THEORY POST: why TRP rates casual sex as more desirable than marriage and how it influences their philosophy

topredhat · 2015-08-04T21:13:30+00:00

Marriage is seen as a highly risky investment. Men have a lot to lose but little to gain.

Why Feminists Won't Surrender The War On Marriage

The feminist version of "marriage" implies no permanent commitment, no surety of a man raising or even seeing the offspring he is financially responsible for, and a permanent resignation of control over the family to his wife under pain of dissolution. There is no respect, here. There is no appreciation for the masculine contributions to the institution. Indeed, they are regularly denigrated and bashed, as are the husbands who contribute them. Feminist "marriage" is a transitory, temporary thing designed to fail and - in the process - humiliate and emasculate the husband.

He exists within the bonds of feminist marriage as a provider and protector, the "good" elements of marriage that feminism wants to keep, but is denied the respect and admiration a husband should receive (that would be a betrayal of the sisterhood) and he is vociferously forbidden from the patronizing, paternalistic, patriarchical practice of expecting sex from his wife and having full parental rights over his children.

For the feminist husband, marriage is an elaborate shit test he can never win, an invitation to hypergamy and divorce. The more obsequiously he praises and defers to his wife, the lower in status he descends among his male peers and the less attractive he is to his wife. Any opportunities for displaying his value as a man are mitigated or destroyed by his basic posture, and undermined by a preconception of masculine values as negative.

PostNationalism · 2015-08-04T21:02:41+00:00

Nearly all TRPs see marriage and family as more desirable than the slut parade. We just do a cost benefit analysis as well as take alook at cultural norms and realize that it's not feasible.

Archwinger · 2015-08-04T21:05:09+00:00

What is a "relationship" for purposes of this post? Are we talking about a verbal agreement of monogamy?

If a man has six female friends, is fucking all of them, none of them mind being non-exclusive, he's happy, and they're happy, does he have six relationships? Or none?

If a man is married to his best friend, they have a strong emotional connection, but over time, her libido has cooled off and they barely have sex any more, mostly when he badgers her into it, and really all they do is watch TV and go out to eat, does the man have a relationship? Or just a friendship that happens to include legal marriage?

This post seems to assume a fairly narrow definition of "relationship." What about poly relationships? Asexual people? Open relationships? Non-heterosexuals? Swingers? Cuckold fetishes? Couples that invite the occasional third? Are all of these sexual encounters "relationships?"

Quintus_Pillus · 2015-08-04T21:08:26+00:00

how biologically alpha is that anyway?

its more like shes using the white guys for a cheap fuck but they have no chance to marry her or IMPREGNATE HER

The thing is, birth control is artificial in a way. The goal of sex is to spread genes, but birth control is not really taken into account in this at some very primitive level. When a man is having lots of sexual partners, he's following a genetic imperative, but birth control is stopping him from fathering dozens of children. If there was no birth control, those white guys fucking those Indian girls would have lots of chances of impregnating them.

In that comment you posted, you wrote this :

It's because sex is the only thing that matters to them, and they assume it's the same for every man alive.

Then you write :

Of course, what they fail to acknowledge is that even high SMV men need and want companionship, emotional intimacy, and to share a life with someone

If TRPers don't get to speak for all men, you certainly don't get to speak for high SMV men. Now, a high SMV can still find a very attractive woman to be his companion when he's 40, 50 or 60 and then get that companionship. Like basically most people can in some sense. No difference there.

The Indian guy thing is something I've been reading about for years, it's not an invention of the TRP, it's not something super rare, it's something that happens, even if BPers want to deny it (that thread with the Indian guy was cringe worthy, fantastic read guys).

TRPThrowRug · 2015-08-04T21:02:57+00:00

You'd do better to compare casual sex and LTRs.

Marriage is just a shitty deal all around.

As for the difference between casual sex and LTRs, I think it's mostly because successful LTRs often disappear into their Happy lives, and don't feel the need to post their theory with strangers on the internet. As such, it's mostly the frequently single guys who post. Since they are the ones that have to keep their relationship initiation skills sharp.

[deleted] · 2015-08-04T21:04:19+00:00

In RP theory there's an overlap between a man's unavailability and his attractiveness to women. A man who isn't a challenge and commits too easily is as turn off to most women, so the sexual marketplace favors the men who prefer casual encounters over time. Alpha and beta are also fluid states rather than concrete ones. So a man may be an alpha at one point but become more beta as time passes.

why do u consider marriage and a life together as settling?

I'm not fully RP but I don't consider marriage and a life together as settling. First of all, settling implies that a man could do better but some men are natural betas and beta bucks is the best they could reasonably hope for when it comes to relationships with women. They can increase their SMV to attract more beautiful women but it's unrealistic I think that every man has the ability to suddenly become a Don Juan with women. There's too many natural alphas out there to compete with.

Regarding non betas, I don't see why a high SMV should get married in the first place, but even a man like this might be happier in a committed relationship than hooking up with lots of chicks. If a high SMV guy prefers monogamy and committed relationships, I wouldn't consider that settling. That has its own benefits.

well, the white guys arent getting any children out of the deal, how biologically alpha is that anyway?

I guess you've never heard of single mothers or the guy who has children with multiple women. I'm not even going to get into the topic of cuckolding.

its more like shes using the white guys for a cheap fuck but they have no chance to marry her or IMPREGNATE HER

But they do have a chance to marry her. They're her first choice and she's pushing for commitment but they just want to have fun with her and not to marry her. Sometimes she wins and they commit but mostly they don't. So when she's time runs out and she starts to panic or is ejected, she goes out an finds a traditional Indian beta and turns frigid.

[deleted] · 2015-08-04T21:05:59+00:00

I don't know if your writing is off or I'm just not reading properly but this post is all over the place and I'm not sure where you're going with this.

its more like shes using the white guys for a cheap fuck but they have no chance to marry her or IMPREGNATE HER

Why would a man want to marry and impregnate a woman that's using men for cheap fucks? Those aren't the kind of women that high SMV men want families with.

They view marriage as a bad deal because it's a whole lot of trouble to go through just to get regular sex

No, TRPers view marriage as a bad deal because of legal reasons: divorce, alimony, child support, child custody, etc.

alreadyredschool · 2015-08-04T21:14:45+00:00

how biologically alpha is that anyway?

What an argument...

its more like shes using the white guys for a cheap fuck but they have no chance to marry her or IMPREGNATE HER

If they wanted to they could.

Terpers think that the ultimate goal of life is to ejaculate.

Happiness but if you want to strawman, then I let your post alone.

Marriage is a bad deal no matter what, that's because of the laws. You can have kids outside of a marriage, you can form deep connections outside of a relationship. And you can move out of a state. The quote you provided is very narrow minded.

TRPThrowRug · 2015-08-04T21:21:05+00:00

Another simple response.

Marriage is a shitty deal, you have to pay a median $25,000 for the wedding. (And median $20,000 for the divorce). Then there's all the housing and "honey-do" bullshit you end up paying for because otherwise you get no sex.

And in theory you marry this girl because you like having sex with her sexy body, and her pleasing personality. Only to lose both as she takes you for granted.

Kids. In my part of the county, $500,000 before age 18, $1,000,000 lifetime. AND a 50% divorce rate, 25% unhappy marriages AND if you don't get married almost no chance of custody.

Like said, shitty shitty deal.

scrantonic1ty · 2015-08-04T21:16:20+00:00

Of course, what they fail to acknowledge is that even high SMV men need and want companionship, emotional intimacy, and to share a life with someone.

Meh. Not all men are like that ;)

Seriously though, marriage is an outmoded relationship model antithetical to modern sexual liberation and social freedom. No-fault divorce essentially reduces it to a lifestyle choice to be discarded when dissatisfied with the results, the only barriers to exit being significant financial cost. It's an economic risk/reward clalculation, nothing more nothing less.

All those benefits you list can be achieved without marriage. Getting married is not the decisive factor of a happy, fulfilled life. In fact it often proves to be the decisive factor of an unhappy, unfulfilled life.

pakleader · 2015-08-05T01:42:13+00:00

much like the indian guys example, where the indian women only come to them when they are established in their careers and its time to get married. well, the white guys arent getting any children out of the deal, how biologically alpha is that anyway?

No, the white guys are getting sex from the Indian women, and then will also have children with an even more attractive woman (if he wants) when he settles down. Meanwhile, the Indian guy gets a woman who has shared many first sexual experiences with another man -- while he is just having many of the same first sexual experiences with that woman. Perhaps in his mind, he wanted to share in those experiences together.

its more like shes using the white guys for a cheap fuck but they have no chance to marry her or IMPREGNATE HER

Most men don't want to have as many kids as possible - just as much sex as possible. So I don't see how this is a good thing. And sex is mutual - they are using each other for a cheap fuck. The difference is, the white guy gets that option but the poor little indian man doesn't.

max_peenor · 2015-08-04T23:17:07+00:00

Terpers think that the ultimate goal of life is to ejaculate. You can't have a reasonable conversation with someone who is that small minded.

CAT5 hyperbole, retarded strawman and clearly an attempt to chum the waters. I can't believe anyone responded to this.

0.0000000000001/10 Take classes.

MorpheusGodOfDreams · 2015-08-04T21:58:23+00:00

LTR is a RP strategy. Marriage is not, due to legal and financial risks.

[deleted] · 2015-08-04T21:21:25+00:00

TRP guys that are after casual sex are more R selected and the TRP women are more K selected

nomdplume · 2015-08-04T23:14:11+00:00

Casual sex is a relationship. There is a specific kind of relationship there, often with the same amount of rules and conditions found in any other kind of relationship.

I don't think it's an either/or scenario.

Nazrath2112 · 2015-08-05T04:11:54+00:00

If i had to choose between a good marriage (which I dont think exists) and banging sloots for the rest of my life, I would choose the good marriage. I just do not think a good marriage exists anymore, especially in the West.

prodigy2throw · 2015-08-04T21:11:16+00:00

Not opposed to getting married. I'm opposed to jumping into marriage tooo quickly.

For me too get married, the woman has to be as close to perfect as possible.

buttlollipop · 2015-08-04T22:02:43+00:00

I agree with you. I'm not into casual sex, but I'm not going to judge other people for being anti-marriage or pro-ONS. What I don't get is people who literally cannot fathom why a good looking man would ever get married. Tons of attractive men get married, so I assume there's something they're getting out of it.

PostNationalism · 2015-08-04T20:40:48+00:00

It's because sex is the only thing that matters to them, and they assume it's the same for every man alive. They view marriage as a bad deal because it's a whole lot of trouble to go through just to get regular sex from one person (and it's not guaranteed). Why not just stay single and sleep around? It's a lot less work, with much less risk.

Of course, what they fail to acknowledge is that even high SMV men need and want companionship, emotional intimacy, and to share a life with someone. They all think they'll be perfectly happy as 60 year old bachelors with no families and no one who cares about them, who spent their entire lives having meaningless sex and never forming deeper connections with anyone, but I really really doubt it.

Title	THEORY POST: why TRP rates casual sex as more desirable than marriage and how it influences their philosophy
Author	PostNationalism
Upvotes	2
Comments	42
Date	August 4, 2015 8:40 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3fsj20/theory_post_why_trp_rates_casual_sex_as_more/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/theory-post-why-trp-rates-casual-sex-as-more.280506 https://theredarchive.com/post/280506

Comments