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

How many TRP "truths" do you think are a result of self-fulfilling prophecy?

mattbrah
August 17, 2017
14 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 How many TRP "truths" do you think are a result of self-fulfilling prophecy?
Author

mattbrah
Upvotes 14
Comments 279
Date August 17, 2017 5:51 AM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/6u80mp/how_many_trp_truths_do_you_think_are_a_result_of/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/how-many-trp-truths-do-you-think-are-a-result-of.266422
https://theredarchive.com/post/266422
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill
Top posts by mattbrah

Girl I'm seeing found TRP posts in my reddit history and I think it killed my chances with her. How do I recover?

73 upvotes
October 22, 2018
/r/askTRP

Questions for those of you with FWBs

5 upvotes
March 30, 2018
/r/askTRP

What can I do to raise my aggressiveness/drive?

1 upvotes
December 14, 2017
/r/askTRP

Was this some kind of shit test?

1 upvotes
April 1, 2018
/r/askTRP

Comments

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (127 children) | Copy Link

The whole of AWALT is 100% a self-fulfilling prophecy. Go around expecting all women to be evil cheating whores and you'll only attract the evil cheating whores.

[–]wub123417 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The whole of AWALT is 100% a self-fulfilling prophecy. Go around expecting all women to be evil cheating whores and you'll only attract the evil cheating whores.

Sluts have no value, so we don't want to mate with a slut, but then we do want to spin plates and fuck sluts, but then women are obviously unfaithful because sometimes, usually early in their lives, women have casual sex, so therefore they're going to leave you for someone more alpha, but you need to be as alpha as possible so that you can fuck sluts, but you might not be alpha enough for a LTR, which you want with someone who has hardly any sexual partners, which given the behaviour advocated would indicate that they're either frigid or unattractive, but you can't LTR sluts because they have no value and might, you know, like sex, but if you have a dead bedroom it's a disaster.

Get your fucking head around that, if you can.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This makes 100% perfect sense to me just gotta find a virgin whore!

[–]disposable_pants15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

How does this make any sense? If you go out of your way to avoid X trait, you don't suddenly start attracting people with X trait in spades. Quite the opposite.

  • If you think all employees will steal from you if given the chance, you aren't magically going to attract a bunch of thieves. In fact, you're going to take more precautions with company equipment and probably reduce the incidence of theft.
  • If you think anyone who walks by you on a street at night will rob you if given the chance, you aren't magically going to attract a bunch of muggers. In fact, you're going to take more precautions to keep from being seen as an easy target, keep from being in vulnerable situations, etc.
  • If you think all salespeople are going to rip you off if given the chance, you aren't magically going to attract a bunch of shady salespeople. In fact, you're going to take more precautions to make sure you understand what you're signing up for and getting a good deal.

Like /u/Littleknownfacts said, you're just describing the Just World Fallacy.

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

How is anything he said remotely related to the "Just World" fallacy or Just-world hypothesis?

"The just-world hypothesis is the assumption that a person's actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, to the end of all noble actions being eventually rewarded and all evil actions eventually punished."

Not at all, basically.

[–]disposable_pants7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

the assumption that a person's actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person... all evil actions eventually punished.

...

Go around expecting all women to be evil cheating whores and you'll only attract the evil cheating whores.

He's saying "if you think mean things about people, you'll attract mean people!". That's the definition of the Just World Fallacy; getting what one "deserves".

Regardless of how you classify it, the argument makes zero sense. There's no logic for how someone who goes out of their way to avoid trait X would wind up surrounded by an abundance of trait X, simply because they were trying to avoid it.

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

He's saying certain behaviors will attract other people with certain behaviors. Conflating "thinking mean things" with moral/immoral is asinine, and morality is central to the Just-world hypothesis.

[–]disposable_pants4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

He's saying certain behaviors will attract other people with certain behaviors.

He's saying guarding against a certain behavior will somehow attract that very behavior, which makes no sense. If I hate angry people and go out of my way not to talk to any, there's no reason to believe I'll magically start running into a ton of angry people.

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

You're going to see those traits in everyone if they're constantly on your mind, that's what I'm getting at. Even if you found a perfectly loyal partner you'd be constantly paranoid about all this crap because most of the people who throw this idea around actually don't get any nuance at all.

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Even if you found a perfectly loyal partner you'd be constantly paranoid

That's quite a bit different from "you'll only attract evil cheating whores" -- because you aren't actually attracting bad people, even if you're more suspicious of them than you should be.

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

Yeah there's two different aspects to it.

I wrote that when I just came off my night shift to let me clarify after a good night's sleep:

The kind of guy who is suspicious of all women and doesn't "let anyone in" emotionally speaking is going to push a lot of people away by having that attitude. He will attract mostly others who are closed off and untrusting. Usually people who are untrusting in relationships are projecting - a classic stereotype is the super jealous girlfriend who checks her bf's phone but she's the one cheating on him.

The second problem is, due to this behaviour, even if he met a woman who was trustworthy, he still wouldn't trust her. The natural suspicion he now has would lead him to think it's some kind of cover, she's hiding something, there must be a problem somewhere.

So no matter what, he's fucking his chances in relationships.

Then when things fail it works as confirmation for his ideas. "Aha, see, it didn't work out with her so I must have been right all along!"

Rinse and repeat.

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The kind of guy who is suspicious of all women and doesn't "let anyone in" emotionally speaking is going to push a lot of people away by having that attitude. He will attract mostly others who are closed off and untrusting.

The second sentence does not logically follow from the first. If a guy who's closed off and untrusting (and only the latter half of this, kind of, is what TRP actually recommends) meets a similar woman, he's going to interpret her cagey behavior as a red flag and move on. He's actively filtering against anything remotely suspicious, and she would trigger his "what are you hiding" instinct.

The second problem is, due to this behaviour, even if he met a woman who was trustworthy, he still wouldn't trust her.

Yeah, you have more false positives -- "good" women you mistakenly think are "bad". But when picking a "bad" woman can ruin your life in every sense of the word, you want to err on the side of caution.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If you hate sluts and avoid them, then you'll definitely end up with one!

If you think all women have the same nature, then the ones that have that nature will be all you see.

My logic died.

[–]OfSpock5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They don't avoid sluts though, they think all women are sluts and if a woman doesn't have sex with them immediately, they next her. Thus, they next all non-slutty women.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not sure I say a self fulfilling prophecy but confirmation bias certainly.

[–]VermiciousKnidzz 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you can make any stereotype assumption about a big enough demographic and of course there will be people that inevitably reinforce that stereotype. you just have to put up a lot of blinders so you dont notice the many, many people that dont reinforce the stereotype.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

What's the mechanism for this? Because to me it just looks like a Just World Fallacy.

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

How is that remotely related to the "Just World" fallacy? Are you familiar with what that even is?

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

It's "you get what you deserve". It sounds like he is saying by believing AWALT you deserve to get AWALT-y women.

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

Get? Like get by way of magic because you deserve it? No that's not how it works.

You get what you "deserve" due to actual reasons which cause certain types of people to be attracted because of how you behave, regardless of morality (which is principal for that Just-world hypothesis).

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Get? Like get by way of magic because you deserve it? No that's now how it works.

Well that's how groovy made it sound, which is why I asked by what mechanism a person who believes in AWALT would end up attracting awalty women.

You get what you "deserve" due to actual reasons which cause certain types of people to be attracted because of how you behave, regardless of morality (which is principal for that Just-world hypothesis).

So what is the mechanism? What are the actual reasons that people who believe in AWALT attract women who are AWALT? What behaviors do they have? Because to me it's just sounds like your saying they are morally wrong and therefore will get poor results.

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This has zero to do with morality, which is why the Just-world hypothesis doesn't apply. He may have not substantiated what he said, but you tried to hide behind an objection which isn't relevant. I won't speak for him directly on the AWALT thing.

As a simple example, I find that neurotic/impulsive people usually associate with other neurotic/impulsive people. Here's a related article:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/201311/the-psychology-neurotic-romantic-attraction

So yes, certain negative behaviors can have certain negative results. Simple as that.

[–]disposable_pants1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As a simple example, I find that neurotic/impulsive people usually associate with other neurotic/impulsive people.

Except AWALT doesn't mean "all women are neurotic/impulsive, so you should be, too". It means "all women are neurotic/impulsive, so you should watch out for that behavior and run if there's too much of it". It's not a matter of like attracting like because AWALT doesn't tell you to be like the women it warns you about. AWALT tells you to next those women.

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

Lmao "neurotic/impulsive" is scientism speak for "you have bad morality"

It's all the same shit just more condescending

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I personally don't conflate morality with neuroticism and impulsiveness to a strong degree.

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

Well no you wouldn't want to admit to of course it'd expose you as the moralist you are

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Awalt has nothing to do with morality. It's usually women disagreeing with it because of morality.

Awalt is generally neutral, but overall beneficial to women, as, why would women have instincts that are not beneficial?

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No, by acting like women are one way, you will attract that type of woman and repulse other types of women.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

How? How does that belief translate into a behavior that is attractive specifically to that kind of woman?

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If you assume that all women are sluts and next anyone who doesn't put out straight away then you have self selected for sluts. If you assume women don't mean what they say and ignore them, you will drive away women who are repulsed by that kind of behaviour.

If you act condescendingly to women (call it teasing all you like, we know what you mean), then women who hate this won't continue talking to you.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If you assume that all women are sluts and next anyone who doesn't put out straight away then you have self selected for sluts.

But those are two different actions. Nexting women who don't put out right away isn't an extension of "believing in AWALT". It's a separate unrelated action. And besides, selecting for certain women isn't the same as attracting them

If you assume women don't mean what they say and ignore them, you will drive away women who are repulsed by that kind of behaviour.

If you act condescendingly to women (call it teasing all you like, we know what you mean), then women who hate this won't continue talking to you.

Okay, but are the woman who aren't driven away by that behavior any more likely to be AWALTy? Or are they just going to be chill women that are compatible with the man in question?

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

chill women that are compatible with the man in question?

Or as we call it on the blue pill side... Women with mental issues who fulfill red pill's predictions about female behaviour.

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

As I just said to someone else:

You're going to see those traits in everyone if they're constantly on your mind, that's what I'm getting at. Even if you found a perfectly loyal partner you'd be constantly paranoid about all this crap because most of the people who throw this idea around actually don't get any nuance at all.

[–]MacheakoGo Baltimore Ravens!1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just to add to some a the confusion people don't seem to understand about this premise. When you "See" all women as branch swingin whores you inadvertently end up TREATING women as though they were nothing but branch swinging whores.

And when you look out to the Alt-Right now and see how the Alt-Left and their INCESSANT claims about them being ass holes, bigots, and racists only makes these people that much more "cool" with the shit, you can kinda see how this self-fulfilling prophecy manifests itself.

By insisting people are what YOU deem they ARE, can end up making people who in truth weren't actually what you claimed....into exactly what you claimed....because you're false/wrong allegations are ANNOYING AS FUCK and your self-smug attitude about it only makes people want to lash out at you that much more.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You don't understand AWALT.

Sure, so do a lot of redpillers, but that doesn't change the fact that AWALT is indeed very useful. A woman who isn't AWALT at all would be a literal saint.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

You can perfectly go around expecting all humans to have innate human nature inside them going to more or less influence their behaviour. That's what AWALT means.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I know what it means, but if you look at the attitude expressed by its proponents, you'll understand why I said what I said.

[–]Eastuss 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So you're going to ignore the real meaning of something and take the bad individuals as a generalisation? That's a fallacy.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well here be the difference between how something works in practice and how it sounds in theory.

Communism sounds nice in theory. Everyone gets free stuff and loves each other. Doesn't that sound lovely?

In reality, we know that's not how it actually works, right?

Same here. I don't disagree with the principle behind it, but applied in reality, I think a lot of the guys who say AWALT this AWALT that are doing it out of bitterness instead of actually using it as a heuristic, and that's the problem in the execution.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's fun because communism doesn't work exactly because of what constitutes AMALT and AWALT.

AHALT is something not to be used as an heuristic but as a truth. Everybody is like that, undeniably. The heuristic is to expect education and decent behaviour to overtake the primitive will.

But yes, in practice, people are going to employ AHALT in shitty ways.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

take the bad individuals as a generalisation?

That is, ironically, how a lot of people seem to apply AWALT.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Just like everything, there are smart and good generalizations and bad generalizations.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ok what's a "good" AWALT generalization and what's a "bad" one?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Good: If I act really beta in relationships the woman will likely lose attraction because AWALT so I shouldn't do that

Bad: Literally all women are cheating whores

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good: If I act really beta in relationships the woman will likely lose attraction because AWALT so I shouldn't do that

Has nuance

Bad: Literally all women are cheating whores

Lacks nuance

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

notworthmuch20xx and love8death kinda answered it.

Things people usually say under AWALT are lacking nuances.

beta/alpha behaviour as opposed to comfort/shit tests and opposed to your/her SMV...

"ACT ALPHA AND GET PUSSIES CUZ AWALT" is easily counter arguable and there are plenty of examples of men acting beta and getting laid easily. It's lacking nuance.

Tendencies are other things, you can probably label under AWALT that women are more neurotic. Even though the tendencies overlap and some female individuals are less neurotic than some male individuals. Because the majority will be like the exposed concept and only some minorities will differ. As opposed to the argument that AWALT would be generalizing minorities and outsiders to all women.

Fun unrelated fact: the average number of arms humans have is lesser than 2.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (69 children) | Copy Link

You know it says a lot about human nature that expecting the opposite is considered naive. But I just don't know if a short, unattractive man who sees women as wonderful creatures gets a unicorn when guys who put pussy on the pedestal, even attractive ones, have a hard time getting into or maintaining relationships.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? Most women are not cheating whores, and they're not perfect angels either. They're people, some will be untrustworthy and some won't be.

It'd be naive to trust everyone by default, and I agree getting men off the whole women are wonderful/pussy on a pedestal vibe is a positive thing, but going around thinking everyone's out to get you is hardly a healthy mindset either.

[–]boyvillain01 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Most women are not cheating whores, and they're not perfect angels either.

Most women could be "cheating whores" in the right circumstances.

I think TRP ideas are for naive people who grew up thinking well of women and then found out the hard way that you really shouldn't think well of anyone 100%, especially if you barely know them. TRP itself is for people who fell a little too hard and are angry about it.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

I get that, but those exact people are also most likely to take what they read literally as well. Therein lies the problem. If you read between the lines you can use it a heuristic approach. But TRP is not exactly written in a nuanced manner, and it's target audience is (let's be honest) spergy types who need things explained to them clearly.

[–]GinSmokeLies 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is a good point. They say that platitudes like "Just be yourself" are bad advice because there's unspoken subtext and it's not fair to expect socially awkward guys too "just get it." But then they turn around and claim AWALT and "women are children" etc. are just heuristics, not meant to be taken literally. Aren't they expecting these men to "just get it" when it comes to their own advice?

[–]BPremiumMeh3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I think they mean its better to assume AWALT, women are children, etc and be happily proven wrong. Its way better than the alternative, which is the WaW effect.

[–]Vorlon759 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

By that logic, black people should think of every white person they see as a White Supremacist after the Charlottesville situation from now on because it's better than the alternative and they are happy to be proven wrong.

[–]BPremiumMeh3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Black people have already been doing that for years. It got really amped up during the BLM garbage too

[–]whichbladeNA Paler Shade of Purple0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, and some black people treating every white person with animosity is the reason cops are more threatened by them, which leads to shooting, which leads to a movement like BLM.

It's a cycle. And the logical thing to do is to break the chain.

If you can choose to think of everyone with as much potential for good and bad as you, you might just get somewhere you want to be with them.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Except most white people are not white supremacists, so its a pretty bad false equivalence.

Now you can say other racist things should be presumed until proven otherwise.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Black people in general assume white people are racists or are extremely privileged and sheltered from their reality.

We even have laws to protect non white folk from discrimination because of past segregation and discrimination. Black people don't trust that white people have their best interests at heart.

If we can accept that, and most people tend to, we should be able to understand why others have a less than positive view of another race or gender. What we should do is allow both sides to talk instead of telling one to shut up ir trivialising their issues.

[–]GinSmokeLies 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Right, that is what they mean, but my point is they're not very explicit in spelling that out which is supposedly their gripe with "blue pill advice."

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They have sidebar info and blog info dedicated to spelling it out. It's not hidden knowledge that they assume female nature to be a certain way and thus men should be aware of the bad stuff.

It is very different from "be yourself".

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That's the issue though, they aren't really open to be "proven wrong" if they take it literally. Or, they are more likely to rationalize it in the event it fits their worldview.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Who doesn't do that?

Those guys are scared and angry. And unfortunately no one cares how they feel. When women are hurt they get lots of support. TwoX is a huge sub and has someone complaining about the opposite sex daily. Those posts get upvoted to the front page quite often.

Some guys say that they are hurt because of women's behaviour and they are told to stop complaining, that they are misogynists or their issues aren't real. BP land and more mainstream subs just do not want them. The small corner of reddit they do occupy is considered a problem. But if they don't care about their issues, no one else will. Imagine feeling that way. There is nowhere for you to go and no one cares about what you have been through.

On the men's rights sub they would consider that a societal problem which could partially explain higher male suicide. It's also the same attitude that male rape victims have reported receiving. One guy was given an excuse in the form of "she was lonely and needed it" after he said he was raped. No one tells women the dude was lonely and if loneliness and sexual frustration were the causes of rape, we should be encouraging people to have sex and interact to stop it. But if we won't accept this for women, why do we care less about how men feel and experience the world?

They will continue to grow as long as young men feel marginalised. It happens to all groups who feel that way. They find more support among the desperate members of society. Those people don't come out of nowhere, though. We create them.

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Are they not open to it, or do they not experience anything that contradicts that world view? Im sure they'd love to be proven wrong, trust me it would bring immense joy. I think it lies between their guard is up and nobody thinks they are worth it to bother breaking down that barrier.

I know during those bitter AWALT episodes, having someone prove me wrong would have been like mana from heaven. But I wasn't good enough for women to bother trying. I had/have to work incessantly to improve myself to the point someone thinks I'm valuable enough to even try. Its a heuristic that can become bonafide fact depending on how valuable you are to women.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

How can something that happens in specific context sometimes be proven wrong?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What?

[–]DarkLord0chinChin-2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

AWALT is meant to be taken literally, all women are the same. If it's a female, it has female nature

[–]GinSmokeLies 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, you should probably tell that to all the red pillers who say "It's just a heuristic" then.

[–]DarkLord0chinChin-2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I shouldn't tell that to anyone, I'm not their mommy

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

Well you just did lol

[–]boyvillain01 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure, but who's stepping up to actually tell them things? Your blue pill types will ignore them at best, or laugh at them or shame them at worst. Women will just friend-zone or nice-guy them. Red pill is more generally speaking their language (spergy acronyms and labels and step-by-step instructions) and more likely to lead to more success than they're currently having, or at least more know-how and what to watch out for with women.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Sure I get that. I'm just pointing out it does have big flaws. The way they deliberately speak in hyperbole does its users a disservice.

[–]boyvillain01 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Is it really a disservice? A spergy or autistic person already has big social flaws, and they've likely already been treated, at worst as less-than-human by women, and at best as something to ignore.

I think most red-pillers aren't interested in being a mild-mannered, middle of the road blue-pill type of person because at best that already didn't work for them, at worst the blue pill ideals outright betrayed their expectations. Red pill is just giving them what they want: either a guide to get what they want, or the ability to at least stop expecting the best from women.

[–]theambivalentrooster3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What is your definition of less than human?

Because I think a lot of people here think that a woman who doesn't want to have sex with a man is evidence of her treating him less than human.

[–][deleted] 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

A spergy person being expected to read between the lines of a hyperbolic literal sounding post is certainly doing them a disservice yes.

[–][deleted] 8 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

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

They then get hopped up on an ungodly amount of hyperbole and bullshit. When this fails you get blackpillers and r/incels.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Kind of the point? It can't really be explained in a way that fully accounts for nuance, and the more nuance that is accounted for, the longer and more complex things become.

Trp is more like training wheels than a manual.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So you misconstrued AWALT and say that's fine because some people miss the nuance of it, therefore AWALT should be used in the misconstrued fashion.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I said already: this is about theory vs. reality.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The theory describes reality. I think I'm missing your point.

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

I think I'm missing your point.

Indeed.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I know. It shouldn't be either extreme. You need a healthy amount of skepticism. Personally, I like to see the good in people first. But I can understand why, after feeling betrayed, people may over compensate

But I think their other concern is that when women fuck up, men suffer large financial knocks. That divorce isn't cheap and is almost never in his favour.

I agree it shouldn't be an extreme, but our culture doesn't teach men to have a healthy amount of skepticism. It tells them that women are wonderful, they are usually innocent victims of some evil man, and as a man you need to make up for it by being extra attentive to her. Thus if you are one of those good guys, she will want to be with you. The reality is very different. Maybe if boys were warned of girls as girls are of boys it would be different.

Until then, we are going to get men who cannot trust women. Those RP guys want to trust and want to believe women are better but are scared that the second they let their guard down, those women will leave or abuse them. That shit did not come out of nowhere. Worse yet, when it happens to womem, they get all the support. For men it's like they have no right to complain.

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

You're just explaining the anger phase and we all know that's a thing already, but why is TRP actively encouraging it? Shouldn't they instead be seeking to help guys out of it? Isn't that ostensibly the whole point of the place? It seems to me that encouraging anger is only adding fuel to the fire and not helping anyone. A guy who's been through a bad divorce doesn't need extra help in being angry.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Fairy nuff.

However I have seen posters saying that getting angry at awalt is like getting angry that water is wet and they do encourage what they call "amused mastery". The skepticism stays, though. And it's not a bad idea to be aware of what could go wrong.

I think BPers take that and the anger phase as a sign that awalt means they see only the negative in women, when actually women treat men they like rather well. It is more a warning that if you don't measure up, she will go. Remember, these guys suck with women. They don't just need platitudes. They need straight talk, no BS advice and if they slack, they might lose her interest.

These guys have to work harder to get and maintain her interest, which maybe comes easier to other guys.

Shouldn't they instead be seeking to help guys out of it? Isn't that ostensibly the whole point of the place?

They do help them out. They tell them not to get married because women have the upper hand in the marriage and in the divorce. They tell men how to be more attractive amd attract more women. As one poster pointed out, he said 99% of the time he is okay with being RP and acting in a way that keeps her interested. But that 1% is like remorse. He is sad and angry that he couldn't just be nice and things would work out. He is sad that he has to be this way. It might not be anger but there is general mistrust because women have the capacity to destroy him emotionally and financially. Telling someone not to be careful is asking a lot.

So while they may encourage you to get over the anger phase, which they do, they tell you to remember why you were angry to begin with and don't slip up. She is not a unicorn. She is perfectly capable of fucking shit up. Don't trust her 100%.

Thing is, if women felt this way, no one would correct them. They would get almost universal support. Hell, no one would say that she is attracting assholes by saying all men are assholes. RP does it and it's somehow deserved because of self fulfilling prophecy.

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

She is not a unicorn. She is perfectly capable of fucking shit up. Don't trust her 100%.

This is literally the same as what I'm saying, I'm just not using hyperbole to express it.

Thing is, if women felt this way, no one would correct them. They would get almost universal support. Hell, no one would say that she is attracting assholes by saying all men are assholes. RP does it and it's somehow deserved because of self fulfilling prophecy.

You'll notice I made no moral judgements about who deserves what. I simply made neutral observations about human behaviour, like TRP itself.

Anyone man or woman who goes around thinking all women are bitches or all men are pigs is not going to have the best luck in the dating scene at the end of the day.

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

Most women are not cheating whores, and they're not perfect angels either. They're people

If "women are people" and we know for a fact that most people are weak-willed assholes that just follow from one base instinct to another, then most women will indeed be cheating whores.

"Women are people" is just blue blackpedalling. Unfortunately "All Women Are Like That" is a subset of "All People Are Like That" so it changes nothing and actually fits in perfectly with TRP narrative because THEY are the ones that admit biologically determined species/gender-wide behaviours exist.

Meanwhile you use "Women are people" as a defense because you think all people are completely unique snowflakes that have literally nothing to do with one another other than looking remotely similar, which at best can be called still-believe-in-santa level of naive.

So yeah, are all women "just people"? Fuck yeah they are, that's why they're "cheating whores", that's kind of the core of the problem, I mean if they were all actually angels in human form we wouldn't have this mess on our hands now would we

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

you think all people are completely unique snowflakes

No I don't and nothing I said actually indicates that.

Put the straw down and try again.

[–]pinkgoldrose7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Not being an evil cheating whore is a pretty low bar for a unicorn. I dated short unattractive men and I didn't cheat on them, I'm not whoring myself, and I wasn't using them for their ressources. That doesn't mean I was the greatest prize ever. I have a stringent personality, I'm an introvert and I've got a weird tendency to argue. But still, they didn't have to do anything other than being themselves and keep doing what they were doing. It certainly wasn't hard for them and they weren't tall nor attractive nor rich nor popular nor athletic.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

PPD has seen this argument many times.

When men say "ladies, we experience this from you" the women say "but I am not like that". There have been posts on this already. Either you are an exception to the rule or are not aware because you are not on the receiving end. For every man you were nice to, there might be more you were shitty to. This is, of course, speculation. But women get approached a lot. And certain types of men tend to get laid a lot more than other types.

I mean, if you were attending midget orgies, I can understand. But your experience is not exactly comforting to the tons of short, unattractive men who desire a girlfriend. There is only one of you and can you say for certain that most women would be okay with your choices in whom you date? I.e. they would find the same men attractive? There are far more unattractive than attractive men (to women). Women, on average, prefer more attractive men. Preferably rich, tall and white.

They need more than 'here is an exception, so stop your shenanigans!'

Oh and as for the not being a cheating whore part? It is a low bar. And still women fail. Just as cheating men do. If women are allowed to be more skeptical of men, then men should be extended the same courtesy.

[–]pinkgoldrose1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

90% of men have girlfriends.

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

Not being an evil cheating whore is a pretty low bar for a unicorn.

Hence the women hating rhetoric

[–]pinkgoldrose4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Or maybe they actually don't like the non-evil non-cheating non-whores because when they say they want a non-evil non-cheating non-whore what they really mean is that they want a beautiful 16 year old blond princess with no character flaws and no wants of her own.

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

That sounds more like r/incels

[–]Aomicb0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The law of attraction.

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

The same goes for the opposite though no? If you tell yourself "everyone is a unique individual, no 2 women are the same", then youll see it through that lens.

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

I never said "everyone is a unique individual" please show me where I said this.

[–]Pope_LuciousSeparating the wheat from the hoes0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Completely incorrect. The Secret isn't actually a thing. And AWALT doesn't argue "all women are evil, cheating whores". The basis for the argument is women are hypergamous, and act accordingly but with various expressions.

[–]Christian_Kong80% Natural Red-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The whole AWALT thing is about being cautious when taking in another person(that happens to be female) to your life. So you are saying that since someone is going to be more cautious going into a relationship, they are more likely to have that relationship be riddled with the things they are taking precaution to avoid?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nope not what I'm saying at all, try actually reading my comments.

[–]theiamsamuraiRavishment Realist-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I had a girl claim that what happened between us was a self-fulfilled prophecy, to which I told her that if that was the reason, she wouldn't have done the same thing to me as she did to other guys who didn't express doubts and insecurities that I did. That shut her up.

[–]storffish20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

their descriptions of women don't often line up with my experience of dating and hooking up. Ive always assumed they just dont know many girls, didnt grow up around girls, in real life so their knowledge of them is an extrapolation from instagram and tinder and the like. I also think a lot of them are probably seeing the world from a shy, socially awkward perspective.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What would be the correct perspective?

[–]mistresswhat2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

All women are a mashup of the bitchy cheerleader character in high school comedies and the wives in cuckolding porn.

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

Are you being sarcastic in response to his post or stating a fact? I can't tell

[–]mistresswhat1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sarcastic. Obviously.

[–]Butt-Factory9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Any hard and fast belief a person holds carries that risk. Believing you're a failure leads to failure, believing you're a winner leads to winning. Believing your partner will leave you often leads to your partner leaving, feeling self assured and confident keeps people around. Literally everyone holds beliefs, positive and negative, that effect the outcomes and results of every endeavor.

Two equally qualified people walk into a job interview. One is certain they're not good enough or the hiring manager is unreasonable and unfair, and that they will be rejected. The other feels sure they're the perfect candidate. Who's chances are better?

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

Sure, and Wile E. Coyote doesn't fall until he realizes there is no ground beneath him. Obviously, thinking gravity will affect you is what causes you to fall.

Gravity doesn't care what you believe and generally, neither do women.

[–]Helmet_Icicle9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

If mentalization and visualization are bullshit, why is confidence such a critical component of achieving common and popular goals?

[–]BPremiumMeh1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

because "confidence" is a smoke screen and designed to signal success. That's it. Confident people are those who usually succeed in their endeavors, hence why they're confident. Its a positive feedback loop. Winners keep winning while the losers keep getting tilted and lose more. And breaking those peoples positive feedback loops via violence is illegal unfortunately.

Take that same person, give them a shit hand in life with little to no luck, and watch how quickly that confidence crumbles.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Broad self-confidence is built upon narrower self-efficacy and competence, and repeated failure is an integral part of the process.

An adult who has never faced failure is far less equipped to overcome it than someone who has faced it consistently and sees failure as a temporary setback to conquer.

There has been a lot of research into strategies for developing confidence in athletes, as well as support for the use of visualization and mental imagery in improving performance, confidence, and self-efficacy.

Sport psychology theories and research make for interesting reading, and are broadly applicable to other areas of life.

[–]BPremiumMeh-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The only difference between confidence and delusion is the probability of success.

An adult whos never faced failure may be less equipped to deal with it, but one has to wonder how it is they have yet to face it. Because they haven't failed much. They don't have to learn to deal with it because it happens rarely, and all their prior success inoculates them from experiencing a negative feedback loop. These people tend to be blessed in life with good looks, money, connections, etc that enables them to succeed in life easier and faster.

A obese guy expecting an hot thin woman is delusional, no matter how much confidence he has. He can be confident that with enough discipline and time he can look better, cause thats based on fact. But believing he can pull hot chicks regularly because he has "confidence" is hilariously offbase. But the only difference between the 2 is the probability of success.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The only difference between confidence and delusion is the probability of success.

I'd say the difference lies in level of competence and how comfortable someone is with failure. A person who doesn't view failure as something to be ashamed of is much more likely to take risks and face challenges head on.

Someone who associates failure with shame will likely go out of their way to avoid public situations that may result in failure.

Confidence does not mean one will always succeed, it just means that it's not the end of the world if they don't.

An adult whos never faced failure may be less equipped to deal with it, but one has to wonder how it is they have yet to face it.

Because they avoid it, plan ahead to make sure there is no public perception of failure, or have people around them who coddle them and guide them around life's obstacles.

Personally, I don't think that's a good way to live and I'd take failure over never developing general competence.

A obese guy expecting an hot thin woman is delusional, no matter how much confidence he has.

I have seen obese guys with hot think women; they had other qualities that made up for the obesity. I think someone who can't get the "standard" of partner they want uses their high expectations to shield themselves from public failure and the shame they associate with it.

[–]Helmet_Icicle0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Confidence is merely strength of willpower, that's all. If you have none it's because you're weak, not because you're a loser (which is coincidentally beget by the other).

[–]DarkLord0chinChin-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

cawnfehdence is bullshit, the smartest people are the least confident. Cawnfehdence is a buzzword women use to describe Alpha Male Chad. Basically, masculinity

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

[deleted]

[–]DarkLord0chinChin-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's how whamen pronounce it when they say that men need cawnfehdence

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Confidence based on proven competence and confidence based on delusion are very different.

[–]Helmet_Icicle1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

There are no salient points raised in your comment. If you'd like to be considered as a competent user, you're gonna need to put a little more effort into that.

[–]DarkLord0chinChin-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

When women and BP noobs say "you need cawnfehdence" what they actually mean is that you have to act masculine, have a DGAF attitude and think of her as a stupid child who doesn't know what she wants. Masculine Alpha Chad men do this automatically, they do not fear rejection and do not respect whamen, so are able to withstand the pressure and pass shit-tests.

On the other hand, your typical reddit nerd can be as cawnfehdent as he wants, but if he Approaches While Unattractive, he's either going to get laughed at or called a creep. So much for cawnfehdence.

[–]Helmet_Icicle2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Your facile simulacrum that must pass for what you think is understanding is so paltry and simple it's a wonder you manage to find all the right letters at all.

Congratulations, you are too stupid with which to argue. Keep in mind this does not include the assumption that you have anything worthwhile to argue about.

[–]DarkLord0chinChin-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Calling me stupid doesn't make you smart

[–]Helmet_Icicle0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You are the first one to raise this notion, but you are incidentally correct. The fact that you are stupid makes you stupid.

[–]DarkLord0chinChin-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The fact that you go around downvoting and calling people stupid while pretentiosly using smart-sounding vocabulary means that you are either a very retarded intelligent person or are a bad troll. As I said, you only make a fool of yourself instead of lookig like a beacon of reason and intelligence.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Confidence has to be based on something real.

[–]Helmet_Icicle1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No it doesn't. It just has to be at all.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It has to be if you actually want to leverage it into substantive results. "Fake it 'till you make it" won't get you too far.

[–]Helmet_Icicle1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're raising a completely different topic altogether. Naturally. As the bottom side of the argument is wont to do.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

Can you give us more detail for what your point is

[–][deleted] 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

When I would hang out with women and they would say something positive about me I would think about how it was her saying that out of emotion of the moment and that I couldn't truly ever build anything with her because it would be like building a house on sand. This kind of thinking would depress me when I was with women and obviously that would show through to some degree and they would start to get turned off and lose interest.

The solution to that is to be what she wants right now all the time.

[–][deleted] 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The "I need to be what she wants to avoid her losing interest" idea feels like it puts the woman on a pedestal. Why am I the one worrying about whether or not I continually impress her? Shouldn't that worry be mutual?

You have to worry about that because nature designed men to have less reproductive value than women

[–]Onna9993 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a very healthy way of thinking, nice. Do not let people here or on trp influence you.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why am I the one worrying about whether or not I continually impress her? Shouldn't that worry be mutual?

Yes, it should be mutual.

When she knows you have options and finds you attractive it's mutual.

[–]zayelionMale, Only Attracts Lesbians0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Shouldn't that worry be mutual

And so would she. The major take away from redpill you are likely missing is over in the marriedredpill subreddit. It's a far more pragmatic take with specific actions. it more clearly defines the consequences of your actions and I suggest reading over it.

Women are normally risking lives while we are wasting our time and money. You misunderstood "right now", as continuous fleeting, when it is really continuous assurance. She thinks that you are a foundation of concrete, and she checks to make sure that you haven't crumbled, else it would be extremely wise she move. You cant blame her for that. "So do your fucking job." The lie of the blue pill is we will be cared for like little boys, mothered and loved sexually. That she will be just like good ol mom. The even more painful thing is that she is lied to just as badly. That we will be just as great as good ol dad.

One of us will get half our fantasy, the other will get the whole thing. Its constant sex and unit level patriarch-like behavior, or a small amount of sex, comfort, and eventual heart ache.

You arent being asked to "impress" her, you are being asked to "be yourself", which means maintaining yourself. If what you are showing women is not you, then you need to get there so its the base of your personality naturally. That is why TRP spends so much focus on men developing passions, and mental fortitude.

So... add on to "right now", "stay this way".

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The lie of the blue pill is we will be cared for like little boys, mothered and loved sexually.

Who says that? Men are told to man up all the time.

[–]zayelionMale, Only Attracts Lesbians-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

When they are in their 20s yes. When I hit 21, I got married and there was a very distinct sense of missing skills. I have those skills now, but unless you have an unbroken line of fathers going back to the civil war; I dont see that coming to someone naturally.

I got them by hunting down old grumpy men and AWALT-princesses before finally landing on TRP where everything got explained with a neat little bow.

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Who told you your wife would mother you?

[–][deleted] 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

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

Challenging her, not necessarily pissing her off

(which is also what she wants)

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You're on point.

Most of those angry clowns basically assume that "worst case" = "base case" all the time. That kind of perma-pessimistic mindset eventually comes out in your actions and then repels people away from you.

[–][deleted] 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Worst case = you can't be disappointed when it happens, you can prepare yourself for if it happens (and it probably will, if you're going from nothing to someone,

If you're high value and have options, it doesn't matter if you get burned. You'll recover.

if you're going from nothing to someone, you're probably going to end up with some shitty people because most of the good ones are already taken anyways), and be pleasantly surprised if it doesn't.

That's assuming that this very same negative mindset doesn't torpedo you from actually meeting someone who's got a generally positive outlook on life.

Being ready for disappointments is just a part of life. No need to dwell on it ad nauseum.

[–][deleted] 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you're on TRP, you're probably not high-value or didn't start out high-value. And most men aren't high-value even at their peak anyways.

I generally agree, but there's going to be exceptions (such as guys with solid income, good baseline genetics [but not leveraging looks overall] and bleh personalities [that need personalized fixing]).

Eh, I find those people useless, because thinking nice things are going to happen if you just think nice things doesn't actually tackle problems or accomplish anything. It's no big loss.

How about you stop projecting your perma-pessimistic mindset onto others? A "positive outlook" on life doesn't imply naivete or living with blinders on. "Positive outlook" and "healthy skepticism" aren't mutually exclusive. Perma-pessimism and positive outook are mutually exclusive, however.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And those that believe they're lucky and never have to worry about the worst case get burned too.

Lose lose?

[–]FalseBuddhaSomething borrowed, something Blue0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Naive, grandiose, or misplaced confidence is called arrogance.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure. Though I'd say the issue there is having too much faith in others, not arrogance really.

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

Yeah, makes sense.

[–]mgtownigga2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the problem is with experience, you realize this is WAY too often the case. If you've gotten owned enough, it becomes a lot safer to just take this route. The next girl might be different, of course, but there's no way to be sure of that

[–]Helmet_Icicle1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The salient point to be had is there will never be any guarantee that someone who expresses an emotion today will still experience that emotion tomorrow, even if they specifically claim as such. No one is entitled to love or a relationship, so you can't put yourself in a position where you assume a conditional statement to be objective because that error leads to unhappiness.

The idea that your high value must be demonstrated in unpredictable spontaneity is concurrent with the notion that she must also be demonstrating the corollary of her value.

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you thought everyone hated you, the next question one asks is why and what is causing this belief. If they just think so, despite examples to the contrary, I agree thats a self fulfilling prophecy. If people treat them poorly, which is providing evidence to said belief? Thats a different story.

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

the problem was not rp.

it was your inability to live with reality.

like, is it that hard for you to add "right now" and understand that it means that she likes what she sees and if you change, her "liking" might change??

they are human too ... jeez

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

None. They are observation and reporting. Nothing more. They are men getting together and comparing notes and field reports, and swapping stories about what they've seen, heard, and experienced.

[–][deleted] 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

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

most of those terms describe (or misinterpret rather?) general human behavior but are framed as tho only women do it

Women and Chads~

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

Not many. This is that bullshit along the lines of "the only reason you got hurt by a woman is 'cause RP-techniques attract insecure/shitty women". It's tantamount to victim-blaming.

[–]mgtownigga5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

seriously. If you're a man, and have had negative experience, obviously were allowed to question and render those experiences invalid because they don't jive with what? the narrative? I hate how acceptable it is to deny the experiences of a man

[–]decoy88Black Male in London6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago* (38 children) | Copy Link

Change "All Women Are Like That" to "Some Women Are Like That" and noone has a problem.

Seriously. I have dealt with women are word for word everything that RP describes as 'female nature'. But as I matured, I learned to tolerate less shit from people, my filter got better and now I never deal with insecure types that RP techniques work on. Does that now mean these women cease to exist? Hell naw!!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (37 children) | Copy Link

I don't see what is so hard about this.

All women have it in them to be like that.

Some women are like that all the time.

All women are like that sometimes.

Got it now?

[–]decoy88Black Male in London6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Yes

Yes

No

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Please state all of your bases for your allegation that not all women are like that sometimes.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

People grow up differently and are taught different values. Environment and social upbringing contribute way more than gender.

And if your claim is simply "all women are capable of being like that" like duhh! all humans are capable of bullshit.

It's a stupid statement like saying "it is 100% correct, 50% of the time."

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

All women are AWALT sometimes. Impossible for them not to be. Same for AMALT.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah if you read down I think there's confusion on definitions.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I don't buy it. Every woman I have ever known has been "like that" sometimes, even the sweet kind 15 year old girl I took to prom senior year. Even my mother. Even my sisters. Even my grandmothers.

Every woman gives in to her base nature sometimes. Every single solitary one of them.

Everyone has faults. Everyone lies. Everyone. No one is perfect. no one.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Wait a minute. When you say "like that" are you referring to women's sexual desire? Because if so. Yes I agree. All women (save asexuals) very much have sexual attraction and desire.

I thought you were talking about the often immature insecure "teenager" that some women are.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

I am. I am talking about the immature insecure "teenager" that ALL women HAVE IT IN THEM TO BE and SOMETIMES are. Same with being a raging cuntbitch.

Every woman I have ever known has acted like that at some point in her life. Every single solitary one. Including that sweet kind prom date, my mom, my sisters, my grandmothers, every female relative I have ever had, and every woman I've ever met, known, dated, fucked, worked for, and worked with.

I've seen a 50 year old chiropractor have a goddamn meltdown in the middle of a church choir practice.

I've seen a 55 year old senior law partner throw a fit in her office on the phone with her husband and then break down sobbing like a mawkish 7th grader.

I've seen MY OWN MOTHER treat my dad like shit. Many times.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

All women will act kind and loving in the right circumstances. All women will act kind and loving sometimes. Therefore all women are kind and loving?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

All women have it in them to act kind and loving.

Some women are kind and loving most of the time.

All women are kind and loving sometimes.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Then are all women kind and loving?

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They can be.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You don't think that telling men that all women are kind and loving would give these men the wrong idea?

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure who you're referring to as these men.

But I think people know this too, that all women can be kind or caring.

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

No. All women HAVE IT IN THEM to be kind and loving.

Just as all women have it in them to be "like that". Whatever "like that" is.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

All women have it in them to be heartless and cruel. So tell me, which is female nature? Being kind and loving or heartless and cruel?

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

At the risk of being unduly poetic and campy:

Women's nature is all things, and nothing. Women can be kind and loving, and heartless and cruel, in the same day, in the same hour, even in the same minute. Women are all these things, kind, caring, heartless, cruel, wonderful, horrible, good, evil, upstanding, degenerate, loyal and unfaithful, and even more than all these things. A woman can be sharp as a razor and able to handle many things, and in the next minute a maelstrom of emotion, dissolving into a puddle on the floor.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

But RP relationship-techniques only work on the insecure women.

[–]Entropy-7 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Says someone who either does not understand RP or doesn't understand women.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Says someone who likely nexts confident and self-assured women.

I understand both. RP is great for hook-ups but when it tries to advise on actual relationships it falls apart

[–]Entropy-7 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Right, because I "can't handle a strong, confident woman^TM "

LMFAO

[–]decoy88Black Male in London7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Essentially yes. They get dropped if they don't follow your lead.

Personally I respect independence and individuality. I don't need followers and I don't wanna raise my woman like a child.

The "ideal" female partner often spouted on MRP sounds like a bore.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I drop bitches if they give me drama and heartache.

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

Which ones

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

All women are insecure really, especially at times when feelings get out of hand.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Almost every person has insecurities of some kind. But not everyone lets it define them. Many, many men and women do. I've met them in the past but rarely now because I know how to filter that bullshit.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's more like, most women are more insecure than most men.

And, in a relationship, usually it doesn't go well, the woman will not be as attracted, if she's overall more confident than her man.

This reality dynamic exacerbates the view that women are insecure too.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

More like men and women's insecurities manifest differently. But I'd say the ratio is equal.

Generalisation time! Women are often insecure about sexuality (not being a hoe), physical attractiveness, and not appearing rude.

Men tend to also be insecure about sexuality (virgin/can't get laid), being 'strong' and being in charge.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

More like men and women's insecurities manifest differently. But I'd say the ratio is equal.

Generalisation time! Women are often insecure about sexuality (not being a hoe), physical attractiveness, and not appearing rude.

Plus who likes or dislikes them, fear for safety, etc.

Men tend to also be insecure about sexuality (virgin/can't get laid), being 'strong' and being in charge.

Sure, having purpose, worth, value too.

But because men are braver out of necessity, we also need to act and appear more secure too.

I find too that men have fewer insecurities, but those few ones are really strong. Women have tons of sources of insecurity, but most are not nearly as powerful in intensity.

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I know red pill women contain like 75% of the qualities of a woman that I'd ever want to be misogynist over.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

What about "women" do you like that's "feminine" outside of appearance?

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

I hate men more tbh, as the feminine things I hate just annoy me, but the masculine ones piss me the fuck off.

For example, I hate how a lot of men have this super-competitive mindset. If you play fucking Apples to Apples with your average group of men, it becomes some fucking contest to size out who is the most clever and witty in the group, and whose on top; women will just play Apple to Apples and chill.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm interested in you're hatred of rpw as a mtf.

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Like the usual conservative woman, they defend traditional power structures, and want to further empower them, I have seen them say that when they have kids they will teach their boys what would be toxic masculinity, and make their girls take etiquette courses and other sexist shit, just to name a few. On the sexual level they of course are perfectly fine with eating up the absolute worst stuff about women in the dating world, like the whole "I want to date a man who makes more money that me," but most women just unconsciously absorb this ideology, red pill women fucking revel in it.

And on top of that, pretty much all of them I have come across openly despise any femininity in males, making them my natural enemy.

So pretty much, fuck them.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you believe in femininity in males so deeply, why not remain and identify as a feminine male?

[–]WhiskersNTreddish purp-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

How TF is an etiquette course sexist

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

the entirety of female etiquette is about as sexist as you can get

[–]WhiskersNTreddish purp0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Like how to do formal dances? How to eat a cookie without getting it on your face? How to hold an appetizer plate and a drink at the same time?

I did etiquette courses as a kid and it all seemed pretty tame

[–]DarkLord0chinChin0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hey is that a feminist blank slater making sexist observations about men and women in general? What if he(she?) took another step and asked himself(herself?) where these differences come from? Maybe evolution is real after all?

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I've always believed in innate differences between men and women, have you not been paying attention to me at all?

Tho, I do think most of it is socialized, toxic masculinity and all that.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Competition bad. Growth bad. Achievement bad. Strength bad.

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

wat?

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You hate competition, and all that comes with it.

No?

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

On an emotional level I hate it.

I will admit however that it has its uses intellectually. We'd still be in Feudalism if it weren't for it.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Why hate it on an emotional level?

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

my emotions and tastes are not logical, you effectively just asked me why do I not like chocolate ice cream: I just don't like it

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, but then that's not a very strong position to fall back on, especially since plenty of men like me love the feeling of competition.

Probably has to do with beliefs and values a lot.

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cause winners get access to women, since women want successful men. Can't blame men for doing something women actively reward, even if it's used a bit inappropriately in centain venues/at times.

[–]disposable_pants1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They're only self-fulfilling prophecies in the sense that you see what you're looking for. If you think everyone you meet is a liar, you're going to vividly remember every single time a person stretches the truth and gloss over the many times they are completely honest.

But this also means that you're going to be better at avoiding what you're watching out for. In the "everyone's a liar" example, you're going to be more likely to spot actual, habitual liars and get them out of your life. You'll have more false positives (generally truthful people who may have exaggerated a bit too much for your tastes), but you'll catch more of the actual positives (people who do in fact lie all the time).

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

Self-fulfilling prophecy? No, not really. When people have a preconceived view of the world it tints their vision. I'm guilty of having my own negative viewpoint, so it's not incomprehensible to me. Expecting the worst makes it easier to avoid the pain that comes when falling from bliss.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Almost none are self-fulfilling considering my own experiences and conclusions preceded anything I read on TRP.

[–]darla103 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Might you be attracted to damaged women and are blind to the undamaged ones?

[–]decoy88Black Male in London7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's the same logic that follows those bitter "all men are dogs" type of women cus they've been fucked over so many times (cus they keep picking fuck-ups as partners)

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've been attracted to all types. The self-fulfilling prophecy nonsense is just a blue pill myth designed to make themselves feel superior.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

The intellectually dishonest RP definition of''hypergamy'' is definitely one.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

What's intellectually dishonest about it?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

''Hypergamy'' means marrying up in social class.

It's a sociological term with a specific meaning.

RP has hijacked this term to lend an air of legitimacy to one of their illogical concepts.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

That doesn't make it illogical or "intellectually dishonest". It is just TRP jargon rather than a sociological term of art. They certainly have not hijacked it because they are the only ones who use it in that way, and they are far and away in the minority.

It's not like the way the left has hijacked terms like "misogyny".

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

It's intellectually dishonest dishonest because they've picked up a fancy sociological term and twisted it to mean something which bears only a tangential similarity to its actual meaning.

The only reason they use the term is to give the RP concept a semblance of respectability.

I didn't say that the use of the term was illogical, as I've outlined the very logical and sneaky reasoning for the usage.

It's the RP concept of ''hypergamy'' which is illogical.

[–]Entropy-7 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The only reason they use the term is to give the RP concept a semblance of respectability.

That's just your own ignorance and insecurity talking.

The term, as used by TRPers is the concept. There is nothing illogical about women trading up; not believing that it is true doesn't make it illogical.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

No, they use the term - along with pseudoscientific concepts derived from off-the-top-of-the-head evo psych BS - to hook gullible people into their ''product'', and for self-affirmation of their doubts.

The idea of women ''trading up'' is illogical, and the conclusion is drawn from confirmation bias.

Seeing as there are so many components which could potentially make a man attractive to a woman, then you would struggle not to find something ''better'' about Man B, as opposed to Man A.

The RP concept of ''hypergamy'' introduces an unnecessary and unfalsifiable variable to the self-evident concept that women are attracted to attractive men.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It's hypergamy in a modern feminist society. As opposed to a tradcon society. That is your difference, evo psych not required.

Trp simply looked at what women are marrying for.

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

Trp simply looked at what women are marrying for.

What are they marrying for?

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Back in the day, almost all married for money and better status.

Now with women working, they can get those things on their own if they want.

Depending on the woman and what she lacks and needs, she'll want excitement, companionship, emotional support, protection, money, traveling, partying, drugs, or just good ol status.

Women's hypergamy today is way more complex, and the men that well satisfy whatever her personal hypergamy demands, are most happy, fulfilled, in love.

RP doesn't speak about hypergamy to shit on women, rather, it's how a man attracts the sort of woman he wants and having a stronger relationship by offering women what they need to satisfy their hypergamy.

As why should she settle for anything less?

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[M] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Be civil

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's certainly as civil as being referred to as intellectually dishonest and such.

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[M] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't see them referring to you specifically but RPers as a whole, which is allowed here.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So I can be uncivil to entire groups that include the person I am addressing but not that person specifically. Got it.

[–]Helmet_Icicle0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's the RP concept of ''hypergamy'' which is illogical.

You still have not explained this, and have taken three comments now to do so.

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

None of my three comments were ever intended to address this, so I think that you need to understand context in discussion and debate.

[–]Helmet_Icicle0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

None of your three comments were ever intended to address the single idea that you raised in your first comment?

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

No.

[–]Helmet_Icicle2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course not, that would mean having to actually articulate your point in a subreddit specifically created for such.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

No, RP didn't "hijack" the term. A sociologist/social observer named F. Roger Devlin appropriated the term to describe a particular set of female sexual behaviors:

--women serially dating men in the search for the "best one",

--the desire of a woman for the "best" one man she can get at any given time, and

--a woman's tendency to get rid of, or at least lose attraction for, a man she perceives as "not the best" and to then start a search for a better man, and then once she "has" that better man, to get rid of the "not the best" man.

It's used as shorthand to help men understand a key feature of female nature. And it IS female nature to do this. It's what they do. Its' why they date/fuck the way they do. And society is set up to enable all women to do this to the best of their capabilities and attractiveness levels.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

OK then, a ''social observer'' named F. Roger Devlin intellectually dishonestly appropriated the term. And now RP carries on the dishonesty by perpetuating it.

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

So what exactly is the problem you're having, Mr/Ms. Redditor for 18 hours?

Is the problem with the use of the word "hypergamy" to describe the behavior?

Or is the problem with the description of the behavior?

If the former, it's become a term of art. If you're going to be here talking about Red Pill concepts (which is what this forum is for), then you'll have to use the jargon. I don't think TRP or even Terpers who post here are going to refrain from using the word "hypergamy" as a descriptive term for one special snowflake.

If the latter, you'll have to explain to me what the problems with the descriptions of the behavior are.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

The use of the term ''hypergamy'' is a problem, because it's intellectually dishonest to misuse and abuse the term, in a haphazard attempt to gain some kind of legitimacy for a concept which is the figment of a sexually frustrated neckbeard's imagination.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

I see. you have a problem with both.

--No one at TRP cares that you don't like the term of art use of "hypergamy". We're not changing for snowflakes. Get over it, and get over yourself.

--The term describes a set of repeatedly and consistently observed female behaviors and has support in science. Women select the best men they can, ditch lesser men for better men, and are constantly on the lookout for better men. It's what they do. Your inability to see it or your looking the other way doesn't negate/eliminate what women do.

Please state all of your bases for your claim that this well described, oft-observed set of female behaviors is "the figment of a sexually frustrated neckbeard's imagination".

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

--No one at TRP cares that you don't like the term of art use of "hypergamy". We're not changing for snowflakes. Get over it, and get over yourself.

Why would they change? I've already outlined the sneaky (and logical) reasoning for its usage. If they manage to hook in more gullible and socially awkward losers by using a fancy Latin, ''sciency'' term to lend credence to their house of cards, then they'd be foolish to change it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

-The term describes a set of repeatedly and consistently observed female behaviors and has support in science.

[citation needed]

Women select the best men they can, ditch lesser men for better men, and are constantly on the lookout for better men. It's what they do. Your inability to see it or your looking the other way doesn't negate/eliminate what women do.

This is a very long-winded and mental masturbatory way of stating that women are attracted to attractive men.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

OK. Glad to know you can accept the term's usage.

Yes, women are attracted to attractive men. So don't you Blues or Blacks come in here and tell me that women are sugar and spice and all things nice, and would never ever ever do anything to hurt their husbands, and would never ever ever cheat, and never ever ever refuse to honor their marital or long term commitments, and that it's all all all men's fault all the time. Don't come in here and tell me that attraction isn't supremely important to marriage or long term commitments, because it is.

[–]SeemedGood3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

None. They are all the result of observing women's behaviors and choice structures.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

This is true. I don't get why people dont' understand this. All TRP is doing is observing female behaviors and choices, describing and systematizing them, and setting them out for people to read. That's it. It's pure observation and reporting.

[–]allweknowisD10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

The issue is more the narrator. You can't objectively look at someone's FR and believe that everything they've outlined is not in some way altered and shadowed by their own confirmation bias and beliefs of what they done or what they said.

For example; I've read plenty of FR about service workers giving them lOl. You don't think that the narrator of the story could have regurgitated a story which makes him appear more alpha and her more interested than what actually took place?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

OK but it's not just field reports, which can suffer from the problems you describe.

It's a systematized description of female sexual nature and what women actually, in the real world, in real time, SHOW they find sexually attractive (as opposed to what they SAY they find sexually attractive).

[–]allweknowisD6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Yes but that's the basis of RP. It's all about personal experiences of women based on FR and men coming together to share their experiences about what women want.

The whole ideology is based on men observing women and sharing it. Observation is hugely unreliable due to the observers own biases. So how do you go about trying to justify why RP should be taken seriously when there's nothing other than observational evidence to back it up 99% of its theories?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

It should be taken seriously because:

--the descriptions and observations are surprisingly consistent across all demographics and among the experiences of men who don't know each other and, absent internet connection, their paths would never cross

--it's easily replicated - go out and try it and see if it works (it does)

--the basic premises of sexual nature and what women find sexually attractive and what women actually respond to is confirmed in pre-feminist writings and descriptions

--when we have listened to women and been/acted/done what they SAID they were attracted to (niceness, kindness, doing things for her, deferring to her, doing/giving her what she wanted, etc.) we failed. When we stopped listening to women and listened to TRP and did/became what women ACTUALLY SHOW they're sexually attracted to and emulated the men that women ACTUALLY fuck and want to fuck in real life (fit, trim, confident to the point of arrogance, dominant, refusing to put up with bullshit and maltreatment, eliminating people from our lives who don't give us what we want/need), we succeed.

[–]allweknowisD7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Yet thousands of people have different experiences and observations so what makes RP the correct way? What makes it the truth because some men have similar experiences? There's also the issue with how many of these observations comes post-RP reading which creates massive bias. Why should those be taken seriously?

Of course it works; sometimes. Unless there's a 100% success rate (which there isn't, hence the divorces, the rejections etc in FR) then it isn't universal truth aka nature. It's theories which work sometimes. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Pre-feminism; what time period are we talking here and who wrote these premises on sexual nature of women?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

People with "different" experiences and observations actually aren't describing anything all that different. They are either:

--natural alphas who "just got it"

--men who just clicked with the second or third woman they were ever with and they just stayed together

--men who got very, very lucky

--extremely physically attractive men who have never struggled with attracting, getting and fucking women

They are all describing the same thing: Women are sexually attracted to, and have sex with and relationships with, confident, dominant, good looking, fit, trim, accomplished, badass men who don't put up with bullshit, who eliminate dead weight from their lives, who don't take shit from women, and who are very good at their jobs.

Of course it works; sometimes. Unless there's a 100% success rate (which there isn't, hence the divorces, the rejections etc in FR) then it isn't universal truth aka nature. It's theories which work sometimes. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

TRP doesn't claim a 100% success rate and I didn't say otherwise. It does, however, work BETTER than what you would propose to give them: "Just be nice, just be yourselves, and someday someone will love you just for who you are! Don't change!! You don't need to change!! Looks don't matter! It's what's on the inside that counts!"

Pre-feminism; what time period are we talking here and who wrote these premises on sexual nature of women?

King Solomon (The Book of Proverbs, esp. Ch 1-8; the entire Song of Solomon)

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Just as a for example.

[–]allweknowisD8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

It's no surprise that women like attractive and confident men; that's not a RP revelation and every single piece of dating advice will tell you that. That's not an ideology; it's basic understanding of dating.

I'm discussing more in depth theories of RP such as women being children; awalt; hypergamy; women not loving men that are sick; stonewalling; all women want dominated etc etc etc.

Many men and women are in relationships which are the complete opposite of what RP advocates for in terms of dynamics and yet are happy. How do you go about explaining those types of people if it's "nature" to want otherwise?

There's billions of people in the world, with only how many subscribed to RP? 400k? I'm assuming more now. So unless every other man on earth is a natural alpha or isn't getting laid; statistically there's thousands if not millions of people living happy and successful lives without RP ideologies so how do you propose RP being nature when so many individuals don't live by that "nature"?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

It's no surprise that women like attractive and confident men; that's not a RP revelation and every single piece of dating advice will tell you that. That's not an ideology; it's basic understanding of dating.

EDIT: Are you a woman? Because if you are, it's no surprise you'd think ALL dating advice tells men that women like attractive and confident men. You have NO IDEA what men are ACTUALLY taught, if you're not a man.

No, every single piece of dating advice DOES NOT tell men that women are sexually attracted to good looking and confident men. Most dating advice most of us got was male confidence is arrogance and toxic masculinity that women do not like; and that looks don't matter.

women being children; awalt; hypergamy; women not loving men that are sick; stonewalling; all women want dominated etc etc etc.

All true. When you get all the way down to it, those are pretty much true. Except I don't know what you mean by "stonewalling".

Many men and women are in relationships which are the complete opposite of what RP advocates for in terms of dynamics and yet are happy. How do you go about explaining those types of people if it's "nature" to want otherwise?

Source? Evidence? Factual basis?

SOME men and women are relationships which, when you get down to it, are based on what TRP advocates: Man must be sexually attractive, refuse to put up with shit from her, leads the relationship, his wants, needs and mission take precedence. And they're happy. Women are by and large NOT happy with a sexually unattractive man who defers to her and puts up with ever-increasing bullshit from her and who subordinates his entire life to her.

Most men with successful sex and relationship lives are RP; they just don't know of it. They're sexually successful because they are what I described earlier.

The stuff you're objecting to and don't like is the difficult truths men need to know and hear to get women off the pedestal and start prioritizing themselves instead of the women in their lives; start prioritizing themselves instead of appeasing women to get pussy. It's what boys were taught before women decided they had to get involved in raising boys; it's what boys were taught when women weren't allowed to be involved in it and didn't see it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

the descriptions and observations are surprisingly consistent across all demographics and among the experiences of men who don't know each other and, absent internet connection, their paths would never cross

To be honest, it still surprises me how consistent it is. How programming can be completely the same like this.

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

I know, Guitars. We've had this discussion before. I was surprised to discover so many men had had pretty much the same training on women and sexual relationships I had received.

I continue to be surprised at how easy women are to figure out and predict once you know their natures, what they're sexually attracted to (not what's "Attractive for a Relationship (TM), but actually really sexually attractive), and what their basic drives are. They're all shockingly predictable.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

and what their basic drives are. They're all shockingly predictable.

Yes, and the irony is that whenever I act and live red-pill, I get predictable results. But whenever I revert to my old blue pill acting and mindset, the results are even more predictable.

So much for all the blue pill talk about rp self-fulfilling prophecies.

There are literally none.

Being blue-pilled is the actual magnet that brings bad stuff into your life.

[–]SeemedGood0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Observation is hugely unreliable due to the observers own biases.

True, but not averaged over large numbers.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

All TRP is doing is observing female behaviors and choices, describing and systematizing them, and setting them out for people to read. That's it. It's pure observation and reporting.

The problem with RP is that it's very hit and miss.

Their 'hits'' are often very insightful and instructive, but their ''misses'' are usually fanciful and deluded.

There is just too much coping mechanisms, wish fulfilment, perfect world fallacies, and appeals to some nebulous fairness, logic and purpose in life, for anyone to accept it.

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

Please state and set forth all the alleged coping mechanisms, wish fulfilment, perfect world fallacies, and appeals to some nebulous fairness, logic and purpose in life, on which you base your claims.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Coping mechanisms, wish fulfilment, perfect world fallacies = ''the wall'', for starters.

Nebulous fairness, logic and purpose in life = their evo psych BS, and a general air of some kind of ''yin and yang'' in our existence.

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

Please state and set forth ALL the alleged coping mechanisms, wish fulfilment, perfect world fallacies, and appeals to some nebulous fairness, logic and purpose in life, on which you base your claims.

The wall is a pretty well described phenomenon. The fact that you don't like it doesn't negate it. Every woman hits the wall; it's just that there's a very wide range for when that happens. If you're saying every woman slams into the wall on her 30th birthday is bullshit, I agree with you. If you're questioning the very concept of the wall, you're 100% wrong.

Evo psych isn't the best; but what is true is that sexual attraction is king in determining the health and life of a relationship. If by "yin and yang" you're talking about women getting their comeuppance in some sort of cosmic "fairness" scheme, OK; that's overstating it. But it is true that our current SMP is leaving more and more people without what they truly want.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Please state and set forth ALL the alleged coping mechanisms

You are requesting an exhaustive list, even so I made no indication that I would provide one.

The wall is a pretty well described phenomenon. The fact that you don't like it doesn't negate it. Every woman hits the wall.

You're talking about aging, which affects everyone.

Do men hit the wall when they bald, grey, wrinkle and sag?

If by "yin and yang" you're talking about women getting their comeuppance in some sort of cosmic "fairness" scheme

Yes, that's the RP mentality.

It's as worthless as the ''feel good'' mantra of the school bully never amounting to anything, or the ''feel good'' notion that someone who did bad things in the past will wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, tossing and turning over his past misdemeanours.

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

You are requesting an exhaustive list, even so I made no indication that I would provide one.

copout.

You're talking about aging, which affects everyone.

I'm talking about women aging, which affects their sexual market value in ways that it doesn't affect men.

"The wall" isn't a useful term when describing men's aging and how it affects their sexual market value.

As much as you don't like this, men and women are different, and different things happen to men and women as they age.

Yes, that's the RP mentality.

No, that's the mentality of third world foreigners coming to RP who think they'll be banging supermodels. that's the mentality of incels who don't want to take responsibility for their situations and who don't want to accept what life's given them.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So many misses, you can't name one?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My comment wasn't intended to name anything, so I suggest you that look into the mechanics of discussion and debate.

[–]SeemedGood-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't get why people dont' understand this.

They (both women and men) don't want to understand it because they don't like what they see in themselves via the observed and reported behaviors. But rather than be self-observant and introspective and thereby undertake an expansion of the consciousness which would allow them to change the behaviors if they actually wished to do so, they lash out, project, deny, and externalize the "enemy."

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

Yep.

To be clear, men do bad shit. And all men are capable of bad shit. Men:

--tend to be led around by their cocks, letting their little heads do their thinking for them.

--can be overly aggressive which can lead to criminal behavior.

--commit the most crimes, including violent crimes, including sex crimes.

--are driven by the male sexual imperative: to fuck as many women as possible with as little investment as possible. And many will lie and cheat to do it if they can, and if they can get away with it.

[–]SeemedGood-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes. There is a difference, however.

Women hold the power of sexual access choice. They decide which men pass on their genes and which do not. We react to that power by shaping ourselves (both physically and behaviorally) to best fit their choice structure.

Thus, with that power, women both literally (in their wombs) and figuratively speaking (by rewarding certain characteristics with sexual access) weave the human physical world, and have done so over the last 175,000 or so years. Men are (quite literally) what women have shaped them to be.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Thus, with that power, women both literally (in their wombs) and figuratively speaking (by rewarding certain characteristics with sexual access) weave the human physical world, and have done so over the last 175,000 or so years. Men are (quite literally) what women have shaped them to be.

The fact that in a lot of those years pre-feminism, women's sexual partners (husbands), were mostly chosen for them or forced on them by their fathers (men), strongly contradicts this point.

[–]SeemedGood0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If you believe that men were actually doing that choosing, you're not particularly observant of human social dynamics. More likely the men were just expressing their wives' (child's mother's) choices.

Certainly some societies and/or religions developed severe, unbalanced, and amoral restrictions on women and women's choices as a reaction to women's proclivity to abuse and irresponsibly apply their sexual choice power (remember power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely). To be clear, I speak from the lens of Western societies in which (generally) women have never been as repressed as the feminist victim-imperative leads us to believe.

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

More likely the men were just expressing their wives' (child's mother's) choices.

Really? You truly think that the patriarch's of the past were choosing husbands for their daughters based on their wives preferences? There's nothing in past human history that indicates this. In fact, most of the evidence points to the opposite. Mothers are usually the ones who are more empathetic towards allowing their daughters to marrying who they love because they know what it would be like in their daughter's shoes to marry someone you don't love or may not even like/are attracted to. The fathers marry off their daughters based on what would bring the most benefit to their own businesses, connections or social standing. I don't know what 'human social dynamics' you've been observing, but it certainly isn't the one in this world.

Certainly some societies and/or religions developed severe, unbalanced, and amoral restrictions on women and women's choices as a reaction to women's proclivity to abuse and irresponsibly apply their sexual choice power (remember power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely)

Ah yes. And now we're unto the section where the reason why father's forced their daughters to marry certain men, is because it's women's fault and they inherently abuse whatever sexual choice power is given them. Another way for men to absolve themselves of all culpability. In what ways do women abuse their sexual choice power that men do not also abuse theirs? Why were the sexual choices of women restricted while the sexual choices of men allowed and encouraged? That's actually what the 'feminist victim-imperative' is fighting against. In the past, men were not vilified for their sexual choices. A man would never approach a woman or a woman's father if he was not attracted to her or did not already sexually choose her. But women were forced to marry, and hence have sex with men they were not attracted to and did not want to have sex with. This restriction of female sexual choice actually shows how men abuse their sexual choice power. Most of the time, only men got to have sex with people that they actually wanted to have sex with.

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

Meh.

no TRP'er got there without negative experiences.

So by the flow of logic, experience then "truths", then experience again.

experience fist...

Its not a self fulfilling prophecy.

Feel free to call it wrong or stupid, but self fulfilling, its not.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

None.

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | 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.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Does anyone else have this experience?

You spend some time away from PPD and live life. You come back. You think, "Wow, the stuff we talk about here is moronic and completely removed from reality. Why did I ever spend any time thinking about this stuff?"

Then you spend more time on PPD and the issues we discuss start making sense and seeming important and intelligent again. I don't know if this counts as a self-fulfilling prophecy. But the things we think about become more important just because we are ruminating about them frequently, and not necessarily because they have any real relevancy in our lives.

It almost like the 'truths' we talk about here are only true online. In real life the men I know complain about completely different things, act differently, have vastly different perspectives on life. The problems brought up here are only the problems of online men. Although I know they also exist in real life. I never see them so it feels weirdly detached.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, when I don't spend time on PPD, I just start not putting attention on my relationship with wife, and it deteriorates.

When I'm on PPD and RP, it reminds me that I have to be careful.

[–]Helmet_Icicle1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People don't come here to debate something they're seeking a greater understanding of, they come here to argue about their hard-locked preconceived notions of truth.

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

All of it.

[–]theubes0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would say that confirmation bias is the number one driver of AWALT philosophy. It's self-fulfilling in the sense that women will always appear to be as they are expected to be (a different sense of self-fulfilling I know).

[–]ChelseaDagger14both sides are idiots lololol0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I feel that NoFap is a self fulfilling prophecy. A lot of the people say that doing NoFap increases your motivation for outside pursuits. What they often ignore is that many of the people who begin NoFap specifically coincide it with improvements in their lifestyle. Correlation not causation.

[–]ta1901Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I read your comment explaining some of the "truths". These truths seem to develop in high school and maybe continue in college, and then the over generalizations begin at some point. These truths come from, IMO, interacting with girls, not women. Women don't act like that.

Also, if the men keep dating girls, instead of real women, that's his choice, and is not the woman's fault. If the man keeps dating girls based only on her looks, that's also his choice, and is not her fault. If the man keeps choosing poorly, then he needs to step up and take responsibility for that, like a normal adult would.

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