~ archived since 2018 ~

The culture counter point to red pill

wazzup987 · 2015-05-05T02:06:29+00:00

http://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/gynocentrism-why-so-hard-to-kill/ TLDR, everything RP bitches about could just as easily be the result of culture....

wazzup987

May 5, 2015

2 upvotes

/r/PurplePillDebate

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	The culture counter point to red pill
Author	wazzup987
Upvotes	2
Comments	13
Date	May 5, 2015 2:06 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/34w9pt/the_culture_counter_point_to_red_pill/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/the-culture-counter-point-to-red-pill.282338 https://theredarchive.com/post/282338

Comments

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

If morally dubious techniques work on women.. We won't shy away from saying that. Guys can then make their own minds up on whether to use them. RP is amoral for just this reason.

As to the hatred... Shit woman... What about "we just created 100,000 masculine, confident and assertive guys out of guys who got terribly fucked over their whole lives" are you not getting.

Find a guy that wasted the last 10 years. Teach him the rules that he didn't know we're there. Let him see how fucked over he got. Then make him masculine, confident and assertive. What have you got ?

One pissed off motherfucker who ain't going to take any shit no more. An angry guy. A guy full of hatred.

It goes away, after a while, you just have to wait it out. Problem is... RP is so successful that at any one point 50% of the sub are newbs in this situation.

Sorry, but you're just going to have to deal with it until RP stops growing. Until then most RP guys under 1 year in Re going to be angry, and that's always going to be a majority of the sub.

[–]deadally0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is all well and good, and I would certainly agree that sexuality in itself is a natural phenomenon. No contest.

But where TRP begins to wade into muddy water is with what drives sexuality, what the sexes find attractive, etc. "Attractiveness" is a very malleable concept, which is evidenced by the numerous examples throughout history. You can argue that many of these traits (getting fat, men wearing high heels, wigs, etc) are expressions of status, which is what the women are really attracted to, but that ignores the fact that "status" itself is a relatively recent phenomenon in humans.

Before agriculture, hunter-gatherers were cooperative bands of people who didn't really have the wherewithal to accumulate possessions and territory (what would be the point if you're a nomad?). This was true for greater than 90% of our existence, and evidence points to a more egalitarian society that was more promiscuous and cooperative in terms of child rearing.

Am I saying that's utopia, the feminist dream? No, and I don't identify as a feminist. I'm stating what I've read about the phenomenon, and it makes more sense to me that cooperative tribes would survive more easily than would the strict alpha hierarchical society formed by species like the gorilla. The point here is that, if true, we EVOLVED to be cooperative. Status was not necessarily a part of that. "Providership" was not necessarily a part of that. These phenomena appeared with agriculture, when the differences could be accentuated by the accumulation of wealth.

So you suggest that sexuality is only lightly nurtured. I would submit that it is more likely that everything we're attracted to is because of some kind of conditioning, homosexuality notwithstanding. That's different, too. Being attracted to a gender is instinctual, hardwired. But it's society that tells us which clothes are in vogue, which body type is attractive today, what level of fitness is appropriate. And on down the line.

You don't interpret these cues as societal, either. You just see the skinny, big-titted HB10 as super-duper-hot, just like the Chinese saw those deformed, bound feet as attractive for over a thousand years. You don't look to rationalize it when you're considering a mate, but it's driven by society.

That there are so many examples of this phenomenon is a smoking gun that it's not nature that drives a lot of this. If we're attracted to status and fitness on the fundamental level, cool. But it's society that defines what those two words MEAN. Therefore, nurture is almost everything. Take away nurture, and you have no cues to decide what fit means.

Raise a woman in a bunker away from society, and would you feel confident in knowing what she's attracted to?

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But where TRP begins to wade into muddy water is with what drives sexuality, what the sexes find attractive, etc. "Attractiveness" is a very malleable concept, which is evidenced by the numerous examples throughout history.

Not as malleable as you'd think. Check out my new OP.

The point here is that, if true, we EVOLVED to be cooperative.

Absolutely, we're a co-operative species.

Am I saying that's utopia, the feminist dream? No, and I don't identify as a feminist. I'm stating what I've read about the phenomenon, and it makes more sense to me that cooperative tribes would survive more easily than would the strict alpha hierarchical society formed by species like the gorilla.

Ah, here you've lapse into group selection. That doesn't work. Evolution science doesn't work that way. Only individuals are selected genetically, not groups.

When you are talking about memes (religion, culture etc) it's different. There are different rules.

Genes work, solely, through individuals. They know nothing of groups.

Genes would cheat a group, in order to get more genes made. They can't cheat an individual the same way, he is the genes.

So you suggest that sexuality is only lightly nurtured. I would submit that it is more likely that everything we're attracted to is because of some kind of conditioning, homosexuality notwithstanding. That's different, too.

Why ? I think sex drive is the same. That you are always dealing with the same kind of drive that makes gay men gay... and women like attractive men... and men like attractive women (if hetero).

You don't interpret these cues as societal, either. You just see the skinny, big-titted HB10 as super-duper-hot, just like the Chinese saw those deformed, bound feet as attractive for over a thousand years. You don't look to rationalize it when you're considering a mate, but it's driven by society.

Some small part is. A much larger part, the huge part, isn't.

Men in general are interested in young women (<25) everywhere and old women (>50) nowhere, for example.

Doesn't matter how well bound your feet are. You'll go with the hot 25 year old with bound feet over teh 50 year old with bound feet. In fact, you'd almost certainly shag the 25 year old whatever the state of her feet (marriage might be a different question).

That there are so many examples of this phenomenon is a smoking gun that it's not nature that drives a lot of this. If we're attracted to status and fitness on the fundamental level, cool. But it's society that defines what those two words MEAN. Therefore, nurture is almost everything. Take away nurture, and you have no cues to decide what fit means.

No, lizard brain knows. He don't need to be told...

Traits that indicate a fertile woman ? Nice boobs, good hip-to-waist ratio, young, decent hips etc.

He don't need to be told about them. Raise him on a desert island with no culture, he'd still know about them.

Lizard brain don't need to be taught. He was programmed by your genes, not your culture.

He knows what tastes nice (sugar !) and tastes bad (poop !) ... Whats sexy (boobs !) whats not (penises, if you're a man) ... Whats scary (a snake !) whats not (a fluffy bunny) ... He knows all that whether he's taught or not because people who already knew that stuff survived better and left their genes behind to program a new generation of lizard brains. Those that didn't... Didn't... Usually because a snake bit them, or they ate shit, or they stuck their penis in a human who already had a penis.

Raise a woman in a bunker away from society, and would you feel confident in knowing what she's attracted to?

Yes. I'd feel confident she'd prefer the muscly, confident, manly 30 year old guy.... Over the fat, baldy, not confident, timid 60 year old guy... Bunker or not.

Lizard brain ain't trained by society. He is built by genes. The genes know what they want... the exact same thing all their ancestors wanted. Thats why they got passed on.

[–]deadally0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ah, here you've lapse into group selection. That doesn't work. Evolution science doesn't work that way. Only individuals are selected genetically, not groups.

Individuals are not the drivers of natural selection. Genes are. Cooperative group hierarchy ensures individual sets of genes are selected more consistently. Thus, we agree that humans are cooperative, and I'm sure we can agree this would be an advantage in line with promoting the selection of cooperative genes. This argues directly against the "AF/BB" dichotomy, though.

Not as malleable as you'd think. Check out my new OP.

Re: attractiveness. I read your other post. It's a challenging thing to debate because in some ways you are correct. If given the choice (assuming there is desire), the bunker girl would probably choose the muscular 30-year old over the pudgy 60 year old. But what about an average build 30 year old and a fit 30 year old? Would the bunker woman be able to tell the difference? Would the bunker woman feel any attraction to people at all, given she's had no socialization? The few examples we have suggest that people without development in this area don't really respond to other people in the typical fashion anymore. But it's not a question we can really answer one way or the other.

Why ? I think sex drive is the same. That you are always dealing with the same kind of drive that makes gay men gay... and women like attractive men... and men like attractive women (if hetero).

Right, and my argument is that society decides an awful lot of what makes a man/woman attractive. Look at old portraits of concubines from Chinese dynasties. Many women you'd probably find attractive. Many of them you would not. But these are the women inferior only to the wife of the emperor or another noble. They weren't common women. And still you wouldn't touch half of them with a ten foot pole because of your "lizard brain," you think. But this suggests strongly that attraction is not a universal. Attraction to breasts is a great example of this, as I'm sure you're well aware that there are many cultures that do not share our affinity for them. Lizard brain should just know, though, right?

Doesn't matter how well bound your feet are. You'll go with the hot 25 year old with bound feet over teh 50 year old with bound feet. In fact, you'd almost certainly shag the 25 year old whatever the state of her feet (marriage might be a different question).

Your thought process here is anachronistic. That is to say you're viewing through the lens of a 21st Century westerner. Step back to Europe in the middle ages or the Elizabethan era, and the standards of attraction relating to age are quite different. These concepts are not quite so universal as you think. Though, I'm not so dim as to say that there's nothing biological about attraction. My central point is that it can and IS heavily influenced by society.

As per the shag with the 25 versus 50 year old, you're assuming all other things equal. The more interesting question is would the Chinese man of the 11th century SOONER bang the 50 year old WITH bound feet or the 25 year old without?

More to point with society today. Would you rather bang a 2015 Sofia Vergara (who is 43) or a 2005 Lena Dunham (when she was 18)? One of them has physical features highly desired by Western men, and the other is 18 years old with plain looks at best. The lizard brain knows how old they are, right?

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Individuals are not the drivers of natural selection. Genes are. Cooperative group hierarchy ensures individual sets of genes are selected more consistently. Thus, we agree that humans are cooperative, and I'm sure we can agree this would be an advantage in line with promoting the selection of cooperative genes. This argues directly against the "AF/BB" dichotomy, though.

Why ? Co-operative genes evolve... But when it comes to a matter as directly important to genes as did you spread your genes effectively thats not an area they are going to co-operate well on.

The genes that co-operate and have 8 offspring will be out competed by the genes that cheat and have 10 offspring.

The higher the number of allelles that promote co-operation... the more incentive their is for "cheating genes" to spead.

Its the whole hawks/doves debate. Evolutionary theory has come to the general conclusion that in matter of sex particularly the hawks win the day.

the bunker girl would probably choose the muscular 30-year old over the pudgy 60 year old. But what about an average build 30 year old and a fit 30 year old? Would the bunker woman be able to tell the difference? Would the bunker woman feel any attraction to people at all, given she's had no socialization?

I am arguing they would. They would feel more drawn to an evolutionarily fit mate... than to one that is not fit.

This is largely independent of socilization, because it is programmed by genes. Genes don't socialize.

The few examples we have suggest that people without development in this area don't really respond to other people in the typical fashion anymore. But it's not a question we can really answer one way or the other.

No they don't. They can't talk. They can't interact. They haven't developed ANY mammal brain characteristics at all, they were never taught them.

Lizard Brain is still there. They still feel fear. They still feel anger. They still feel attracted to evolutionary fit mates, and are not attracted to evolutionaryily poor mates.

Look, even the worst socialised woman isn't trying to fuck a tree. Why not ? Because Lizard brain knows the difference between trees and humans no matter how badly socialised mammal brain is.

If Lizard Brain wasn't there... our socially deprived woman would be as likely to want to fuck a tree, or a rock or a Ford Taurus as a human being.

Right, and my argument is that society decides an awful lot of what makes a man/woman attractive. Look at old portraits of concubines from Chinese dynasties. Many women you'd probably find attractive. Many of them you would not. But these are the women inferior only to the wife of the emperor or another noble. They weren't common women. And still you wouldn't touch half of them with a ten foot pole because of your "lizard brain," you think. But this suggests strongly that attraction is not a universal. Attraction to breasts is a great example of this, as I'm sure you're well aware that there are many cultures that do not share our affinity for them. Lizard brain should just know, though, right?

Yes, he does just know. Total up all the human societies you can find where males show no interest in breasts.

Now total up all the human societies that have ever existed.

Did you breach 1% ? Or 0.1% ? Or 0.01% ?

Why is the ratio so low ? Why isn't it 50:50 ?

Because Lizard Brain guides people very consistently, no matter what the culture tries to say.

Your thought process here is anachronistic. That is to say you're viewing through the lens of a 21st Century westerner. Step back to Europe in the middle ages or the Elizabethan era, and the standards of attraction relating to age are quite different. These concepts are not quite so universal as you think.

You are right of course. Back in those era's they wifed the women even younger than today.

Go on... Off you trot... Go get the "average age of marriage" today and for pre-renaissaince europe.

It's not going to support your case. We prefer them younger. Some go against that preference (Well, she is an heiress to the duchy of northumberland....) but the preference is there and the data shows so, overwhelmingly.

You won't find any societies where a post-menopausal women is preferred over a pre-menopausal one. Lizard Brain is too strong.

As per the shag with the 25 versus 50 year old, you're assuming all other things equal. The more interesting question is would the Chinese man of the 11th century SOONER bang the 50 year old WITH bound feet or the 25 year old without?

If we are talking bang ... Then my moneys on the 25 year old.

If we are talking wife ... It'd depend on how well bound feet correlated with things like fidelity and social standing in that society.

More to point with society today. Would you rather bang a 2015 Sofia Vergara (who is 43) or a 2005 Lena Dunham (when she was 18)? One of them has physical features highly desired by Western men, and the other is 18 years old with plain looks at best. The lizard brain knows how old they are, right?

Well, I don;t know either woman by name... But I will bet you something...

I BET you that... Whatever Sofia Vergara has that makes her so attarctive, are markers of genetic fitness generally. Maybe she's so high on all of those she fooled old lizard into thinking she was a pre-wall chick.

Maybe the other girl is soooooo plain.... She aint a good prospect despite her age. I don't know.

The point is THERE IS A REASON that most men would find one more attractive than the other... and those are the lizard brain feels that are being pushed on them... Whether lizard brain has been fooled by Sofia's general attractiveness in spite of her age... Or whether Lizard Brain has been fooled by Lena's lack of attractiveness into ignoring her age.

Just why IS Sofia so damn attractive ?

Lizard Brain likes what she's got to offer, thats why.

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Homeostasis in reference to social systems.

Not Stasis

Reading this article I get the feeling the author likes the cultural explanation not so much for its truth, but because to him (and to feminists) this means the world can change for the better, easily. (Whatever degenerate vision of "better" they have in mind). I see very little of interest in his article.

Now he might have insight I don't about domain name acquisition. That's not my thing, but I'm under the impression that speech is cheap as fuck now, and that feminist interference in facebook, twitter, and reddit shouldn't concern us, because ultimately we have the power to vote with our ~~wallet~~ keyboard. Even TRP has a plan in case they get booted from reddit.

On the other hand any government that is willing to shill that hard for feminism (EU) is probably just going to ban that speech entirely, so I doubt his solution of online resistance will do much good.

[–]Aspiring_HoboNo Pills Necessary0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link