~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
If I were giving advice to a salesman I would say "don't trust other people only yourself" and "get other people to trust you". That's not hypocritical.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Funny you mention that: not very many people like salesmen because of this (and the fact that you are consistently on guard so you don't get manipulated by them for their own, selfish gains)
[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
not very many people like salesmen because of this
Yet salesmen sell far more cars than secretaries or mechanics. You're right that sales is about manipulating and influencing people, and you can hate it all you want, but it works.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yet salesmen sell far more cars than secretaries or mechanics.
... well it's not exactly in a secretary/mechanic's job description to sell cars, so I don't know where you're going with this.
Sure it works, but you can't be surprised when people don't like you for doing it. You also can't be upset when customers come back a month later bitching at you with a shitty car that you sold them knowing that it was defective.
[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sure it works, but you can't be surprised when people don't like you for doing it.
Do you really think people hate the guy they just bought a car from? Stupid people hate salesmen because they don't like knowing that they can be manipulated.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They may hate salesmen but they can still be wooed by a salesman.
[–]disposable_pants1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
not very many people like salesmen
People dislike bad salesmen. Good salesmen -- who aren't pushy, have tons of product knowledge and can present it clearly, and who are enjoyable to be around -- people love.
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Where on the side bar is the part that says women should always trust men and men are never wrong?
I must have missed that RP lesson.
Or you just don't know what you're talking about, most likely scenario.
[–]GaiusScaevolusMod TRP/AskTRP/BaM11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
TRP is a guide that gives advice to men, what women are 'supposed' to do is for RPW and others to discuss. TRP is here to give advice to men.
There's a big difference between following blindly and trusting in a partner whom you've selected, and will value your input.
Hypocrisies abound, especially in the dating world. It's a fact of life and a waste of energy to complain about it.
[–]captainspazzmuffin 2 points2 points2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I don't think the advice is just for men. My man gets distracted with video games too much, so I run some dread on him and he gets the fuck off his games and goes down on me like a real man should. I've gotten head every night since I started using this sub, and he's much happier now that I've taken control.
[–]GaiusScaevolusMod TRP/AskTRP/BaM1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't think the advice is just for men.
Women and gay men may apply TRP tactics and principles and experience success, but you are not our audience. If you've benefited that's great, but our advice is intended for men who want more success with women. Anyone else who finds benefit is a pleasant bonus.
[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Where does TRP say that? Trp is not a strategy or advice for women and doesn't tell women they should do anything with regard to men
[–]mrcs84usnFatty Fat Neck Beard6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
A woman must be totally naïve and trusting and allow herself to get burned.
You know, I've read my fair share of divorce horror stories and a common trend that I've seen:
When a woman gets burned, she basically walks away with nothing that belongs to the man.
When a man gets burned, he walks away giving the woman a significant chunk of his assets and as well as his current and future earnings.
[–]questioningwoman -2 points-2 points-2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You say yourself that a woman's value is nothing after 35 so it would make it much harder for the woman to get married afterwards. Also, a man can easily spread STDs to a woman. He can give her HIV and other diseases.
[–]mrcs84usnFatty Fat Neck Beard0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You say yourself that a woman's value is nothing after 35
No I didn't. Even in the general "you" sense, TRP often talks about how older women will always have someone to chase after of them. That IS what beta bux is. Even everybody's favorite Manospherian Roosh points out that all isn't lost after the wall.
Also, a man can easily spread STDs to a woman. He can give her HIV and other diseases.
Then both get tested before fucking. And yes, I get it, people cheat, but that's a risk you may have to take. Either that or you could just be celibate because he MIGHT cheat, and MIGHT contract an STD which he MIGHT pass on to me.
[–]belletaco-3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
I don't get it. You advocate for women to stay home and not work. You want a babies. Then you guys act like shitty husbands. Your wife divorces you and she gets half your money because that's how marriage works. If you don't want this to happen, marry someone who carries their own income. You agreed to a lifestyle together, you know you will have to support s stay at home mom. Why is this still talked about?!
[–]kick6Red Pill Man7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Then you guys act like shitty husbands.
this is the part that's the problem. The way the law is written, this step isn't required, and often times is rationalized after the fact (ergo she was just "unhappy" but for the sake of the court proceedings the lawyer convinces her he was a piece of shit). He could be a wonderful husband, and she could still eject with cash and prizes.
[–]planejaneThree Trench Coats in a Trench Coat.2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Devil's advocate argument:
Irrelevant of the context surrounding the divorce, considering her assets of youth and beauty (and this is really the only value most women have in RP) have depreciated and she cannot as easily attract another mate, couldn't she be entitled to something, as her looks and youth can't support her as well in the future?
[–]kick6Red Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sure. However, "maintained in the lifestyle to which she had become accustomed" is not fair recompense.
[–]mrcs84usnFatty Fat Neck Beard1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Me personally, I do not want a SAHM for a partner. I refuse to be the family workhorse while she gets to chill at home with the kids, especially seeing how modern technology has effectively reduced all of the daily chores substantially. But I'm not really sure I want kids in the first place. This is one of those areas where the mindset varies from one person to the next.
moreover, with how the legal system is often set up, simply being the higher earner is grounds for her to have access of your money. She doesn't even have to be at home raising the kids. but apparently, in your eyes, despite her having her own income, she should still get half because "that's how marriage works."
[–]belletaco0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
That's not what I said but typical of a red piller to take what I say to fit their narrative. If you marry a stay at home mom, she is entitled to half to raise your children and to keep their lifestyle the same as it was or very similar, if you disagree then get a prenup, because that is the agreement you are getting into should you marry one.
I'd like to see a case where a man and woman were earning near equal incomes and the man still had to pay half. I don't believe that.
[–]mrcs84usnFatty Fat Neck Beard3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
like to see a case where a man and woman were earning near equal incomes and the man still had to pay hal
So a man gets kicked out of his place, he acquires 5 new debts: The court costs from the divorce, alimony, child Support, rent/mortgage for his new place, and any expenses required to re-enter the dating scene. All of this on the same income he had. What about the lifestyle that HE was accustomed to?
[–]OfSpock-2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wasn't he supporting his children before the divorce?
[–]belletaco-3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Like I said, you know what you're geting into.
[–]SteelChickenPragmatic Pill-3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Your two points are contradictory.
[–]dakruNeither4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
He seemed to be saying that a divorce horror story for a woman is to not get anything from the man, while a divorce horror story for a man is to lose a lot to the woman.
[–]SteelChickenPragmatic Pill0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thanks for translating...I didn't get that. Makes sense.
huh?
[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women aren't "supposed" to do anything. Men and women each exercise their own agency.
[–]VirgoRooster 14 points14 points14 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I don't think a woman should unreasonably trust her man in a marriage. My problem with Western marriage is that a woman and a man technically don't even need to have sex, just to "be married" and from that point forward the woman--who may have accomplished nothing in her life--can makea fortune just by filing for divorce. That's fucked up.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
can makea fortune just by filing for divorce.
I mean, is that really the norm? Or is that just a few cases that pop up on the internet every now and then and that everyone rages over. I've never seen statistics that indicate that women marry to men, and divorce and take all their shit with them (and that it happens often). Especially because in modern society, there is increasingly less income inequality between partners.
[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I don't think it matters whether it was the intention from the beginning or not. A woman who has accomplished nothing in her life can still make a fortune just by filing for divorce, even if she married the man when she was in love. She can do that even if he is still in love with her.
That is fucked up.
Define a fortune then. In a lot of marriages, the man is the provider and the woman accomplishes nothing (financially) because that is the agreement. After divorce, its unreasonable to expect her to suddenly have nothing. And I dont think she'll get a fortune unless the man is already very rich.
Anyway, in my country you can marry "without shared goods", which means that you'll keep your stuff after divorce. Many people do that if they have massive wealth differences.
[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Half of all assets.
When a man provides financially for a woman and she accomplishes nothing, it's normally on the pretense that they will be married for ever.
[–]VirgoRooster 11 points11 points11 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's true. Cases where the man walks away from a marriage with more money that he was making before are man bites dog. Women really luck out in that regard. That's why these Western men don't want to get married and have kids. They can't afford it. Which is ridiculous considering it literally requires nothing beyond fertility to have a family in the cosmic sense.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
I mean show me some statistics then. You just saying it doesn't make it true.
[–]SteelChickenPragmatic Pill10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/
3% of men in Divorce are awarded Alimony
tldr;
1) Men are far less likely to expect someone to support them
2) Bias against men in court
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Thats no proof that women can systematically marry to men, iniate a divorce and take a fortune with them, as OP stated.
[–]SteelChickenPragmatic Pill11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
deep breath....
HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Well where in your source does it say that then?
[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Do you have any idea how alimony works? if someone poor marries someone rich, they can divorce them whenever they want and they will be awarded alimony.
You don't even need a source for that, its basic divorce law.
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yes, but how is that unfair? If there are massive income differences you can marry but have a clause that keeps finances intact in case of divorce. At least in my country you can.
[–]BaconEggsAndSleaze 6 points6 points6 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You're an adult, look it up yourself.
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Thats not how this works. You make a claim, you back it up.
[–]BaconEggsAndSleaze 5 points5 points5 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
got a source for that?
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Go play somewhere else and come back if you know how debates work
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
LOL only because they're getting a portion of their ex-husbands check opposed to their husbands entire check.
[–]2012Aceman18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
When it comes to sexual strategy only one gender can be "on top". RP advocates for a sexual strategy where men make the decisions, BP advocates for a sexual strategy where women get to make decisions. There can be no equality in the real world, one person will always have more power than the other at the end of the day, even if it is a .1% difference.
[–]appencapndefender of fee fees4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
BP advocates for a sexual strategy where women get to make decisions
I'm not a BPer but this is just patently false. I would say Bluepill argues that no one has to be on top. So you can't say TRP and BP are at opposite sides arguing who should be in charge because BP doesn't subscribe to that belief.
[–]dakruNeither5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
By BP do we mean the subreddit that is a response to TRP, or do we mean the mainstream feminist dating advice that TRP is itself a response to?
If we're talking about the mainstream feminist dating advice then I don't think that they usually explicitly advocate for the man to defer to the woman in the same way that TRPers advocate for the women to defer to the man. However, I do think that their advice very often results in the man deferring to the woman because it tends to focus on the woman's wants and needs and what's best for her. As a man the mainstream dating advice for us men seemed to be mostly about what we can do for women, while it looked like women were getting advice on what men can do for them.
Depending on how feminist the advice is, you can get people coming at it from the perspective of patriarchy theory, where they assume that the man has the power and they try to knock him down a few notches in the name of equality. For people who actually believe in patriarchy theory this might make sense, but I don't think that most men generally go into relationships with the upper hand, so knocking them down a few notches results in them really deferring to their partner.
[–]coratoad0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
As a man the mainstream dating advice for us men seemed to be mostly about what we can do for women, while it looked like women were getting advice on what men can do for them.
I don't really see this in mainstream dating advice, can you explain how you came to this conclusion? To me I see male advice catering to men obtaining woman, "How to get a women" or '"Ten simple things you can do to get laid". The female equivalent is less common. So it does seem that men put up a great deal more effort up front. However, when it comes to maintaining a relationship, it seems the opposite is true. Women seem to put more effort into relationship maintenance. If you look at the popular women's magazine Cosmo, for instance, you will not find much on how to get a hot guy besides general beauty advice. Instead you will find a lot how to please the man you already have and keep your relationship healthy.
Feminism, from its inception, has advocated for a power transfer from men to women. You can couch it in whatever fancy terms you like but you'd be putting lipstick on a pig. The end goal appears to be a social system where a man exercising judgment is considered wrongful whereas a woman's judgment is considered unquestionable. The same could be applied to desires. Men with desires = get away rapist/creep. Woman with desires = look at the strong confident woman!
I'm sure you can come up with numerous examples of feminist talking points demonstrating this ideology if you try.
[–]dakruNeither0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
I think it's doubly the case in the early courtship stages, but I also think that it tends to remain the case even as the relationship goes on. It's hard to give specific examples because most of it was in my formative years and I remember the messages more than the actual instances or specific wording, but the impression I had of what marriage was like is that there's a general expectation that the woman is right and in a conflict, fight, or disagreement the man should concede to her.
This comes from sayings like "the woman is always right", "happy wife, happy life", and the man referring to the wife as his "better half". A lot of the portrayals of marriage I saw (in TV shows and other fiction, but even people talking about their marriage in real life) involved the woman as the authority figure for the man. She's the disciplinarian, the man has to ask permission for things and worry a lot about upsetting her, etc. I especially remember noticing that it seemed like a lot of married men (again both in fiction and real life) had "sage advice" about marriage for avoiding conflict and disharmony that mostly involved variations on "do what she tells you to do".
Interestingly, a lot of these attitudes (woman as disciplinarian for the man, "just do what she tells you") can be seen in statements from Barack Obama. Here's an instance where his marriage advice for a man is "just do whatever she tells you":
"Just do whatever she tells you to," Obama told a man sitting with his wife at a table during a brief chat about what makes a good marriage. The president's words were collected by The New York Times reporter Mark Landler, the print "pool reporter." [http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-marriage-whatever-she-tells-200624645.html]
His advice to women? Be patient; it takes about ten years to train a man properly:
At an Indiana town hall, a questioner noted it was Obama's anniversary. Obama said it was 22 years that Michelle "has been putting up with me." He then recalled recently telling the new bride of a friend, "It takes about 10 years to train a man properly so you have to be patient with him." "He'll screw up a bunch. Eventually, he'll learn." [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-ladies-patient-men-article-1.1962727]
At an Indiana town hall, a questioner noted it was Obama's anniversary. Obama said it was 22 years that Michelle "has been putting up with me."
He then recalled recently telling the new bride of a friend, "It takes about 10 years to train a man properly so you have to be patient with him."
"He'll screw up a bunch. Eventually, he'll learn."
[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-ladies-patient-men-article-1.1962727]
Some might dismiss this as a joke, and I don't doubt that there was at least a little humour intended in it. But I also think that it's partly serious, that many people do see relationships this way. Importantly, I think I can safely say that there would be massive uproar if Obama had given women marriage advice that consisted of "just do whatever he tells you", regardless of whether he meant it as a joke. The result is that men are a lot more likely to get such messages that encourage deferring to your partner.
One quantitative example of this can be seen in a study showing that people are a lot more likely to see controlling behaviour as abusive when it comes from a man than from a woman. 78% said that a man deciding what his spouse could eat is abusive, but when the genders are switched, only 37% saw it as abusive. For choosing a spouse's friends, 77% saw it as abusive if a man did it, and 42% saw it as abusive if a woman did it. Link here. It seems to show that people have less of a problem with women being controlling. (This study actually looked at trained psychologists, so I can speculate that it would be even worse in the general population!)
[–]coratoad1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Alright we were thinking of different things. I was thinking more along the lines of effort put into the relationship.
This is true, but the other side is the 'nagging wife', the 'ball-buster', and being 'bossy' or 'bitchy'. These are almost exclusively applied to women. I suppose the male equivalent would be a 'controlling' husband/boyfriend though.
I didn't realize that men interpreted this as 'you should defer to your partner'. But you are right, this kind of talk is definitely more socially acceptable than the reverse.
One quantitative example of this can be seen in a study showing that people are a lot more likely to see controlling behaviour as abusive when it comes from a man than from a woman. 78% said that a man deciding what his spouse could eat is abusive, but when the genders are switched, only 37% saw it as abusive. For choosing a spouse's friends, 77% saw it as abusive if a man did it, and 42% saw it as abusive if a woman did it.
I think this is a huge problem. We are so conditioned to see women as victims and men as the aggressors, that we don't realize when the roles are reversed.
So what wins out? Do traditional gender roles prevail and do women avoid being the 'nagging wife'? Or do men just 'let her have her way'? I couldn't find many current studies on this issue. From this source men are perceived to have more power and decision making in relationships. However, this could just be a perceived power difference, and not an actual power difference. Do you have any studies that show actual power differences, decision making, or prioritizing one partners need over the others in relationships?
[–]2012Aceman2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
BPers can deny reality all they want (I believe it is a prerequisite), that doesn't make it true. The end result of their actions is that women have more power. I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, but that IS the result.
[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Nobody needs to be "on top."
If I am a business selling something to a customer, neither one of us is "on top." It is a mutually beneficial relationship. Romantic relationships work the exact same way. If one party starts losing out, they aren't going to stick around.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
A one-time sale transaction doesn't explain most romantic relationships unless we're talking a one night stand. The far better analogy is employer-employee i.e. long-term mutual reciprocal exchange.
[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I didn't say it was a one-time transaction.
[–]2012Aceman1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
"The customer is always right." That would imply that one side has more power than the other. The customer has more power than the seller in that relationship because it is only through the customer's money that the business can grow. It can still be mutually beneficial (the seller gets the money, the customer gets the product), just like it can be mutually beneficial to have one partner in command on the other supporting them.
[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
"The customer is always right." That would imply that one side has more power than the other.
No. That's not how economics works.
I don't mean to be dismissive, but this is a relatively well studied phenomenon. It would probably take a long time for me to explain it here. Most introductory economics courses cover it quite early if you want to understand the reasoning behind it.
Edit: grammar
[–]2012Aceman0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I understand that the options of the business are wider than a single customer, and if a single customer is being a pain in the ass you send them packing and hope the next one is better. I also wasn't using that as my only reference point on how the power dynamic worked in that situation. And I'm aware that depending on how the scenario is phrased the business might have more power than the customer if they are in a field with less competition (I'm going for the general example, which is why I led with a cliche).
However the analogy starts to spin out of control if we get too nitpicky. For instance, in the business example, that customer buy one thing from your store, and then go to another store and buy a similar thing in a different brand. In business that's fine, in a relationship you'll have a lot to answer for. Also, unlike in business, we know for certain that there is a lot of competition in the realm of dating because there are approximately 3.5 billion humans of the opposite gender.
[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
As soon as one person is losing more than they gain from the relationship, they will leave - assuming they recognise the loss.
The analogy is perfectly fine.
[–]NoFapertinho0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes we understand, you cannot be wrong. You must be TRP as well!
[–]raphier0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
that's not how economics work. If that was true then there wouldn't be monopoly. See: Comcast. The customer is right about hating that corporation, but has no other choices than pay more for their subscriptions in order to receive bad services. Supply and demand is what leads economy.
[–]niczarRed Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Do you seriously believe we think that the man in a couple can't ever be wrong? Just ponder that for a few seconds.
Now consider the following situation. A couple wants to go out for dinner. They need to pick a restaurant. Once you've accounted for taste, price, class, location, allergies and religious restrictions, two options remain.
We're just saying, for most people, the man and the woman are both better off if the man decides and the woman follows his lead.
Now ask yourself, how wrong can a man get picking one or the other restaurant, and how worse off can a woman be for letting him do that?
[–]OfSpock0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Why?If I'm in the mood for seafood, eating steak will be less pleasureable. In my marriage, we alternate, so it's fair. If my husband got his choice every time, I would grow resentful.
[–]niczarRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Not all women are indecisive ... but most are, and aren't you. More importantly, most women appreciate a man who relieves them of having to make decisions. That's been my experience. Note that 1. I don't particularly like it and 2. it took me a while to come to grips with it.
[–]OfSpock1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Often decision making is a chore and women want a man to do his fair share of the work.
[–]questioningwoman 0 points0 points0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Being submissive to picking out a restaurant can't ruin your life. I'm talking about decisions that can potentially ruin lives.
[–]niczarRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The thing is, we aren't.
[–]SteelChickenPragmatic Pill8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
It depends if you are taking about emotions or feelings. Men and women burn each other emotionally all the time, but men by far are burned financially substantially more often. This is not in dispute.
A woman can be burned financially too if she's submissive and her husband is financially irresponsible.
[–]SteelChickenPragmatic Pill1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
While still within the marriage sure. But then she can just divorce him and move on - usually with some of his assets.
[–]questioningwoman -1 points-1 points-1 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Not if she wants stability for the kids.
[–]SteelChickenPragmatic Pill6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
How far off the original topic are you going to go?
You went from divorce, to marriage and now what about the kids?
[–]buffuh3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
That's not hypocrisy. It's condescension. It's basically treating women as inferior to men. It's similar to the way a parent would trust himself or herself to cook food on a stove but would not trust an 8-year-old child. Children need discipline. Women also need discipline.
[–]belletaco-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is just pathetic
[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points-1 points 10 years ago | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]kick6Red Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
do you want a cookie?
[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
It's smart for a man not to be trusting yet there must be something wrong with a woman not to have a childlike trust.
Guess who has more to lose in a divorce?
Further, guess which behaviour is more likely to attract a highly successful, dominant male? Loyal, kind, submissive behaviour, or combative, aggressive and untrusting behaviour?
[–]questioningwoman 1 points1 points1 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
What if I don't want to be dominated? I'm acting this way in part because I "don't" want to attract RP men. I'm loyal and kind to those who deserve it. I'm combative and aggressive to those who don't. I can switch back and forth depending on what's deserved.
[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
You do you. If you want a beta that worships the ground you walk on you literally have all of Western society to choose from. Most women don't want that. The women in RPW recognize that and modify their behaviour to attract those alphas.
[–]planejaneThree Trench Coats in a Trench Coat.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
nope. RPW Modify their behaviors to attract HIGH BETAS. Alphas are known to be unpredictable, selfish, and inconsistent.
[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Not necessarily, though we may simply be dissecting semantics. There are commitment minded alphas out there. "High beta" as TRP puts it are simply those who exhibit a mix of of beta and alpha traits, with a slight emphasis towards the latter.
[–]planejaneThree Trench Coats in a Trench Coat.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
"Commitment-minded Alpha" is an oxymoron.
[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Not as we've defined it. Not all men desire to spin plates, and those who do often eventually want to slow things down. George Clooney comes to mind.
and also if a man worships the ground you walk on, then I say the woman should be extremely sweet and kind in turn and worship the ground he walks on. It's good for both partners.
[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
What you're describing is an idealistic fantasy. Women innately find being pedestalized unattractive.
Which makes me sincerely doubt that you're a woman. Probably a bored man pretending to act like one.
[–]LamiaQueenInternalized Misogynist1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Haha, no, that's not how it works at all. When you're pedestalized and worshipped by a guy he is almost forcing you to look down on him.
Yes it does. The best thing to do would be to worship him in return and devote your entire life to him. What would I logically get in return for worshipping someone who dominated every aspect of my life? I always respond to people how they respond to me.
[–]LamiaQueenInternalized Misogynist1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Gee, you're awfully authoritarian aren't you? "Everyone should be like me because I'm right and you're wrong." No, I've been with a guy who worshipped me, and it was distasteful. That level of adoration gets old fast when you know you're only human but he insists on framing you as more than that. So no, the answer isn't always to reciprocate, although I'm sure you'd like to think it is. That's not how it works in real life.
I don't demand a guy worship me and don't think it's necessary. I'm just saying it would be the right thing to do to worship a guy back and give him all you can give him. If you don't, it's pretty inconsiderate to him because he'd give his all to you. On the other hand, I would react to complete controlling behavior with verbal aggression and leaving the relationship if necessary. If it's not a relationship and he acts like this, it's rude not to be visibly thankful to him.
[–]LamiaQueenInternalized Misogynist1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Inconsiderate to him? Why and how? And why should I care what you think the right thing to do would be? If he's making a sacrifice I didn't want and didn't ask for then I'm not obligated to return the favor, it doesn't even make me a bad person to not return the favor. You're making an awful lot of moral judgments and I don't think you've ever even experienced this or you'd probably think differently or at least acknowledge that it's not a pleasant situation to be in. It's easy to talk hypotheticals and fabricate solutions where everyone is happy. It's still not real life though.
[–]questioningwoman -3 points-3 points-3 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I don't want to dominate or to be dominated. I want a relationship for adventure, romance, intellectual stimulation, and company. The ideal man is a man who can talk to you about politics or philosophy for hours. Being in a relationship makes you less bored.
[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Interesting, attractive men have options. And those options often preclude being with bitchy, difficult women.
This isn't a particularly difficult concept. If you want a man you can talk to, find some friends.
[–]bleed_blk_blu1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
If this were true, I would compare it to child birth. No man can ever be sure the child is his before birth. In other words he must be trusting and allow himself to get burned. Still I see men everyday having and raising children.
[–]questioningwoman 2 points2 points2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The difference is you can DNA test the kid to see if it's yours.
[–]kick6Red Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It's not that simple. In some places, both parents have to consent to the test. Ergo, if momma knows the kid ain't his, she can actively block the proof.
[–]questioningwomandetached from society0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
He should try to get a court order to make her take the test.
key word: "try."
[–]dota2nubOrgasm is the devil7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
No. There is not a single hypocrisy in RedPill. Go read the sidebar. See? It doesn't say there is a hypocrisy, so there isn't any.
[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If 100k people didn't ever contradict one another you would be correct in calling us a cult. /r/pyongyang is the only place where that could happen.
[–]Transmigratory0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
IMO you probably didn't read much. You probably saw a single post which suggested this and you felt compelled to make a thread like this.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository12 points13 points14 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]disposable_pants1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GaiusScaevolusMod TRP/AskTRP/BaM11 points12 points13 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]captainspazzmuffin 2 points2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]GaiusScaevolusMod TRP/AskTRP/BaM1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mrcs84usnFatty Fat Neck Beard6 points7 points8 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]questioningwoman -2 points-2 points-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]mrcs84usnFatty Fat Neck Beard0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]belletaco-3 points-2 points-1 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]kick6Red Pill Man7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]planejaneThree Trench Coats in a Trench Coat.2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]kick6Red Pill Man3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mrcs84usnFatty Fat Neck Beard1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]belletaco0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]mrcs84usnFatty Fat Neck Beard3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]OfSpock-2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]belletaco-3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SteelChickenPragmatic Pill-3 points-2 points-1 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]dakruNeither4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SteelChickenPragmatic Pill0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mrcs84usnFatty Fat Neck Beard0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]VirgoRooster 14 points14 points14 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]VirgoRooster 11 points11 points11 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]SteelChickenPragmatic Pill10 points11 points12 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]SteelChickenPragmatic Pill11 points12 points13 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red10 points11 points12 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]BaconEggsAndSleaze 6 points6 points6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]BaconEggsAndSleaze 5 points5 points5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]2012Aceman18 points19 points20 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]appencapndefender of fee fees4 points5 points6 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]dakruNeither5 points6 points7 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]coratoad0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dakruNeither0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]coratoad1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]2012Aceman2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red2 points3 points4 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]2012Aceman1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]2012Aceman0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]NoFapertinho0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]raphier0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]niczarRed Pill Man4 points5 points6 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]OfSpock0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]niczarRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]OfSpock1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]questioningwoman 0 points0 points0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]niczarRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SteelChickenPragmatic Pill8 points9 points10 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]questioningwoman 0 points0 points0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SteelChickenPragmatic Pill1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]questioningwoman -1 points-1 points-1 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SteelChickenPragmatic Pill6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]buffuh3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]belletaco-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points-1 points | Copy Link
[–]kick6Red Pill Man1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard3 points4 points5 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]questioningwoman 1 points1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard4 points5 points6 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]planejaneThree Trench Coats in a Trench Coat.0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]planejaneThree Trench Coats in a Trench Coat.0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]questioningwoman -2 points-2 points-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]LamiaQueenInternalized Misogynist1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]questioningwoman -1 points-1 points-1 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LamiaQueenInternalized Misogynist1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]questioningwoman -1 points-1 points-1 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LamiaQueenInternalized Misogynist1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]questioningwoman -3 points-3 points-3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bleed_blk_blu1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]questioningwoman 2 points2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]kick6Red Pill Man2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]questioningwomandetached from society0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]kick6Red Pill Man1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dota2nubOrgasm is the devil7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Transmigratory0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link