664,807 posts

RPW Strategy in Complete Role Reversal, Homosexual Relationships, and Hope for Our Feminist Sisters

by Sy87 | April 26, 2014 | altTRP

3 upvotes

Reddit View

Normally I don't bother watching shitty daytime TV shows, but thats the only thing playing in the waiting room of the office where I work, and this episode of Divorce Court really got my attention since I've been thinking about RP theory a lot lately.

Video Summary: In this episode, a homosexual man and a homosexual woman end up falling in love and end up in a relationship lasting a few years. Now while I have my doubts about the origins of the relationship and if it is possible, for the sake of the discussion, lets say that this is what happened. The man, takes up the role of the feminine/submissive partner and the woman takes the role of the leader and provider.

While neither are perfectly RP or BP, both have distinct actions and attitudes from both camps.

RP actions from the man:

  • Puts extra effort into his appearance (I'm pretty sure he is wearing eye-liner.
  • Takes care of cooking/cleaning/child raising.

BP actions from the man:

  • Using "on a break" as an excuse to cheat.
  • Letting other men orbit him for selfish gains.

RP actions from the woman:

  • Working outside of the home.
  • Keeping game on to attract other women thus keeping pressure on her mate.

BP actions from the woman:

  • She certainly could not maintain frame.

This made me think that as long as the man does not become resentful (which I don't think happened to the man in the episode) a complete role reversal could work within RPW theory since it would be keeping in line with the Captain/First Mate dynamic.

Which brings me to the touchy subject of our Feminist Sisters. I think they could find happiness in the captain role, as long as they are not hypocritical about their desires. And by that I mean, they don't complain about women's rights in one breath and then in the next talk about how they are waiting for a man who is going to buy them designer shoes. If a woman is going to find happiness in the role of the leader, she must own every aspect of it, not just the points that favor her. She must also find a man who is willing to play the role of the First Mate, which may be a harder task, but certainly not an impossible one.


Post Information
Title RPW Strategy in Complete Role Reversal, Homosexual Relationships, and Hope for Our Feminist Sisters
Author Sy87
Upvotes 3
Comments 13
Date 26 April 2014 04:37 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit altTRP
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/163333
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/altTRP/comments/241f22/rpw_strategy_in_complete_role_reversal_homosexual/
Similar Posts

TRP terms found in post
Click to open them on Dictionary

  • frame
  • orbiter
  • provider
  • last minute resistance
  • ons
  • 2 more...
Comments

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy

Lets address the feminist subject first. Feminism is in no way about enjoying a dominant role. Feminists demand to be given that allowance, they'd like you to think they can be dominant, but its in no way their desire. Women simply don't know what they want. This is evidenced by the fact that as soon as they get the "nice guy" they asked so loudly for they get bored and move on. Most women would be instantly turned off by the idea of a submissive man. Feminists are not butch lesbians (Though butch lesbians can certainly be feminists).

As for role reversal, its an interesting concept, but I don't buy it. Flatly I don't see how there could be sufficient attraction there. I mean, lets just say we dropped the physical aspect all together and go by masculine traits vs feminine traits. No mater how butch your lesbian gets, shes still going to be less masculine than most guys. No matter how femme your gay guy gets, hes still going to be more masculine than most women. The idea that there could be such a wide differential between the two of them that there was real attraction strains the imagination.

Your analysis is very interesting however in that you identify attractive traits (RP) for each role. Cooking, cleaning, child rearing and other traditionally feminine roles are not blue pill or beta if they fit your role. If your partner or future one night stand finds those traits attractive, use them to build attraction.This is exactly the sort of thing that this sub is here to discuss. The men on RP proper play only one role full time: top. Talking about alternative strategies is what we're all about.

Thanks for being the first submitter to this sub!

[–]Sy87[S] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy

Thanks for being the first submitter to this sub!

No problem! This is very interesting stuff, I just wish it was more active up in here.

they'd like you to think they can be dominant, but its in no way their desire.

To me this screams of solipsism. How can you so blatantly say all women want one thing and not another? And to clarify, my argument isn't NAWALT. Its that a woman's want is no less valid even if a few minutes later, she wants something else.

This is evidenced by the fact that as soon as they get the "nice guy" they asked so loudly for they get bored and move on.

This is a trope I see a lot of in movies and stand-up routines. But not something I see in real life on a day to day basis. I do think its harder for a nice guy to get noticed by girls in the first place, but I have never in real life met a girl who broke up with a guy because he was "too nice".

Most women would be instantly turned off by the idea of a submissive man.

But not a "good" feminist (the un-hypocritical one). Which is really the overall argument I am trying to make.

The idea that there could be such a wide differential between the two of them that there was real attraction strains the imagination.

I think it is less about the woman actually becoming masculine and more about her taking the captain's role. Sure this would require her to wear a masculine hat, and work hard to put it to good use. The man might still be attracted to her feminine traits, but relies on her masculine traits to move himself forward. And clearly there was enough attraction (from out of no where it seems) with the couple in the video to last them a few years, even though both are more androgynous than in their respective corners.

If your partner or future one night stand finds those traits attractive, use them to build attraction.

This is a really interesting point that I have not seen come up on TPR. But this was originally written for RPW, and HEY THATS OUR JOB!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy

How can you so blatantly say all women want one thing and not another?

Alright, so its evident that you've not read anything on the red pill. Literally the entire premise of these subs is that what is attractive to women can be known and is predictable.

[–]Sy87[S] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy

What is attractive to women is not necessarily what they want. A woman can make the conscious decision to go with something less attractive because it makes it easier for her to get what she wants. I.E. Beta Bux. To the extreme, that means role reversal.

[–]redpillschool 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy

A woman can make the conscious decision to go with something less attractive because it makes it easier for her to get what she wants.

Yes, but she cannot make the conscious decision to be attracted to it.

[–]Sy87[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

Yes. So whats your point?

[–]redpillschool 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy

I can eat salad because I believe it's healthier. I can choose salad over a hamburger. But that doesn't mean my taste in food has changed, it only means I'm aiming for a different goal.

A woman can decide (out of necessity or experimentation) that she wants to date somebody new and different, perhaps a beta. That doesn't mean she can force herself to be attracted to him, and all the downfalls of being in a relationship with somebody who is not attracted to you apply: cheating/boredom/depression/divorce.

[–]Sy87[S] -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy

and all the downfalls of being in a relationship with somebody who is not attracted to you apply: cheating/boredom/depression/divorce.

I think that if the want is strong enough, it can hold the relationship together. Most women find Channing Tatum, but they don't drop their current SO's to go date him, because they WANT something attainable and sustainable. Want can be stronger than attraction.

[–]redpillschool 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

The current divorce rate would suggest either that's not true, or nobody wants it strong enough.

[–]Sy87[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Since the divorce rate is not 100%, I would say that want is strong enough to hold most women in a relationship.

A woman will simply always go for the most attractive person that will give her what she wants.

For example, if a woman hits the wall and picks up a beta provider, a woman wouldn't risk cheating on him with an unstable alpha no matter how attractive she finds him. Because what she wants is marriage/family life in the last minute while she can have it. However, once those wants are met, her wants will change, and she once again may be looking for more alpha qualities.

To bring it back to the OP, if a woman wants to be in control of a relationship, if she can find a man willing to let her lead, then she can be satisfied in that relationship as long as her wants are being met and don't change.

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

I think there would be too much cognitive dissonance for a feminist to be happy in this kind of arrangement.

A feminist, working from her political ideals, would be okay with being the primary breadwinner and letting the man stay home and raise kids. But a feminist is also a woman, with some biologically determined needs. Feminists are always quick to use the term "man up". As much they say want flexible gender roles, they revile a man that is submissive. Their male feminist white knights? Totally reviled.

My experience watching this in action in a relationship is limited, but I have seen it once. I was a coworker and friend of a female teacher (a feminist) whose boyfriend was a perpetual student and hadn't worked a day in his life. She always made a huge show of how she was in control and always the super responsible one. But she resented it. All of that resentment would pour out onto other people around her because she couldn't bring herself to admit that she hated her home-life arrangement. She did, however, use lots of passive aggressive insults to her boyfriend in public. This dynamic continued even after they had a baby and the dad had more responsibilities in taking care of the baby while she worked.

As much as, on one level, she wanted to believe that a women should be the chief, she really needed something else. And she was embarassed because she knew all her friends thought the arrangement was weird. Also, she cheated on him several times and was always flirting with alphas. I'm not sure the baby was even his.

[–]Sy87[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

A friend of mine was in a similar situation, which is what inspired the feminist part of this post. However in her situation, her bf was completely useless and did not keep up with his part of this relationship (housekeeping, cooking, and whatnot). And I think that was why she became resentful, rather than him just not working.

However, while she was happy in this relationship, she was very happy. And when she was unhappy, she didn't at all cheat on him or chase other men. Though she did let her resent show in other ways such as letting herself go.

So I guess my question would would, how much of a perpetual student was your friend's boyfriend? Was he using it as an excuse to not keep up his end of the deal and possibly that was what went wrong...



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

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter