TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • 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/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/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • 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 Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

David Mamet, celebrated playwright, dropping some red pill truth

RPstudent

March 14, 2014
37 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
Archived from /r/TheRedPill

r/TheRedPill is a subreddit for discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/TheRedPill archive

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

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title David Mamet, celebrated playwright, dropping some red pill truth
Author

RPstudent

Upvotes 37
Comments 72
Date March 14, 2014 2:47 PM UTC
(12 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/20elgn/david_mamet_celebrated_playwright_dropping_some/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/david-mamet-celebrated-playwright-dropping-some.230775
https://theredarchive.com/post/230775
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill
Top posts by RPstudent

[Humor} The Husband Store Joke illustrates the truth of Hypergamy

66 upvotes
August 6, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Let's legalize prostitution because it will help sex workers, not because it will improve conditions for men

21 upvotes
August 1, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

The Fallacy of Ethical Game

16 upvotes
August 12, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Re-Defining the Alpha Male

9 upvotes
October 4, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

The Alpha Widow's Lament

4 upvotes
August 21, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Anti Fat-Shaming Forces have a Scalp

1 upvotes
August 12, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Men Eat Meat

0 upvotes
October 21, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Comments

[–]Grainslol 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

“A healthy society helps a young man or woman matriculate. It says, ‘Off you go into something in which you’ll be judged.’ Then, the fear of matriculation is gradually replaced by the physical memory of accomplishment. So, little by little, it gets easier.”

This was my favorite line. This is why you shouldn't sit around and smoke pot all day and play xbox. You will cave in. You have to go accomplish. One of the articles on the front page is about male insecurity. The remedy to male insecurity is personal accomplishment.

[–]RPstudent[S] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

well said. Our insecurity is born of our thirst for accomplishment. We doubt ourselves because we inherently understand that to be men we must prove ourselves

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The second I got my CDL to drive 18 wheelers I felt like a champ that none could stop.

You are so right in this /u/RPstudent

Whenever I reflect back on (what so far are few) my accomplishments. I feel like there ain't shit that could touch me.

[–]1sailorJery0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

what do you do when you don't have anything in particular that you want to accomplish?

[–]RPstudent[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It depends.

If you haven't determined your mission, then do so. Nothing is more important to a man's self-actualization.

If you have determined your mission and have largely succeeded at it, then you need to discover new ideas, new objectives and grow yourself to achieve them.

I'd recommend this post from Danger & Play. I agree with the assertion that we have six categories of needs into which all our needs can be classified.

  1. Certainty
  2. Uncertainty
  3. Significance
  4. Connection
  5. Growth
  6. Contribution

Wherever you feel least fulfilled is where you need to undertake the next leg of your mission. We can never be fulfilled entirely. Alexander may have wept when he surveyed all the lands under his dominion for their were no more worlds to conquer. I'm not there yet. I suspect you aren't either.

[–]RPstudent[S] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Of particular note:

Christopher Hitchens writes in his memoir that his mother taught him, “There is nothing worse than boring people.” The worst sin, therefore, of America’s slouch into slovenliness might be that it creates a culture of boredom.

Less drive, aggression, and energy lead to less excitement, fun, and variety. If there is one element of life that should forever live with immunity to boredom it is sexuality, yet America has managed, against all the odds, to make sex boring. Pop culture’s predictable vulgarity, along with young Americans’ rejection of romance and fear of intimacy, leads to laughable events like “Sex Week”, a sexually instructive and controversial event that takes place annually at college campuses across the country.

Takeaway: by being dynamic, aggressive, and driven you will fill your life with more excitement, fun and variety. That's your work life, your social life, your sex life. Up your inner game, and do not be boring.

I'll leave you with a quote from one of my favorite Mamet characters, Blake in Glengarry Glen Ross:

Go and do likewise gents. Money's out there. You pick it up, it's yours. You don't, I got no sympathy for you.

*edit - had a semi-colon in "that's" rather than an apostrophe

[–]meatp1e2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because it's fuck or walk.

[–]strimpboi0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Put that coffee down!

[–]heist_of_saint_graft4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

“I remember as a young man looking at my father, a successful businessman, and thinking, ‘I don’t know anything. How am I going to matriculate into society and become self-reliant?’” Mamet said. “A healthy society helps a young man or woman matriculate. It says, ‘Off you go into something in which you’ll be judged.’ Then, the fear of matriculation is gradually replaced by the physical memory of accomplishment. So, little by little, it gets easier.”

It is the well-intentioned, but destructive attempt to assuage the fear of matriculation, and the lack of incentive to prove one’s worth, competence, and skill, that have created a culture of conformity, weakness, and banality. “If one tries to save the young from the rigors and traumas of life, you’re saving them from life,” Mamet said.

Excellent share. Mamet is one of my five all-time favorite writers. Check out his plays "Sexual Perversity in Chicago" and "Oleanna" for some RedPill gems.

[–]RPstudent[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

excellent observations from you and /u/Grainslol on the same passage.

The need to accomplish, to push yourself and to be pushed by your peers, your competitors and a society that will judge you rigorously is necessary

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Glad I read through that. One of the best articles I've read in a while.

[–]RPstudent[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thought so as well.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

David Mamet worked on The Shield, which is a Shakespearean tale of dark triad cop Vic Mackey. I'd highly recommend The Shield as a RP show.

[–]RPstudent[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely loved The Shield. Fantastic RP show.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The pilot has an excellent example of alpha fux beta bux in the first episode with Dutch and Vic hitting on Sopher with different styles and naturally, different results.

[–]RPstudent[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Dutch was a great example of a lower beta male, especially the episodes with Hiatt and Garces.

[–]foghorn192 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why aren't most of Mamet's screen adapted works not avilable on Netflix?

[–]Endorsed Contributornyrp4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It is the well-intentioned, but destructive attempt to assuage the fear of matriculation, and the lack of incentive to prove one’s worth, competence, and skill, that have created a culture of conformity, weakness, and banality. “If one tries to save the young from the rigors and traumas of life, you’re saving them from life,” Mamet said.

I would want to train my children to grow up to prove their worth and be worthy. What Mamet is talking about here is a frighteningly popular viewpoint. All the moreso because it does seem well-intentioned. But it is a motherly good intention that needs a fatherly push to be rightly balanced.

[–]foghorn19 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What the fuck is a "motherly good intention"?

[–]RPstudent[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link

maternal nurturing

[–]Endorsed Contributornyrp2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A mother trying to protect her children from danger.

[–]MrMontage2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

On the topic of RP playwrights, Donald Margulies touches on a lot of RP ideas in his play "Dinner With Friends" - an incredible quick read.

[–]RPstudent[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for the tip

[–]Endorsed Contributornyrp6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

when your country is doing what all great civilizations have done, which is to try to use its wealth to eradicate human nature.

feminism, gay marriage, etc.

[–]RPstudent[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's just a goldmine of fantastic observations, isn't it?

[–]Endorsed Contributornyrp1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It makes me want to go see more of his plays. Love it when articulate people spit truth after truth.

[–]RPstudent[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Same. I remember wanting to see Race when it debuted on Broadway in 2009. Never got around to it.

[–]heist_of_saint_graft3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

James Spader was in it. Spader + Mamet = RP two-headed monster.

[–]1sailorJery4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

gay marriage is human nature, as much as any marriage is

[–]Endorsed Contributornyrp-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (42 children) | Copy Link

I mean, I think an institution that normally produces children and one that never ever does can be fairly seen as unequal

And I don't see why one would assume that marriage, which has existed from the beginning of human civilization to the present is as much a part of human nature as something that never existed until 11 years ago. That would immediately ring alarm bells for me that it doesn't have the same kind of root in human nature.

[–]1sailorJery3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

You're failing to acknowledge that marriage derived from pair bonding in the social hominids. To that end same sex coupling has been an institution as long as humans have existed. Deferring to societal acceptance is just arbitrary nonsense.

[–]Endorsed Contributornyrp-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

You're failing to acknowledge that marriage derived from pair bonding in the social hominids.

One should definitely not believe that. Pair bonding? There were some Freudian counselors in 10,000 BC?

People were made to stay together for babies. They fucked who they wanted, or who they could; marriage was a social order institution for the raising of children and management of the household.

Pair bonding? In ancient Sumeria? In the primeval forests and huts of Europe? You think these life-long social contracts, enforced by legal authorities was based on pair bonding?

Fucking derived from pair bonding. Marriage? No way.

The concept gay didn't even exist for millennia and millennia, and still doesn't exist in many parts of the world. Not everyone who gets his dick off in other men is "gay".

[–]1sailorJery3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

lol, pair bonding is a biology term, not a psychological one. settle down.

[–]Endorsed Contributornyrp-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

haha... laughter and good times all around friend :)

Pair-bonding is a term coined in the 1940s that is frequently used in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology circles

If it's biological and not psychological, it undermines your argument even more because the only biological union that can take place is between a man and a woman. So, from a biological perspective, gay marriage (and marriage is not biological either, so you're really doing yourself a disservice by defending yourself through biology) is utterly nonsensical. Or at the very different, since penises and vaginas biologically work together... and in two men, the biological reproductive pairing is what exactly?

[–]1sailorJery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I too read the wiki article, and it's a biology term, that it is used in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology is irrelevant to the point. From a reproductive biological perspective SSM doesn't make sense. But pair bonding is not dependent on that factor. What do you mean exactly when you use the phrase "biological union"?

[–]Endorsed Contributornyrp-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What do you mean exactly when you use the phrase "biological union"?

Two organisms uniting biologically. There's only one place where two unite as one.

I too read the wiki article, and it's a biology term, that it is used in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology is irrelevant to the point.

..."The term pair bond originated in 1940 in reference to mated pairs of birds. It is a generic term signifying a monogamous or relatively monogamous relationship in either humans or animals."

It's both biological and social; my point in referencing Freud was just to say that you are claiming that pre-historic humans initiated marriage not for social reasons, but because of this post-Freudian analysis of mating. Pair bonding, whether biological, social, or in between is not why marriage came to exist. If so, friends, families, brothers, sisters, and gays, would have all been married whenever they formed close bonds.

[–]1sailorJery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What evidence is there of pre-historic humans initiating marriage at all? You may have already stated it, but why did marriage come to exist on your view, and what is your evidence of it? Are you familiar with the Native American societies that existed before the European colonization? *and gays make biological unions happen pretty sufficiently, don't make me link a video.

edit:*addition

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

gays make biological unions happen pretty sufficiently, don't make me link a video.

They don't unite.

[–]1sailorJery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

The concept of gay has existed for thousands of years. As long as humans have existed there have been gays.

[–]Endorsed Contributornyrp-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

nope. someone you've talked to has rewritten history for you and you haven't done your own research.

Sodomy's been around for quite a while, but "gay" has not.

[–]1sailorJery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

Please elaborate as to the difference.

[–]Endorsed Contributornyrp1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

Gay is a political identity.

Sodomy is the act of putting a dick in a butt.

Men who fuck men in prison are not gay.

Some "gays" don't put dicks in the butt.

The gay identity has not been around forever. Sodomy, pretty close.

Even the Greeks and Romans did not have a word for gay. Gay itself only became a word meaning homosexual until the 20th century. And homosexual was only a descriptive term from the late 19th Century.

For a long time there were identified "effeminate men". But the concept of a "queer community" that comprises all non-"heteronormative" sexual preferences or orientations, is extremely new. "Orientation" only being developed as a theory and not a very well biologically-supported one under political pressure.

Overall, my understanding is that what we call "sexuality" was a largely private affair through most of humanity. Only sex that fell in line with the reproductive order was recognized as legitimate for the most part. The rest were just behaviors that were seen as suboptimal or shameful by society.

Today, we categorize and label people BY their sexual acts, which is a brand new perspective on human sexuality, historically speaking, and very very political. Gay, lesbian, queer, trans, all exist politically.

Sodomy is just putting something up a butt.

[–]1sailorJery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Just like heterosexual sex has been around but not "straight". Of course that's true, I was commenting on past events with modern words. You're toeing the line of an etymological fallacy. *So when I say the concept of gay has been around, I mean that gay acts have been happening. Not that a society had a specific label for it. *edit: addition

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just like heterosexual sex has been around but not "straight"

exactly...

You're toeing the line of an etymological fallacy.

No. That's not what this is. If I were talking about gay people being happy because gay originally meant happy, that would be an etymological fallacy.

What I'm saying is that you are confusing a political category with a sexual category.

[–]sailorJery1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You cited the origin of the word not having a basis in history, I'm saying the word could be accurately used to describe relations back then, it just wasn't. Your original point that SSM is counter to human nature seems to fail at this point as you've admitted gay sex has been happening for millenia. How can SSM be counter to human nature if humans naturally have gay sex?

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm saying the word could be accurately used to describe relations back then

No, it's can't. Gay is a political word. Not a sexual word.

If you wanted to look at the historical record, there's as much or more prohibitions on "gay sex", than humans having gay sex. So your argument on human nature, would actually be: it is human nature to stigmatize same-sex relations if we're just basing our argument on things humans do or have done.

NONE OF THIS has any relationship to gay marriage.

[–]sailorJery1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

gay means homosexual. This is not something you can reasonably argue against.

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Words have power. And political operatives know this. That's why the word has so strongly come to be joined in people's mind that they can't discern them. It has been done so by design.

As I straight man, I can have a homosexual kiss, meaning a kiss with a member of my sex, another man.

But that is not the same as having a gay kiss, because a gay kiss assumes that my identity is gay. And I kiss a member of the same sex because of that attraction--which is not just an attraction but part of my identity, which is what you apparently have been taught to believe.

You're fully blue pill on the gay thing. But I welcome you to question what you've been taught when you're ready.

I don't know how old you, probably on the younger side. But older peopl can remember when there wasn't really a fixed "gay identity". The historical memory of that has been erased for political reasons.

[–]sailorJery1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You don't seem to know the meaning of the words you're using. Homosexuality refers to attraction. I'm old enough to know bigotry when I read it. You don't like SSM I get it, but you have no basis in rationality for that position. Call me all the names you want son.

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Homosexuality refers to attraction

No. It refers to the same sex.

I'm old enough to know bigotry when I read it.

Another millennial's been taught by society to spot the guilty bigot. Well done.

[–]sailorJery1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes attraction of the same sex. Another bigot that hasn't used reason to achieve his position and so the application of it in a discussion with him is useless, or as Thomas Paine noted, "like administering medicine to the dead"

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes attraction of the same sex.

No! The word homosexuality has no inference of attraction.

Otherwise homosexual attraction would be redundant.

What you're saying is not how you use the word. One doesn't say: "I am feeling a homosexuality." You would say you feel a homosexual attraction. Because the word homosexuality does not contain the notion of attraction in it.

All these linguistic shortcuts have been made to normalize "gay sex".

[–]sailorJery1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, gay sex is normal. That's the point

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's normal in the sense that it happens. Murder and war are normal parts of human nature too.

But not every kind of sex that can happen is celebrated by marriage. One night stands are normal. There are not one night marriages. Pedophilia is normal. There are not pedophiluac marriages.

The social institution is not defined by any mode of human sexual behavior.

In fact, lifelong sexual commitment to obe partner is NOT normal. Institutions are made to normalize it.

Is your argument that any kind of sex is grounds for marriage?

Edit: historically, rape is at least as common as gay sex, why is rape not celebrated as marriage? Hint: is it because a social institution has a formal element that is defined by certain characteristics and not by others? Today we say straight only marriage is discriminatory. Tomorrow, maybe non-sibling marriage is discriminatory. Incest is normal too in the annals of history. If what you're saying is normal means you can't discriminate against it, would you argue for our against sibling marriage (which probably does have a precedent anyway).

[–]sailorJery1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Marriage is not normal no matter the connotation. You seem to agree with that much. So what is your problem with homosexuality? *When I used the term "normal" I meant in the sense that healthy sane people do it. Every other instance you described simply doesn't hold to this.

*edit: additional info

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have no problem with homosexuality.

I believe an ordered society is made by mothers and fathers raising their children--and the state serving the interests of the families who make up the state. I think it's not an easy task and needs all the support possible from society to maintain that order.

I believe that "gay marriage" (as well as subsidized and incentivized divorce) is a way to insert the state inside the natural family (mother, father, child) so that state authority determines the order of society and that interests of the family come second to the interests of the state.

I believe that the state is selling this new system to us not by saying, "Hey, we'll be deciding what family units are ideal and what the rights and duties of family members are, not you!" because that will never work. Rather, they are saying, "Hey! We all believe in equality right? Well, the way that families naturally come about (sexual, biological maternity and paternity) and the way society has protected and enforced that family (marriage) is totally discriminatory and unfair!!! Let's take this slowly--here, first, it's unfair that women suffer from divorce, so we need to make it easier to divorce--not to undermine marriage, but to protect women!!--second, this whole mother/father, husband/wife thing totally excludes 3 whole percent of the population, so we have to get rid of this unfair law that says marriage is a certain thing... it's basically.. kinda like... anything... whatever you want it to be... and while we're at it (in the next 5-10 years...) there's no good reason this arbitrary two-ness exists in marriage. People love and have sex in so many different ways: 3-way, 4-way marriage are totally equal to 2-way marraige. It's not about children anyway, we already established that, so, whoever wants to get married should get married."

Sounds really fair and really fun right?

The problem is... each citizen, each human, DOES still come from one father and one mother. But those roles are now totally divorced from social functions. They're biological, and now that we're an advanced sophisticated species, it doesn't matter who you come from... it just matters that society as a whole (government) meets your needs. It would totally be backwards, patriarchal, even medieval to thing that your biological bearers have any special relationship to you. The government is protecting your freedom to fuck whoever you want. Parents just want to make you grow up with their backwards, heteronormative systems because that heteronormative bias was their way of keeping power. But now that things are fair and equal, children can grow up without strict role models of mothers and fathers. Women don't have to act like women. Men don't have to act like men. We're all so much more free now!!

But... to me, the whole point of TRP is that women's nature and men's nature DOES NOT CHANGE. As far removed as we are from cavemen, that nature is still part of who we are.

To me, "gay marriage" is just one step of trying to deny human nature, and trying to implement a new system so that an aberrant detail of human sexual possibility is grounds for undermining the entire institution that has ordered society... and beyond that--each child deserves to have society do all it can to keep mothers and fathers together and in the lives of their children. Gay marriage is another step towards making children something an adult has a "right to", not a responsibility towards. Instead of normalizing children growing up with their own blood, it normalizes surrogacy and team-parenting from non-biological parents. With the tricks modern medicine has up its sleeve, who knows what the next generation of parenting will look like. Politically, there are more votes in giving adults the non-biological children they want, than in giving children the biological parents they truly have a right to! Guaranteed, no 3-day old would say... take me away from my mother--I'd rather go live with my father and an unrelated gay man because their rights trump mine!

Gay marriage is just one specious argument among many to order society in a way that reduces the power and interest of family--which is where our society is born--in favor of a rule of law that does not respect biology, human nature, or pre-legal human institutions that did a pretty good job over the millennia keeping our tribes progressing.

Ultimately, to me it is an example of "progress" that will in fact pull the rug out from under progress.

The fact that Republicans, corporations, and even most churches have come to suddenly support it in the space of only 3 years shows that they obviously must see that there is a benefit in it for them.

[–]sailorJery1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

3-way, 4-way marriage are totally equal to 2-way marriage.

false. that is not a reasonable conclusion

I believe that "gay marriage" (as well as subsidized and incentivized divorce) is a way to insert the state inside the natural family (mother, father, child) so that state authority determines the order of society and that interests of the family come second to the interests of the state. I believe that the state is selling this new system to us not by saying, "Hey, we'll be deciding what family units are ideal and what the rights and duties of family members are, not you!" because that will never work. Rather, they are saying, "Hey! We all believe in equality right? Well, the way that families naturally come about (sexual, biological maternity and paternity) and the way society has protected and enforced that family (marriage) is totally discriminatory and unfair!!!

They're not saying that marriage is unfair, they're saying it means man&woman and also ssm. Also, pre-European colonization native American societies flout your logic on what constitutes family the definition of a nuclear household. Gender roles are not inherently at risk. Gay marriage doesn't deny human nature any more than traditional marriage. Gay marriage has NO BEARING on keeping mothers and fathers together or being in the lives of their children. Flatly NONE.

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do gay married couples have a right to a child?

Oh... and suddenly I'm supposed to get advice on civilization from a primeval grass hut civilization that couldn't defend themselves and lost their entire continent completely in about a century? Why do I not long to take lessons on society from such giant losers of history?

The fact that they did things differently doesn't flout my logic. But the fact that their society was decimated flouts yours. You understand societies don't survive by default. They need order to advance.

Are there other things you take pride in modeling after 15th century heathens or only assfucking as a social good?

Gay marriage does have a bearing on mothers and fathers being with their child or have you not heard of surrogate wombs?

[–]sailorJery1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm glad I could teach you the word flout. Hollow arguments on your end, I'm tired of your ranting. good day.

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Thank you for conceding

http://i.imgur.com/AG5JQ44.jpg

[–]sailorJery1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I concede that you are imbalanced.

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The Red Pill is bitter. I understand.

[–]sailorJery1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you're not talking red pill theory, you're pontificating right wing ideology. Your position insults the red pill.

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Bro. There are a lot of conservatives in here. Pay attention to the comments. You understand that feminists run almost exclusively left wing? All the praise of single mothers is left wing. Welfare, so you don't have to struggle to improve yourself is left wing.

Edit: also the article starting this thread is about a man who changed from liberal to conservative because he believes it has more truth. And everything he's saying in that article is praised here as Red Pill. He's conservative. Anti-liberal.

[–]sailorJery1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Bro, that's more tinfoil hat wearing, right wing ranting, on your part and not illustrious of conservatism. Certainly not of red pill theory.

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not tin foil stuff. It's the barebones outline of what liberalism supports. I would know. I was a liberal til about 4 years ago. Thought everything was the fault of rich people. Learned accountability and improved my life and could no longer politically support crybabies looking for handouts or for anonymous bureaucracies to play daddy and nanny.

[–]sailorJery1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You sound like you were an under informed liberal. Being that you haven't adequately described any of their positions and instead offered talking head overviews. Every sentence you use to describe liberalism drips with misinformation.

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not interested in a political debate. I made my summary.

[–]sailorJery1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes and it is unfounded, that was my point. you don't seem interested in a debate at all and instead are interested in ranting. edit:additional words

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Also, why would you discriminate against a loving couple adding to their joy and love with a third member of the marriage?

[–]sailorJery1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The institutionalized societal prohibitions are irrelevant to the argument. All that proves is gays have been intentionally subjugated. It is human nature to stigmatize sex. And remember, this was your observation, you are the one who lumped same sex marriage in with feminism. That's a mistake.

[–]nyrp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I mean that gay acts have been happening

Nope. Let's be precise. Homosexual acts have been happening.

A gay act is a parade, and LGBT activism and the like.

Homosexual acts are same sex sexual activity.

The relationship of that to marriage, historically, is all but zero, and anything but equal to the meaning of a social convention developed around reproduction and the ordering of households.

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