The Red Pill for Women

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Interestingly put together.

But there's a distinction that needs to be drawn here. The Red Pill is knowledge... it doesn't imply any one particular set of actions.

So while I agree about preferring the man in charge (#8), and I think that this is, to some extent, the natural inclination of both men and women, not everyone is like that, nor do they have to be to take the Red Pill. I don't think that we can lump choices like that in as part of the Red Pill per se.

So, I would say that the Red Pill for women constitutes:

Awareness that there are inherent differences between men and women. Not just physical ones, but behavioural and social ones.
Awareness that there is such a thing as a sexual marketplace, and that people are commodities on that sexual market, each with a specific value.
Awareness that choices have consequences, and that women can follow many different paths, but they must choose. They cannot follow all of them.
Awareness that men are generally the leaders, innovators, and risk-takers, and that many or most women will gravitate towards submissive, follower, or support roles if left to their own devices. If a woman chooses to do otherwise, that path is open to her, but she must expect to forfeit some of the special protection and consideration that women receive, and to have to prove her abilities, if she does so.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

We all speak from where we are coming from.

Since your place in the sexual market is probably best described as "wife and mother", you have no interest in participating in the cock train, and thus no incentive to keep it going.

My role in the sexual market could best be described as "station on the cock railway", so ensuring that many women are riding the train is in my interest.

But what about the women who ride it? Where does their interest lie?

It depends what their goals are. If they wish to be a "wife and mother", it is detrimental. But so is being single in their twenties and building a career. So W&Ms should not only be staying off the cock train, they should be getting married in their early twenties, and therefore not even in the same area as the train tracks.

So if we subtract the W&Ms from the cock train, who's left? Well, women who don't want kids.

What does the cock train do for them? Well, that's obvious, it's a nice, intoxicating supply of alpha male cock. If a woman doesn't want kids, why else would she get married? And if she doesn't want to get married, what's wrong with the train?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

I don't think you'll ever have any problem keeping women on the cock railway, since a lot of blue pill women think they can ride it while "establishing their career", then settle down and have kids with a magical millionaire doctor when they turn 35. ;)

Of course not. But we're exploring the question of whether a RedPill woman might ride the cock train.

It's also hard for me to visualize such a woman because all the single red pill women I know of are dating in order to find long term mates.

Hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster hamster.

I have no access to your examples, so I can't comment on them, but in general, "I am dating to find a long term mate" is the single most common hamsterization that I run across.

One of the red pills that needs to be in our bottle, you see, is the realization that, for women, serial monogamy is promiscuity.

Most women don't go out to nightclubs saying to themselves, "I am going bring some dude home, fuck his brains out, and never see him again, lather rinse repeat".

They say "I am going to dance" (hamster). Then they "meet a really attractive guy" (hamster). Then they fuck him, thinking "this could turn into something" (hamster). Then he either vanishes right away or after a couple of repeats, and they say he "turned out to be a jerk" (hamster).

Lather rinse repeat.

Women can kid themselves that they are not promiscuous so long as they only have sex with one man at a time. And since "at a time" can mean as small a slice of time as they like, they pretty much have to have a threesome with two guys before they are forced to admit they're not just sifting for husband material.

A woman can go through her twenties and rack up a total of, say, 40 guys, all of whom were "boyfriends", "prospective boyfriends", or "finacees".

I almost want to say that women just aren't wired that way, and any that would want that for their whole lives are anomalies... But I don't have any statistics to back that up, only anecdotal evidence, which means just about nothing.

There are plenty of women who want to be promiscuous. The problem is that they can't admit it, because other women will ostracize them for being "sluts".

How do I know this? Because I have met soooooooooooo many women who behave promiscuously and hamsterize that they are monogamous. The hamster lies. But actions always tell the truth.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Pardon my short response to your long post, but I can't get past "going on dates" being hamster.

You've got it slightly backwards.

Let's get back to the part I bolded.

For women, serial monogamy is promiscuity.

In other words, there's no detectable difference between "spending 10 years riding the cock train", and "spending 10 sifting the dating pool for a husband".

It means nothing for a woman to say she is "looking for a husband", because that same statement is used to hamsterize cocktrain-riding.

In either case, her behaviour is the same:

Meet man.
Ride cock.
Repeat 2 as desired.
Split with man.
Goto 1.

So the question of each woman isn't does she ride the cocktrain?

It's which station does she get off at?

A woman who has one partner in her life is getting off the cocktrain at the first station. A virgin bride is getting off the cocktrain at the first station without examining that station first... she has just made her decision to get off, no matter what the station is like, in advance.

A woman who rides the train for ten years because she's "looking for the perfect station", and one who rides the train for ten years "because she's not ready to think about a station yet" are doing the same thing. The only difference is the hamster.

Now, this is complicated by the fact that a woman cannot simply get off the train whenever she wishes. She must have the station's consent to disembark. That requires us to examine the workings of male motivation as well, which is a subject for another post.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

Does pickiness not come into play here?

Yes, it certainly does. I hadn't wanted to talk about that additional complication until we got the basic principle hammered out.

Pickiness matter. But it also matters what you're picky about.

If a woman is red pill, looking for an LTR prospect, and realizes that having a hundred partners isn't really good for long term prospects, she's certainly not gong to put out until she's 1) comfortable with the guy and 2) sure he's not a PUA. Would most PUA's become uninterested if she's not willing to put out by the third date? That's the sense I've gotten from various threads around here.

If she wants to be red pill, and guide her actions accordingly, then she must swallow the bitterest red pill of all (at least for women).

There is no qualitative difference between a PUA and a husband. This is because

Men are only as monogamous as their options. Picking a man who's strictly monogamous means picking a man who can't attract women all that well. Which means her own happiness in, and commitment to, the marriage will suffer in the long run.

Looking to avoid men who are "pump-and-dump specialists" is blue pill, because it's predicated on the blue-pill notion that monogamy is an ideal state for a man, and that men who aren't monogamous are somehow defective or bad.

The truth is that a PUA is nothing but a man who has cracked the code on how to make himself attractive. How he behaves from that point is however he's inclined to behave.

So a red pill woman has two choices... or, rather, a continuum of choice between two poles.

Marry a man who has few or no options other than her... a beta male. To him, a lifelong commitment will seem ideal, because it will secure him access to a female, and protect him (at least somewhat) from having to complete for her attention with other males (a contest he is ill-equipped for).
Marry a man who many females desire... a alpha male. To him, commitment will not seem like such a good idea. After all, he has little trouble securing female attention. Not only will commitment not seem like a good option to him, any particular female wishing to secure his commitment will have to compete with many others.

To secure the first, a woman must keep her legs closed as tightly as possible. The beta male does not wish to compete with a score of former lovers, who were presumably more alpha than he (since they didn't marry her). (In this way, men who care too much about female "purity" are announcing their beta-ness to the world.) Additionally, it will be valuable to hold out for the ring as the price of her sexual affections, since a beta male (and only a beta male) can be controlled by restriction of access to sex.

To secure the second, a woman must fornicate, but carefully and with a plan. If she tries to use commitment as a price for sex, the alpha males she seeks to marry will simply ignore her in favour of sluttier women. She can get alpha males in the sack if she's desirable (and a red pill woman will do everything she can to make herself desirable)... but the hard part is keeping him.

To keep him, she needs to make herself a more attractive option for a saturday night than going out and picking up/dating another woman. If she can do this for the majority of a long series of saturday nights, she's got herself a relationship. If she can hold onto that long enough, it can turn into a marriage... especially if he's ready to have kids.

One path is safe, but with a dubious payoff, the other path is risky, but rewarding on success.

So what is a redpill woman who wants marriage and children to do?

Decide early on if she wants an alpha or a beta male. This will determine her whole strategy.
If she wants a beta, she must be "old fashioned". Keep legs firmly closed. Use sex as a weapon for extracting promises. Basically, all the stuff Mormons want their daughters to do. Not much more to say about this. It's easy to do.

(I won't talk more about strategies for securing beta males. Betas are boring. Boring to be, boring to date, boring to marry, and boring to talk about. )

If she wants an alpha, she must play her cards right. She's going to have to compete with other women, and win, consistently, over a long period of time.

Here are some ways she can do this. She doesn't have to do all of them, but each one will help.

Be pretty. No dancing about this subject. It matters. And if she thinks she can't just make herself prettier, then she hasn't taken the red pill. Hit the gym. Swear off soda and ice cream until you forget what they taste like. Make friends with your stylist and beautician. If lucky enough to have money, see plastic surgeon. Shunning plastic surgery is blue pill.
Be nice. Pretty gets you in bed with alphas, but nice and sweet and cheerful keeps them coming back. And that second one is the difficult part. If you get pumped and dumped a lot, odds are you're pretty but bitchy, obnoxious, or just a pain in the ass.
Make sure he wants kids. Alphas who do not want children have little reason to marry. {Edit: if she doesn't want kids, an LTR with an alpha who doesn't either may be doable. But she shouldn't count on a wedding ring.}
Start young and go old. Older alphas aren't less attractive... if anything, they are more so, because older men are more suave, self-assured, and confident. Now, they'll still have lots of options, but what they won't have is lots of wild oats left to sow, or time before they better start having those kids. A smart red pill woman starts hitting on successful 40 year old men the instant she hits the legal age of consent.
Be a lady in the street and a freak in bed. Alpha males don't want to marry a 30 year old ex-slut, but they certainly don't want a prude, either. They are used to sexual abundance, after all. Be ready and willing to do whatever he wants in bed. It helps to figure out what her kinks are, and screen early for compatible tastes. And she'd better figure this out early... women who want an alpha husband to not have the luxury of three or four years of prudishness before deciding that yes, they liked to be spanked, and they guess they're okay with that after all.
Immediately cease dating any man she doesn't want sex with. If she's not ready at the end of the third date, anyone who hangs around and waits longer is signaling that he's lower in value.
If she wants a man, pursue pursue pursue. Alphas are good at seducing women, but there's still some novelty to being the one that's being chased. She can't be too forward. Remember, "don't put out too easily, or men won't respect you" is advice for getting yourself a nice safe beta... and it's other women who give you that advice.
While we're on the subject, she should NEVER take any advice from other women on how to deal with men. It is in their interest to feed her blue pills.
Most importantly if she can do it... score big points by acknowledging that male cheating doesn't matter. She is looking for a husband and life partner, not an exclusive lover, and while alphas can swap sexual partners for a new one with less effort, one doesn't swap out the woman you live with, who is the mother of your children, very easily at all, no matter one is. If she learns to turn a blind eye, or even, best of all, an openly permissive one, to his occasional taste for novelty pussy, then he won't have to divorce her ass to get some... and he'll feel much more comfortable committing to her.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

So much to unpack here... I don't have has much time to respond here as I want, may have to think about it for a while and maybe blog it. Mind if I quote you? :)

For the most part i agree with you. Upon my first read-through, I bristled pretty hard against the idea of not getting exclusivity with a guy while dating, but I realize that the dating market isn't what it once was a decade ago (Jesus, when did I get so old?). Upon further reflection, I think you're right, a girl just needs to up her game and be able to recognize what she wants and what the odds are of her getting it. It's still sort of an icky thought for me though. I'll ponder it some more.

I have a couple of disagreements though.

1) Plastic surgery, eew. I live in an area where that's fairly common, and I see enough botches that I'd only recommend that if there's some sort of severe problem. And plastic surgery does not age well.

2) I cannot agree that cheating doesn't matter in marriage. I admit I have a moral bias against it in terms of my religion, but it also needlessly complicates marriage. You can't tell a woman not to be jealous of her husband, sorry, I just don't think that's possible for most women. Preselection is essentially all about jealousy. In terms of evolutionary psychology, a woman doesn't want to share her resources. If her husband goes out and gets another woman pregnant (if the other woman pokes holes in the condom, or saves the condom to impregnate herself later, or some other sinister crap, or if the condom breaks, or if the husband is just plain stupid), as a mother she's going to lose a big chunk of the resources for her family to the other woman's child, in child support and the father's time. And oh God the drama. Frankly, a woman would be a fool to be ok with that. Sorry, no, I can't say that's a valid strategy. That's not even getting into the many, many cases of affair that end in divorce because the man gets so heavy into the affair fog that he "falls out of love" with his wife and starts thinking the grass is greener in the other side. Nah, can't agree.

[–]ribbite1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XxXsmok3bluntzXxX4201 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XxXsmok3bluntzXxX4201 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whisper-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I bristled pretty hard against the idea of not getting exclusivity with a guy while dating, but I realize that the dating market isn't what it once was a decade ago

And what it once was, was a temporary condition anyway. If you look further back, that kind of restriction on male sexual adventurousness isn't really that old. Women were expected to throw jealous rages if he was "two-timing" her, but that was on her. Society in general seems to have taken the attitude that men will be men.

Upon further reflection, I think you're right, a girl just needs to up her game and be able to recognize what she wants and what the odds are of her getting it. It's still sort of an icky thought for me though.

That's the bottle of red pills for you. They taste awful sometimes, because they cut through the pretty lies that told us the universe was nice, but they often make us happier in the long run, because when we deal with the universe as it is, we get results, and we never have sit around wondering why things didn't seem to happen "the way they were supposed to".

Plastic surgery, eew. I live in an area where that's fairly common, and I see enough botches that I'd only recommend that if there's some sort of severe problem.

Selection bias. You only see the botches, because the good jobs look natural. I live in a wealthy area of Orange county, and practically everyone past a certain age has had work done. The only reason I haven't had any is that I'm lucky enough not to need it. Well, I did have my teeth straightened. I think that counts.

And plastic surgery does not age well.

No. Why do you think movie actors and actresses age so well? Good genes?

I cannot agree that cheating doesn't matter in marriage.

Some kinds of cheating matter, some kinds don't. I'll go into this more later.

I admit I have a moral bias against it in terms of my religion

Your religion, and pretty much all religions, are nothing but a giant blue pill. Remember that a blue pill is nothing but an attempt to impose a "should" on an "is". The idea behind the notion of a red pill is not just "rejecting feminism", or "questioning gender roles", it's the decision to confront reality as described by whatever evidence we can find, rather than believe cultural myths.

The red pill is a conscious decision to choose "true" over "nice" or "socially acceptable".

This means that we must reject the myths of traditional conservativism as well as those of feminism. And one of those myths is the idea that the universe is an artefact of conscious design, that it was built by some sort of invisible super-wizard, and that this wizard cares deeply about the mating rituals of a bunch of hairless apes.

I mean, let's stop bullshitting each other. This is Santa Claus for adults.

You can't tell a woman not to be jealous of her husband, sorry, I just don't think that's possible for most women.

And yet it was very possible for women of other cultures. Were they biologically different?

If her husband goes out and gets another woman pregnant (if the other woman pokes holes in the condom, or saves the condom to impregnate herself later, or some other sinister crap, or if the condom breaks, or if the husband is just plain stupid), as a mother she's going to lose a big chunk of the resources for her family to the other woman's child, in child support and the father's time.

This is the artifact of a blue-pill society which gives women the "right to choose", and men no right to choose.

That's not even getting into the many, many cases of affair that end in divorce because the man gets so heavy into the affair fog that he "falls out of love" with his wife and starts thinking the grass is greener in the other side.

If he does this, one of two things is true.

Either:

He had the affair because he wanted out, rather than wanting out because he had the affair.
He is the beta-est of betas, that rare pussywhipped creature who is actually unable to have, or even want, sex with one woman while "in love with" another.

Here's another red pill (I'm going to have to start my own blog, aren't I?):

"Falling in love" lasts two years, tops. It's a chemical drip of endorphins, and it's probably evolved to make beta males stick around until the kid can walk.

"Being in love with" someone, and "loving someone" are two totally different mechanisms, and we wouldn't be stupid enough to mistake them for each if our language didn't retardedly use the same word for both. Because that's all they have in common.

A wife can reasonably expect that her husband will love her, at least in a culture like ours that doesn't have a lot of support for more businesslike pairings. The relationship will probably last better if he does.

It's nice and fun, but in no way necessary, that husband and wife "fall in love" for the first part of their relationship. That's a luxury. And in cases where it is purchased at the expense of long-term good outcomes, it is a frivolous luxury and a bad choice.

But the idea of being in love for a lifetime is the bluest of pills, dished out in shovelfuls by Meg Ryan movies and the Disney corporation.

And only betas who swallow those blue pills are going to leave their wife if they find another woman they enjoy fucking. Because fucking the woman you like the best is still beta. Alpha is fucking ALL the women you like, up to the limits of your desire, endurance, seduction skills, and time.

You see, the prize for a red-pill woman who has chosen the "wife and mother plan" (as opposed to the "career and cocktrain plan", or other plans) isn't to be the only woman he fucks. It's to be the woman he comes home to.

Tiger Woods's wife is a damn idiot. If your husband can bang models all day long and still not leave you, you are a big fucking winner in the game of life. (Nevermind the fact that Tiger beta-ed out when he got caught, let himself be the victim of domestic violence, and then stood up on TV and apologized like a little bitch. He was still doing the right thing beforehand. In fact, that marriage failed not because he cheated, which a woman can forgive if a man has game and makes her vagina tingle, but because he beta-ed out and let her dominate him afterwards. And he's still screwing up.)

Female cheating weakens the marriage bond, but male cheating, done properly, actually strengthens it. A man who can cheat is an attractive man, a man who other women want, and nothing makes a vagina tingle more than a man who makes other vaginas tingle. Bonus points for not apologizing. Bonus points for not even bothering to hide it.

Yes, the first time this happens, the woman will go through a brief hell of jealousy. And if he treats it like a big deal, that pain can last for years and destroy the relationship. But if he's smart, and shrugs it off, then it slowly starts to dawn on her that she isn't a soul mate who has been horribly betrayed.

She is chief wife to the King. The Man. The Big Dawg. The giant throbbing cock all the girls want to ride.

It's well known that women would rather have part of an alpha than all of a beta. And if she's the one he's coming home to, then she gets the biggest part.

Jealousy isn't about love, you see. It's about fear of loss.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whisper1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, I'm going to try not to write you another book in response.

Mostly, you've just been the unfortunate victim of my need for an audience to help me think by talking.

But let me turn this one more way to try to fit it into your head.

From a woman's perspective, what is marriage for?

It isn't for sex. A woman can get sex with a male as desirable or more desirable than the one she can marry, by signalling her availability and willingness. It isn't for companionship. This doesn't require marriage, either.

It's for securing his help and support, material and otherwise, both for her and their children.

"Cheating" in a marriage is giving someone else what the marriage is engaged in to secure. So man isn't "cheating" if he has sex with another woman. He is cheating if he diverts resources he would otherwise have spent on you, to her. He is cheating if he fathers a child on her, and devotes attention to raising it.

A woman is cheating if she has sex with another man, because his greatest incentive for getting married is sexual access.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whisper1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Red pills are pretty "out there" in the sense that when you think based on what you see, instead of what people tell you or what everyone else thinks, then you come to some conclusions that are pretty far away from what everyone else is saying.

Essentially, I think the society with the most realistic and down-to-earth model of male-female relations was ancient Rome.

In the modern era, I am in favour of doing away with marriage altogether, and replacing it with child-rearing contracts which would have a limited term, and be governed by standard contract law.

I think the idea of marriage in our culture is insane. It's an agreement that isn't written down anywhere, and is subject to change according to the whims of a legislature, or a court, or simply popular culture. If something is a contract, then let's get it on paper.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XxXsmok3bluntzXxX4201 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whisper1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XxXsmok3bluntzXxX4201 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]nonservator -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]nonservator 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP Vanguardss_camaro -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP Vanguardss_camaro -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TRP Vanguardss_camaro -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	The Red Pill for Women
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	20
Comments	56
Date	February 10, 2013 11:44 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/189vm9/the_red_pill_for_women/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/the-red-pill-for-women.235297 https://theredarchive.com/post/235297

Comments