Settle in fellas, pull up a chair, get yourself a cup of whatever you drink (I recommend white tea with no sugar) and get comfortable. This is a long post., and there's no TL;DR because I can't condense it enough for it to be worth it.

So I got down to reading that EMSK post for about the 10th time, because there was always something a little... off about it in my mind, something I couldn't place, and if I feel like that, I know I'm not the only one. Now, other people have responded to this post, particularly u/StuffDoer's popular (and rightly so) post a month or so ago, but I couldn't find a post that actively went through it point by point and talked about each one. Some people might think that the post has been done to death and just wish we'd stop going back to it, but I thought that something like this could be of benefit to newer people who're still wavering.

Also, this post deals more with LTR-oriented stuff, as the original EMSK doesn't talk about PUA stuff, so my response won’t either.

To give context to this post, here's a link to the EMSK post on Archive.Today, and here is the same post in redditlog.


TL;DR: It's unfair that men suffer from sexual strategy, but that doesn't make it okay to flip it and make women suffer instead. No one deserves to be emotionally abused.

For the record, I disagree with u/TalShar. Nobody deserves to be abused full stop, but that doesn't make it "unfair" that men suffer from sexual strategy, because it's not applied unfairly. The application of sexual strategy is universal, across men and women (and others), and I can't think of a fairer system. What we're saying is that it's unfair that men aren't taught about it - it's just expected that they'll know when the teaching of such principles is being discouraged as "unfair" (ironic, isn't it?) and the teachers derided as "stuck in the past". That is where the suffering comes from.

[Edits 3 and 5 removed because they're not relevant].

Now, let's get started.

Yes, let's.

Foreword: I realize that this isn't your typical EMSK entry, but I view it as essential advice to any man who wants to be happy in a heterosexual relationship. Nothing against men who want to be in a non-hetero relationship either; this is just addressing those who may be getting pulled in by the "Red Pill" philosophy.

Ok, we're getting off on the right foot here. u/TalShar is laying out his reason for writing this, and also talking about who it applies to. I wish to do the same:

I realise that this might not be your typical Red Pill entry, but I view it as essential advice to any man who has read the EMSK post that spawned it, and was couldn't help but feel that there was still something there in TRP, that they couldn't quite put their finger on, but there nonetheless. This isn't addressing those who are "already red", as it were, though you are of course welcome here. It's simply addressing u/TalShar and those who agreed with his post on what I believe to be the strengths and weaknesses of his post.

For the uninitiated, "Red Pill" is a term co-opted by the types of people who frequent [Link to TRP] (enter at your own risk, lots of lady-hate in there).

Alright, fair enough, there are quite a few posters here still getting over the anger phase, and it's understandable that they want to express their feelings. Personally, I do think that we could do with toning it down. A post that is just venting is all well and good, but unless it's contributing something worthwhile and not just "women are all whores and I hate them", I don't think it belongs in TRP. Not sure where it could be directed (except toward lifting), but we need to keep it a bit lower-key.

It's a reference to The Matrix, in which Morpheus offers Neo a choice of one of two pills... a blue pill, which will make him forget and allow him to contentedly go back to a life of brainwashed mediocrity, or a red pill, which will wake him up to an unpleasant truth but grant him great power.

Well, yes. This is the intent of the name of the subreddit. It's a little tongue-in-cheek, as we explicitly don't believe it gives you "great power" (<facetious> that's NoFap's domain</facetious>), but do believe that it gives you the information needed to do your best in the world in which we live. TRP doesn't believe in an "alternate world" that you access by accepting it, it believes in "pulling back the curtain" of the world you live in.

The idea of the "Red Pill" as is commonly used now, is that men are constantly losing a war of what [link to TRP] users refer to as "Sexual strategy." Essentially the premise is that women have what we want (sex), and they can make us bend over backwards to get it. They have us wrapped around their little fingers. Those who "take the Red Pill" awaken to their true male potential and learn to get what they want without having to submit and forfeit their masculinity.

I don't see how this is a bad thing. According to the premise of TRP, refusing to let others take advantage of you is a good thing, and women have been taking advantage of men who don't know better is what TRP prevents.

The subreddit is rife with success stories from men who claim they've gotten what they want out of their relationship. One guy claims (and I'm paraphrasing), "She does my laundry and dishes, we have sex whenever I want, and she knows that I don't belong to her, and if she ever slips up or takes me for granted, she’s gone."
It's not that I doubt what he's saying. I believe it. The problem is, what he's describing is emotional abuse.

Now on this account I must disagree, because there's not enough data. The poster didn't mention, and TalShar isn't trying to find out, why a woman would tolerate such a situation. It couldn't be that she's happy with it, could it? It couldn’t be that she's getting the benefits of an LTR with a guy who she genuinely likes, and sees doing the dishes/laundry as an act of love? Maybe she's a woman who's willing to work at a relationship, and the poster hasn't discussed what he brings to the table (and you better believe he's bringing something, else she'd be out of there faster than a hamster out of cage) The other thing I wanted to focus on from this paragraph is:

if she ever slips up [snip], she’s gone.

TRP teaches that this applies equally to males. Failure to hold frame, showing weakness, giving in to her shit-tests, all of these will lead to her becoming less attracted to you, and once it gets to a certain point, leaving. Is it emotional abuse to say that you'll drop a woman if she doesn't perform? Maybe, but since a "slip up" is likely to be something major (like kissing another man) and not "I haven't ironed your shirts because I had a visit from my friend that took longer than I anticipated", it's hardly the massive issue u/TalShar makes it out to be.

What the Red Pill advocates is taking advantage of common weak points in the typical female psyche (most of which are present in your typical male psyche as well; everyone has weak points, and most of them are common to all humans, though some are more pronounced in one sex or another) to put pressure on women and bend them to your will. Users advise doing things like keeping her guessing, changing what you want and then berating her for not keeping up with your whims.

Yup. TRP advocates taking advantage of women to bend them to your will. It absolutely says "the best basis for a good relationship is Stockholm Syndrome". It doesn't say "she does it because you make her happy and she wants to reciprocate". When we tell people to "Be clear, but most importantly, be *decisive. Make a plan and stick to it", we are absolutely advocating "changing what you want" and "whimsy".

Several advise that you never show affection for her unless she’s done something to please you.

Yes and no. Positive reinforcement is great, but we don't say "don't send her random little gifts as surprises". I've never once seen a post on TRP saying "women hate to receive a bouquet of flowers without doing anything to deserve it." Also, is u/TalShar saying "never initiate" or "you should show affection even when she's not behaving"? For the record, I think that they aren't, but the statement was a little ambiguous (that could be our fault too).

You break them like you'd break an animal.

My mind is struggling to comprehend where this came from. We advocate treating her like you would a child - gently, rewarding good behaviour, and making it clear through our lack of reaction that she won't get anywhere with bad behaviour. This is akin to saying "You must break a child like you would an animal". No. Just no.

And it's damned effective in some cases. It'll get you what you want if you do it right.

Including if what you want is a stable, happy, loving marriage. Thanks go to Ian Ironwood and Dalrock for proving that TRP and marriage are more than compatible, certainly more than our detractors (and some of our own) claim. It's just a shame that "doing it right" isn't what u/TalShar thinks it is.

But you shouldn't want that, and here's why.

...I shouldn't want to get what I want? I shouldn't want to know how to get what I want? I shouldn't want to know how to keep a woman happy in the long term? u/TalShar re-frames it as "red pillers abuse people to get what they want", but that's not what we do. Sure, there are people like that, but that's because there are people like that in every walk of life. It's not that TRP makes X% of its readers assholes, but that X% of people generally are assholes, and this applies to TRP as much as anywhere else.

The Red Pill subreddit is also full of "Blue Pill Stories," in which guys get emotionally abused by their girlfriends. They lament being used for their money, their homes, their emotional support, what have you, and then being left when they weren't "Alpha" enough to keep their girlfriends around. It's a shame, it really is. Nobody deserves that kind of abuse.

Ok, it's emotional abuse when women use a man for commitment without providing sex and leave when they've had their fill. That much we agree on. I also think we could do with reducing the number of "blue pill" stories we have submitted - yes, it's great that you've found another example of a man who's behaviour is something we want to avoid. I'll just add it to the rest of the examples we already have.

"Nobody" includes women, though. What the Red Pill strategy does is flip that power dynamic on its head. When it works, now it's the man who is in power and the woman who is suffering. The man gets the sex without having to commit any real effort to the relationship, aside from making sure that his SO's emotions are brutally crushed on a regular basis. You haven't fixed anything, you've only made sure it's your SO who's suffering and not you.

Ah. Ah. I had wondered when we were going to get to this bit. The whole "Red Pill behaviour makes her suffer" argument. You seem to think that it's a dichotomy - either the woman is in power and the man is suffering, or it's the other way around, and the only other option is what you propose. My rebuttal to this is that there is no reason that the man being the more dominant one (yes, the one "in power", but that phrase doesn't convey the subtleties of a relationship dynamic) necessarily means that the woman will suffer, especially if the man is a proponent of TRP. Additionally, the man most certainly does have to commit effort to the relationship - it's how he keeps her happy (and willing to provide sex). The idea that you, her emotional rock, would attempt to crush her emotions, is beyond absurd. In fact, it's crossing the line between distortion of the facts to fit your agenda (everyone does that) and outright lying about the other side. That's called propaganda, and I am disappointed that you resorted to it.

And the reason she stays is the same reason Blue Pill guys stay in their relationships: They don't want to be alone.

Actually, the reason most Blue Pill guys stay in their relationship appears to be the hope that if they just appease her enough she'll give them more sex. Sure, some stay because they don't want to be alone, but a dog takes care of that quite handily (apart from the sex, you perverts), leaving sex as the only reason that a lot stay - it's because as little as they get now, they've been conditioned to believe that a) this is normal b) they shouldn't ask for more and c) they won't get any at all if they leave, and some is better than none.

And as long as you keep that power dynamic active, you will never know what love is. Because love means that you feel what your lover feels. If she hurts, you hurt. If you hurt her, you feel all of her pain and all of the shame for knowing that you're the one that caused it.

So what you're saying is that if your woman is

If you really love someone, you'll never want to hurt them.

Absolutely true. However, TRP doesn't advocate "hurting" anyone, any more than it advocates "controlling" them.

And make no mistake, that's what the Red Pill is: cold, calculated, systematic emotional torture meant to produce a desired response.

Really? Could you please give evidence of this? I mean, as far as I could tell, that's never been what this sub is. How is making yourself more desirable through working out emotional torture? How is ignoring a woman's attempts to manipulate you emotional torture? If anything, it's refusing to succumb to emotional torture. You know what emotional torture is? When a man deliberately utterly annihilates a woman's self esteem so that she will sleep with him. Treating her like a normal person who doesn't get special treatment until they've earned it is emotional torture? Ye gods, I don't think you know what emotional torture is!

Methods like keeping your prisoner guessing, changing what you want, keeping them off balance, those are all interrogation techniques meant to break your prisoner down on a mental and emotional level and produce a compliant charge.

keeping your prisoner guessing, changing what you want

That sounds suspiciously similar to a shit test to me. As far as I can tell, Red Pill men tend to be forthright about what they want, and it rarely changes. It's the same as what every man wants - regular, passionate sex, loyalty, and love. I'd like to see some evidence of where TRP actually says "the best way to make a woman stay with you is to mentally abuse her and break her will". As far as I was aware, the core tenet of TRP is "You cannot force a woman to want you, but you can make yourself something that she wants." As a way of giving an equivalent example, I personally do not like the texture of cheese. However, if you melt it, the texture changes and I'm fine with it. You cannot force me to like it, but you can change it so I like it. Is this not a self-sacrificing thing to do? To work to change ourselves for the benefit of others (because let's be honest, most of us wouldn't work out if we hadn't realised that women want a guy who does - no matter what TRP says about "do it for yourself", a lot of us started for the female attention) - is that not a triumph of putting the wants of others before your own?

Put quite simply, someone couldn't ever do such a thing to someone they truly loved.

I agree. If you love someone, you won't emotionally abuse them. You will, however, be their rock, their bastion of safety, and their lighthouse in the darkness. You will not attempt to deceive them, nor will you physically abuse them. If you love someone, you will understand how to keep them happy, and TRP equips you to do this.

There is one thing that Red Pill has right. Sexual strategy sucks. But the solution isn't getting better at it than your SO is. The solution is agreeing with one another that you're not going to play the game. If a game is going to always suck for one player, and both players care about one another, they're going to find a better game to play.

Again, no. TRP explicitly doesn't say "sexual strategy sucks". It says "This is what sexual strategy is" and leaves it to us to make value judgements. u/TalShar also assumes that people can "not play the game". In the (slightly mis-remembered, I have no doubt) words of Robert Greene, "You can't choose not to play."

You want a healthy, stable relationship that is going to be rewarding? Here's the secret. Remember that your SO is just as complex, intelligent and vulnerable a human being as you are. She has needs just like you do. While she might place different values on her various needs, while she might express them differently, they're every bit as important to her as yours are to you.

Now, this is interesting, because it's exactly what we say. We acknowledge that women also have needs, but the difference is that they're different to a man's needs. She needs emotional stability, reliability, security and occasionally, for someone else to take the reins completely and let her relax. You might need these things too from time to time, but it can't be from her. It can be your buddies, your parents, your brothers, but not your wife. TIL not putting emotional baggage on someone you love is "mental torture".

Life is a war. But if you want to win it, you and your SO need to be on the same side.

Again, we don't disagree. We just disagree on what will cause her to stick by you.

You don't need to break your girlfriend or wife. You need to talk to them. If they're doing something that hurts you, you need to tell them. And not "I wish you would quit that." Tell them "This hurts me when you do that." If they care about you, they'll take action to prevent causing you pain. To position and strategize to get what you want out of your marriage is to deny your most potent asset: An intelligent human being who cares about you and wants to see you happy above all else, and who wants to be happy alongside you.

Again, you started off promising, and then it all went to hell after the first sentence.

And if you don't have that in your SO, you either need to get to that point or get out. There are many, many worse things than being single. One of them is being in an abusive or emotionally vacant relationship (on either side, abuser or victim). Don't view your time as being single as a sexless desert. View it as a time to grow and realize who you are. You need to be able to define yourself as an individual before you’re ready for a relationship.

Human beings are as diverse as life on this planet. For every type, there is a countertype. There is someone out there for just about everyone. However, none of your relationships will work out in a healthy manner until you realize that women are people too, not animals to be broken. You don't need to be an Alpha. You're not a damned dog. You're a human being. Human beings can communicate complex concepts, rebel against their base instincts to find better ways of doing things, and above all, reflect on their actions and empathize. You don't need to establish dominance, you just need to find somebody that's willing to actively pursue your happiness alongside their own; and you need to be willing to do the same for them. If you're not ready to do that, you're not ready to have a healthy relationship.

There is not "someone out there for just about everyone". There are people who you wouldn't mind spending the rest of your life with, but that sounds a little close to "you'll find someone who loves you for who you are, you don't need to change!" territory, and we all know where that road goes.
I may not be a dog, but I am a social animal, and like all social animals, there is a social heirarchy, with the people on the top taking the lion's share of everything. You also misunderstand the concept of dominance. Sure, it means being the once in charge. It also means being the one with all the responsibility, the one who has to bear the weight of their problems alone, that those under them might be free of such a burden. Dominance is listening to those you lead, because they do have good ideas, and to discount them because you didn't have them is a bad thing.

But there's good news... Something else human beings are good at is changing. You want someone to be willing to change for you, you have to make sure you're willing to change yourself a bit. Everything's a two-way street. Just make sure you're changing for the better. Being willing to change doesn't mean flopping over and doing whatever is asked of you. Here, change is a bad word for this. Be willing to improve yourself. Nobody's perfect. Spot those places that need work (I assure you, they're there, and if you can't spot them, I guarantee the people around you can), and start improving on those things.

This paragraph is pure gold. You must be willing to constantly strive for improvement on your terms. You shouldn't just give in to demands, you should strive to better yourself every day. Nobody is perfect. Accept this. Good stuff, u/TalShar.

In order to have a healthy relationship, you have to be a healthy human being first. A healthy human being doesn't use sexual strategy. You'll only ever have a healthy relationship if both parties refuse to play that game.

Once more, the first five seconds of Save Me express my disappointment. This isn't War Games. This is your high school's PhysEd lessons. You play whether you like it or not, the only thing you get to choose is how well you do, and the first step is to accept that you're playing.

I mentioned earlier that Morpheus's "Red Pill" was originally symbolism for awakening, both to truth and to power, while the "Blue Pill" was a metaphor for staying asleep and maintaining the status quo.
In truth, the Red Pill as they represent it isn't a true awakening at all. It's a capitulation to a false dichotomy. A true awakening is realizing that the people around you are more than just faces, that they all have their own stories, their own thoughts, hopes and dreams, and that they are just as complex as you are. A true awakening is realizing that you don't have to win the fight (and thereby habitually hurt someone you ostensibly care about), or lose it. That you can take your ball and go home.

First off, there is not "fight". There is no "win" (I will address in the next bit). We already know women are as complicated as men are - probably more so. However, what we didn't understand was how they differed, and how to accept and deal with that. TRP does not say "she must give up on her dreams to be with you". TRP does not say "she is worthless except as a silent, submissive, sexthing". TRP does not say "women aren't complicated". TRP says "you're not the only one who has to work at a relationship."

The Morpheus of sexual strategy is offering you two pills: Red and blue. Win sexual strategy, or lose it.

Not really. Sexual strategy is something that "is", not something that you "win" or "lose". Sure, it has precepts for better outcomes (of two otherwise identical men, the richer/more muscular/more confident/taller {delete as appropriate} will be more desirable), but those aren't "win conditions" because you don't "win" sexual strategy.

Punch him in the face and tell him you're not playing his bullshit game.

Once again, there is no "opt out" button. You can punch morpheus all you like, but don't expect things to change because of it.