~ archived since 2018 ~

Why doesn't the red pill push for expanded views of attractiveness?

Present-Afternoon-70

July 23, 2026

0 upvotes

I'm a lesbian trans woman, so this isn't me looking for dating advice or asking whether you'd date me. I'm trying to understand how the Red Pill thinks about attraction.

One thing I've never understood is this: if you believe average men are being excluded from dating because a small number of high-status men get all the women, why don't Red Pill influencers spend more time asking why so many of their followers aren't attracted to women who are also routinely excluded from conventional dating standards?

I'm not saying those women should date Red Pill men. Quite the opposite. Many of those women are already in vulnerable positions, and I wouldn't want them targeted because someone thinks they're "easier." That's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking why Red Pill advice never seems to question men's own standards. Why aren't men encouraged to examine why they dismiss older women, fat women, disabled women, or trans women out of hand? If the movement is about helping lonely men find relationships, why is the solution almost always "become attractive enough for conventionally attractive women" instead of asking whether your own ideas about beauty, gender, and desirability are unnecessarily narrow?

Is the Red Pill actually trying to help men find partners, or is it only trying to help them find one very specific type of partner?

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Why doesn't the red pill push for expanded views of attractiveness?
Author	Present-Afternoon-70
Upvotes	0
Comments	162
Date	July 23, 2026 12:05 PM UTC (1 week ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1v4bzrm/why_doesnt_the_red_pill_push_for_expanded_views/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/why-doesnt-the-red-pill-push-for-expanded-views-of.1585688 https://theredarchive.com/post/1585688

Comments

[–]JackOfCrusadesOld School Red Pill Man 31 points32 points33 points 1 week ago (81 children) | Copy Link

[–]DiligentRopeRed Pilled Man 6 points7 points8 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BobtheArcher2018Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The more sophisticated TRPers that access the better evo psych sources understand that there are definitely environmental and cultural influences on attraction in addition to biology. The reason desire is non-negotiable is that these cultural and environmental factors operate on people over their whole lives in ways that go well beyond the conscious, explicit or rational. A classic manosphere mistake is believing that even if you fully persuade someone their standards are too high due to culture/environment, and that person truly wants to lower them, that this is easily done by the individual with just willpower and understanding. It is not.

Furthermore, parsing nature from nurture, or even one nurture factor from another, is not easy. One can have a solid argument that cultural and environmental factors are inflating female (or male) standards higher than biology requires, or even than is good for that gender. However, figuring out which cultural and environmental levers to pull in which ways to bring the standards down is not easy. Even harder is doing so without hard-to-anticipate second-order effects.

[+]Present-Afternoon-70Blue Pill Trans Woman[S] -6 points-5 points-4 points 1 week ago (78 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmertriosPPDRed Pill Man 13 points14 points15 points 1 week ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–]kayceeplusplusPink Pill Woman -2 points-1 points0 points 1 week ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmertriosPPDRed Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 week ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Men's sexual attraction didn't change and won't change.

Trends change. But trends are for social clout, not for sexual attraction.

Trends have changed several times during my youth and I was attracted to the same things. Small asses and flat hips were trendy in the 90s and porn magazines still would precisely put women with a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7 because men prefer that even when they're unable to pinpoint it.

Dumb things like thigh gap were trendy at some point, and women obviously didn't understand it. It's never been about the thigh gap or amount of fat, it was always about wider hips and wider pelvic gap. And I don't blame them, men too can't explain why they like something.

Sexual dimorphism, ever heard of it? That's what people seek, and that's not going to change.

Now, this doesn't say that "attraction is non negotiable", attraction is a spectrum of multiple dimensions. Men can ignore defects if some other qualities are present. Women as a whole seem to be unable to ignore a defect too high in their priorities.

[–]kayceeplusplusPink Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmertriosPPDRed Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]kayceeplusplusPink Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It definitively is common among men and idk why yall pretend otherwise. For centuries Chinese men fetishized mutilated feet and to this day many cultures, mostly African or Arabic or South Asian, promote mutilated genitals. And suddenly in Western culture, goth girls have become trendy when alternative subcultures were shunned and looked at as school shooter incubators.

It’s funny you say that, my best friend (also black) does prefer Asian men, and I have met Asian men who prefer black women. The funny thing is that according to your theory, white women should prefer black men over Asian men when actually the dating app studies and marriage data says otherwise. It’s cool that you slipped in racist pseudoscientific narratives assigning dimorphism to ethnicity (hey I thought racial discourse was banned here?) when this doesn’t even address what I was talking about.

I am referring to the research showing that the more “masculine” and “feminine” traits, across several dimensions, are not necessarily the most preferred, which means that there is not a 1-to-1 connection between sexual dimorphism and sexual attractiveness. A trait being sexually dimorphic doesn’t automatically make it more attractive in one sex or the other. Eg:

• shortness is “feminine”, but average height women are actually most preferred in dating and tall women are preferred in some contexts (modeling, certain cultural beauty standards)

• muscularity is “masculine,” but women are most attracted to a more moderate physique than you men assume (see the viral Olly Murs poll by evolutionary psychologist William Costello, or the fangirls of prettyboys and K-pop stars)

• baldness is “masculine”, but it’s definitely not preferred in men

• penis size is “masculine”, but women prefer a bit above average (6in, avg is 5.5in) instead of massive porn diqs, and certain cultures actively ridiculed big ones (Ancient Greece)

• deep voices are “masculine,” yet they are not disliked in women

• autism is “masculine” as it is more common in males and exaggerates typically male psychological traits, yet it’s very selected against in men and more tolerated in female partners

• neuroticism and conscientiousness are “feminine”, yet men prefer less neurotic women and women prefer more conscientious men

• strong jaw is “masculine”, yet women like Angelina Jolie (hope I’m remembering right) can still be seen as attractive

• facial hair is “masculine”, but the jury’s still out on if women prefer beards

• big lips are “feminine”, yet they used to be ridiculed as “dick sucking lips”

• big butts are “feminine”, but not too long ago they were mocked

[–]SmertriosPPDRed Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For centuries Chinese men fetishized mutilated feet and to this day many cultures, mostly African or Arabic or South Asian, promote mutilated genitals.

Nothing to do with sexual attraction.

It’s funny you say that, my best friend (also black) does prefer Asian men, and I have met Asian men who prefer black women.

Exceptions don't matter and probably nothing to do with actual sexual attraction. Dating apps clearly show these two avoid each others.

white women should prefer black men over Asian men when actually the dating app studies and marriage data says otherwise.

Yeah, because women's sexual attraction is more picky than just raw looks.

It’s cool that you slipped in racist pseudoscientific narratives assigning dimorphism to ethnicity

It's cool that you do your best not to be triggered. I should obviously have disclaimed obviously that this isn't so much about being black, because eastern africans are known to be more gracile looking. But most american blacks come from the west AFAIK.

Hit me up when any of your discourse gets on an higher level than pseudoscientific, we will promptly remove you from this subreddit and give you an award for falsifying the unfalsifiable.

I am referring to the research showing that the more “masculine” and “feminine” traits, across several dimensions, are not necessarily the most preferred

And I've seen research showing that all men are choosing certain feminine traits even when the men can't tell the trait is here or can't tell they're attracted to it. I'm speaking of men saying "I prefer this" and then they don't. Humans tend to do that a lot, say something then do the opposite.

A trait being sexually dimorphic doesn’t automatically make it more attractive

I agree, there are ugly and undesirable masculine and feminine traits. Though you'd find out that a woman who is ugly feminine or a man who is ugly masculine has more appeal to the other gender than someone who is just androgynously ugly. Think ron perlman.

shortness is “feminine”, but average height women are actually most preferred in dating and tall women are preferred in some contexts

Not contexts that are "straight men being sexually attracted", but more like "gay men and women in fashion industry selecting for models". Which doesn't help your case. Average height women preferred according to what and who? Short women are preferred but are not as common as average heighted women. Whatever data you're having must have been skewed by this.

but women are most attracted to a more moderate physique than you men assume

First of all. Yes women are more attracted to human looking men than uncanny looking men. This is also true for all the aesthetic surgeries women do to exaggerate feminine traits (or straight out masculinize their traits accidentally, fat shapeless lips ain't feminine girls). Now secondly, what you call "moderate" physique is generally not moderate.

baldness is “masculine”, but it’s definitely not preferred in men

Baldness is part of "ugly" masculinity. But is more accepted than bald women.

but women prefer a bit above average (6in, avg is 5.5in) instead of massive porn diqs, and certain cultures actively ridiculed big ones (Ancient Greece)

Males ridiculing big penisses in some culture is not indicative of what women were actually sexually attracted to.

Women generally don't even care about dicks that much. They don't like men's genitals.

deep voices are “masculine,” yet they are not disliked in women

Men aren't more sexually attracted by deep female voices.

autism is “masculine” as it is more common in males and exaggerates typically male psychological traits, yet it’s very selected against in men and more tolerated in female partners

Autism isn't a physical trait so yes men don't care.

strong jaw is “masculine”, yet women like Angelina Jolie (hope I’m remembering right) can still be seen as attractive

By lesbian women the most. Hollywood is full of man jawed women who you're told are 10/10 yet I can walk to my grocery store and many cashiers will be far more attractive.

Now that we know you're capable to list sexual dimorphic traits that are not sexually attractive, you have to explain to me why that means "sexual attraction is negotiable", because it doesn't do anything for your main point.

[–]Relative_Profile_980Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not the original responder but I wrote some examples of what I think is essential in feminine beauty (no particular order).

Youthfulness. That doesn't just mean that the woman has to be young, she only needs bodily characteristics that reflect youthfulness. It can involve the body being firm, or plump, and a cuteness. This seems to show up in studies. Women call each other cute, men do not call each other that.
Voluptuousness. Which means: fullness, curvaceousness, softness. Women can have these traits whether they are thin or heavy, even if they are muscular. A lack of voluptuousness is masculine. Even in the "rubenesq" paintings quoted here, I see curviness, youthfulness. However I'm not very confident in relying on art or writings from the 1500's as a measure of men's general sexual standard.

I think these general qualities constitute key elements of feminine beauty or sexiness, whereas smaller differences are expressions of the general rule. For example big lips are simply one expression of voluptuousness. I think there might be cross-cultural variation in some marginal sense, but they are just different expressions of that same underlying preference, not evidence of its arbitrariness.

And btw, similar to the other poster, I do not consider women's fashion to reflect men's sexual standard, but possibly a homosexual standard. A media standard and what men find attractive can diverge and be completely different.

Going over the traits you listed, you're including examples of what women find attractive, which is more complicated, and something masculine or feminine can be de-prioritized for personal reasons, but they are still attractive generally.

Tall men are preferred on average, so I'm not sure that is a good point.

You brought up muscles and gave an example of popstars. I think that women's preferences are arguably psychological, cultural and biological or evolved. I will repeat myself: Rockstars (similar to Kpop stars) were often skinny guys who grew their hair long, and wore makeup, but they were still signaling masculinity, being that they were performers and risk takers, confident, competent, and socially respected. Whether muscles work in the same way I think depends on the woman.

About dick size you may be right, women probably don't care at least by default, I have heard of the data you mentioned, but I would question whether the average woman has enough sexual partners to have even tried one, which could skew the stats, and also it seems women often don't enjoy sex, period, so they might say "he didn't know how to use it". A substantial minority of women do prefer larger dicks and they are quite vocal about it, and larger penises are a deal breaker for a number of women, but not necessarily for every woman. Also studies seem to claim that larger penises are more rare, so it's hard to use this example.

Women's voices don't have to be super feminine but my personal opinion is that when someone sounds like bob the builder its not attractive. But women generally don't sound that masculine.

Autists can be very unmasculine for a number of reasons, for one thing that they can struggle socially, and something women find attractive is social competence.

I personally believe that women have innate feminine qualities which are attractive. I think polarity is important, but it's just that the strength and the type of the attraction just differs between individuals.

The masculine jaw of Angelina Jolie is made up for by her other features, for example her curvaceousness, her cuteness or youthful qualities.

Idk what to say about beards. I wish I had a better beard because you can always shave it, but it's better to have the option, especially if you go bald.

Big butts and lips are popular with men. Even your last example of Angelina proves that. A woman sucking dick is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I think another point to mention here is that any trait can also be taken to an excess. A woman can have breast that are excessively big (for most), or she can have lips that are excessively fat.

[–]kayceeplusplusPink Pill Woman [score hidden] 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think you get my point, you’re really not refuting my point if that was your intention?

Yes, there are studies proving that there are some essential characteristics in feminine beauty, such as waist-to-hip ratio (curves), cues of health, youth, and fertility, symmetry, etc, but anything more specific than that is cultural, and absolutely not particular to any race, as he and others ignorantly imply. This is why redpillers like the original responder are flat earth level reality deniers to say that “desire can’t be negotiated” — culture, media, and society already do it. Yall seem to be doing a motte and bailey where you use the existence of some universal standards to dismiss social construction of beauty when in fact they’re not mutually exclusive.

Point is, original responder’s views of “sexual dimorphism” are unfounded. Height is actually a very good point precisely because it matters a lot for men but not women despite being sexually dimorphic. The point is, if more dimorphic features are inherently more attractive, short women should be favored as much as tall men, but they aren’t.

Your point about autists being “unmasculine” also further proves my point. The “extreme male brain” hypothesis suggests that autists have their psychology shifted in a typically male direction, so autists are actually hypermasculine by any objective standard. Autistic women are also more likely to be gender nonconforming than neurotypical women. Women are more socially skilled, which makes “social competence” feminine by any measure. And yet, autistic men don’t fit in to the culture’s views of “masculinity” while autistic women aren’t excluded from “femininity”. What’s “masculine” and “feminine” doesn’t always have a biological basis and what’s attractive doesn’t neatly line up with it.

Beards are a secondary sex characteristic, so objectively as “masculine” as you can get, yet the data shows that there’s no consistent preference for them. Big butts and big lips were not always popular with men in mainstream WASPy American society, that’s my point. Sexual dimorphism doesn’t inherently equal attractiveness and male attraction is also socially influenced.

[–]Present-Afternoon-70Blue Pill Trans Woman[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 1 week ago (58 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmertriosPPDRed Pill Man 5 points6 points7 points 1 week ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]kayceeplusplusPink Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-70Blue Pill Trans Woman[S] -1 points0 points1 point 1 week ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kitty_OverlordNo Pill 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-70Blue Pill Trans Woman[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kitty_OverlordNo Pill 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmertriosPPDRed Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I've no idea where you're seeing an argument being formulated in your quote or your comment.

You're the one who has no idea what history is. People think we preferred fatter people before but we didn't. A lot of people were malnourished and rachitic, a modern slimfat woman with a BMI of 22 would seem chubby in the past. The fact fatter older women would be painted before doesn't suggest anything towards what was the beauty ideal and what men were attracted to.

In the 90s everybody thought big tits big torsoes and tiny asses were the trendy body type. Porn magazines for a hundred year would still put women with wide hips and round asses because that's what men are attracted to even when these men are unable to pinpoint it.

Studies have been conducted to show that men are unconsciously attracted to certain ratios of waist size over hip size.

You get more evidence throughout history and antiquity that women would shave their legs and use makeup to appear paler.

Trends might change, men don't, sexual dimorphism doesn't. As a trans person you're supposed to know a lot about sexual dimorphism.

[–]Present-Afternoon-70Blue Pill Trans Woman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmertriosPPDRed Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You're mistaking cultural beauty standards for universal biological attraction.

That's exactly what I'm reproaching to you.

Pale skin was a status symbol because it meant you weren't working in the fields.

Yes depending on the culture it was a status symbol.

But also, men have darker skin than women, it's biology.

Rubens painted wealthy patrons, not some eternal male preference.

Which isn't serving your point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leblouh

I knew you'd eventually speak of this. I don't think tradition from a few muslim villages doing this to girls that keep fully covered (burkas). And, surprise surprise, it's again because it's perceived as a sign of wealth, and therefore not indicative of actual sexual attraction.

You're even recognizing it yourself.

Are you somehow not understanding the entire context of the convo is biological attraction and absolutely not anything else? Attraction is non negotiable is about biological attraction. Sign of wealth is to seduce your parents, not you.

[–]Present-Afternoon-70Blue Pill Trans Woman[S] [score hidden] 1 week ago [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zoya_The_DestroyahPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-70Blue Pill Trans Woman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flaneur50No Pill Man leaning slightly blue 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Zoya_The_DestroyahPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zoya_The_DestroyahPurple Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 week ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-70Blue Pill Trans Woman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zoya_The_Destroyah2 points 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-701 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zoya_The_Destroyah2 points 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok-Gene89482 points 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-701 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok-Gene89482 points 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-701 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok-Gene89482 points 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ok? Nothing actually changes? I continue to dismiss older women, fat women, disabled women, or transwomen but this time in hand? This continues to not help me find relationships and the solutions continues to be "become attractive enough" and I continue with a narrow idea about beauty, gender, and desirability?

This is besides the point. Your goal here was not to elevate anyone's understanding of themselves in relation to the context of their environment. Your goal here was to tell men to date fat, old, disabled, or trans women. I know that is your goal because in your post you said:

Is the Red Pill actually trying to help men find partners, or is it only trying to help them find one very specific type of partner?

Because you want the advice given to men to change from; here are some things women like, to: how about you give a fat, old, disabled, or trans woman a chance?

[–]Present-Afternoon-701 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Only a red piller could hear "be more self-aware" and translate it into "date people you're not attracted to."

No. My point was never that you should date fat women, older women, disabled women, or trans women. My point was that you should understand why you're attracted to what you're attracted to so you can make those choices intentionally instead of pretending they're purely biological and immutable.

If, after that self-reflection, your preferences don't change, that's fine. At least they're your preferences rather than cultural defaults you've never examined. But this is exactly what I've been talking about throughout this thread. Instead of responding to what I actually wrote, you keep inventing a version that's easier to argue against. It's almost like you don't believe women know what they mean when they explain their own thoughts.

[–]Ok-Gene89482 points 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except you never said "be more self aware". You said:

If the movement is about helping lonely men find relationships... [ask] whether your own ideas about beauty, gender, and desirability are unnecessarily narrow?

The implication clearly being that asking whether your ideas about beauty, gender, and desirability, are unnecessarily narrow should help you find a relationship. Presumably because, if they are unnecessarily narrow then they could broaden them to include fat, old, disabled, or trans women.

It's almost like you don't believe women know what they mean when they explain their own thoughts.

It's almost like you're trying to catch me out being misogynist instead of faithfully engaging with the point. Fortunately, I respect women enough to recognise that they have rich inner lives that include not liking being called out on their bullshit every now and then.

[–]Present-Afternoon-701 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Did I put the word "ask" in there, or did you? Because that completely changes the meaning of what I wrote. You keep substituting your own implication for my actual words. I never said anyone should ask women to broaden their standards. I said people should examine where those standards come from, because they may be narrower than they need to be. Those are two different arguments.

And this is becoming a pattern. You accuse me of trying to "catch" you being misogynistic instead of engaging with what I'm saying, but you haven't actually engaged with my point once. Every reply has been to a version of my argument that exists only in your head. I'm being very explicit about what I mean, and you keep insisting I mean something else. If you can't respond to my actual words, then you're arguing with your own assumptions, not with me.

[–]Zoya_The_Destroyah2 points 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-701 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok-Gene89482 points 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-701 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok-Gene89481 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok-Gene89482 points 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It was a paraphase so that the sentence would conjugate, the meaning of the sentence was retained. Here is the full quote:

If the movement is about helping lonely men find relationships, why is the solution almost always "become attractive enough for conventionally attractive women" instead of asking whether your own ideas about beauty, gender, and desirability are unnecessarily narrow?

I've highlighted the word I had to conjugate because I removed the hypothetical clause for ease of reading.

I never said anyone should ask women to broaden their standards.

And I didn't say you said that. I said you implied red pilled men should broaden their standards because it would help them find a relationship.

I said people should examine where those standards come from, because they may be narrower than they need to be.

You said:

the movement

Referring to red pilled influencers mentioned previously in your post. Not people in general. And you said:

If the movement is about helping lonely men find relationships,

as the reason why the standards might be narrower than they need to be. Not narrower than they need to be for any generic reason, but specifically to help lonely men find relationships.

Every reply has been to a version of my argument that exists only in your head.

I am directly quoting the things you are saying. Couldn't be any more out of my head if I tried.

[–]Present-Afternoon-701 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok-Gene89482 points 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-701 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What I've been telling you this whole time. This isn't about telling men they have the wrong beauty standards or that they should force themselves to be attracted to different people. It's about the process by which those standards were formed.

My question is why Red Pill never encourages men to examine where their preferences came from, what influenced them, or whether they're actually serving the goals they claim to have. That's what deconstructing a belief means. It's an examination of how the belief was constructed, not a demand that it change.

If, after that self-reflection, someone's preferences don't change, that's perfectly fine. My criticism has never been the preferences themselves. It's that Red Pill treats them as self-evident and discourages the introspection that might help someone better understand themselves.

[–]Ok-Gene89481 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zoya_The_Destroyah1 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-701 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zoya_The_Destroyah2 points 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-701 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're still misunderstanding what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about beauty standards. I'm talking about the process by which people arrive at them.

"Deconstructing" doesn't mean deciding your preferences are wrong or forcing yourself to like different people. It means examining how your preferences were formed—what cultural influences, personal experiences, media, and socialization shaped them—and then deciding whether they actually reflect your own values.

If, after that process, your preferences don't change, that's perfectly fine. The point of deconstruction is the examination, not a predetermined outcome.

You keep treating "deconstructing beauty standards" as though it means "beauty standards are harmful." It doesn't. It means examining how those standards were constructed in the first place.

At this point, I genuinely think you need a Feminism 101, Gender Studies 101, or introductory sociology course. These are established concepts, and you keep arguing against a definition that isn't the one being used. Without that foundation, we're talking past each other.

[–]Zoya_The_Destroyah2 points 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-701 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kitty_OverlordNo Pill 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zoya_The_DestroyahPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-70Blue Pill Trans Woman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kitty_OverlordNo Pill 5 points6 points7 points 1 week ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

My question would be what does "doing this work" mean?

I can definitively believe that people, regardless of gender or ethnicities have been becoming more inclusive especially in countries with more multiculturalism like Canada and the US and EU.

But I think there is a difference between advocating for inclusion, examining biaises, becoming friends with other ethnicities, and actually changing romantic attraction.

And even if some people preference do change, it doesn't show the process itself is intentional or reproducible. (For example, some Asian immigrants might find white girls attractive now because they... just meet more of them, but it wouldn't be an intentional "today i shall broaden my dating range")

Like I think there are still many examples of:

- Many Asian Americans still prefer to date other Asians.

- Many women still prefer to date taller men (not necessarily 6", just... taller than them).

- And Many men still have relatively stable preferences regarding body type.

Yes, preferences can change. But where I question more would be how deliberate those changes can be done through introspection alone?

[–]Present-Afternoon-70Blue Pill Trans Woman[S] -1 points0 points1 point 1 week ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Doing the work means examining where your preferences come from.

Some of your examples are different from what I'm talking about. Many Asian Americans prefer dating other Asians because of shared culture, history, language, family expectations, and lived experience. That's different from a culturally imposed beauty standard.

For example, I'm a Southeast Asian, brown-skinned, Muslim, non-binary trans femme. If I met another Southeast Asian woman somewhere on the gender spectrum, I'd probably feel a stronger connection because we'd share experiences that very few other people understand. That's not the same thing as preferring blond hair, blue eyes, or a particular breast size.

The point of doing the work is recognizing that many of the things we think of as "just preferences" aren't universal or innate. Beauty standards have changed dramatically across cultures and throughout history. The idealized "Sydney Sweeney look" isn't some objective human constant. Even the backlash over portrayals of Helen of Troy reflects modern Western beauty standards being projected backward.

Once you recognize that, it becomes easier to ask, "Do I actually want this, or did I inherit this preference from the culture I grew up in?" You may decide the answer is still yes, and that's fine. But at least you've examined it instead of assuming it was inevitable.

What I don't understand is why so many people keep asking for a step-by-step method, as though there's a cheat code. There isn't. Entire fields—psychology, sociology, anthropology, gender studies—are devoted to understanding how our preferences and identities are shaped. It's an ongoing process of reflection, not "press X to broaden your dating pool."

[–]Kitty_OverlordNo Pill 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'll start with the last part first, because I think it's the easiest for me to reply.

What I don't understand is why so many people keep asking for a step-by-step method

I don't think people ask for cheat codes, but just ask for actionable steps.

Many things in life, whether school or work, are very... measurable and tangible. For example:

-For self-improvement, you can have lose 20 lbs as a goal, with actions like 300 kcal deficit, lift 3 times per week, walk 8k steps everyday.

-For therapy, the goal can be reduce anxiety, and therapists would suggest concrete actions like CBT worksheets, exercises, and journaling.

These two examples aren't providing magic pills, but they offer concrete behaviours that are actionable.

Now, imagine we tell someone "broaden your dating preferences".

What course of action would you suggest? "Reflect and introspection". I think it would be a fair follow-up question from them to ask "but how? and how do I know if it is working?"

In business school, we were taught about SMART goals, and I think "broaden your dating preferences" is very hard to evaluate as SMART goals, which make it much more difficult.

Entire fields—psychology, sociology, anthropology, gender studies—are devoted to understanding how our preferences and identities are shaped.

Exactly. And a fair critic would be that if entire fields of academia haven't produce a reliable answer on how to intentionally broaden attraction, then isn't it understandable that the RP ideology, which is primarily about practical dating advices (at its origin at least), doesn't make it central to its recommendation?

If you are a RP coach, and someone come to you asking you what he can personally do to increase his probabilities of finding a date, would you rather give him more actionable steps like "go to the gym" or would you tell him things like "broaden your preferences?", which he would bej ustified to ask "how?" and it would be difficult to answer because even acamedia struggles with providing an answer.

[–]Present-Afternoon-70Blue Pill Trans Woman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Your mistake is assuming that because something can't be reduced to a SMART goal or a measurable intervention, it isn't something people can intentionally work on.

We can tell someone exactly how to heal a broken leg because it's a physical problem. We can't give someone a five-step process to overcome racism, sexism, internalized homophobia, or culturally inherited beauty standards because those are complex psychological and social phenomena.

Yet people clearly do change. People's politics, religion, prejudices, and even attractions shift over time. We study those processes; we just don't have a checklist that guarantees the outcome.

Doing the work means examining where your preferences came from, exposing yourself to different people and perspectives, and asking whether what you think is "just your type" is actually yours or something you inherited from your culture. If, after that, your preferences don't change, that's fine. But you've at least examined them instead of assuming they were inevitable.

You're asking for a repeatable formula. Human psychology isn't chemistry. The absence of a cheat code doesn't mean the process isn't real. It means people are more complicated than spreadsheets.

[–]Kitty_Overlord1 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your mistake is assuming that because something can't be reduced to a SMART goal or a measurable intervention, it isn't something people can intentionally work on.

I think you misunderstood me here. I am not saying that if it isn't measurable, it shouldn't exist. I meant more in the context of coaching and advices, if you are providing advices and recommendations, it is reasonable to expect someone would ask you "what intentional actions someone can take".

I am saying that no reasonably actionable interventions = difficult to recommend as primary coaching advice, which is the core premise of your question of why RP doesn't recommend it.

Imagine I am coaching someone.

His goal is: "Find a compatible partner".

I have an hour.

Do I spend that hour on improving conversations, meeting more people, improving fitness, or do I tell him to examine his attraction?

Even if the second has philosophical value, I think it is reasonable that many coaches would prioritize the first. And this is not because introspection is worthless, but simply because interventions are more concrete.

I feel you are also changing the claim a little.

Initially, the question was why "Why RP doesn't recommend X". and now the question is shifting into "is introspection valuable?"

I think my stance is in the lines of RP is a practical dating framework, therefore advices are generally interventions with plausible and actionable pathways.

And you seem to go more into

Self-examination still has value even without a clear pathway.

Yes, I agree, but my disagreement would lie into whether or not this self-examination would functions as a practical coaching advice.

[–]Present-Afternoon-701 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If the reason Red Pill doesn't recommend it is because it can't be packaged into a one-hour coaching session with a checklist, I'd question whether that's a good standard for human development.

Maybe that's also why so many people in those spaces dismiss therapy. Therapy often doesn't give you a five-step solution either. It gives you tools to examine yourself over time.

If someone is an alcoholic, there are concrete behavioral interventions because alcoholism is fundamentally a behavioral disorder. But what's the concrete, repeatable intervention for making someone less racist? Less sexist? Less homophobic? More empathetic? More emotionally mature?

Those changes happen all the time, and we study them extensively, but they aren't reducible to "do X three times a week." They're ongoing processes of reflection, exposure, and challenging assumptions.

So my question is: why should "it doesn't fit into a coaching session" be the standard for whether it's worthwhile advice? Human beings are far more complicated than that.

So what are the concrete steps to make someone not racist?

[–]Kitty_Overlord1 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think we are now wandering into a different topic.

I'd question whether that's a good standard for human development.

I would say this question is fundamentally different from the original debate of

Why doesn't the red pill push for expanded views of attractiveness?

The former is normative, and is asking whether or not RP should focus on different thing.

Whereas the latter original question is more explanatory, and my answer to it was in the lines of "Because RP optimizes for practical dating outcomes, so it prioritizes interventions it believes are more actionable.". It answers the "why", without saying whether or not RP is morally good or not.

If your argument is now that Red Pill has the wrong objective, and that it should prioritize broader human development over dating success, I think that's a perfectly coherent critique. But that's different from asking why a movement whose explicit objective is improving men's dating outcomes doesn't center advice for which there isn't a clear, reliable intervention.

So what are the concrete steps to make someone not racist?

I actually agree that there isn't a simple checklist to make someone less racist, or sexist. Those are indeed complex psychologically.

But I think that's also why I'm hesitant to expect a dating self-help movement to make those its central recommendations. My point was never that advice has to fit into a one-hour coaching session to be valuable. My point was that your original question was why Red Pill doesn't recommend this.

[–]Kitty_OverlordNo Pill 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Now to your other point

The point of doing the work is recognizing that many of the things we think of as "just preferences" aren't universal or innate. Beauty standards have changed dramatically across cultures and throughout history. The idealized "Sydney Sweeney look" isn't some objective human constant. Even the backlash over portrayals of Helen of Troy reflects modern Western beauty standards being projected backward.

Once you recognize that, it becomes easier to ask, "Do I actually want this, or did I inherit this preference from the culture I grew up in?" You may decide the answer is still yes, and that's fine. But at least you've examined it instead of assuming it was inevitable.

If this was a philosophical discussion, I would agree that yes, introspection has intrinsic value.

However, I think Red pill is primarily a dating strategy movement. It is not a philosophical movement.

Let's assume that process goes exactly as you envisions.

-I examine my attraction -I realize there are many things that shaped my preferences. -I reflect honestly. -And finally, I conclude, Well, I am still not romantically attracted to X group.

Now what? Sure, from a phislophically standpoint, we could argue that at least you reflected, and I think it would be respectable.

But it also means nothing changed in terms of dating strategy.

I think you are emphasizing too much on self-awareness as the primary goal, and viewing dating outcomes as secondary.

Whereas I think the primary goal and appeal of RP has been about increasing probability of finding a compatible partner, and self-awareness would be secondary to this.

I think you are much more philosophical than RP, which is more practical and instrumental.

Yes, examining a preference is worthwhile, and I think many would agree with that, but the question RP asks is more in the lines of "Will this help me achive my goal?"

I'd like to ask you something. Suppose someone sincerely follows your advice for a year. They reflect on their preferences, read about beauty standards, and honestly examine where their attractions come from. At the end of that year, they conclude, "I've thought about it carefully, and my attractions haven't meaningfully changed." What practical dating advice would you give them next?

[–]Present-Afternoon-70Blue Pill Trans Woman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Everything is philosophy, just like everything is political and, yes, everything is feminism. Those aren't abstract academic concepts. They're descriptions of the systems we live in every day. Your ideas about dating, masculinity, femininity, beauty, race, and relationships don't exist outside philosophy. They are philosophy put into practice.

That's also why I think the Red Pill gets this fundamentally wrong. It treats dating as the primary objective when, for most healthy people, dating is a secondary outcome. You build a meaningful life, develop emotionally, cultivate friendships, examine your beliefs, and relationships emerge from that. Women generally don't want someone whose primary motivation is simply "getting a girlfriend."

You're asking for a checklist because you want psychology to behave like engineering. It doesn't. There isn't a measurable sequence that guarantees someone deconstructs internalized beauty standards any more than there's a checklist that guarantees someone stops being racist, sexist, or homophobic. These are ongoing psychological and social processes, not broken bones.

If, after genuinely examining your assumptions, you still have the same preferences, that's perfectly fine. The point was never to guarantee a different answer. The point is to determine whether those preferences are actually yours or whether you inherited them unquestioningly from the society that raised you.

[–]Kitty_Overlord1 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Logical_Breadfruit49Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SerahillBlue Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Logical_Breadfruit49Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JackOfCrusadesOld School Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AikenDrumstickTrue blue, Ethel -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 week ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This is absolutely true, but it goes against red pill thinking and thus will be ignored. For several reasons, the erroneous idea that their desires are “hard-wired” is a non-negotiable “fact.”

Understanding the social conditioning that has shaped their desires and working to modify it would not only be helpful, it ironically would be closer to a true “red pill” experience, at least in the way it is defined in The Matrix.

But that, ultimately, isn’t what the red pill is about. I’ve seen some people call it a cult, but it’s actually a lot smaller and sadder than that. It’s a low-level scam, a mind virus masquerading as a philosophy. But like cult thinking, it does rely on members accepting some core principles. One of those is that the world of dating is a marketplace.

So what you’re proposing, in effect, is that the marketplace isn’t real, that the things of value don’t actually have consistent or fixed value, and that the “currency” is a shabby illusion. That is true, I think, but it can’t possibly coexist with red pill thinking.

Ever argue with a flat-earther or a creationist? It’s generally not worth it. Their ideas describe the world they can observe accurately enough. It makes sense to them. And they’ve found a community of people, either online or in church, who bolster these ideas and - much more importantly - create a sense of community and belonging. They now have an identity and a sense of being in on the truth that other people can’t see. So for red pill people, accepting that standards of beauty and attraction are mutable isn’t a small thing - it would instantly remove them from their chosen cohort. So… good luck with that!

[–]ChildrenCarRed Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]warichnochniegray pill autism man 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ChildrenCar2 points 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kayceeplusplusPink Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]70sJungleBushRed Pill Man 6 points7 points8 points 1 week ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MarioWilson122Red Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn’t even say men dismiss those kinds of women, because men start families with older, disabled, and overweight women all the time.

The real issue is that those women may have a harder time dating above their league, which a lot of women try to do. In some cases, they aim far above it, so when those men are not interested, it can feel like men are dismissing them altogether.

In reality, they are not being rejected by men as a whole. They simply cannot get every man they want, especially when they are aiming above the level of men who would realistically commit to them.

Modern society often encourages women to treat their standards as untouchable, so when the men they want are not interested, the rejection gets framed as a problem with men rather than a mismatch between their expectations and their actual options.

[–]Current_Tax4903Red Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProudvowRed Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousppd123123Red Pill Man 14 points15 points16 points 1 week ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlmondMilkMaybeNo Pill Woman 10 points11 points12 points 1 week ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmertriosPPDRed Pill Man 5 points6 points7 points 1 week ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ObsessivethotPink Pill Woman [score hidden] 1 week ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmertriosPPDRed Pill Man [score hidden] 1 week ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ObsessivethotPink Pill Woman [score hidden] 1 week ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmertriosPPDRed Pill Man [score hidden] 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ObsessivethotPink Pill Woman [score hidden] 1 week ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousppd123123Red Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlmondMilkMaybeNo Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousppd123123Red Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlmondMilkMaybeNo Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-70Blue Pill Trans Woman[S] 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlmondMilkMaybeNo Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DreJ-X [score hidden] 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlmondMilkMaybeNo Pill Woman [score hidden] 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousppd123123Red Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlmondMilkMaybeNo Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DreJ-X [score hidden] 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SomerandomduderebornLevel 26 wizard, aspiring to reach lvl 40/It is what it is pill [score hidden] 1 week ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlmondMilkMaybeNo Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PurplePillDebate-ModTeam[M] 0 points1 point2 points 1 week agolocked comment (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acrobatic-Monk9735Pink Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 1 week ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmertriosPPDRed Pill Man 7 points8 points9 points 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MarioWilson122Red Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lenovo_Driverman: blue cuz red pilled dudes dont get laid 4 points5 points6 points 1 week ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acrobatic-Monk9735Pink Pill Woman -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 week ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lenovo_Driverman: blue cuz red pilled dudes dont get laid 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Acrobatic-Monk9735Pink Pill Woman -2 points-1 points0 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousppd123123Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (2 children) | Copy Link

personal experience talking to them and identifying the problem

they know it's a problem, they know it's why they have terrible dating outcomes, they know the solution. but when they go do something they just can't resist buying the fried bullshit instead of a salad without 700cal of dressing. if you try to help them diet they hide candy and bs away and hamster 5000 excuses. i ate a vegetable today i can eat half a tub of ice cream ive earned it. and if you TAKE it away from them and replace it with a salad they act like a crackhead going through withdrawal. seeing this from 30 year old "adults" is fucking cringe

if you go in high SES areas you dont see people like this because theyre all too smart for this bs and can summon the willpower. shit you dont even need that anymore just bootleg wegovy

[–]PandaTaco90ecstasy pill man 3 points4 points5 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acrobatic-Monk9735Pink Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Teflon08191 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Acrobatic-Monk9735Pink Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZabadoodudeRed(ish) Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChildrenCarRed Pill Man 8 points9 points10 points 1 week ago [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]drunk_Panzerbearmaxxing 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man -4 points-3 points-2 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChildrenCarRed Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lenovo_Driverman: blue cuz red pilled dudes dont get laid 3 points4 points5 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-70Blue Pill Trans Woman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zoya_The_DestroyahPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProbablyNotABot6 [score hidden] 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lenovo_Driverman: blue cuz red pilled dudes dont get laid 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alone_Ambition_3729Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m not really the archetypal redpill, but when I started to read about it and give it a chance my life radically improved.

I think there’s a problem in dating, likely caused in large part by porn, of guys who aren’t their type’s type. They like inked girls but they’d never be caught dead getting a tattoo themselves. They like athletic/gym girls but they don’t work out or play sports. They like “trad” girls but they don’t have a job.

In my opinion it’s absolutely worth it to fix this “type’s type” problem. But this isn’t exactly the same as “lowering standards” or “settling”. Doing those things will fester in your mind, and the mind of your partner if she ever suspects.

I don’t think you’re ever going to convince redpillers to date trans women. The red pill is about recognizing harsh truths; and the circumstances there contain one of the harshest truths of them all…

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Perfect-Resist5478Purple Pill Woman 5 points6 points7 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SomerandomduderebornLevel 26 wizard, aspiring to reach lvl 40/It is what it is pill 4 points5 points6 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AMDisappointmentPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TopShelfSnipesMarried Purple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Not RP so answering under automod:

One thing I've never understood is this: if you believe average men are being excluded from dating because a small number of high-status men get all the women, why don't Red Pill influencers spend more time asking why so many of their followers aren't attracted to women who are also routinely excluded from conventional dating standards?

Because RP believes that attraction isn't negotiable. It's not something you can pivot towards people you aren't attracted to, and magically be attracted to them. Furthermore, classic redpill didn't hold that a "small number" of men would get the attention. It held that those men got that attention for specific reasons that were fixable if the men who didn't get that attention were able to change a few basic things about themselves - especially in regards to behaviors - to be more like those men, so they could get attraction from women. It did not tell those men if they did those things that they would get universal attraction from women, as no such things exists due to individual preferences.

I'm not saying those women should date Red Pill men. Quite the opposite. Many of those women are already in vulnerable positions, and I wouldn't want them targeted because someone thinks they're "easier." That's not what I'm asking.

The other thing is some people try to pick up women for male validation. Guys who give off inhibited sexuality are (still) often mocked as "gay" in men's spaces when they're younger, so often there's a desire to counteract that. Guys (especially young guys) can be idiots about stuff like that. "Eating pussy is gay" (WHAT?), "having a girlfriend is gay" (seriously?) - narratives likes that. There is still a good deal of "masculinity policing" among certain groups of men that pedestalizes stereotypes, and men often feel that pressure from adolescence through young adulthood before people finally realize it's stupid and it quietly fades (or gets relegated to work which is a whole different issue).

Those men don't gain anything in male circles by pursuing ugly women. I'm not justifying the behavior, just pointing out why it can happen.

I'm asking why Red Pill advice never seems to question men's own standards. Why aren't men encouraged to examine why they dismiss older women, fat women, disabled women, or trans women out of hand? If the movement is about helping lonely men find relationships, why is the solution almost always "become attractive enough for conventionally attractive women" instead of asking whether your own ideas about beauty, gender, and desirability are unnecessarily narrow?

Fat women aren't just "not attractive" to most men. They're physically repulsive to think of in sexual contexts. No one is going to pursue someone who they are actively grossed out by their appearance. It's like asking women why some 400 pound chubbo gamer with oozing zits isn't attractive. The women will recoil in horror from the mental image before they even can formulate a verbal response.

That doesn't mean those fat/ugly people shouldn't treated with respect, but people aren't going to be attracted to them no matter how much marketing is done around that.

Older people in general are less attractive. IDK about you, but I dread aging. Sure, it beats the alternative, but there's no way I'd expect women to look at me in 30 years vs. now (or when I was in my 20s) and see the grey haired, wrinkly guy who lost a bunch of muscle mass through aging as equally attractive to me in my youth. Relationships are about the connection with the other person being deeper than physical appearance, but the physical appearance is still important for things to get started. You go through the decline together, but you always see them as you did when you met, just evolved.

Disabled women often lack capability to do things in a desired lifestyle. I love playing sports, my wife loves to dance. Neither of us could do that with someone non-ambulatory. And mental disabilities can be extremely difficult to work around, so most people wouldn't enjoy that.

Trans women are incapable of gestating life, which despite popular narratives, is still something most men aspire to. And most men are attracted to confident femininity, which especially for trans people who don't pass, doesn't exist in those people. And most straight guys aren't interested in anyone who either currently or previously ever lived as a man or boy.

Is the Red Pill actually trying to help men find partners, or is it only trying to help them find one very specific type of partner?

Historically, it was trying to help them understand women's attraction so that men could make decisions for themselves about these sorts of things, before it got co-opted by whiny blackpillers-in-denial who think griefing women to have sex with them is a valid mating strategy.

[–]bondepartOG Red Pill Woman [score hidden] 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Logos1789Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-Shes-A-Carnivalbitch im back & my ass got bigger, fuck my ex you can keep dat.♀ 3 points4 points5 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JollyRoger66689Purple Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lenovo_Driverman: blue cuz red pilled dudes dont get laid -1 points0 points1 point 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IgorXYBl* Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chamomilecloudRed Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 1 week ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]sourneck 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lenovo_Driverman: blue cuz red pilled dudes dont get laid -2 points-1 points0 points 1 week ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]chamomilecloudRed Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 1 week ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lenovo_Driverman: blue cuz red pilled dudes dont get laid 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]chamomilecloudRed Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lenovo_Driverman: blue cuz red pilled dudes dont get laid -1 points0 points1 point 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Zoya_The_DestroyahPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yourfavoriteblackguyMan: Meet me half way pill 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lenovo_Driverman: blue cuz red pilled dudes dont get laid 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zoya_The_DestroyahPurple Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 week ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lenovo_Driverman: blue cuz red pilled dudes dont get laid 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Zoya_The_DestroyahPurple Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChildrenCar0 points 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Afraid_Fondant_7903BlackPill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 week ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]yourfavoriteblackguyMan: Meet me half way pill 1 point2 points3 points 1 week ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Afraid_Fondant_7903BlackPill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]silly_discus1 point 1 week ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lemon_geckoWoman (blue). I adopted the bear -1 points0 points1 point 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]growframeNo Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 1 week ago (0 children) | Copy Link