What is a "quality man"? | PurplePillDebate

MissPearl · 2015-06-18T10:21:36+00:00

I see this pop up from time to time and I am curious, particularly how TRP might define it, since it often comes up as the thing you lose as punishment for...

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth26 points27 points28 points 11 years ago (135 children) | Copy Link

Well, depends how you want to define it :)

I think in this context it's best we stick to "What do women perceive as a quality man".

Thats best summarized with our Alpha/Beta qualities list. What women would perceive as a "quality man" what I call "a great guy" is a guy who is very high in both quality sets.

So... Alpha....

Attractive, Confident, Well built and Ideal Weight, Dominant, Intelligent, Witty, Has social status, Fun and a bit unpredictable.

Beta....

Money, money, money, money, pleasant and nice, money, money, cares about you, helps out around the house, money, money, money, is gentle and caring with kids, money, money, money.

So... A guy who ticks all those boxes... Women are going to perceive him as a "great guy".

Then you come to discussing what you can drop, what you can fail to build, and still be "an attractive guy". And thats, mainly, the Beta traits.

You can have all of the Alpha+Money and still get laid like tile.

You can't have all of the Beta+No Alpha and expect to get laid anytime this century.

Most guys today are extremely Beta heavy. Or at least the ones that turn up at TRP/MRP are.... So we concentrate almost all of our efforts in building Alpha. Thats what gets you laid.

But you need both to be that "great guy" if thats what you want to be. We find a lot of our guys ain't that interested in that once they start getting laid. They will be, as they get older and want kids, but usually not when they first turn up.

If you've got any questions fire away.

[–]nemma8830/F/UK INFP -t. Engaged5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago* (132 children) | Copy Link

Dominant? That's more like a sign of an abuser. Not sure why you guys are so obsessed with it unless if you are either 1) insecure about measuring up to a cultural ideal of masculinity and think women will like you if you conform to an image of dominant men and submissive women, 2) actually abusive and looking for justification.

Abusers use a variety of tactics to manipulate you and exert their power:

Dominance – Abusive individuals need to feel in charge of the relationship. They will make decisions for you and the family, tell you what to do, and expect you to obey without question. Your abuser may treat you like a servant, child, or even as his or her possession.

I also didn't see anything like, "honest" "not emotionally manipulative" "consistent" "uses good communication skills" "emotionally available" "psychologically healthy/takes good care of mental hygeine" anywhere on there, so this list is not a good indicator of a quality person in the opinion of a woman. It's more like "basic things that will make people in general more interested in you if you have them as opposed to not having them" (minus "dominant" because as I've mentioned, wtf).

A person with all of those traits could still be an abusive partner, emotionally and physically. Arguably, those are just tools one would use as leverage to be able to successfully abuse people.

A "great guy" needs quite a bit more substance underneath all of that fluff in order to be "great".

[–]EatSkeetSleepRepeatYo Morpheus, I'mma snort both these pills16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

That is not really what dominant means. Your use of "dominant" is, at best, jargon. If you take it for it's dictionary meaning, it doesn't add up.

First, confident is not a definition for dominant, so in this case you have made the word nonsensical and changed the defintion. Also, "confident" was already stated in his list, so it's redundant now?

Second, "makes most of the decisions in a relationship" sounds like the woman is dependent on the guy, which I'm pretty sure isn't a great idea, but if that's your choice, at the very least what you are really saying is "a man who conforms to a traditional model of relationships in which he makes most of the decisions". Which is again, not the definition of dominance and does not escape any of the weird context or subtext inherent in the actual definition of the word.

Unless if you are trying to use jargon without admitting to it.

[–]EatSkeetSleepRepeatYo Morpheus, I'mma snort both these pills8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tintedlipbalmfemale-to-tamale woman6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EatSkeetSleepRepeatYo Morpheus, I'mma snort both these pills7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EatSkeetSleepRepeatYo Morpheus, I'mma snort both these pills4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I disagree with their philosophy of dominance, but it is dishonest to say dominant and not specify that it is a specific meaning which belongs to TRP (and maybe some groups with similar attitudes that use it as group speak too)

When you say "dominant" the context I know is the dictionary and abusive relationships. TRP has a completely separate definition, and one that is central to their beliefs about reality.

TRP is at the point with their meaning of dominant to warrant a special word for it or at least capitalize it or add a TM or something to indicate it is your special meaning for the word.

That's like me as a dancer saying to someone (out loud because spelling messes this example up) "my perfect day consists of at least an hour at the barre" and expecting my context, which is specific to dance aka jargon, to be what they will think it means too.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]prodigy2throw2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BeyondTheLight22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[+]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago* (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sy87Red Pill Woman16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sy87Red Pill Woman9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And again the issue is he claims this is "according to women" as if you can know someone else's standards. If this is his standard, fine. There is plenty evidence women have higher standards and weed out much much much further than this superficial list.

Well the op didn't specify that the question was for women, so I took it to mean 'what do guys think women think', which is a valid question and a valid answer.

There are many different forms of abuse, not just physical. Someone who is consistent (a trait you say is incompatible with abuse) can definitely still be controlling to the point if abuse, or psychologically abusive. You never know who's gonna fall into the category of possibly killing you, until they start to show actual signs of abuse which could be years into a relationship. Even then it gets tricky, because what seems like abuse to you may be perfectly normal and accepted by someone else.

Edit: also if you start adding too many things to your list just to avoid abusers you end up with a list of unrealistic and undoubtedly dull men.

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sy87Red Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The question does ask what you think is a quality man, but most men aren't looking for quality men to start relationships with. They're basing those qualities in what they think other people would like (hopefully with the goal of emulating those qualities).

I thought it asked for your definition of a quality man, without putting words in other people's minds or mouths.

So then who are you to say his definition of a quality man is wrong. Perhaps he has different values than you.

Right but if they are consistently awful, you have some pretty strong signals to leave. And from everything I've studied on the subject, you have signals EARLY on. They are very straightforward signals. Usually people are just not educated on them fully until after the fact. If you are educated prior, I think you would fare a lot better, but I'll look into that and see if I can find some studies to back that up.

Most people are not constantly awful, that's how they get you. Of course those times someone is always awful, duh, you avoid them. Also, of course there are always redflags that someone might become abusive, but to say dominance is a red flag for abusiveness. I guess there may be some truth to it, but I'm not gonna write off this entire subset of human beings because maybe someday they may be abusive.

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BeyondTheLight13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

It is a massively flawed list

Yes, on some criteria it certainly is. It's just what you girls like.

We can't help it if all you girls are massively flawed though. We just have to kind of live with women as they are.

I challenge you to provide a definition, outside of BDSM that doesn't get weird.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dominance

I'd go with the 3rd of five definitions given

The disposition of an individual to assert control in dealing with others.

So, if you are salsa dancing with a partner. And the male is "leading" (i.e. giving the hand signals for the next move to the female) that is an activity in which he is exerting dominance.

Usually, as with salsa dancing, in an agreed framework where both are happy with the arrangement. It turns women on a bit. It feels right.

Where it is reversed... And the male/female are within the majority neurotypical setup... Then a woman dominating her man in everday interactions tends to turn her off a bit. He often chafes under the dominance as well. He feels a bit off put by it too.

So we recommend it this way round.

If you are a chick that likes it the other way round ? Cool. Bully for you. You are just going to have to be careful to select only one of the minority of men who like it this way, or you aren't going to enjoy your relationship much. One or the other is going to get unhappy.

But as you are a massive minority we advise the guys to try dominance in the aggregate because it's only the wrong move 1/10 and is the right move 9/10.

You strike me as a very dominant female Pixie. You need a nice submissive man who'll give you the "yes, dear" at the right points and won't resent it. They're tricky to find and tend not to be all that attractive when you find them.

Good luck anyway.

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

Yes, on some criteria it certainly is. It's just what you girls like.

Maybe you should use your powers of telepathy to solve crimes.

The disposition of an individual to assert control in dealing with others.

So you're going with "controlling"? Huh. Okay, so still negatory on that being a good thing. Plus what kind of dealing with others do you think makes sense in a relationship? I think you just thought, "everybody knows assertive is a good word! This definition is good for a relationship! Context shmontext! Yeah!" And then your brain drifted off to think about how iamsosmart you are yet again.

So, if you are salsa dancing with a partner. And the male is "leading" (i.e. giving the hand signals for the next move to the female) that is an activity in which he is exerting dominance. Usually, as with salsa dancing, in an agreed framework where both are happy with the arrangement. It turns women on a bit. It feels right.

Oh excellent you just tried to use a dance analogy while talking to a professional dancer.

So in salsa or any Latin social dance, but salsa tending to be the most simplistic as it is the most popular for recreational social dance, the best partnership is one where both partners are equally experienced. The woman can also initiate or indicate moves, and usually both partners know what is coming up as certain moves tend to be practiced in sequence. A less knowledgeable partner will make dancing uncomfortable. So the male partner isn't leading so much as suggesting moves, and furthermore, an experienced female partner can select from the torque and pressure a variety of possible moves.

Mostly the guy in partner dance is a torque and momentum/inertia generator as well as a human barre for the girl to use to look fabulous.

Sometimes women will reverse roles for fun, and social dancing evolved to emulate a social norm which is no longer particularly relevant.

Finally, once we get into competitive Latin and standard ballroom, all of that is choreographed anyway.

Where it is reversed... And the male/female are within the majority neurotypical setup... Then a woman dominating her man in everday interactions tends to turn her off a bit. He often chafes under the dominance as well. He feels a bit off put by it too.

I'm probably not neurotypical, but I'm still not telepathic and able to make up what other people think. I would have to be neuromutated in the way that Professor X is in order to do that

You strike me as a very dominant female Pixie.

Ad hominem based on stereotypical view of women who voice their opinions.

You need a nice submissive man who'll give you the "yes, dear" at the right points and won't resent it.

Egalitarian relationship is my thing. Not into dominant submissive thing due to it being neurotic and in my opinion, a stupid idea and very weird in the context of a relationship, even if society implies it is a good idea or believes, contrary to evidence from fields such as neuropsychology, it is not unhealthy for the human psyche.

They're tricky to find and tend not to be all that attractive when you find them.

I found a really gorgeous egalitarian minded boyfriend whom I relate to on the level of our shared humanity.

So I'm solid, bruh. Thanks for your faux concern that I might not find a relationship model I don't subscribe to in either direction. Was that an attempt to make me feel some type of way? That read like an attempt to make me feel some type of way.

[–][deleted] 4 points4 points4 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Maybe you should use your powers of telepathy to solve crimes.

Nah, RP stuff don't work so well there.

All this genetic drive stuff really only applies to peoples sexual actions. The genes are just so dominant there.

Other things ? Not so much.

So you're going with "controlling"? Huh. Okay, so still negatory on that being a good thing. Plus what kind of dealing with others do you think makes sense in a relationship? I think you just thought "everybody knows assertive is a good word! This definition is good for a relationship! Context shmontext! Yeah!" And then your brain drifted off to think about how iamsosmart you are yet again.

Nah, I was just being honest. This is what women respond to.

Not "Where do you want to go to eat tonight ? What do you think ? Help me ? I need you to help me make this decision ?"

More "I was thinking Thai. You up for some Thai tonight ? Awesome"

Oh excellent you just tried to use a dance analogy while talking to a professional dancer.

Ah, thats really cool. So you'll know what I am talking about, yes ?

So in salsa or any Latin social dance, but salsa tending to be the most simplistic as it is the most popular for recreational social dance, the best partnership is one where both partners are equally experienced. The woman can also initiate or indicate moves, and usually both partners know what is coming up as certain moves tend to be practiced in sequence.

Ah, no.

I am specifically talking about freestyle salsa. No pre-planned moves. Just indicators given (usually on the 7th or 8th beats) to indicate to the partner the upcoming move for the next bar.

We usually practice in "round robins" so that the men are forced to lead, they can't just go with a routine... We're forced to dance with all sorts of strange women in order to develop the skill.

Anyway, the salsa I'm talking about is freestyle. Imagine you just picked a random woman and took her to the dancefloor. How you'd dance like this with a woman you've never met or spoken to before. Using the signals to lead the dance.

You're right about both partners needing to be at similar experience levels though ... The adfvanced girls are always reading the intermediates signals wrong, because they are assuming little inconsequential moves by the partner are signals when they are just coincidences caused by the fact that the male isn't aware that is an advanced signal.

A less knowledgeable partner will make dancing uncomfortable. So the male partner isn't leading so much as suggesting moves, and furthermore, an experienced female partner can select from the torque and pressure a variety of possible moves.

Not really, no. The man guides her into the move... But she has to do the move that he is signalling, if she does not they will both be in the wrong position at the end of the bar (and she may even trip over his feet during) and you look like a pile of shit.

Mostly the guy in partner dance is a torque and momentum generator as well as a human barre for the girl to use to look fabulous.

Yeah, you've got to generate the required torque for the spin count. More torque will turn a 1 1/2 into a 2 1/2 spin (for example).

The girls do look fabulous, when well led :)

Sometimes women will reverse roles for fun, and social dancing evolved to emulate a social norm which is no longer particularly relevant.

Well, that don't work so well in Salsa. The mens/womens moves are wildly different. I wouldn't know what the fuck to do if I was led into the womens steps. The men only learn the mens and vice-versa (usually, assuming you are not an instructor).

I'm probably not neurotypical, but I'm still not telepathic and able to make up what other people think. I would have to be neuromutated in the way that Professor X is in order to do that

Nah, you just have to udnerstand that people are wired a particular way IF they are somewhat neurotypical.

Strawberries taste sweet for everyone, and shit tastes like shit.

Maybe there are a few special snowflakes out there that reverse this. But you are generally better off giving your date a bowl of strawberries rather than a steaming pile of faeces.

I suppose people like you have to try both first, and ask.... Just to make sure.

Most of us get by really well by sticking to strawberries.

Ad hominem based on stereotypical view of women who voice their opinions.

No. Not an Ad Hominem.

See, see what you reveal by taking it this way ? The sex difference.

If you said that to a male, it wouldn;t be an ad-hom.

Say it to a female, it becomes an ad-hom in her mind automatically.

Thats because (no matter what you say) somewhere in your brain you know dominance is a male behaviour, and not a female one.

So you took it as an ad-hom.

See, you are not neurotypically immune... Even IF you also happen to be a dominant female.

Please tell me, just what is wrong with being dominant as a female ?

Egalitarian relationship is my thing.

Thats what all the girls say. ALL OF THEM.

I've never met a girl who didn't say this.

It's just in my experience this isn't how it gets played out.

It gets really hard to balance on that knife edge for 30 years. Almost all couples fall off one side of the knife or the other after a few months or years.

I found a really gorgeous egalitarian minded boyfriend whom I relate to on the level of our shared humanity.

Good for you. Which handbag do you keep his balls in ?

So I'm good, bruh.

Cool for you. I just hope it's also as cool for him as you seem to think it is.....

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

This is what women respond to.

Not "Where do you want to go to eat tonight ? What do you think ? Help me ? I need you to help me make this decision ?"

More "I was thinking Thai. You up for some Thai tonight ? Awesome"

I respond to something like, "Hey, where can we eat that won't make you physically ill, as you have celiac disease, so it's important in this context that you decide where we can go, since I don't have any authority to make a decision that involves a person with an autoimmune disease who would like to avoid being poisoned while we go on a date?"

Well, that don't work so well in Salsa. The mens/womens moves are wildly different. I wouldn't know what the fuck to do if I was led into the womens steps. The men only learn the mens and vice-versa (usually, assuming you are not an instructor).

Sooooooo you've never heard of male/male female/female coupling as well? This is a thing you see. And yes, you can absolutely select moves in most forms of dance, I suppose salsa is more restrictive than I assumed and the exception. I studied latin/standard, where in practicing freestyle, which you can still do in formal dance but is more done as an exercise to practice transitions, there's usually a few options from each cue and you can absolutely change the next suggested move by what you do (say a quick cuban action/motion in a cha cha versus going into a half time, you would have different momentum coming back to your partner and there are a few moves which usually pair with one choice versus the other). I find it surprising salsa is so restrictive, but fine. That's not how it works when you practice ballroom, at any rate. So your analogy is not even consistent in the dance world.

No. Not an Ad Hominem. See, see what you reveal by taking it this way ? The sex difference. If you said that to a male, it wouldn;t be an ad-hom. Say it to a female, it becomes an ad-hom in her mind automatically. Thats because (no matter what you say) somewhere in your brain you know dominance is a male behaviour, and not a female one. So you took it as an ad-hom. See, you are not neurotypically immune... Even IF you also happen to be a dominant female. Please tell me, just what is wrong with being dominant as a female ?

Well since we're making up pseudo-psychology traits that strangers have in order to advance our arguments and then not calling it ad hominem;

You sound like a Capricorn. That is why you have your opinion. Damned Capricorns and your Capricorn trait of talking the way that you talk, thereby I know this thing about you and think I should bring it up right now to obfuscate the things you are saying.

Thats what all the girls say. ALL OF THEM. I've never met a girl who didn't say this. I's just in my experience this isn't how it gets played out. It gets really hard to balance on that knife edge for 30 years. Almost all couples fall off one side of the knife or the other after a few months or years.

Blah blah blah blah, being a human being is too difficult, I must be a gender role caricature in all my comings or goings or else it will all fall apart, blah blah blah blah...

Good for you. Which handbag do you keep his balls in?

It's next to the messenger bag he keeps my ovaries in.

Cool for you. I just hope it's also as cool for him as you seem to think it is.....

OOOOooOOOOOooOOOOo ellipses are so scary. It makes you sound ominous.

I mean, I could have him tell you himself, except he thinks you are all a pack of morons, so I don't think he's too interested in talking to you.

[–]thedeti7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thedeti3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I also base it on all of the female friends that I have had, all of the female mentors I have had, all of the research I have read pertaining to relationship dynamics because it's something I happen to be interested in (minus men are from mars, which is a dopey book), my family members that are female. I also have my father, brother, all of my male friends over the years and male mentors and their experiences, which don't remotely agree with TRP. And finally I have the fact that a group of people with a confirmation bias who are sexist are probably pretty fucking irrational. And indeed that is correct.

That's really all there is to it, but one can pretend that it's not over in PPD in order to superimpose enough humanity on TRP to have something vaguely resembling a conversation.

But seriously. You guys are not experts on women. As if your opinion is from a place of authority when so much of it is clearly irrational and sounds absolutely ridiculous 95% of the time. Give me a fucking break.

[–]thedeti2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thedeti4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thedeti3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you don't like gender roles, then you believe nothing can ever really be known about men and women.

That doesn't make sense. I believe you can act in discordance with gender roles as well as, the far more rational alternative to gender dogma, select behaviors which benefit the human brain in general. Also not label behaviors with a gender. They are just human behaviors. The categorization is a human invention superimposed and distorting your objectivity.

People distort their own behaviors and self image to conform to gender norms, rules, and beliefs. So you can't even trust stats (this phenomenon has been studied and is very repeatable. Same mechanism that makes ethnicities conform to stereotypes. The most basic version of the experiment works via reminding the subject of the stereotypes about them before having them take a test using a skill which is relevant to the stereotype. People perform equally well when tested without the stereotype priming, and then conform to stereotypical performance expectations after priming. It's fascinating.).

TRP are people trying to distort everything to reflect a particularly cartoonish image of masculinity and femininity. It's ridiculous.

[–]modulok1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BeyondTheLight8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BeyondTheLight3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RU_Crazy 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RU_Crazy 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]dispensation 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]dispensation 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't see how what I said is opposed to your quoted definition. I mentioned authority, which directly aligns with control, and I believe calmness does too.

If you are angry, or clearly being overrun with emotion in general, you are not only displaying a lack of control for your own emotions, but a lack of control of the situation. You are displaying that you cannot solve a problem so you resort to mere emotion. This connotes weakness and does not demand respect.

Furthermore, you cannot be consciously and effectively controlling other people merely be giving into your emotions. Domestic abusers tend to do what they do out of uncontrolled anger. Therefore I would argue they do not have dominant personalities. All they do is use brute force to make their SO despise them but afraid to leave them.

I also would argue respect is key to dominance. You would not willingly allow someone to control you if you had no respect for them. An abuser absolutely does not receive any true respect, not from their SOs and not from society. Respect and fear are very different as I'm sure you'd agree.

If we look at an example of a dominant personality which has controlled emotions, you can pretty much pick any successful CEO out of a hat. You have to be authoritative to make sure shit gets done and people respect you, but you have to be calm otherwise people will lose respect for you because if you go mad and start shouting you are displaying that you lack control over not only yourself but the situation you are dealing with.

In the context of a relationship, it's a lot simpler. Just be the one who "wears the pants." Make the decisions between you two. An easy low level example is if you're going out to dinner and you're asked "where do you want to go?" Instead of saying "I'm not sure, what about you?" just say a place. Be decisive. It can be as simple as that. If you want to take it further you can order for her in the restaurant and control what she wears there, but perhaps that's straying a little into BDSM territory. The concept is still exactly the same though - be a dependable confident decisive leader.

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is the second time I've gotten the "going to dinner" definition of "dominant", which I'm getting just heaps more evidence is simply a piece of jargon to reference "traditional relationships", which is definitively not what many many women or men want.

I have celiac disease and it is vital I decide where I eat as many places cannot handle my allergy correctly. I am dominant then? I am a leader? I must be as I am deciding where we eat, yes? If not, why? What is your subtext?

What you are doing is describing a jargony term. It's helpful to hear the full definition of what you think it means, but it's not a recognized use of the word, it's a concept inside of TRP and perhaps other "traditional relationship" communities.

I'm not entirely sure why one has to wear the pants. If you have two CEOS, are they not both "dominant" personalities? Couldn't they be friends or date? Suddenly one of them would have a "submissive" personality to accommodate the other?

There is also no dictionary definition reason why dominance is incompatible with fear, lack of respect, being mad, shouting, or emotion.

If we're really talking about a jaron term, then sure. But it's a whole other thing in that case, it is an ideology about gender roles and "dominant" is a terminology to refer to it.

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

This is the second time I've gotten the "going to dinner" definition of "dominant"

When we're talking specifically about non-BDSM relationships there's not much else to say. It's literally that simple. In most relationships one person "wears the pants", I'm just saying I find women like it when that person is me.

simply a piece of jargon to reference "traditional relationships", which is definitively not what many many women or men want.

I wouldn't equate the two personally. "Traditional relationships" has a lot more connotations to it than dominance, like the traditionalist ideas of having a Christian family and the woman being a SAHM. That's not what I'm talking about here.

I have celiac disease and it is vital I decide where I eat as many places cannot handle my allergy correctly.

Well then you have an issue the vast majority of the population don't. But I don't really see what that proves. It just means the particular example I gave won't be relevant to you in particular because presumably you won't be asking your SO where to eat in the first place.

I am dominant then?

That depends, do you make other decisions often within the relationship? Does your SO listen to what you say and follow through? I need more detail before I can answer that since you've only answered the isolated example I provided.

I must be as I am deciding where we eat, yes? If not, why?

Well now you're just being silly. If it must be spelled out, it's because all you did was answer one specific example instead of look at the relationship as a whole. You've also told me that you only take the lead in that decision out of necessity, due to your condition.

As I said you'd need to take into account a lot more than one example to determine this stuff. It's about how you act throughout the relationship.

What is your subtext?

There isn't much of one, you're just reading far too much into what is a pretty simple concept.

It's helpful to hear the full definition of what you think it means, but it's not a recognized use of the word

How is it not? I just wrote a post explaining exactly how what I said dominance within a relationship is fits in with the definition you quoted. If you want to refute that explanation please tell me exactly why you do not believe it is correct. I mean quote what I said then tell me why it's wrong, don't just say it isn't dominance because it's not fitting your confirmation bias, which is all you're doing now.

it's a concept inside of TRP and perhaps other "traditional relationship" communities.

TRP's terminology is different, they discuss "captain and first mate" relationships. I'm not using that terminology.

I'm not entirely sure why one has to wear the pants.

"Look it doesn't take a genius to know that every organization thrives when it has two leaders. Go ahead, name a country that doesn't have two presidents. A boat that sets sail without two captains. Where would Catholicism be without the popes?"

No but seriously if you can manage being completely equal on everything and it makes both of you happy then cool, you do you. I'm only talking about what has worked in my experience, especially where sex is involved. I never claimed to be speaking universal truth.

There is also no dictionary definition reason why dominance is incompatible with fear, lack of respect, being mad, shouting, or emotion.

Why not? If we define dominance under the simple definition you provided, which is simply having power, then I would absolutely argue that you cannot maintain power if you cannot control your emotions, because losing control of your emotions suggests you've lost control of the situation you're in. In this case if you're in a relationship and you just get angry at your partner constantly, you have no control over anything, you're just angry. You may succeed in inspiring fear, but your partner will run away as soon as they think it's safe to do so. If you want to have true power over someone you need them to respect you and your decision making, which can only happen if you show control over those things rather than being weak enough to get angry.

This is not some kind of novel concept. If you're watching a debate on TV and one side is getting angry and emotional while the other side is remaining calm and answering the points logically, who comes off better? Who gets more respect? Who displays the most control of the situation?

If we're really talking about a jaron term, then sure. But it's a whole other thing in that case, it is an ideology about gender roles and "dominant" is a terminology to refer to it.

Not really, you're just making up excuses why something outside of your biases cannot possibly be true. It's like SJWs saying black people can't be racist.

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Well it's possible to not have someone "wear the pants" either that meaning emulating traditionally male roles (which is implicit in the phrase) or if it means having one person lead the other and that being the dynamic.

I simply don't have time to dissect what you've said quote by quote, but that is also unnecessary.

What you are describing to me is some sort of philosophy around power in relationships, and a complex philosophy at that.

Dominant in your usage means a whole mindset for a guy and a dynamic around decisions as well as an implied power imbalance in relationships, which I appreciate you noting is not a universal truth.

However it is very clear by your defense of "dominant" that you have given it several additional meanings, that while reliant on the simple definition of "having power", also included a philosophy on power, a philosophy on fear versus respect in leadership, thoughts on self control and emotions, and further complexities that demonstrate you are talking about an ideology and not a simple definition.

[–]dispensation 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well it's possible to not have someone "wear the pants" either that meaning emulating traditionally male roles (which is implicit in the phrase) or if it means having one person lead the other and that being the dynamic.

I never said it wasn't. All I said is that acting dominant provides me way more success with women than not doing so.

What you are describing to me is some sort of philosophy around power in relationships, and a complex philosophy at that.

Which part do you believe is complex? Seems pretty simple to me. Of course it is just one dynamic of many, but it is the one I found to be the most successful.

Dominant in your usage means a whole mindset for a guy and a dynamic around decisions as well as an implied power imbalance in relationships, which I appreciate you noting is not a universal truth.

Correct.

However it is very clear by your defense of "dominant" that you have given it several additional meanings, that while reliant on the simple definition of "having power", also included a philosophy on power, a philosophy on fear versus respect in leadership, thoughts on self control and emotions, and further complexities that demonstrate you are talking about an ideology and not a simple definition.

Well the dictionary definition you provided is extremely broad. What I am talking about is a subset of dominance. The type that matters in most aspects of modern life.

Brute force is not a valued skill in our current society, but psychological power absolutely is. That's the basis of what I'm getting at. Separating brute force from psychological power.

The reason I argue brute force is not a form of dominance is because in most contexts it will not provide you with any real power in our society. We are no longer cavemen, the strongest guy with the biggest stick isn't automatically the leader. If you start punching someone you'll be thrown in a cell. You have no meaningful power in there.

What matters in our society is your power over people's minds. I mentioned CEOs, again a perfect example. They get to where they are by being psychologically dominant. Most of them have very little physical power.

And indeed I would argue the same is true of relationships. If you want to be on the dominant end of one you need to be strong psychologically. Physical power counts for very little these days.

[–]mr_one_linerOld School5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]dispensation 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

From what I understand of human sexuality, elements we now classify as BDSM have been a part of humanity for eons. Now how much of that is innate or socialized via culture if open to debate. What I do think though is that as we develop as an increasingly egalitarian species, we are compartmentalizing many old models of behavior under the umbrella of Power Exchange and BDSM. Personally, I don't consider this a bad thing, but I can understand why others may feel strange about labeling something "tabooish" that very well may be an integral part of their sexuality.

You make an excellent point. Most of what comes under power play in BDSM is just things that happen to be taboo in our current society. If you ask most people in the scene they'll tell you this straight up. BDSM is mostly things that are taboo.

Within that same scene you will also notice the vast majority of women are sexually submissive. Outside of that scene you can easily notice the same pattern, once a woman is comfortable enough with you to reveal her fantasies anyway, because of course talking about this out loud is taboo.

It's almost as if a not insignificant number of women enjoy being sexually submissive and it's only something people label now because it used to just be normal. Crazy.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]dispensation 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theory_of_kinkunpilled outlier7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToshiroOzuwara1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ToshiroOzuwara1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SephiXen0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeti 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nazrath2112Blood Splatter Red2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nazrath2112Blood Splatter Red3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nazrath2112Blood Splatter Red5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nazrath2112Blood Splatter Red3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

The argument becomes really simple at that point then. There is no best or better personality type in the disc profile than the other. Why would someone who cares more about the task aspect of things more than the people aspect of things be better than the other?

I think that is part of the issue, especially in trying to define what a quality man is, we differ so much on what we think is right. There are so many judgments going on in relation to what we think is right as opposed to what we can do to better co-exist. I'm an ISTJ i get the judgement part believe me.

In this model I would predict that you are a high I person. I could be wrong. A high I person is still a very dominant person but cares more about the people than the task. There is nothing wrong with that, we just have different styles. If i can admit that there is nothing wrong with that style of leading your tribe, can you admit that there is nothing wrong with RP's running their tribe in the style they want to?

[–]Iwillpixiecutyoupills are for sick people-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nazrath21121 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nazrath21121 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nazrath21121 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nazrath21121 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nazrath21121 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nazrath21121 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Right, I agree 200% with it being okay to be any personality type, with what you are saying about dominance in this context (a personality type defined via a lexicon from a system designed to categorize personalities), but with no context offered, there is the context of red flags, and the dictionary definition of dominant is not a philosophy of personality type, and is far more negative in its connotation.

I had a valid interpretation, and my issue with trp is the mirroring of abusive manipulative tactics to control the power in the relationship, so I brought it up because the language fits.

I know I am more powerful than my environment. I have proven it and achieved amazing things (handy reminder to myself to do more of that). I have been told elsewhere in this thread, by the op I replied to, that if I were "dominant" (powerful in whatever way that word is supposed to mean for TRP, as you said a powerful personality type) I would be unattractive to men, and if I take it to mean what you are saying, this makes no sense. So he had some other definition.

One POSSIBLE definition is a red flag for abuse, and if TRP is either unclear with their terms or use ones that have completely fluid and contradictory meanings rendering words purposeless, it gives me the impression that either 1) nobody knows what they are talking about even though they all supposedly believe the same theory/philosophy/concepts or 2) the meaning is changed at random to paint the speaker in a better light.

[–]Nazrath21121 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I would be unattractive to men, and if I take it to mean what you are saying, this makes no sense.

You can easily explain this by he ment TRP men would not find you attractive. The reason why TRP men are more attracted to C and S, I would say S more, is because trying to have a relationship with an I personality then you are a D is exhausting for both people. In my 40 years I have dated all of these personality types, well the major ones. The ones with the least fights for stupid shit like control are the better relationship.

Not every person is going to be a natural speaker nor is everyone completely aware what they are doing. Meaning: To use the matrix "There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path." You are trying to get people who are walking the path and who are not natural orators or writers and explain themselves.

This is like asking a football player to explain how he does a move and then saying he is not talking scientifically enough. His explanation of "I caught it" would be a far cry from a scientist who tells you every muscle moved, how his brain works in doing it and the relation to gravity needed to do what he did. It must be frustrating as fuck, i get it. But to walk up to a company and pull a dock worker or even someone in management and ask them the company values AND use that as how well the company values hold up is not really indicative of the company values as a whole.

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nazrath21122 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillpixiecutyou2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Dominant? That's more like a sign of an abuser.

Tell the vast majority of women that

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/billion-wicked-thoughts/201104/why-gender-equality-does-not-always-work-in-the-bedroom

Sounds like you're an outlier.

Not sure why you guys are so obsessed with it unless if you are either 1) insecure about measuring up to a cultural ideal of masculinity and think women will like you if you conform to an image of dominant men and submissive women, 2) actually abusive and looking for justification.

Because it turns the vast majority of women on. Check out the article.

The article didn't convince us of this, we learnt it out there in the wild dealing with real females. It's just one of those areas where science has caught us up, studied it formally, and agreed with us.

I also didn't see "honest" "not emotionally manipulative" "consistent" "uses good communication skills" "emotionally available" "psychologically healthy" anywhere on there,

OK. So....

Honesty = Beta trait.

Not Emotionally manipulative = Neither

Consistent = Beta Trait. Stability, all that.

Good communication skills = Covered that a bit under "intelligent and witty" but this is an Alpha trait.

emotionally available = Beta

psychologically healthy = Neither. Psychological ill health is an Omega trait. Makes you less desirable across the alpha/beta board.

so this list is not a good indicator of a quality person in the opinion of a woman.

Thats OK. We don;t care about your rational opinions.

We only care about who you'll sleep with, and your rational opinion is a mighty small voice in that debate. We go straight for your emotional brain. Thats where we do our work, mainly.

It's more like "basic things that will make people in general more interested in you if you have them as opposed to not having them".

Thats the ticket. Exactly that.

A person with all of those traits could still be an abusive partner, emotionally and physically.

Absolutely. We just find if he is a very high alpha "emotionally/physically abusive partner" the girls fuck him anyway. He's a Jerk. You've noticed the girls sleeping with the jerks, right ?

OTOH, if he's a very low alpha guy.... Then women give this guy a wide berth. She don't want his penis in her vagina.

If you think we build "emotionally abusive men" per se you are wrong. We tell men how to add Alpha. We tell them all the ways that work, those you'd count as "abusive" and those that you wouldn't.

He's then free to use his own morals to decide which techniques he'll use and which he won't.

The guys who do use these a lot.... End up as part of the TBP "outrage porn gallery".

TBP doesn't notice the guys that do not, at all.

So you assume Red Pill is about being emotionally abusive. It's not.

Thats just your confirmation bias at work :)

[–]haircombsnightmare0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thesongofabird 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thereddespair1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

personally:

its relative, a man is of quality to a woman if he can give her all of her needs, in the exchange rate that they both take as fair.

what i see out there more of:

men who have enough money for BOTH of them, to live to their desired luxury, focus on womens. woman can brag to everyone about her man, how he is better than theirs - women feel like they are princesses and queens, they want to find a king, you dont see lines like im a peasant woman and i wanna be with a peasant so we can be peasants together - they want the king so she can feel like royalty among the peasants. which is sometimes if not often, the only way for her to do so as she cant get it herself.

looks, lifting bod - end of the day i think that goes lower than some think. killer bod on its own doesnt get you that vacation package or the life without work and do yoga everyday and spend the rest in a spa kinda life.

control, aggression, dominance over her. without those, such a man just becomes a feeding meat.

women. you cant let them just run free like wild, you have to put a collar on them. the more they feel they can do whatever they want, they will. and at that moment, you gotta wonder, who is controlling who. just like the joke how the cat has more like turned the human master into the slave.

[–]lbspredh1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]buttlollipopappropriating pill culture1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To be extremely simplistic about it: A man that a lot of other women want. This would also work for a high-quality woman.

I don't think being promiscuous makes a man higher-quality, but having the option to be promiscuous does. That's why women tend to fall for the "player who finally committed to one woman" trope in movies/TV etc.

For a woman it's a bit different. I'd say the equivalent of a high-quality man with the option to be promiscuous is a woman who has a lot of options for relationships. I'm not RP, but I do think that sex is easier to acquire for women and commitment is easier to acquire for men. So a woman who has a lot of men willing to commit to her would be a high quality woman. Because men will sleep with nearly anything, a woman doesn't so much lose quality if she sleeps around (bc really, nobody has to know) but it doesn't indicate high quality.

The most promiscuous girl I know is maybe a 5 on the 1-10 scale in looks (although does have good styling) and probably a 2 in personality. She has sex with guys in relationships and basically anyone who is up for it. Her promiscuity doesn't speak to her being attractive, it just speaks to her being available.

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

[–]capt-next-a-hoeCherry Popper Red7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]nope_nic_tesla1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]nope_nic_tesla1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nope_nic_tesla1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Amethhyst1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

She said she likes slender guys. Aren't you all supposed to be the super-ripped, massive muscles type?

Nah. We generally shoot for "underwear model on cover of vogue" rather than "power lifter in the cover of body builders weekly".

And some if us are at their ideal weight, but ain't at underwear model yet. I'd count me as slender on this basis. Going to be another 12-18m before I get near underwear model.

And you know, similar metrics of male attractiveness were around long before TRP. Just because those 'lists' overlap in some places doesn't mean all women like Red Pill guys.

We know that. 90% of the girls is plenty for us.

There are a lot of things about the way Red Pill guys claim to be that would knock him down into oblivion in my list, and the lists of many others I imagine.

Yeah. See the problem is you need a minimum level of attractiveness before you'll "run your list" on men. If they don't meet the bar ? They don't get a chance to be compared to the rest. Ask every kind, sweet, loving, friendly, intelligent neckbeard who ever existed. They know the score.

So we build guys that pass a lot of attractiveness bars. At least, then, they've got a shot, right ?

See... There is also something else... Those lists ? That's what you apply to guys who meet your bar.

The guy that sails over that attractiveness bar ? The one with feet to spare ? Well suddenly... You find reasons to be with him if he meets only 6/10 because, ya know, he's pretty fucking hot. So you relax your standards for him.

So why worry about lists ? Build the man that sails over the bar. Makes a LOT of girls available, and for a good portion of them you don't even have to worry about lists no more.

If you are advising guys on how to be "quality guys" for a lot of girls ? You tell them, don't worry about lists. Just raise your attractiveness. That works on all women, no matter what's on her list.

And, ya know what ?

It works.

:)

[–]Amethhyst1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Amethhyst1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

You're changing the goal posts here. I didn't say that TRP gives advice that makes men unattractive to women. What I'm saying is that it's being Red Pill, and manifesting the beliefs that are associated with it, that knocks those points off; and that would probably mean you wouldn't be attractive to the person you replied to, despite how many 'positive' traits you demonstrate that are Red-Pill approved or otherwise. There's a trade off. Being 'confident' might count in your favour, but being a misogynist will not.

I mean yeah, you could hide the fact that you're Red Pill if that's what you're getting at, and perhaps your hook up would never know - but we're talking about the 'ideal man' here, and the assumption is that your ideal mate isn't deceptive in that way.

So, you tell me: by those same standards, what makes a 'slut' less attractive to men? Say she's hot; she cooks well; she's great in bed; and she's got the whole submissive meekness thing gong that so many Red Pill guys seem to be into. She could be all those things, so she's on the 'list' - but by Red Pill standards she might still be a slut. How does this fact count against her, when experienced by a man 'how they actually perceive it without that knowledge'?

Go on then.

Enlighten me.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

You're changing the goal posts here. I didn't say that TRP gives advice that makes men unattractive to women. What I'm saying is that it's being Red Pill, and manifesting the beliefs that are associated with it, that knocks those points off; and that would probably mean you wouldn't be attractive to the person you replied to, despite how many 'positive' traits you demonstrate that are Red-Pill approved or otherwise. There's a trade off. Being 'confident' might count in your favour, but being a misogynist will not.

Was misogynist on either of my lists ?

That was an intentional omission.

I mean yeah, you could hide the fact that you're Red Pill if that's what you're getting at, and perhaps your hook up would never know - but we're talking about the 'ideal man' here, and the assumption is that your ideal mate isn't deceptive in that way.

No we wernt talking ideal men. We were talking "quality men" and there is a very big difference. Every woman's definition of ideal will be different. Whereas the definition of quality man must deal with the perception of women in the aggregate.

So, you tell me: by those same standards, what makes a 'slut' less attractive to men?

A high partner count turns men off. Most men find that viscerally less attractive. Or at least that is commonly reported.

Say she's hot; she cooks well; she's great in bed; and she's got the whole submissive meekness thing gong that so many Red Pill guys seem to be into.

Awesome. All positive traits. She's been developing the right things.

She could be all those things, so she's on the 'list' - but by Red Pill standards she might still be a slut.

Yes.

How does this fact count against her, when experienced by a man 'how they actually perceive it without that knowledge'?

Well if they don't know it won't alter her attractiveness one bit. So if I was her I'd keep my mouth shut.

He'll only feel a drop in her attractiveness if he knows. That's why we advise RP men to find out before they LTR her. No one likes finding out later, perhaps even after wedding bells have rung.

Are you sufficiently enlightened ?

[–]Amethhyst1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Was misogynist on either of my lists

Yeah. Women are 'incapable to empathy' / 'the most responsible teenager in the house' / 'inferior to men'. Sorry, the misogyny of TRP is not up for debate with me. Maybe you personally don't think those things; but if that's the case I don't know what you're doing at TRP. Misogyny is part of the Red Pill canon, and its philosophy of gender is in large part what differentiates it from other PUA models. (And for the record, I don't think it's 'misogynistic' at all to criticise a particular woman or point out her faults; but saying she's that way because she's a woman is a lot more questionable.) So yeah, it wasn't on your list, but let's not pretend that a Red Pill guy isn't going to have some serious hang-ups about gender.

We were talking "quality men" and there is a very big difference. Every woman's definition of ideal will be different

Yes, and the person you replied to gave HER opinion of what a 'quality man' is. Red Pill was not on that list. Some of the qualities may overlap, yes - but that does not mean her idea of a quality man amounts to a Red Pill man, as you suggested. That was my point about 'sluts': a 'slut' may share a lot of qualities with a 'quality woman', but that doesn't mean you'd consider her an overall quality woman, does it? You were giving it 'hohoho, so you basically like Red Pill men!' when that is clearly not the case. Red Pill does not have a monopoly on good male qualities.

[–]TheGreasyPole1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah. Women are 'incapable to empathy' / 'the most responsible teenager in the house' / 'inferior to men'. Sorry, the misogyny of TRP is not up for debate with me.

That's irrelevant. I didn't define an RP man. I just defined the traits of a man. A BP man with all the same traits would also be a quality man. Misogyny was not on the list. It would not be a desirable trait in either an RP or BP man.

Maybe you personally don't think those things; but if that's the case I don't know what you're doing at TRP. Misogyny is part of the Red Pill canon, and its philosophy of gender is in large part what differentiates it from other PUA models.

But misogyny, hatred of women. Is not required. We can think many things you label misogynistic without hating women, because you use it to mean concepts that don't require hatred of women to be true or effective.

(And for the record, I don't think it's 'misogynistic' at all to criticise a particular woman or point out her faults; but saying she's that way because she's a woman is a lot more questionable.)

Fine

So yeah, it wasn't on your list, but let's not pretend that a Red Pill guy isn't going to have some serious hang-ups about gender.

Case 0. Right here baby. How you doing.

Girls are cool. I like girls. There's one girl I particularly like. She's my wife.

You don't have to be a misogynist to be a RP male. Or that you have to have any hang ups about gender. That's largely what acceptance phase means.

Yes, and the person you replied to gave HER opinion of what a 'quality man' is. Red Pill was not on that list. Some of the qualities may overlap, yes - but that does not mean her idea of a quality man amounts to a Red Pill man, as you suggested.

I gave her the traits of a high quality man. That's the man BP/RP should agree is a high quality man.

RP tries to build them. Those are what we are aiming to be, or are.

Misogyny isn't on the list. You may arrive with it. Or you maya quire it. But it's not an attractive trait, and we wouldn't recommend cultivating it if you are trying to become a high quality man.

That was my point about 'sluts': a 'slut' may share a lot of qualities with a 'quality woman', but that doesn't mean you'd consider her an overall quality woman, does it?

No. That's why "is a slut" wouldn't be on the girl list just like "is a misogynist" isn't on the male list.

You were giving it 'hohoho, so you basically like Red Pill men!' when that is clearly not the case. Red Pill does not have a monopoly on good male qualities.

No. We're just the only fairly large group dedicated to building them. Lots of guys are naturals. If we're 0.2% they're the other 19.8%.

But the attractive qualities are what they are, they are on that list.

If you build that, they will come.

Be the prize

[–]Amethhyst2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn't define an RP man. I just defined the traits of a man.

Red Pill Alpha Trait No. 2, Red Pill Beta Trait No. 1, Red Pill Alpha Trait No. 5, Feminist, Red Pill Alpha Trait No. 6, Red Pill Beta Trait No. 3, Red Pill Beta Trait No. 4, Red Pill Alpha Trait No. 17, Red Pill Alpha Trait No. 47

Right.

But misogyny, hatred of women. Is not required.

It's part of the Red Pill canon. Just look at the sidebar. It's absolutely inherent. Yes, you could drop those aspects from your own 'game', but then why even bother describing yourself as Red Pill? There are plenty of other models for game that leave out such misogyny.

concepts that don't require hatred of women to be true or effective.

Not necessarily hatred. Contempt is a more apt description. Misogyny is literally 'hatred of or contempt for women'. Are you trying to tell me that statements like 'women don't have the ability to feel empathy' / 'women are like children' / men are generally morally superior to women' are not loaded with contempt?

Girls are cool. I like girls. There's one girl I particularly like. She's my wife.

And hey you know what? I believe you. But unless you also think that she will never truly be even capable of loving you, I don't think TRP agrees with your stance. Seriously, it's like you're just covering your ears to block out all the stuff you don't like in it.

I gave her the traits of a high quality man. That's the man BP/RP should agree is a high quality man.

You didn't. She listed her idea of a quality man and you went 'so basically Red Pill har har', commandeering every quality she listed as RP. Once more, I KNOW they overlap - but they are not the same. The Red Piller would be the 'slut' in this scenario - automatically excluded. My point was simply that Red Pillers probably wouldn't be on those lists just because they happen to have some similar qualities to those preferred by OP.

Maybe you should go back to the start of this thread and re-read.

No. That's why "is a slut" wouldn't be on the girl list just like "is a misogynist" isn't on the male list.

Can you seriously not even conceive of the idea that 'Red Pill' was not on her list either? I mean, does this come down to semantics for you, whether 'Red Pill' = misogynist or not? If so, see my argument re their relationship above.

Or does she not get a say in her preferences because you've decided for her that she'd like Red Pillers despite herself?

We're just the only fairly large group dedicated to building them.

Except for the myriad self-help programs out there. It's not all the exact same advice, but then like you say, everyone has a different idea of what 'quality' is.

And I don't deny that TRP aims at teaching men to improve themselves. I don't know why you keep coming back to that.

Edited for grammar.

[–]TheGreasyPole1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Shit, I thought this chain was coming off this other thread... The one topping the comments section

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3a9qzo/what_is_a_quality_man/csakl5d

Didn't realise you had jumped on further down. On that comment I was talking about the fact that you constantly offer us confirmation of our "quality man" attributes every time you post one of your own lists. It's always essentially a modified version of ours... With a couple of extras tagged on. It's really amusing as the blue pill oater generally always thinks they are posting a list that doesn't apply to RP males whereas, we are generally 9/10s according to their own "anti-RP list".

It's part of the Red Pill canon. Just look at the sidebar. It's absolutely inherent. Yes, you could drop those aspects from your own 'game', but then why even bother describing yourself as Red Pill? There are plenty of other models for game that leave out such misogyny.

No. There are no other models and strategies even 10% as consistent and complete as red pill. I know, I was looking for about 20 years before I tripped across RP. Lots of RP posters are misogynists, but no misogyny at all is required.

Plenty of women are RP too you know, they don't hate themselves or other woman either. Neither do the vast majority of the men. It's simply not required.

Not necessarily hatred. Contempt is a more apt description. Misogyny is literally 'hatred of or contempt for women'. Are you trying to tell me that statements like 'women don't have the ability to feel empathy' / 'women are like children' / men are generally morally superior to women' are not loaded with contempt?

Stop trying to redefine the word how YOU want it defined. Misogyny is the hatred of women. As Misandry is the opposite. It is under those definitions that TRP does not require misogyny.

If you are going to change the definition to be what pleases you... Well anyone can be a misogynist, because you are redefining it to use it as an insult not as a real classification category under its real meaning.

What's more, all your examples are attempts to get at the truth... And again contempt is not required for that. I'd also say you mis-described 2 of the three. Under your descriptions I can't actually agree with those statements. I only agree with 2 of them when phrased the correct RP way. (I don't believe in moral superiority/inferiority between sexes).

And hey you know what? I believe you. But unless you also think that she will never truly be even capable of loving you, I don't think TRP agrees with your stance. Seriously, it's like you're just covering your ears to block out all the stuff you don't like in it.

No. I am in full agree,net with RP concerning how my wife loves me. She is in full agreement too. We both beleive love is conditional, well in line with RP thought. I did a summary of it here in a PPD post

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/38hyes/shall_we_discuss_what_love_really_is_what_do_you/

You didn't. She listed her idea of a quality man and you went 'so basically Red Pill har har', commandeering every quality she listed as RP. Once more, I KNOW they overlap - but they are not the same. The Red Piller would be the 'slut' in this scenario - automatically excluded. My point was simply that Red Pillers probably wouldn't be on those lists just because they happen to have some similar qualities to those preferred by OP.

Yeah, again.... I thought you were coming off the top level comment. Was replying by inbox. In this chain I was noting that... Whilst every blooper always thinks their list is unique and they are a special snowflake.... They always seem to produce RPs alpha/beta quality list with one or two additions.

It's independent confirmation city around here on "what is your personal list" threads.

Can you seriously not even conceive of the idea that 'Red Pill' was not on her list either? I mean, does this come down to semantics for you, whether 'Red Pill' = misogynist or not? If so, see my argument re their relationship above.

No, I can conceive it. It wasn't on my top of the thread comment either. It's not a plus for girls to know you are RP.

They like the sausage. They don't like to see the process of making one, they don't want to be told you are only a tasty sausage because you went through that disgusting looking sausage making machine. They prefer to think you are just a naturally crafted tasty sausage.

Or does she not get a say in her preferences because you've decided for her that she'd like Red Pillers despite herself?

No. She doesn't get a day in this preference at all. Because she can never know if the man that fits everything else is RP. If he is, and keeps his mouth shut, she can't filter him on being RP.

So, she doesn't get a say... Even with an RP man... He gets the say. Because he gets to chose to reveal it or not. If he does not ? He's just a maturally tasty sausage as far as she is concerned.

That's why we tell them to keep their mouths shut about RP :)

Except for the myriad self-help programs out there. It's not all the exact same advice, but then like you say, everyone has a different idea of what 'quality' is.

Yup. But only one group has got very very close to the right idea. The rest are just flailing about being as often wrong as often right, because they have no coherent model.

Only RP has worked out that model. Because only RP was prepared to say lets find out what's true, and not care what offends the girls while we do it. Because so many true things were offensive to girls, it turned out this was the key. Everyone else failed because they rejected offensive stuff as untrue, in error, screwing the model beyond recovery in the process.

[–]Amethhyst2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPole1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Amethhyst2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You insist it would be a disqualifier for an RP man

For the same reason that a 'slut' would be disqualified from your list in an 'ideal' partner.

What's your point ?

That, contrary to your initial assertion, a RP man would not 'qualify' for OP's list just because he happens to possess some of the qualities that she likes. As I've said countless times, I know those qualities intersect. In the same way though, a 'slut' might be hot and submissive and a good homemaker (qualities we may presume would be on a RP man's 'list'), but the fact that she shares those qualities with an actual 'quality woman' doesn't make her the same things as a quality woman to that Red Pill man, because he also requires of his ideal partner that she not be a 'slut'. Or, another totally random analogy (and really, do excuse the randomness!) - an object might be big and yellow and hot, but that doesn't make it the sun does it?

Do you see what I'm saying?

Edit to add:

And not all those that are reveal it.

Again, we're working from the assumption here that you know your ideal partner. Your ideal partner can be whatever you want them to be, because we're talking in the abstract.

[–]TheGreasyPole1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

For the same reason that a 'slut' would be disqualified from your list in an 'ideal' partner.

Yes. We already discussed that. That's why we tell the guys not to talk about fight club. If you think you can distinguish an RP guy from any other guy I'm pretty sure you are mistaken. I've read those threads on TBP. The "I've found one in the wild" ones. Your ability to detect RP men is poor.

General assholes, you got that covered. Script running PUA. You seem to get them too. But I've rarely seen an RP man identified. I think you're shooting blind.

That, contrary to your initial assertion, a RP man would not 'qualify' for OP's list just because he happens to possess some of the qualities that she likes. As I've said countless times, I know those qualities intersect. In the same way though, a 'slut' might be hot and submissive and a good homemaker (qualities we may presume would be on a RP man's 'list'), but the fact that she shares those qualities with an actual 'quality woman' doesn't make her the same things as a quality woman to that Red Pill man, because he also requires of his ideal partner that she not be a 'slut'. Or, another totally random analogy (and really, do excuse the randomness!) - an object might be big and yellow and hot, but that doesn't make it the sun does it?

No. We build build quality men from the quality men list. And if you know he's RP, that's a flaw, and he shouldn't reveal that. And if you know he's a misogynist, that's a flaw, and he shouldn't reveal that (if he is one).

Then we present the quality man. And the girls like it. And we do well. And we're happy. And quite often the girls are happy too. But we show the guys how to be happy.

And sometimes, we unplug wives. And they're happy. Because we're good at building quality men. No one said quality men had no flaws at all, just that they had all the qualities on that list. That's what we build.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Absolutely, that these are negative traits to perceive in a man is generally true.

But no one is defining the perfect man here. We're trying to define quality men. What RP would call the top 20%. The great guys.

Not all of them have the body of Brad Pitt, with the heart of mother Theresa and the Dr. in front of his name.

That's the top 0.00000001%. No one has to get there.

When a guy is hitting all the buttons on your positive attribute list, and you are unaware of things you might perceive as negative attributes. We get laid.

And when we don't have the negative attribute of misogyny, and where we share our RP knowledge freely, happily and completely with our wives, then neither of them are negative attributes.

And we truly are top quality men. :)

[–]Amethhyst2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes. We already discussed that.

Yes, we did. Can you seriously not see the point I'm making?!

I've read those threads on TBP. The "I've found one in the wild" ones. Your ability to detect RP men is poor.

Get lost. I don't post there.

But I've rarely seen an RP man identified

Ah, 'no true Scotsman'. How would you ever know if he was Red Pill or not? Just because he was obvious / doing it badly - he would still have been RP. E.g. being a 'bad Christian' does not mean you are not part of the Church.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Absolutely, that these are negative traits to perceive in a man is generally true.

This was not my point.

I'm not replying to the rest of your post because you can't seem to keep up with the idea that we're excluding the possibility that the guy is hiding the fact that he's Red Pill. (Also a lot of this is outside the scope of this debate? No offence, but I don't care about how much you think TRP 'works'. Please stay on topic.)

[–]TheGreasyPole1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No it appears I cannot.

You appear to be a making a point that an RP man cannot be a perfect man, but I have conceded that.

You appear to be saying that being RP is an automatic disqualifier for some women in a quality man, but not all, and not most (because most would not know what an RP man is frankly). But you cannot tell me how they would know unless he told them.

Finally, you cannot tell me how being an RP man is not just another flaw of the type all other quality men (apart from the 0.000001%) share and which they commonly overcome with high quality elsewhere, just as the other 19.9999999% of the quality men do.

Ah, 'no true Scotsman'. How would you ever know if he was Red Pill or not? Just because he was obvious / doing it badly

No. Because the threads say "I saw a tiger today" and you think.... Mmmmm, interesting.... And then they say "He had these big brown spots. That's how I knew he was a tiger. It was as clear as day".... And you go. "Fuck".

It honestly is very disappointing. There was this monster thread once. And I only think I glimpsed Possibly 5 of our guys (and the shitty ones, noobs) out of 50 odd examples. Seriously. It was very funny. TRP was in stitches about the whole thing.

The senior posters loved it. They wernt identifiable in any of the scenarios. Our general consensus was that you might be getting the occasional noob, but the clumsy approaches and antics described were very funny to the senior guys who you clearly had no idea about.

Also. A lot of our noobs appeared to be getting laid before you dumped them so RP 1 Chicks 0. I think about 2/3rds of the possibly genuine ones said. "Well I fucked him a few times, realised he was an asshold, then I dumped him" which would leave the score RP 4 Chicks 0.

[–]Amethhyst1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I feel like you're just continuing to argue because you don't want to let it go at this point. I've been very clear in the points I'm making and you're just ignoring them.

You appear to be a making a point that an RP man cannot be a perfect man

Not the point I was making.

Honest question, because this is getting ridiculous: have you actually been reading my replies? Can you confirm that you read this part

we're assuming that you know what you're getting with your ideal mate. It's not as if in giving your list for an ideal women you'd be going '1) pretty, 2) kind, 3) can be a slut so long as I'm not aware of this fact'.

I feel like you're just ignoring what I'm saying and arguing on what you think I might mean. You're not really following the debate at all, and you're not developing your points. You're just saying the same thing over and over, and doing that doesn't make them any more true.

I was NOT making the point that 'a RPer cannot be a perfect man'. I was making the point that they probably are outside the scope of OP's ideal man for the reasons I outlined above.

You appear to be saying that being RP is an automatic disqualifier for some women in a quality man

YES. This is what I am saying. The same way that being a 'slut' would be an automatic disqualifier from the list of a RP guy. This is really what my point boils down to.

because most would not know what an RP man is frankly

We have been over this so many times and this is precisely why I don't think you're reading my replies.

you cannot tell me how being an RP man is not just another flaw of the type all other quality men

You cannot tell me that being slut is not just another flaw of the overall type of quality women. See how this works?

I can't speak for OP, but I imagine that being Red Pill would be a pretty big flaw. It's not just something like 'he has poor time keeping skills'. If he's truly Red Pill, then it goes to the core of who he is and his beliefs about the world. It means he holds a certain set of beliefs about the way women are. He would be ideologically opposed to OP.

Once more, I am not replying to the rest of your post because it is entirely outside the scope of this debate! I don't know why you keep wasting your breath. I also already told you that I don't post on The Blue Pill. I can disagree with TRP without being the exact same as other people who disagree with it. Why are we talking about whether or not 'Blue Pillers' can spot a Red Piller? You may have misconstrued my argument in order to go on that little rant (because again when it comes to 'ideal' partner wish lists, we can discount the notion that you're not getting what you think you are), but it's a waste of both of our time.

The senior posters loved it

Cute story bro. Were you all just chortling away? Tickled pink were you?

Also. A lot of our noobs appeared to be getting laid before you dumped them so RP 1 Chicks 0.

You go boy!

Just. Please confirm that you get 'that when it comes to 'ideal' partner wish lists, we can discount the notion that you're not getting what you think you are' before you reply.

Edit: For the record, I'm not downvoting you. That sucks.

[–]TheGreasyPole1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

YES. This is what I am saying. The same way that being a 'slut' would be an automatic disqualifier from the list of a RP guy. This is really what my point boils down to.

And how confident are you of that ? Because I've never seen it appear on a list.

I can't speak for OP, but I imagine that being Red Pill would be a pretty big flaw.

so your projecting your prejudices on all other women.

My wife doesn't count me being RP as a negative.

And as I keep saying, if they are aware of all the positive traits but unaware of a negative they get assessed on the other traits only. To those women they are "quality men" even if RP knowledge is a negative.

Cute story bro. Were you all just chortling away? Tickled pink were you?

It was very funny. Yes.

Just. Please confirm that you get 'that when it comes to 'ideal' partner wish lists, we can discount the notion that you're not getting what you think you are' before you reply.

Again. You are back to "ideal" we are not defining "ideal" just "high quality" only 1 in a million is ideal. 1 in 5 are "quality".

In regards to this particular point. If you are sleeping with a plate spinner a half dozen times before moving on, that's a success for us. Only need 2-3 girls like in a rotation and were sorted.

Remember, we say don't get married. So we aren't aiming or that market. So when you read those threads that say "I slept with him for a few months then moved on" the girls count that as us failing, while our guys count that as an unqualified success.

[–]Amethhyst1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because I've never seen it appear on a list.

What? Are you claiming that a Red Piller would consider a slut an ideal woman..?

so your projecting your prejudices on all other women.

lol. Why don't we ask her? I'm ASSUMING, given that things like 'feminist' and 'does housework' were on that list, that OP is not fond of TRP and would not consider a Red Piller an 'ideal' partner. But hey, go ahead; ask her and prove me wrong.

My wife doesn't count me being RP as a negative.

You're saying this like it's... surprising? You're a RP couple, I'm not shocked that she uh, doesn't disagree with Red Pill. That's like saying 'my wife is a Christian - therefore nobody is NOT a Christian!' We were discussing OP however, not your wife.

And as I keep saying, if they are aware of all the positive traits but unaware of a negative they get assessed on the other traits only. To those women they are "quality men" even if RP knowledge is a negative.

Okay. So you ARE ignoring the fact that people don't generally account for information asymmetry when they say what their idea of a 'quality' partner is.

What I'm saying is that Red Pill guys might share some of the attributes on my list of what amounts to 'quality'. HOWEVER, that does not make them overall quality men to me. Because something like 'being grumpy all the time' might be the opposite of quality to me; therefore, if a guy is 'grumpy all the time', he doesn't meet MY definition of 'quality', no matter how may things about him I may like. Some things can count in your favour, and some things count against you when it comes to assessments of 'quality'. I imagine that being Red Pill would count against a guy as far as OP is concerned.

Again. You are back to "ideal" we are not defining "ideal" just "high quality" only 1 in a million is ideal. 1 in 5 are "quality"

Right. Quality then. But my point still stands.

In regards to this particular point. If you are sleeping with a plate spinner a half dozen times before moving on, that's a success for us. Only need 2-3 girls like in a rotation and were sorted. Remember, we say don't get married. So we aren't aiming or that market. So when you read those threads that say "I slept with him for a few months then moved on" the girls count that as us failing, while our guys count that as an unqualified success.

I am so confused. What has this got to to with the debate at hand..?

Okay. So what is your idea of a 'quality woman'?

[–]TheGreasyPole1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What? Are you claiming that a Red Piller would consider a slut an ideal woman..?

No, I'm claiming that many men (largely with silly ideas in their brains out their by feminists) would say that partner count does not matter and so high partner count (what RP calls sluts) would not be either a positive or negative trait for them.

Because you lot convinced them of that, largely.

lol. Why don't we ask her? I'm ASSUMING, given that things like 'feminist' and 'does housework' were on that list, that OP is not fond of TRP and would not consider a Red Piller an 'ideal' partner. But hey, go ahead; ask her and prove me wrong.

But look above, she didn't say it... And not only do you put the words in her mouth, in several comments above, you have put them in mouths of all or a majority of women too.

All based on your personal prejudice.

Okay. So you ARE ignoring the fact that people don't generally account for information asymmetry when they say what their idea of a 'quality' partner is.

No, not at all. When giving positive partner lists people can give them without concern for information asymettry. As was done above. Because they can always remove the asymmetry by asking. If it comes in positive, cool. If not, neutral. So lying is not an issue.

On the other hand, negative lists (not given above) must take a different attitude. Because asking will not get you a straight answer. So on a negative list (partner must not be X) the question of how they could identify X is relevant. Because if they can identify it reliably it may as well not be on the list at all.

Because something like 'being grumpy all the time' might be the opposite of quality to me; therefore, if a guy is 'grumpy all the time', he doesn't meet MY definition of 'quality', no matter how may things about him I may like.

Exactly. So if he is "natural grumpy" but never ever shows you any kind of "grumpiness" he would continue to be a quality partner for you... Because you'd never experience the negative attribute... And so you could never "think him not quality" over it. He would always be high quality to you, so long as you didn't realise he wasn't "naturally not grumpy" but was "artificially not grumpy".

I am so confused. What has this got to to with the debate at hand..?

Look through the quoted text. I was continuing a side discussion we were having concerning "women hyper-alert to RP men. And their ability to detect RP men" which appears to be terrible.

This is as relevant as info on "women hyper-alert to grumpy men. And their ability to detect grumpy men" would be in the example above. If she can't detect it, if that trait is not present as she perceives it he's a quality man for her whether grumpy is on her list or not.

Okay. So what is your idea of a 'quality woman'?

I'll cheat and say my wife.

[–]Amethhyst1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I can't tell at this point if you honestly can't follow an argument from reply to reply or if you're just arguing disingenuously. You keep changing the goal posts.

No, I'm claiming that many men

Yes, but as you know we were specifically talking about a Red Pill man's idea of quality, and whether a Red Pill man would consider her quality.

Because you lot convinced them of that, largely

Who is 'you lot' and why am I supposedly one of them?

And lol, you might want to be careful about talking yourself into knots and contradicting own philosophy! If these 'many men', as you say, would not consider being a 'slut' to be a negative trait, then how can you also say that 'most men' find being a 'slut' disgusting and off-putting? I mean, which is it? Do most men find it disgusting or do most men not consider it a negative trait?

But look above, she didn't say it... And not only do you put the words in her mouth

Right, go an ask her now then. If you don't I will.

you have put them in mouths of all or a majority of women too.

Says YOU?! This whole fucking thread started because you tried to claim that she would find you a quality man! Have some self awareness, please.

Because they can always remove the asymmetry by asking.

I mean, do you know how ridiculous that sounds? The question was literally 'what is your idea of a quality man. Not 'what does it take for someone to appear like a quality man in your eyes (even if they aren't really)'. The question is what IS high quality, not what APPEARS high quality. What you're suggesting is that lists 'quality traits' are basically meaningless because the subjects could be faking it anyway. The whole point of having those kinds of lists is to narrow the pool down, as it were. If you allow for things like 'could be disguising it', you're doing NOTHING to narrow that pool, are you?

So basically, you can confirm that

can be a slut so long as I'm not aware of this fact

could fall under 'quality woman' to you?

I mean, if it 'may as well not be on the list at all', and you have no way of ascertaining the truth, then you're stuck, aren't you? You can't technically take her off your 'list'.

Do you know what I think has happened here? I think you know you don't really have a point, but you don't want to admit it.

I was continuing a side discussion... their ability to detect RP men" which appears to be terrible.

Yes, and this was a one-sides discussion between you, yourself and you. At no point did I participate. Outside the scope of this debate, which concerns concrete definitions of quality, not perceived ones. Please stay on topic.

I'll cheat and say my wife.

Don't cheat. Give me a list of qualities, so that I can tell you you basically like sluts.

[–]TheGreasyPole1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, but as you know we were specifically talking about a Red Pill man's idea of quality, and whether a Red Pill man would

Well, I am having about 12 concurrent discussions, so I do forget where I am in some of the less interesting ones. I would agree that an RP man would not want to have a slut, and we put a lot of work into explaining how you can identify one because she will not tell you honestly (discussing her history, verification with acquaintance/friends/social circle, comparing drunk/sober counts, etc, etc).

Who is 'you lot' and why am I supposedly one of them?

In this instance, anyone presenting this alternative sexual strategy I guess. I hear this a lot out in BP world, in fact it's pretty much all I heard over 20 years as an adult before I discovered RP. I figured you are not RP, so I was describing everyone I knew in my BP life.

I was assuming you were that type of human. Maybe your not.

I mean, do you know how ridiculous that sounds? The question was literally 'what is your idea of a quality man. Not 'what does it take for someone to appear like a quality man in your eyes (even if they aren't really)'. The question is what IS high quality, not what APPEARS high quality. What you're suggesting is that lists 'quality traits' are basically meaningless because the subjects could be faking it anyway. The whole point of having those kinds of lists is to narrow the pool down, as it were. If you allow for things like 'could be disguising it', you're doing NOTHING to narrow that pool, are you

And I was originally pointing out that these kind of lists are RP confirmation city, because all the women list out all the traits that we consider important in quality men. These threads just give us outside confirmation that we are working very well in acquiring all the right positive traits.

And if someone wants to add a qualifier of "not an RP man" to that, it makes not a jot of difference to our strategy as all the rest is confirmation, and we know perfectly well not to let her learn we are RP.

[can be a slut as long as I am not aware] could fall under 'quality woman' to you?

Certainly. Any woman that has the traits "is monogamous with me" would be a quality woman. My wife has done that for 14 years. If I discovered she had 3 times as many sexual partners before me that she had previously admitted, then that would not change her "quality woman" status in my eyes. She would be if I did not know, and even if I knew.

So, yes, it could as you say not be a disqualifier for me.

Yes, and this was a one-sides discussion between you, yourself and you. At no point did I participate. Outside the scope of this debate, which concerns concrete definitions of quality, not perceived ones. Please stay on topic.

But it's the crucial point in your assault on my original comment.

I was talking about us having the right strategy to build a quality man, and we do. That we build the right traits, and we do. And that these threads are massive confirmations of that, and they are.

And you chose to attack that by saying being an RP man would be a disqualifier. But that does not attack our strategy or our actions unless it affects perception of us. If it does not. We're good.

You can think what you want, and you'll be thinking (if unaware) that you have a quality man.

We'll be getting laid, or having an LTR, because you think that. No matter what the real truth of the matter ever is.

[–]Amethhyst1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Look, it's not my fault you can't keep track of your arguments. Maybe you should go for quality over quantity.

My wife has done that for 14 years. If I discovered she had 3 times as many sexual partners before me that she had previously admitted, then that would not change her "quality woman" status in my eyes.

Honestly, that's nice, but you're at complete odds with TRP there.

I was never arguing that TRP didn't strive for 'quality' or whatever. Like I've said many times, those qualities overlap because it's well-established that they're attractive. My point was that the OP probably would not consider a TRPer an overall quality man given the all the facts.

Anyway, I'm done with this. Thank you for being civil, I appreciate that; but this has been exhausting and exasperating.

For the record - I've seen you try to claim before that you've 'won' debates when your opponent moves along. I'm abandoning this debate because you're tiresome to argue with. You're all over the place.

Have a nice day.

[–]TheGreasyPole1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Honestly, that's nice, but you're at complete odds with TRP there.

I don't think I am. But if I am, then this is just an area (like several) where we disagree. My starting position has always been "RP is 99% true, bit only 80% works for each individual man. It's just a different 80% for everyone".

My point was that the OP probably would not consider a TRPer an overall quality man given the all the facts.

And my point is that no one ever has all the facts.

If they both live their whole lives together, not knowing, then they will always perceive the other as a quality M/F. If you love your life and that always appears to be the case... Then who cares if a godlike being knows different. YOU lived YOUR life that way, and it worked for YOU.

Anyway, I'm done with this. Thank you for being civil, I appreciate that; but this has been exhausting and exasperating.

On both sides. I'm not sure you've realised how pragmatically orientated we are.

For the record - I've seen you try to claim before that you've 'won' debates when your opponent moves along. I'm abandoning this debate because you're tiresome to argue with. You're all over the place.

OK. Have fun. I'm sure we'll cross paths again.

[–]Amethhyst2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, again.... I thought you were coming off the top level comment. Was replying by inbox.

Well, it happens, but honestly that's a little exasperating since this conversation has gone on for a while - I'd have thought you would have wanted to keep track of and develop the points you were making. Do you mind reading down the thread again so that I don't have to re-iterate all of the same arguments I've already made? Then maybe we can get on the same page.

It's always essentially a modified version of ours

Yes - like I've been saying, the qualities are similar because those are pretty universally recognised as being attractive. But that doesn't mean OP's ideal guy amounts to a Red Piller.

blue pill oater generally always thinks they are posting a list that doesn't apply to RP males

No one has said that. No one is saying that Red Pill men might not also happen to be certain things. See above.

we are generally 9/10s according to their own "anti-RP list

The 'anti' is that you ARE Red Pill.

no misogyny at all is required

I'm not going over this again. We'll just agree to disagree.

Plenty of women are RP too you know, they don't hate themselves or other woman either.

Hah, yeah. I'm pretty sure most of the RPW kind of hate other women just slightly. Have you ever seen that sub? The regular posters are some of the cattiest, meanest people I have ever come across. They are foul about non-Red Pill women. They might think of themselves differently (and yet they call other woman the 'special snowflakes'), but they do NOT like most other women.

all your examples are attempts to get at the truth

Except things like 'smartest teenager in the house' aren't the 'truth' - they're opinions (ones which you seem to disagree with). And yes, they are contemptful.

I'd also say you mis-described 2 of the three

This is what I'm talking about with regards to your 'dodging'. I'm sure you know fine well what RP principles I was referring to, even if I didn't 'phrase' them correctly or whatever. My point stands.

I don't believe in moral superiority/inferiority between sexes

All good. But TRP talks about this a lot.

Whilst every blooper always thinks their list is unique and they are a special snowflake

Again. Who has said this? You're straw-manning here.

she can never know if the man that fits everything else is RP

Once more (!): we're assuming that you know what you're getting with your ideal mate. It's not as if in giving your list for an ideal women you'd be going '1) pretty, 2) kind, 3) can be a slut so long as I'm not aware of this fact'.

My point is simply that Red Pillers are probably not on this woman's list for ideal men just because they might be kinda sorta similar in some ways.

But only one group has got very very close to the right idea. The rest are just flailing about being as often wrong as often right, because they have no coherent model. Only RP has worked out that model Everyone else failed

How on Earth can you say these things of thing without any background studies? This is complete and utter conjecture. There is absolutely no data on this. We have no idea about the success rates of various techniques.

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points-1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-3 points-3 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Ah, wow. I never realized... All those years I spent working on myself, improving, developing my life. I was just coasting!

Well, if you've been doing that... Like I was.... Then you were developing your natural talent. I'm not surprised you were doing well if that was what you were doing. So many guys don't.

mainly because people tell them You're fine as you are. You'll mnake a great catch for someone someday. Just not me, today. You keep on being you. It'll all come good in the end.

Yeah, some idiots believed that.

Okay, I'm in. I've written my 500-word essay on why women are hypergamous sloots. Where do I sign up?

Well, we'd say the subscriber button for the single guys in on the TRP sidebar, and for married guys on the MRP sidebar.

We'd recommend you read a couple of our books first, so you don;t look like a complete idiot in your first few posts.

Tell me whether you are single or partnered and I'll make a recommendation.

I'm pretty sure neither of the recommendations I'll make will have "all women are Hypergamous sloots" in it though. You'll have to wait until you post with all the other anger phase noobs to get into that particular dialogue.

[–][deleted] -4 points-4 points-4 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points-1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPole2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]capt-next-a-hoeCherry Popper Red8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]capt-next-a-hoeCherry Popper Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fzed1199 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fzed1199 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Amethhyst0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger[🍰] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger[🍰] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Define_It-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lbspredh-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]capt-next-a-hoeCherry Popper Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GaiusScaevolusMod TRP/AskTRP/BaM1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pfromad 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]pfromad 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pfromad 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]pfromad 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]surfboard_watermelon 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cloudstryfe0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cvcv1991-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hangrybang0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cvcv1991-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]haircombsnightmare-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	What is a "quality man"?
Author	MissPearl
Upvotes	14
Comments	202
Date	June 18, 2015 10:21 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3a9qzo/what_is_a_quality_man/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-is-a-quality-man.281542 https://theredarchive.com/post/281542

Comments