achieve something, as others are basically unmotivated slaves.

  • Society, when done properly, by enforcing monogamy, shaming men for poligamy and women for hypergamy, allows us to achieve way more. We get way more men who can live "like an alpha" because they have a family they control, a woman who is subordinate to them, and so on. So they try harder, achieve more and therefore, society as a whole achieves more. Women also get more dominant and successful husbands, so they are more happy too.

  • However, just locking a woman to a man who's beta won't make her happy, since he won't provide feelings she needs. And won't make him happy, since he doesn't understand how to manage this marriage so that both sides enjoy it, and feels he fails over and over.

  • More people learning about the true nature of things (TRP), therefore, is MANDATORY to advance our society as a whole. Until we have more men who are aware of their nature, their sexuality and wish to pursue self-improvement, we can do nothing about all the problems we all know exist (feminism etc.)

PS: And my justification being here is simple: this makes me a better person. A weak, clueless me is worse than aware, striving to improve himself me. That's why I'm here. I don't see anything here as immoral as long as it leads to greater good in the end. Like, if my wife (in the end) enjoys me flirting with other woman and if (in the end) it makes her bond with me stronger and her perception of our marriage better, then I see no immorality in flirting with other women. Maybe that's what you call amoral.

[–]through_a_ways1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

TRP is makeup for guys, and guys aren't allowed to wear makeup

Especially if the makeup is permanent

[–]SunnyJohnson0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The things women say they want and what they actually want are completely different. Go to any askreddit thread on gender differences and you'll see this 100%.

Not sure if this is the official red pill stance, but my theory is that just like men are programmed by society to be white knights/betas, women are programmed by society to think they are attracted to these type of men. Of course in reality they aren't and this is scary to a lot of people, hence the red pill hate.

[–]nwilli1000 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

BDSM people and Gays are deviant only in their sexuality and therefor don't really threaten the standing order of things in any significant way.

As social deviants, we do.

The self-first philosophy, the devotion to uncovering some semblance of a working truth and, most importantly, our advocacy for a monumental shift in the way men interact with their woman and their world has the potential to create significant change in the social structure of the western world.

Understandably this makes a lot of people very nervous. Particularly those in power.

Oh and most people don't have any understanding of what a RP-philosophy is. It's easy to hate what you don't understand.

[–]joe_bruised_ego0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is a political double standard with how people see homosexuality. I’ve actually had two different gays, one male one female, tell me that I was “objectifying” women and it was “problematic”.

For the first time in history gay pair bonds are being legally respected, as I believe they should, but it’s open season on attacking male heterosexuality.

[–]Dorrog0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because as much as they say the contrary progressives are just like conservatives but with a different moral code they want to impose. Progressives don't want you to do want you like as long as you hurt no one, thats just the excuse they use to push their agenda but forget when convenient.

Also keep in mind that reddit is against trp, not society. Reddit is a very small and highly skewed sample. Reddit is full of fucking weird people saying what they can not say in real life.

[–]yourenogood0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're missing a very major component of the sexual marketplace which explains this: alpha fucks, beta bucks.

Yes, women want strong, confident, dominating men. But they also want weak, supplicating beta bucks to exploit.

The alpha fucks provides the good strong genes the woman wants. The beta bucks does all the rest of the resource-intensive work of taking care of her and the children. For this to work, you need a plentiful supply of beta bucks (to ensure their thirst, and because you can only really have one per woman), but only really one or two Justin Biebers for a huge female population (all he needs is to pump and dump, so he can get round masses of women). The female mating strategy is therefore to have the vast majority of men whipped into shape, kept in line, compliant, scared, thirsty, desperate, while the one or two perfect alphas who survive this process are pounced on by every woman to then provide the genetic material. Horses follow this exact same strategy, pushing the males out of the safety of the herd when they reach adolescence, then only letting them back in when they prove they'll do whatever they're told. Since you only need one alpha male to provide the genes, it's easier to just shame all males into submission, try to keep them all in line, and then hope an alpha male emerges, since you only really need one for the strategy to work.

See: OWS and the progressive stack.
Watch how quickly the "equality/egalitarian" OWS movement tries to keep this first guy in check by scoffing and mocking him when he tries to talk, and how quickly he falls back into line under pressure from the whole group.

Tl;dr female mating strategy only needs one dominant male; it's beneficial for them for every other male to be a beta pussy.

[–]LiveFromLiberia0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They hate us because they were told that they should. Don't try to apply logic and reason to women.

[–]TimeDoesDisolve0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"They actually ENJOY it. Women actually enjoy being dominated by a strong man. Not bossed around, not told what to do, not forced to do house chores, but actually be dominated, posessed and owned. They get the kick out of it, this makes them excited, passionate.... And fuck, it makes ME excited and passionate. Filled with energy, achieving better in hobbies and work, getting more respect from other males... And when we get kids, we'll raise them in reasonable and logical way: not just limits and barriers, but clear path to successful life.

It's an absolute Win-Win! I win, she wins, our kids win... I'm Orthodox Christian now, so it was even harder for me to come to terms to having to manipulate and trick my wife to get something out of her, as it felt like cheap and immoral tactics. But if she loves it and I love it, and it lets our marriage stay healthy and fruitful... where is harm in that? It's an absolute Win-Win!"

Because the idea of owning a person died with the universal dismissal and hatred of slavery in every modernized country? Because treating weak people like they need to be owned is abusive?

"TRP does not preach. RP men are not actually interested in feminist or SJW women that much... TRP are not trying to fuck up feminists by controlling their minds and turning them into RPW. They don't advertise "come join our sexual counter-revolution"."

It doesn't need to preach, people who hate it do that for TRP. They get men who are jaded, angry, and easily persuaded to hate the women that tricked them/ stole their money/ cheated on them.

"What's the pressure then? Why do they care so much? Why is TRP so controversial? Why allow people to fuck each other in a way a big portion of modern population (Catholics, Orthodox, some Protestants) still considers "Abomination before God", allow people to kill themselves (euthanasia), allow people to treat people like furniture or animals, but not allow people to enjoy some form of relationship that is clearly only benefitial for both of them?"

Because society before woman's suffrage and liberation movement was legal? Having sex with your wife when she didn't want to have sex was legal only a few decades ago. You could beat your wife and tell people about it. You could dismiss her opinions as a separate person. You controlled all her funds. She couldn't have a personal career or hobby besides sucking dick and cleaning the house.

How is it hard to be afraid of a group that would advocate going back to that?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I see. They basically think TRPs beat their wifes into submission, own them like slaves, and so on? But that's madness... I started reading TRP with the Futurist article and then continued reading other topics, pinned and just top hot posts, and I found no such things. If I would find such things I'd be turned away from TRP because I also vow to never abuse a woman physically (unless I need to restrain her from doing harm to herself or someone), I never want a slave, I never want non-consensual sex (well unless it's rape roleplay).

I'm always probably thinking too far, but... couldn't we do something to actually change this view? I'm starting to think, there was this idea in pagan cults in the past, where only "enlightened" were granted "secret" knowledge because otherwise unprepaired would not be able to accept it. Maybe it had it's merits? Maybe if we make effort so that newcomers first reads the points like "don't blame women for what's going on in society, focus on improving yourself", and gets off the right foot, and only then goes on to access more specific material that actually tells him of tricks that can be viewed as dangerous?...

I know TRP cares not for publicity... but won't everybody agree it would be good if more people would view it in positive light?

[–]TimeDoesDisolve0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

but actually be dominated, posessed and owned

It's in your own words. That's the definition of slavery.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Should have added quotation marks there. Of course I implied nothing of such.

[–]KyfhoMyoba-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Who is this "they" you refer to that is angry with TRP? Not the happy and content wives of men that are anywhere on the alpha scale. The unhappy are the landwhale feminists.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well "social pressure" TRP gets. The way you can't talk about it with most casual relatives. The way bluepill exists to mock it. Etc.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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