QuestionForBP: Which parts of The Red Pill do you disagree with?

dakru · 2017-03-24T13:03:03+00:00

I think they get more right when they talk about gender differences in attraction and sexual strategy (most notably, women tend to be attracted to masculinity and men to femininity, and that mainstream advice for men paints an unrealistic picture of a desirable man that downplays important factors like looks, social status, and ability to stand up for himself).

And I think they get more wrong when they talk about gender differences in general non-sexual personality traits (like "female solipsism", women being incapable of empathy, women's love being somehow lesser, women being more likely to lie, women being less loyal, etc.). I don't have time to get into a long discussion of each point, but I'll just mention that the part about loyalty is, from what I see, usually backed up by the fact that women are more likely to divorce. But that has a simple explanation: women are a lot more likely to get custody of the children, and so divorce is easier for women in this key way (most people really do not want to lose access to their children). From the book Legalizing Misandry:

The solution to the mystery, the factor that determined most cases, turned out to be the question of child custody. Women are much more willing to split up because – unlike men – they typically do not fear losing custody of the children. Instead a divorce often enables them to gain control over the children.

“The question of custody absolutely swamps all the other variables,” Dr. Brinig said. “Children are the most important asset in a marriage, and the partner who expects to get sole custody is by far the most likely to file for divorce.”

TRPers talk about "hard truths" a lot and yeah, the fact that niceness, kindness, etc. are not nearly as important in a man's desirability to women as you might think from asking women what they like is a "hard truth". But I think the "hard truth" for the red side is that women aren't these awful people who just have a long long list of flaws compared to men and no redeeming qualities. The reason I think this is a "hard truth" is that the "women are shit" talk seems to be a crutch to be confident around women and not take what they think or say too seriously, not be intimidated to approach them, etc.

shoup88 · 2017-03-24T15:33:48+00:00

This is not an exhaustive list, but a sample:

Women: the most responsible teenager in the house. Meaning the idea that women never mature beyond the age of 18, so they need to be treated with kid gloves in a relationship. The man is inherently more mature than the woman, and should treat her more like a child than an equal. Come on, this is ridiculous. Anyone who has interacted with an 18 year woman and a 40 year old woman, will realize they have different maturity levels. Fuck, even 18 and 28. The author of this blog post describes the choice to quit your job and have a child to be frivolous and childlike, instead of essential to the species, or a decision made between both husband and wife. For evidence that men make a choice and stick to it, he focuses on jobs. But when you look at actual statistics, like this BLS survey you can see men and women change jobs at close to equal rates. The whole thing reads like more Men are Wonderful propaganda.
The Manipulated Man. While I don't have time to get into the specific points of the book, I don't understand why it's still being referred to when it's central premise no longer exists. This book is predicated on the idea that men work, women don't. The author states that men and women are born with the same capacity for intelligence, but women let it atrophy because they see their mothers prostitute themselves (become housewives) so they aim for the same. But that's no longer relevant - women work! And they've been working long enough that millenials have grown up with working mothers, meaning they no longer see "housewife" as the obvious goal. Following the author's own logic, young women today should be equally intelligent and capable as men.
Cock carousel. A phase women go through where they casual sex with as many hot dudes as possible. This doesn't jive with the statistics available, which indicate women have a median 4.3 sexual partners in their life. Are these numbers wrong? Probably. But are they off by 5+? I don't think so. And if a woman were having sex with every alpha she could, those numbers would be pretty damn high.
80/20. 80% of the women are getting fucked by 20% of the men. I've seen users say this rule actually means 80% of casual sex is being had by 20% of the men, but the Illimitable Man, which is linked in the sidebar, just says number of men having sex. This is obviously false when you take things like relationships and marriages into account.
AF/BB. The idea that alpha/beta is a dichotomy, and women will marry men for comfort with no sexual attraction. I'm sure that happens sometimes, but I don't think it's the norm and I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.
Why Women Covet Male Friendship. The idea that women crave male friendship over the friendship of other women, because women are boring, especially to each other. This one logically does not make sense to me. If women all love gossip and have no interests, wouldn't they obviously want to hang out with other gossips? This one is also flawed because I am personally friends with 50+ interesting women, and I highly doubt I've only ever met outliers in my life. Women have personalities, too.

wtknight · 2017-03-24T12:54:46+00:00

I've discussed AWALT extensively with Red Pillers on here and have received basically four different explanations of what it is:

AWALT lmeans that All Women Are literally Like That. If you aren't an alpha or cultivating alpha qualities then you're deluded and your wife or girlfriend is eventually going to branch swing on you once she has an opportunity to.
AWALT means that "All Women can be like that. If a woman is not being AWALT, then she is doing something to curb her natural AWALT tendencies. If for some reason she stops trying to curb her tendencies, then she will behave exactly like all women do.
AWALT is an heuristic that describes many or most women but not all. Its function is to enable a Red Pilled man to become more sexually or romantically successful, but not as an actual descriptor of true reality (all women are not actually like that, but so many are that it is beneficial to think and behave like all guns are loaded).
AWALT is not really that important of a part of Red Pill philosophy. Other aspects are more important.

So to tell the truth, I'm not sure what the true definition of it is. I've associated with many women for whom AWALT doesn't seem to apply, so I don't find the concept useful at all. To me, it's much better to understand each person I associate with, man or woman, on an individual psychological level rather than trying to apply some kind of template to all of them.

BluePiller1776 · 2017-03-24T13:23:20+00:00

LMR and the Anti-Slut-Defence is probably the scariest thing that I have ever read about on TRP. I disagree with it because at of all the women that I know, both platonically and romantically, have ever talked about doing anything close to the sort.

GridReXX · 2017-03-24T12:53:58+00:00

Pair Bonding

"Sluts can't pair bond."

I've belabored this before, but since this is a fresh OP I'll do it again!

TRP believes that women who have had sex above n^x are unable to "pair bond" with their partner.

Firstly, "pair bond" is a nebulous term.

Secondly I disagree.

I fully believe when TRPers say this they are projecting how they experience their sexuality or want out of it onto women. Men place a lot of importance on sex, and from many accounts from quality male posters on this sub, only experience "intimacy/closeness with their partner" via PIV/sex. Many then incorrectly assume women are the same. It's projection of the mechanics of their sexuality on to ours. I wouldn't be shocked if "limerence" were a male concept tbqh.

They quote the study about n count and divorce and draw conclusions, whilst ignoring that a woman who grew up in a conservative / religious community is honoring her belief in commitment, not necessarily "fawning over her husband's penis." Valuing commitment =! Lust =! "pair bonded." She's bonded to her values. Her values have zero to do with her libido/desires/etc.

To add some additional context, /u/dumb_intj made a recent OP with myriad TRP concepts backed by studies, one of which I found interesting.

Study shows that once a women 'bonds' or knows she has fully secured her mates commitment she will lose interest in sex. But women, he said, have evolved to have a high sex drive when they are initially in a relationship in order to form a "pair bond" with their partner. But, once this bond is sealed a woman's sexual appetite declines, he added.

After glimpsing at the study, my take:

Women understand that it is men who "pair bond" almost exclusively via sex, not women, so it behooves women to up the ante in the "sexiness/temptress" department to get said man to "fall in love."

This doesn't prove that "women pair bond" via sex or that women can't bond with their SO because they've had sex with others. It proves that men place value on bonding via sex and exclusive rights to it.

Lastly, and I've said this before, having a virgin wife is no guarantee a woman will be attracted to her husband simply because he's her only experience.

FYI: Virgins don't need to "ride the CC" to know if their partner doesn't inspire "the tingles." Seriously search "virgin bride" on Reddit. Countless tales of virgin women who married their Beta Bux. It's not an optimal strategy. Leads to "sad!" and dead bedrooms all the same. So if you're a "Beta Bux" type of dude your only option is to improve attractiveness -- marrying a virgin doesn't mean she's going to be sexually attracted to you. It doesn't mean that at all.

TL;DR: I have absolutely no issue with a man's desire to not LTR a "slut." Hell, I'm sure if I were a man I might have a biological "eww" factor against it too. I just prefer the rationale to be consistent. Just say it's an "eww factor likely via an evolutionary protection against paternity fraud." I simply cringe when TRPers try to tell women how our sexuality works and how we experience it, particularly when all TRPers are doing in this case is projecting their desires onto how they wish we behaved. I think TRPers call this "hamstering."

BiggerDthanYou · 2017-03-24T13:37:52+00:00

It's based on a right wing cognitive style mixed with dichotomous thinking.

As many may have noticed I even agree on many of their points, but I still think that it's a toxic shithole, because they are just like climate change deniers or creationists.

They don't even try to be objective. They've got an idea and desperately look for anything that proves it while hamstering any evidence to the contrary away and engaging in active denial.

If anyone claims anything that fits theirs preconceived notions they will repeat it ad nauseum because none of them even try to inform themselves and because it must be true simply because they feel that it must be true.

For example let's take a look at one common myth that they present: Men being forced to attend consent courses at college. Technically this is true, but what they don't realize is that they only ever hear one side of that story.

They've heard that those courses exist and they heard that feminists hate men. That's enough for them to decide that they are experts on this topic and they stop listening to everything else. They've got an idea in their head and it's unchangeable from now on.

But the thing is that the anti-feminist strawman that is being spread around is so full of half-truths that they don't even notice that they are incapable of looking at things objectively because they get triggered way too quickly and that anger clouds their judgement.

For example "but why do we not teach women how not to get raped" or "why don't we teach women not to rape" is something they think is an argument although that's certainly a part of those sexual assault prevention courses which just shows that the critics aren't speaking from experience but just from how they expect those courses to be (as usual)

And then they point at sexual assault posters like that in order to claim that men are always painted as the perpetrators although there are posters like that for all kinds of combinations, even lesbians. Plus posters that point out that 1 in 16 men will become victims of sexual assault.

But it's easier to claim that feminists never care about male victims of sexual assault than just informing themselves.

And that's the biggest problem about TRP. They are a conspiracy forum, but don't even notice how crazy they seem to people that haven't swallowed their crazy pills.

Daniel_Bryan_Fan · 2017-03-24T14:59:13+00:00

Women are children, AWALT, AFBB, women are Machiavellian manipulators, women are incapable of love, etc

GoldPisseR · 2017-03-24T17:50:52+00:00

Generalizing ALL women, weird obsession with rough degrading sex,as if its the only kind that exists.

Kerb_Poet · 2017-03-24T16:55:04+00:00

I disagree with the notions that:

-Money is attractive to women. Your ass is just getting used, son.

-Women have an easier time finding LTR's

-Attraction is objective

-AF/BB is a common dating strategy, and that most women are not attracted to their husbands but long for the Chad dick of yesteryear.

-AWALT is a healthy mindset

-Women are the oldest kids in the house

-Women don't like altruism

-Hypergamy exists

-Chad is fucking anything below a 6 if it isn't for a bet

AutoModerator · 2017-03-24T12:28:33+00:00

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.

Jewdius_Maximus · 2017-03-24T21:05:19+00:00

Pretty much everything except what women find attractive. It's pretty obvious that if you have a 6 pack, good hair, a 6 figure salary job, good style, and confidence up the ass you will have your pick of the litter. Other than that I think TRP is kind of stupid. And the users on TRP are literally bitter cave trolls 99% of whom couldn't get pussy with a 100 dollar bill hanging out of their pocket.

muddynips · 2017-03-25T00:36:58+00:00

I don't agree with a lot of the sweeping sociological ideas. This is part of what separates TRP from mensrights. TRP is useful for an individual, but I don't feel the strong desire for society to be different.

TRP used to be about accepting reality, not wish fulfillment about getting some sort of gender equality. I don't think that we can or should even try to endlessly measure and balance gender dynamics. People should just focus on being their best selves.

Shazoa · 2017-03-25T10:17:27+00:00

Pretty much everything bar self improvement, but don't go expecting that to magically transform someone into a clunge magnet.

Title	QuestionForBP: Which parts of The Red Pill do you disagree with?
Author	Electra_Cute
Upvotes	10
Comments	228
Date	March 24, 2017 12:28 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/618mmp/questionforbp_which_parts_of_the_red_pill_do_you/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/questionforbp-which-parts-of-the-red-pill-do-you.269305 https://theredarchive.com/post/269305

Comments