TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

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

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • 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 Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Which tenet of red pill 'theory' do Blue Pillers have the most agreement with (if any)

cherryCanSuckMyDick

October 31, 2017
8 upvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Which tenet of red pill 'theory' do Blue Pillers have the most agreement with (if any)
Author

cherryCanSuckMyDick

Upvotes 8
Comments 117
Date October 31, 2017 9:02 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/79yu6m/which_tenet_of_red_pill_theory_do_blue_pillers/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/which-tenet-of-red-pill-theory-do-blue-pillers.265087
https://theredarchive.com/post/265087
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill
Top posts by cherryCanSuckMyDick

CMV: AWALT is not literally true, but its an accurate rule of thumb for TRPs target audience

37 upvotes
April 6, 2018
/r/PurplePillDebate

Which tenet of red pill 'theory' do Blue Pillers have the most/strongest disagreements with

7 upvotes
November 1, 2017
/r/PurplePillDebate

Comments

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

Depends on the interpretation of the “RP theory” at hand. Probably that looks matter and women like masculine men. However if you twist that into “women only want Chad and 80/20 is literal” then no.

Bloops agree with concepts like “doormats are unattractive to women and people in relationships should have standards and boundaries” too, if you consider that to be “RP theory.”

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

Let's do an experiment go into a neutral sub like CMV and post up even a "trp lite" advice you agree with and we can see if you get torn to shreds or not

I'm betting you will

Bloops here are jaded compared to irl feminists and what not

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

The issue is it is ALL "TRP lite" advice when it's a convenient argument.

"we don't really mean to disrespect women, we mean keeping healthy boundaries."

"we don't actually mean flirt with other women and make your wife believe you're cheating unless it's the absolute last resort and you've got the divorce papers handy in case it doesn't work out."

"negging isn't mean, it's just light banter/teasing."

"it doesn't mean be an asshole, it means being confident and don't be a doormat"

"we don't actually advocate to lie, just keep your options open"

and so on and so forth.

What's the point of calling your sexual strategy "amoral" if you don't accept the fact that some may actually use it in a way many people (or even yourself) would find morally repugnant?

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No the real problem is that it's all "hateful misogyny " until you argue yourselves into a corner and concede "yeah well you can say that without RP"

I mean I even agree we don't need crimgey aspects of trp to say most of this in theory, problem is that only TRP is saying it for some reason

Pretty much the only appeal of RP for me is that you can critique feminism without getting banned which unheard of except in right wing extremists communities

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No the real problem is that it's all "hateful misogyny "

It can be or it can be "healthy boundaries and standing up for yourself". That is like, my entire point here. There is no one "right" way. If it works it works, that's RP philosophy when it comes to morality in a nutshell. Individual users decide how to morally or immorally apply it, not the advice/theory itself.

problem is that only TRP is saying it for some reason

Yes and I've heard their justifications for why they do that.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Healthy boundaries and standing up for yourself is a good vague platitude at best

As long as RP is willing to dig deeper and really try to answer people's questions it will be regarded as superior advice

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s completely besides the point to what we were just discussing.

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

As long as RP is willing to dig deeper and really try to answer people's questions it will be regarded as superior advice

this

[–]dailyqtProcreation should cease4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh my god this is making me angry, it's too accurate

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Who, me?

Edit: nvm, read that wrong.

[–]statsfoddernot blue, not red.5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

Not just TRP.. the whole of society has lost its common sense..

Just like "where have all the good men gone" means I deserve my channing tatum eventhough I'm a never worked, mum of 3, with 2 baby daddies and a crack addiction...

Just like "Be yourself" doesn't mean to literally just be yourself.

And exactly how most feminists insist they are about equality but are only interested in female supremacy.

Pot/kettle/#000000.. (cause you know, as a white man can't use "black" to describe the color of something)

Edit: i was racist by forgetting a 0

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, absolutely, terpers aren't the only ones who want to see their dogma shed in a good light when it's criticized. By any means.

[–]Wandos7naproxen sodium1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

000000

(forgot a zero)

[–]statsfoddernot blue, not red.2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for correcting me and apologies to all the #00000 identifying people I have offended, feel free to invoice me with what you feel is appropriate reparations for my indiscretion.

[–]Wandos7naproxen sodium1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Trans #000000, cis rgb(0,0,0)

[–]DarkLord0chinChin1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

you 24 bit plebs don't see the full picture

[–]IckyStickyPoo1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

*#0000ff identifying here.

I demand you acknowledge the full spectrum in your statements.

[–]DarkLord0chinChin0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

nerd

[–]IckyStickyPoo1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

nerd

01100001 01101100 01110111 01100001 01111001 01110011

[–]DarkLord0chinChin0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

never!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What's the point of calling your sexual strategy "amoral" if you don't accept the fact that some may actually use it in a way many people (or even yourself) would find morally repugnant?

IDK what you would expect the alternative to be? Its amoral because you cant control other people, I dont feel guilty based on what other people do, whether its based on TRP or whether its based on race/gender/etc

Blue pillers and liberals often have this obsession with the surface, the way things look seem more important than the way things actually are. For example, I would prefer racism to be visible, even if it offends people, because than you have a more accurate world view, if racism was illegal than it would just be hidden, not that it would go away

If something has a bad reputation it wont stop me from using it if it benefits me, because im my own person. Im not concerned with the morals of others in the sense that I wont have any guilt or feel dirty. I think that blue pillers and liberals have a much stronger community/group feeling that dictates a lot of their behavior compared to a terper. It would definitely explain male feminists

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I would never expect or hope you would feel guilty because of what other people do lol. I would just expect RPers to not hamster that their interpretation of RP advice/theories is the only possible one or the only "right" one. They also say if it works, that should be the metric. Well, ok, the sentence you just quoted from me applies to that as well.

My point is it's annoying when you try and pin RP down and all of a sudden the only acceptable applications are the "TRP lite" ones because individual users don't want to accept that there is a valid criticism here. How you operate in these beliefs literally isn't the only way if "TRP is just a toolbox, use it how you see fit."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree with you, you can most definitely critique it in that sense. Terpers even are willing to accept that but it always ends the same way

Someone links drnerdlove, which is targetted at women, and terpers are like "well...if thats the best you got..were gonna stick with this"

We see the criticism, but its based on some other hypothetical immoral dude on the other side of the planet, so no one cares. There have been a couple different times when a blooper tried to make a alternative rp, but its always some feminist super blue pill guy who gives worse advice than the bluest blue on PPD. At the end of the day, if it works than its not gonna change by someone who is benefitting from it, it would be a waste of that persons time and its a lot of work

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And I don’t even necessarily disagree with some of the points you just made, I’m just trying to show that if you want to play the “amorality/toolbox” game, accept that that is what it is, it’s not intended to tell you to be moral or immoral, that’s for the user to decide.

You also can’t expect an outsider to read some of the shit on the sub and sidebar and not assume some of these guys are malicious towards women. To me it is as unreasonable to assume these guys are all super moral-good-and-caring-to-women in applying these concepts as it is unreasonable to assume these guys are all evil-woman-hating-assholes about it. And honestly, that’s only because I’ve been here for so long and gotten to know enough RPers to know it’s likely a mixed bag.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I would just expect RPers to not hamster that their interpretation of RP advice/theories is the only possible one or the only "right" one. They also say if it works, that should be the metric.

But why do bp often believe that "Women only want Chad, 80/20 is literal" is an equally correct way to interpret it?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because they hear that shit from RPers. Obviously not all.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

The issue is it is ALL "TRP lite" advice when it's a convenient argument.

You mean when it's a person using it instead of a strawman.

What's the point of calling your sexual strategy "amoral" if you don't accept the fact that some may actually use it in a way many people (or even yourself) would find morally repugnant?

I wish they never would have clarified that it's merely an amoral tool. There's no reason to point that out when nothing they advise can even hurt anyone.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

You mean when it's a person using it instead of a strawman.

No, I mean when someone doesn't want to admit that an interpretation they personally don't agree with which nevertheless can follow from "RP theory" waters it down so that it doesn't look bad. Didn't we just get into a convo about this you and I like a few days ago?

There's no reason to point that out when nothing they advise can even hurt anyone.

Do you honestly believe that? What about the ex-RP people or stories you hear about marriages being ruined? What about the field reports where RP tactics backfire? Do you really think TRP is infallible?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

No, I mean when someone doesn't want to admit that an interpretation they personally don't agree with which nevertheless can follow from "RP theory" waters it down so that it doesn't look bad.

Okay. I see what you mean.

There's no reason to point that out when nothing they advise can even hurt anyone.

Do you honestly believe that?

What do they advise that hurts people? I was told that I don't need to lie to women and that it would be detrimental to have to do so, and I'm hoping it's a given that they don't teach to use force, so what does that leave?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What do we advise that hurts people?

That the tactics can, not that they will all the time. Again, if it's a toolbox the tools can be used for however the user wants to use them, whether it's to better their relationships, just themselves to the detriment of others, or to "enjoy the decline." FWIW, most of the terpers I interact with here at least on PPD don't seem to have nefarious intent.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That the tactics can, not that they will all the time.

Okay. Which tactics?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Basically all of them, depending upon how you interpret them/apply them.

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

Yes, the tactics can be injurious. But most of the time, the tactics end relationships and marriages that should have ended anyway because they were either (1) way too far gone, or (2) the wife dug in her heels and wasn't going to respond to anything he did or didn't do. So in a sense, the tactics did what they were supposed to do - end a marriage that for all intents and purposes was over anyway.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Also,

What about the ex-RP people or stories you hear about marriages being ruined? What about the field reports where RP tactics backfire?

I once told a guy that his girl was walking all over him and it was embarrassing. He stood up to her, she put him down, and the relationship went up in flames.

Did doing what I would do backfire on him? Yes.

Was it me who ruined that relationship. No. It was a series of mistakes that TRP can fix as long as a dude isn't retarded.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You don't think it's within the realm of possibility that applying some of these tactics could hurt a good relationship?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

stories you hear about marriages being ruined

Those marriages were either (1) well on the way to being ruined anyway; or (2) needed to end because they were never going to get better and because the wife was never going to respond to anything the husband did or didn't do.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You can’t honestly believe that’s every case ever, did you see that “holding frame during dread level 12” post recently? Dude was applying “dread level 12” aka cheating while he admitted he had a great sex life with his wife — you think she’s happy/not harmed in that situation? Why is it so crazy to assume some of these guys are fucking things up and potentially hurting their loved ones?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

No it's not "every case ever", did I say that?

Sometimes guys fuck up but only mostly because they "go Rambo".

A guy cheating, whether openly or on the downlow - if he's openly cheating, yeah, she's getting hurt, but then again, it's mostly because she hasn't responded and it's intended to apply pressure to either shape up or ship out.

If on the downlow, well, she doesn't know, so at least on the surface, she's not getting harmed. Is that doing harm to the marriage? Possibly, even probably - depends on the reason he's cheating. Most men cheat just because they want to fuck other women. Some men cheat (at least at MRP) for validation, and you can tell who's doing it for validation and who isn't. The difference is in whether the cheater owns it and is willing to face and accept and live out the consequences.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

but then again, it's mostly because she hasn't responded and it's intended to apply pressure to either shape up or ship out.

While comforting to you I’m sure and for others who want to bathe in the warm absolution offered by that belief, as I’ve pointed out before you only have to read mrp to see that’s not the case in most cases. What is the case: more because “I wasn’t popular in hs” or “I want to have my cake and eat it too” or “insert whatever label my deficit I’m trying to fill needs.” They really ouught to bail if “strange” is so mission critical.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Where have you pointed this out before? Link please. And link to cases where it's because some guy is living out his HS fantasies or revenge or filling a "need".

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Look, this whole conversation was about how TRP tactics can be employed as “TRP lite” or whether they can be more maliciously/harmful. That’s my entire point. Since TRP doesn’t itself advocate for some moral application it’s up to the user. That’s it. It shouldn’t be controversial but people keep arguing with me like it’s just completely out of the question.

[–]namdeirfnotlim2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Bloops have become 90% RP here. Wasn't always that way. In a few years we'll all be 100% RP, except the bloops will keep their blue banners to feel like a good person.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm going off topic, but I have the same theory about Communism. We've already given the Nobel peace prize to someone for research that shows pooled resources and shared ownership leads to a sustainable economy better than privatization. It's only a matter of time before we live like that and we'll probably still have people talking shit about Commies.

[–]namdeirfnotlim0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Lol no. Communism has failed abysmally whenever it was tried. Not only does it destroy economic productivity, it inevitably leads to mass murder. Capitalism, on the other hand, consistently leads to wealth. A 5 year old can understand why that is the case.

The nobel peace prize is a complete joke. Obama got it before he was president. Arafat got it. Al Gore got it. Enough said.

The problem with communists is that they want to control everyone. I would be perfectly happy with separating the country into two halves, and letting the people in favour of socialism and communism have one half, and the people in favour of capitalism the other half, so that we can see what works better. Most capitalists would be OK with that, but the socialists and communists would not, because they know that they need to force their system on everyone else. In politics there's people who just want to be left alone, and people who won't leave them alone.

I don't know if you're french, but if you are, you're a good example. Macron is now trying to make the rest of the EU adopt France's failed policies because he literally admits that France is unable to compete with countries that have sane policies, so he has to drag down the rest of the EU. Macron is actually a capitalist, but he understands that the French public are idiots and to stay popular he can only go so far in restoring sanity in France, and that it's easier to install insanity in the rest of the EU.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Capitalism, on the other hand, consistently leads to wealth.

For 1% of us.

The problem with communists is that they want to control everyone.

No. I just wanna pool resources and take care of my neighbors.

I would be perfectly happy with separating the country into two halves, and letting the people in favour of socialism and communism have one half, and the people in favour of capitalism the other half, so that we can see what works better. Most capitalists would be OK with that

No they wouldn't. They need my cheap labor.

but the socialists and communists would not

Because we need their means of production.

[–]namdeirfnotlim0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

For 1% of us.

No. You are wealthier than a king in the middle ages. Stop whining.

Income inequality is extremely high in communist countries. 99.9% of the people are poor, and 0.1% of the people are extraordinarily rich.

No. I just wanna pool resources and take care of my neighbors.

No. You want to forcibly take resources to "pool" them. Nobody is stopping you from setting up a communist commune that people can join on a voluntary basis. People tried that, and they all failed because communism doesn't work.

No they wouldn't. They need my cheap labor.

They would get cheap labour because ordinary workers are better off in a capitalist society. We have smartphones, supermarkets full of cheap high quality food, and houses with heating and electricity. Ordinary people fled from communist china to capitalist hong kong, not the other way around.

Because we need their means of production.

Exactly. You need the wealth created by capitalism. Then your system works for a few years if you ignore the hordes of people who will be killed, until you run out of wealth. If your system is so great you would be able to do it voluntarily. Get a group of people together, pool your savings, and buy "means of production". BTW, the whole concept of means of production is mostly BS in the 21st century. Many people's means of production in developed societies is a $300 PC. Second, you want the means of production in the hands of competent people, not people who are good at climbing the political ladder. If you redistribute the computer chip factory to random people it would be a complete disaster.

You need a healthy dose of Milton Friedman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kOH76ImjSM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

No. You are wealthier than a king in the middle ages. Stop whining.

How do you figure that?

Income inequality is extremely high in communist countries. 99.9% of the people are poor, and 0.1% of the people are extraordinarily rich.

That would be a dictatorship. Come on.. dude.

We have smartphones, supermarkets full of cheap high quality food, and houses with heating and electricity.

And they'd disappear if we pooled resources? Also, do you really think our food is affordable and high quality?

Then your system works for a few years if you ignore the hordes of people who will be killed

By what?

until you run out of wealth.

Oh yeah, I forgot the part where we'd stop working. That totally exists.

If you redistribute the computer chip factory to random people it would be a complete disaster.

Obviously...

[–]namdeirfnotlim0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

How do you figure that?

You have access to better health care, better food, better travel options, better entertainment. You also have access to things that a king couldn't even dream of, like instant communication with your family even if they are on the other side of the country, and access to a library that is far bigger than the library of any middle ages king. The only measure on which you are materially worse off is your house, and even that is debatable because your house has advantages like running water and electric lighting.

Even simple shit like a fucking pencil (see video above) is superior to anything the king would have. Even on a minimum wage job you can afford a pencil for a few minutes of work. A pencil is a marvellous product if you think about all that is needed to produce it. All of this is thanks to capitalism.

That would be a dictatorship. Come on.. dude.

Show me a communist country that wasn't like that. There are three driving forces that turn communist countries into brutal dictatorships:

  1. It's based on jealousy of the rich, so those usually get killed off at the start. This starts the pattern of using violence to obtain power.
  2. It removes the self-interest incentive to work, so you need to force people to work. This requires a huge state apparatus.
  3. It places all economic power in political hands, so it becomes supremely important to control politics.

And they'd disappear if we pooled resources?

As I said, the resources wouldn't instantly disappear, but because you removed the incentive to produce those resources they would disappear in the long term unless you install a dictatorship that forces people to work and innovate (which is ineffective).

Also, do you really think our food is affordable and high quality?

Hell yes. You're an ungrateful little twat if you don't even consider how good you have it and want to completely destroy the system that gave you all that. Ask your grandmother how the food was in her days, and whether she had supermarkets with a large selection of cheap exotic fruit. My grandmother remembers a time when pasta was considered exotic. As a kid she had potatoes, cabbage, and a sausage on sunday. There are people in Venezuela today who dream of that, but you take all of it for granted, as if the fact that you can walk to the supermarket at any time and see shelves full of food is somehow a natural phenomenon that doesn't rely on an extremely complicated capitalist production chain with all people in it doing their job not because they love you so much that they want to get food on your plate, but because of self interest. Consider the fact that this was not normal for 99.99% of humanity, and that it relies on a system that is resilient but can be disrupted by sufficiently stupid political ideas, such as a system that removes the self interest to do a good job.

By what?

By the same political forces that always kill hordes of people in communist countries.

Oh yeah, I forgot the part where we'd stop working. That totally exists.

It exists in all communist countries. People stop working hard and people stop building new enterprises because there's no benefit. Do you think they had gulags for fun? The USSR had laws that sentenced you to 4 years of forced labour if you didn't work hard enough, up to 1991.

Seriously, a five year old could explain to you why communism can never work, so even before the age of communist dictatorships it should have been obvious how it would end (and several writers predicted as much). After the age of communist dictatorships you need to be a special kind of stupid to still believe in it. I bet you didn't even take the time to study the places where communism was tried. It would be fun to build a state for people like you. We'd provide that state with good wealth and "means of production". After a couple of weeks you'd either all starve to death or have installed a dictatorship because you realised that people don't work out of love for their comrades. Over the following years you'd fall further and further behind the capitalist world.

Have fun. Just leave me out of it.

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"I've been dating this single mother, and she's doing subtle things that lead me to believe she's trying to tie into my life so I can provide for her child. I'm not sure she's particularly interested in me as a person, but sees me as convenient. What should I do? My gut feeling is to leave her and date someone date someone younger without kids."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wouldn't be the end of the world

But obviously we don't need to abolish all forms of certification

But man could a metric fuck ton of beaurocracy be cut out it all

People put way too much faith into formal training and a phd as it is right now

Isn't death by doctor a huge statistical factor? Even your extreme scenario wouldn't be worth panicking over imo

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you reply to the right comment?

[–]dailyqtProcreation should cease0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The name of the game is to take any basic common sense that TRP agrees with, and use that

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

However if you twist that into “women only want Chad and 80/20 is literal” then no.

Its fair enough to point out that often TRP takes 80/20 too literally and forgets that luck matters too, but what would you say if I told you that I believe 80/20 because Ive seen it in action and I actually know the local "Chad"?

[–]theambivalentrooster8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree that self-improvement is attractive to women.

I agree that assertiveness and success is attractive to women.

I agree that you should not allow yourself to be a doormat or tolerate abuse in a relationship.

I agree that sometimes dating is just a numbers game and you sometimes need a shotgun approach to find someone decent.

I agree that online dating, especially Tinder and Bumble skews in favor of women.

I agree there is a subset of men that are inherently unattractive to women and have to work hard to become attractive.

[–]tempuserthrowaway5Good&Plenty7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Just yesterday somebody linked me some theory about male disposability. I totally agree with and support ending male disposability in our culture, and I would march to prevent it in a heart beat.

The fact that men take on the most dangerous, health hazardous jobs with the least reward is a big issue. It needs more attention.

It's a shame to see something that serious and important sharing webspace with an article about how to get laid like a war-lord".

I want to add that serious and important articles about human rights....that everyone would agree on...need to be separated a little bit from the dirty jokes.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's a shame to see something that serious and important sharing webspace with an article about how to get laid like a war-lord".

Right. MRA shit has to get out of TRP.

[–]FairlyNaiveRed Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Preach

[–]tempuserthrowaway5Good&Plenty0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know. Maybe they could tone trp down a bit.

I don't have the answer really.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Thats one of my biggest issues with TRP actually.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

MRA stuff or that TRP somehow gives MRA a bad name?

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

just the constant MRA tone of the subreddit. MRA discussion belongs in the MRA sub, not in a subreddit devoted to an entirely different topic. It leads to constant circlejerks about how unfair <current situation> is by starting a conversation about one of the TRP tenets like the Wall, AFBB, whatever and spinning it off into a circlejerk about how wrong it is, and it drowns out the productive discussions.

[–]iminit773 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I like men with muscles and so do most women, so I think lifting is a good idea. A guy who lifts has a much nicer body than a swimmer or a runner (my opinion of course). Not that TRP invented lifting lol.

In general I think many TRP concepts have at least a little grain of truth to them, they're just way too hyperbolic and stretched to ridiculous extremes. Women like men who are confident, assertive, have boundaries, aren't desperate, and don't put them on a pedestal = women like dominant, aggressive assholes! Women don't like it when men bow down to them and shower them with excessive compliments, gifts, and praise = women hate it when you're nice to them. Women like men who are confident and take-charge in bed = don't ask, just toss them around aggressively and jam your cock in there with no regard to their pleasure. Women enjoy playful, witty, teasing banter = women love being insulted and knocked down a peg. Women in general have a tendency to.... = AWALT no exceptions.

[–]larrythetomato0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In general I think many TRP concepts have at least a little grain of truth to them, they're just way too hyperbolic and stretched to ridiculous extremes.

The reason why it is extreme is because the advice is talking to hoverhanding losers. Yes there is a line that you aren't meant to cross, but these guys are so far from it that they can't see it. To these guys, them being an outright dominant and abusive ass hole, looks like a shy guy trying to speak up to everyone else.

[–]Melman1951 fish 2 fish red pill blue pill0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it's all to gain attention, if you make something hyperbolic then you can gain a better crowd of stronger followers.

Women like men who are confident, assertive, have boundaries, aren't desperate, and don't put them on a pedestal = women like dominant, aggressive assholes!

I will say that in some of the posts on TRP there is some very sensible advice that reflects the prior part. Then at times it just goes too fat. The amount of times I've heard guys be like "I'm asshole girls like me!" and i'm just like really? you have to define yourself as an asshole instead of just as who you are. I think it appeals a lot to men trying to find an identity and an understanding of the opposite sex.

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Can we get a brief summary of red pill theory? I'll just use this post. Here's the points I largely agree with.

  • Race does not matter if you are rich. A lot of you are small-minded and stuck on the superficial, white-black-arab-indian-asian whatever, you have a certain perception of the world based upon your culture, perhaps where you live the white man is god, but know all racial barriers are overcome by power, money is power, if you're a 5' asian with a 2 inch dick that girls laugh at a 7 digit bank balance is sure to offset that. Focus less on your race and more on your success, your insecurities will get you no where. The real segregation is between rich and poor and that is even more true when it comes down to women, never forget that. Rich vs. poor is the only thing that matters in this world, white vs black, west coast vs east coast, all these other "beefs" are a minor, they are all symptoms of wealth inequality, the bottom line is wealth. Rich vs poor motherfuckers.

  • Always set boundaries, with everyone. Do not be a pushover. This is probably the most important bulletpoint here.

  • Men are not born they are created. Poverty, difficulty, heartache, oppression, pain - these are the things that make men out of boys. This is why you came to TRP. This is why boys come back from the military as men. Conflict and pain is what forges the masculine mindset, men cannot grow without conflict and learning from their mistakes, men need to apply their logical minds to problems which arise, elevate, and transcend their previous selves to become more powerful. Men are never born, they are always bred in the bloody fields of battle and war be it economic, mental or physical. A man is a soldier of differing kinds, a man has learnt to repress his fear so he may overcome and achieve.

I think this is a good point but not just applicable to men (duh, does anyone really think women don't suffer hardships?). Life sucks sometimes but if we can pull threw and learn from it we'll come out as a better, stronger person. Take every obstacle as an oppertunity to better yourself. Again, my major complaint is that this somehow shouldn't apply to women.

  • Your diet and exercise place a certain handicap on your ability to utilise your potential. The obese and those who eat poorly (but aren't necessarily fat) are typically low energy and thus waste a lot of time unproductively as they are not in the right mental state to get anything done. You need to take care of your body so then your body will allow your mind to implement it's will onto the world. You must be physically active so that you can mentally put your plans into action. Procrastination is the slow acting poison of one who lives a sedentary lifestyle. Physically active people make things happen in other areas of their life too. Exercise is invigorating. Stop putting it off. Do it.

Exercise and proper diet is good. This post is upselling it, but it's still good.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Can we get a brief summary of red pill theory?

best example I can think of would be this

[–]ivegotsomequestions0Purple Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Great post you linked to.

I'm not strictly blue but am far from red pill. I would agree that red pill does a much better job than anything else at describing:

  1. Alpha widowing process and aftermath. However, they always forget that even virgins can be alpha widowed, and they mistakenly think that sluts' sex partners are a bunch of alpha males such that they must be alpha widowed.

  2. Briffault's law. I know there are plenty of men who have dumped their women when she was vulnerable, but I think women are worse about this than men.

I actually think it's important to point out briffault's law to women, if I had a daughter I would educate her on this tendency. Knowing about it allows a woman to step out of "feeling miserable and falling out of love" when her spouse is going through a rough patch, and gives her the ability to override her nature. Any decent woman will do this.

And of course I agree with all the self improvement stuff, that frivolous divorce is bad, and a bunch of other things that are also found outside the red pill. I also agree with things like hamstering and solipsism, but think that men pretty equally do those as well, so I don't agree with the rp version where they are mainly female issues.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

However, they always forget that even virgins can be alpha widowed

This makes noooo sense hahaha

I also agree with things like hamstering and solipsism, but think that men pretty equally do those as well, so I don't agree with the rp version where they are mainly female issues.

Ill conceed that point, men can fall prey to hamstering easily too, and RP doesnt respect that point enough. My argument would be that society enables rationalization when women do it though

[–]ivegotsomequestions0Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've had female friends when much younger who developed an intense crush, maybe dated him for a bit, never " went all the way" but still pined after him way too long afterward.

My argument would be that society enables rationalization when women do it though

Yeah I think that's right.

[–]SkookumTreeWe are DONE with "cope"0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

With the last bullet point: there is a lot of truth and a lot of survivorship bias in that one. We need a certain amount of stress to be healthy, but you don't see the broken people royally fucked over by war or other traumatic shit. They're holed up in their trailers drinking the PTSD away.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Watch what they do, do not listen to what they say (all of humanity), athletic men are attractive, women are often guilty of imposing social conformity on others for fairly shallow bitchy reasons, a lot of people are pretty basic and not very interesting, working out can be a very good idea.

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

You mean RP-exclusive theories or anything TRP preaches (like fitness, which is not RP/TRP exclusive at all)?

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Name 3 RP exclusive things.

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

80/20, Cock Carousel and even AF/BB ; edit: add AWALT.

[–]FairlyNaiveRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I first heard about AF/BB on BBC when i was like 10

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

I think AWALT could be considered mainstream now

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

None, were BP because we don't agree with the RP exclusive parts of RP

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What are these parts?

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

awalt, hard dread, lmr

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

take your pick

[–]washington_breadstixM'gtow0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Blue pill people believe in whatever the red pill preaches that's just common sense (like the idea that lifting/fitness makes you more attractive) or that they learned naturally as teenagers when they first started dating and red pillers only learned later "by the book", like the idea that teasing is an essential part of flirting (i.e. ''passing shit tests'').

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

  • Communication doesn't fix issues like BP says it does.

  • Most decisions are made pre-rationally. Rationalization only comes in after the decision was already made.

  • Romantic idealism (e.g. true love conquers all) sets people's expectations for relationships too high. As a side point I think Rpillers have just replaced the ideal of true love with true lust, so a lot of them are still idealists and haven't yet escaped their previous mode of thinking.

  • Women put too much responsibility for their happiness in relationships on men.

[–]BlueRabbit211 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm mostly red-pilled about dating etc.

But I don't like terpers themselves, neither do I like the way that they go about doing things. If there is a moral way to get laid, don't go down the immoral path.

Saw this post about how you should "put your sexuality before her feelings" which went into detail about how if a woman was emotionally hurt (crying about an ex etc.) that you should take advantage of that circumstance and try to get laid, because she's too busy being upset to care.

[–]SkookumTreeWe are DONE with "cope"1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Physical fitness is a good thing, and lifting provides excellent returns in making you look physically fit.

[–]trgwarn22[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So I'm 100% a blue piller and a feminist: I think red pillers are wrong in their overarching philosophy (note that I mean GENERAL philosophy), views of women as independent agents, and that they advocate many things that should never be done by anyone. (And in other cases which are illegal and immoral.) Many attitudes if adopted would make the world a worse place.

However, women as independent creative and professional agents contributing to society as adults are NOT the same women who respond to something sexually: treating colleagues exactly the same as you might a man, without adopting any red pill attitude toward them, can be correct and awesome. It is not necessarily going to turn them on, however.

This is quite controversial. In my actual estimation, Red Pillers are demonstrably correct that feminists on Reddit hide this fact. In fact, I got banned from feminism subreddits for mentioning that positive feminist heterosexual relationships can exist. (That links the comment I got banned for.) I said absolutely nothing controversial there, not even close.

Even though reddit's feminism subreddits have banned me, I actually fully agree with it, and haven't really found anything about feminism that I disagreed with. Red piller's just happen to be correct that feminism bans/hides/sweeps under the rug what women respond to sexually.

This is problematic for me because I only want to adopt those pieces of red pill sexual and dating advice which are not problematic: for example, it's not an issue to work out at a gym. That doesn't oppress women. (Unless the gym weren't open to them, or they were harrassed there or something - but I mean the fact of my working out doesn't oppress women, it's a non-issue.)

So clearly there are things that women respond to sexually, and other things that they don't. But Red Pillers are correct that, at least Reddit's feminists ban these discussions even when completely feminist.

I was pretty shocked to find this to be the case.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nothing I do oppresses women, nothing I do is problematic. Bp has a problem with their failures, bp guys who failed in the dating world with common advice advice and turned angry/bitter. Rp helps these guys, bp hates rp for that.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

so... reddit feminists are crazy, I already knew that thanks 😂

This is problematic for me because I only want to adopt those pieces of red pill sexual and dating advice which are not problematic

This is an argument that the purple pill has been having from the beginning, so I dont actually expect to resolve it here, but I can tell you from experience that cherry picking the least horrifying pieces of TRP philosophy isnt enough to develop a working solution that will get men the progress they want. It doesnt mean that every crazy idea that TRP comes up with should be taken seriously either, but the "Just improve yourself and wait" argument isnt a coherent enough solution for the kind of men that end up at TRP

[–]trgwarn22[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

1.

so... reddit feminists are crazy

Well, I'd prefer to say that reddit's feminists aren't feminists (in the sense of advancing egalitarianism) and hurt the (correct) feminist movement that everyone should (ought to) adopt: Reddit's 'feminists' make the world a worse place for women and fail the standard of feminism, as well as failing their own goals and failing to uphold the standards they have set. They're just not feminists, nor do they follow their own rules.

2.

cherry picking the least horrifying pieces of TRP philosophy isnt enough

As for the statement you've made that adopting a few specific pieces of advice from Red Pill not being enough: that is demonstrably false because I was not having sex before cherry picking a couple of pieces of advice (NOT philosophy) from the red pill and began having sex afterward.

The thing is, you don't have to agree with the philosophy to adopt specific practices. It's the philosophy that is wrong and that backward, and that I disagree with.

There is nothing stopping a "feminist red pill" (for men) that suggests practices that make women horny without suggesting practices that set back feminism. (Maybe that's what purple pill is? I don't know, I haven't really caught on here.)

it's not an all-or-nothing thing where you have to adopt the wrong, immoral, and often illegal advice that accompanies incorrect red pill philosophy.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, I'd prefer to say that reddit's feminists aren't feminists (in the sense of advancing egalitarianism) and hurt the (correct) feminist movement that everyone should (ought to) adopt: Reddit's 'feminists' make the world a worse place for women and fail the standard of feminism, as well as failing their own goals and failing to uphold the standards they have set. They're just not feminists, nor do they follow their own rules.

Answered far better than I could

As for the statement you've made that adopting a few specific pieces of advice from Red Pill not being enough: that is demonstrably false because I was not having sex before cherry picking a couple of pieces of advice (NOT philosophy) from the red pill and began having sex afterward.

Its only a sample size of one there though. That doesnt prove TRP to be bulletproof truth, but that doesnt disprove it either

The thing is, you don't have to agree with the philosophy to adopt specific practices. It's the philosophy that is wrong and that backward, and that I disagree with.

In my experience the philosophy was the most important part. You can tell a 'nice guy' a thousand times that he shouldnt pedestalize a woman and there are plenty of fish in the sea, but until you explain why it will never translate into change

There is nothing stopping a "feminist red pill" (for men) that suggests practices that make women horny without suggesting practices that set back feminism. (Maybe that's what purple pill is? I don't know, I haven't really caught on here.)

Id like to hear a clear description of that

[–]trgwarn22[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I read what you linked carefully. I can't really agree with it. They write,

Whereas you, dear moderate feminists...well...your battles have been won.

But it's simply not true across the spectrum. There are cases of clear discrimination.

And that's just the thing...when your movement has won, well, there's no point in having a movement anymore. When you win the game, you pack up and go home. Your movement ceases to exist. Your identity as a member of that movement ceases to exist. Poof. Gone. Bye bye.

I don't get it! I'm sure you and me and everyone else is anti-slavery. But there's no literal slavery in the United States. So do "anti-slavery" people not exist?

Of course they do. You don't need to be vocal or do anything to be anti-slavery. You don't have to be vocal or do anything to be a feminist, if there aren't any issues in the situations you deal with.

There is nothing stopping a "feminist red pill" (for men) that suggests practices that make women horny without suggesting practices that set back feminism. (Maybe that's what purple pill is? I don't know, I haven't really caught on here.)

Id like to hear a clear description of that

I can't give you a clear description, but I can certainly give you acceptable and unacceptable suggestions:

Certainly Acceptable:

  • It's certainly acceptable for men to work out. (This makes them more attractive.)

  • It's certainly acceptable to have many friends and do social things. (This makes men more attractive.)

  • It's certainly acceptable to invest time and money, even very time heavy investments in time and money, in becoming well-educated (even in difficult fields), and having a good career.

  • It's certainly acceptable not to do things primarily for the women in one's life. As a specific example, if women would like a man to spend more of his time with her, it is certainly acceptable not to agree. (For example, to spend that time on hobbies, career, friends, or anything else.)

More problematic:

  • Many women are turned on by a "manly" man - who takes charge.

  • In a purely sexual context (limited to the bedroom) and with the woman's explicit and enthusiastic consent, it is probably okay to take a dominant sexual role with the woman in a sexually submissive role she is attracted by.

Definitely not okay:

  • It is certainly not okay to treat all women as illogical children, and never treat any statement by them or decision about their lives as an adult's decision. (i.e. "Men are adults, women are teenagers/children".)

  • It is certainly not okay to deceive women into believing they are in a monogamous relationship, while secretly cheating on them with other women (hiding this fact from the women in question.)

  • It is certainly not okay to speak of all women using gendered slurs (such as cunt, slut, etc), in exactly and precisely the same way as it is not okay to speak of all people belonging to a minority via racial epithets.

Please note that a man behaving in line with the last point might turn some women on (a man using epithets publicly, about all women, and showing shocking levels of misogyny.) Even though it might be sexually attractive to some women, this is absolutely not okay.

I hope these few examples have given you some clear-cut cases of where red pill and feminist red pill directly contradict each other.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't get it! I'm sure you and me and everyone else is anti-slavery. But there's no literal slavery in the United States. So do "anti-slavery" people not exist?

Of course they do. You don't need to be vocal or do anything to be anti-slavery. You don't have to be vocal or do anything to be a feminist, if there aren't any issues in the situations you deal with.

You can claim it as a viewpoint, but if the fact that you hold that viewpoint causes no measurable change in the world around you, it does not matter that you hold that viewpoint. If you do nothing to oppose feminists whose actions have horrible consequences for men while still identifying as a feminist, you have to own the actions of the entire group, good and bad.

[–]trgwarn22[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But you do cause a measurable change in the world. When someone says "nobody answered our job ad. just some sloot." (meaning slut) you answer something feminist and end up counteracting that misogyny, hiring that person if they're qualified, and suddenly you've freed a slave of the patriarchy.

This isn't a hypothetical! This happens every single day in many industries.

[–]-AveMaria-1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

AFBB is true for some women, not all.

80/20 is statistically incorrect.

Some of the effects of the Wall and how it changes behavior are true.

Having an 'abudance mentality' is probably extremely important.

The divorce rate is a huge issue, and makes marriage quite risky.

Feminists are generally quite insane. However, they also have a point.

Most of TRP theories are partly true. However TRPers take these things to the extreme, and so these theories become absurd.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

No one argues that 80/20 is literally correct. It's a heuristic and stands for the proposition that a small number of men are having sex with a larger number of women. Or, alternatively, that a small number of men are having most of the sex. A large number of men get some sex, sometimes, but not nearly as much as they want or the frequency or quality they want.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

you have seen all of th eblack pill incels and trps claim that literally 20 percent of men have all the sex and 80% none, yes?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some do. But they're wrong.

Most men are getting a little bit of sex. Some sex, sometimes.

[–]-AveMaria-0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I think AT best it means that the top 20% of men CAN have sex with almost every woman. But that's obvious... The actual behavior of people does not match 80/20. At most it's like 55/45, and only in the 18-25 age group. And yes, that's from statistics, which show most people are having sex in relationships, and most people are in relationships. Further, the promiscuous crowd is mostly promiscuous with one another.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't agree with that last statement - the promiscuous MEN are having a lot of sex a few times with most nonpromiscuous women. Just about every woman I've ever known has hopped on the carousel for at least one or two rides. Sure, a lot of them decided the carousel wasn't for them, but they still tried it out.

Most women can have sex with a top 20% man, and they do, at least once. Most women have had the experience of sex with a stunningly hot guy (to them).

Most men have NOT had the experience of a stunningly hot woman, either "to them" or objectively.

I would quibble with your numbers breakdown - I think it's more like 20% of men are having sex with 60% of women. And it's not only 18-25. It's, well, pretty much all nonmarrieds.

most people are having sex in relationships, and most people are in relationships.

Source, please.

Also, the fact that a man is in a relationship does not mean he is getting sex, that he's getting good sex, that he's getting sex at the frequency or quality he wants.

[–]-AveMaria-0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Got any statistics to back your assertions?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You first.

what I have is personal experience, observation, and the experiences and observations of TRP and the manosphere, which have proven more or less accurate.

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

AWWW LADIES FIRST. You are SUCH A GENTLEMAN Lewis <3

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

CDC sstatistics bring up interesting points. Like 90% of women and 85% of men have had 0-1 partners in the last year. That is almost no difference. Furthermore, if 80/20 is true, then the median of men should be lower than the female median. But.. okay, women lie or men exaggerate for these numbers. BUT STILL, the median of men should be much lower than the mean, relative to the difference for women. That's not the case. Median for women, 3. Mean? 6. Median for men, 7. Mean? 9.

Basically if you take an average looking guy and an average looking gal, it's very likely they will have had the same number of partners. And that's what IVE seen irl.

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

YOU HAPPY LEWIS??? I gave you stats! What more do you want from me! :(

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's based on the Pareto principle

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

I know, atlas

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think AT best it means that the top 20% of men CAN have sex with almost every woman. But that's obvious... The actual behavior of people does not match 80/20.

I can confirm it from personal experience (although with an admittedly small sample size)

[–]-AveMaria-0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Personal experience? Meaning you are a chad?

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

no, but I know one

although I want to become one if I can

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

80/20 is statistically incorrect.

Why?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The Pareto pricipal does not say that the top 20% of X are responsible for 100% of the desired result and bottom 80% are responsible for zero, as has come to be presented here. Using the example of the SMP it would hold that the top 20% have 80% of the sex and the bottom 80% have 20%. Within each 80/20 bracket there is another 80/20 Pareto distribution, and so on

This has turned into 20% of men have sex, 80% are incels here

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree with 80/20 from personal experience, but why the fractal subdivisions thing?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

because thats how it works. within the 80% getting the 20%, another pareto principle arises with the top 20% of the 80 now being responsible for 80% of that groups distribution etc

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]ShitArchonXPRFurfag autist|Too misogynist for BP|Too socially liberal for RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll have to read this thread later when I get a chance, but it should be interesting given the existence of BP commenters who state things wholeheartedly in agreement with RP:

...it’s happened to me too and I was so confused why my BF I was once so attracted to was slowly turning me off more and more. Not a fun experience for anyone I’d imagine.

I was super attracted to him. He was 6 foot, cute, I loved him very much. He doormatted out. He made his whole life me. As in his sole purpose in life was to be around me and make me happy, it was too much.

[–]Transmigratory0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The ones which trigger them the least.

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

a lot of blue pillers still think that there is such a thing as game for some strange reason

[–]rulenumber3030 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That low value guys need to whine less.

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