TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

      • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo

      • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

All pills, what are your most controversial (on this sub or in the real world) opinions on sex, gender, attraction and relationships?

[deleted]

November 19, 2014
13 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
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title All pills, what are your most controversial (on this sub or in the real world) opinions on sex, gender, attraction and relationships?
Author

[deleted]
Upvotes 13
Comments 189
Date November 19, 2014 4:03 AM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2mqlpj/all_pills_what_are_your_most_controversial_on/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/all-pills-what-are-your-most-controversial-on-this.284336
https://theredarchive.com/post/284336

Comments

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

probably that I think that getting pegged in the ass by a girl would be one of the hottest things ever

[–]raptorrage3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Should try it. Boyfriend and I adore it

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wish I could. It takes two to want to do it.

[–]PostNationalismex-PUA1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

so do it

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Girlfriend not into it. Maybe one day

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Most controversial? Well, I hold a bunch of redpill opinions, so...

But my most controversial would be the following:

  • double standards exist for a reason.
  • the red pill presentation of women is reasonably accurate if interpreted as an ideal type of a woman in her "individual-fulfillment/non-cooperative/adverserial mode".

[–]autowikibot0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ideal type:

Ideal type (German: Idealtypus), also known as the pure type, is a typological term most closely associated with antipositivist sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920). For Weber, the conduct of social science depends upon the construction of hypothetical concepts in the abstract. The "ideal type" is therefore a subjective element in social theory and research; one of many subjective elements which necessarily distinguish sociology from natural science.

An ideal type is formed from characteristics and elements of the given phenomena, but it is not meant to correspond to all of the characteristics of any one particular case. It is not meant to refer to perfect things, moral ideals nor to statistical averages but rather to stress certain elements common to most cases of the given phenomena. It is also important to pay attention that in using the word “ideal” Max Weber refers to the world of ideas (German: Gedankenbilder "thoughtful pictures") and not to perfection; these “ideal types” are idea-constructs that help put the seeming chaos of social reality in order.

Weber himself wrote: "An ideal type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffuse, discrete, more or less present and occasionally absent concrete individual phenomena, which are arranged according to those onesidedly emphasized viewpoints into a unified analytical construct... " It is a useful tool for comparative sociology in analyzing social or economic phenomena, having advantages over a very general, abstract idea and a specific historical example. It can be used to analyze both a general, suprahistorical phenomenon (like capitalism) or historically unique occurrences (like Weber's own Protestant Ethics analysis).

To try to understand a particular phenomenon, one must not only describe the actions of its participants but "interpret" them as well. But interpretation poses a problem for the investigator who has to attempt to classify behavior as belonging to some prior "ideal type". Weber described four categories of "Ideal Types" of behavior: zweckrational (goal-rationality), wertrational (value-rationality), affektual (emotional-rationality) and traditional (custom, unconscious habit).

Therefore Weber, who is keenly aware of “Ideal Type's” fictional nature, states that the “Ideal Type” never seeks to claim its validity in terms of a reproduction of or a correspondence with social reality. Its validity can be ascertained only in terms of adequacy, which is too conveniently ignored by the proponents of positivism. This does not mean, however, that objectivity, limited as it is, can be gained by “weighing the various evaluations against one another and making a ‘statesman-like’ compromise among them”, which is often proposed as a solution by those sharing Weber's kind of methodological perspectivism. Such a practice, which Weber calls “syncretism”, is not only impossible but also unethical, for it avoids “the practical duty to stand up for our own ideals” [Weber 1904/1949, p. 58 in ]

Critics of ideal type include proponents of the normal type theory. Some sociologists argue that ideal type tends to focus on extreme phenomena and overlook the connections between them, and that it is difficult to show how the types and their elements fit into a theory of a total social system.

Image i

Interesting: Max Weber | Tripartite classification of authority | Normal type | Typification

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]CynicalCutie[🍰] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Sex: I think it makes more sense for everyone to wait. Both women and men. Sex is best when shared with only one person. The one you love.

Gender: Men as a whole are physically stronger and smarter in math and science in general. Women as a whole are physically more attractive and are better equipped for practical wisdom and abstract thinking.

Attraction: Men are visual creatures and put priority on physical appearance above all else. In the case of LTR, loyalty and compatibility are of secondary importance. Women also value physical appearance but a lack of security, morals, and/or charm will be a deal breaker for most women.

Relationships: Both genders are equally capable of either loving unconditionally or being shallow assholes. The end goal is not to have successfully mate. The end goal should be being with someone who loves you as much as you love them. You do everything you can to make that person happy with little to no concern for your own needs and desires because your SO will be doing everything he/she can to make you happy. If you consistently fail, maybe the problem lies with you and not "women" or "men".

[–]FollowThisAdvice7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

God that IS controversial.

I disagree on literally every point except men being physically stronger and your Relationships claims (which I agree with wholeheartedly).

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

How often do you see men specifically going after financially secure or high-status women? Or after creative/geek/whetever types?

Do men even categorize women by these types at all (as women seem to do)? No, men's "types" aren't based on the same criteria as women's "types". (Ignoring the ethics of categorizing people... well everyone does it. It goes into criteria for whom you want to date after all.)

I believe (though I'm not sure) that when men use these categories or criteria, they are looking for similarity or shared self-identification (something women do too). For example, men who are attracted to financially successful or smart women will self-identify as financially successful or smart themselves. They aren't attracted to the status, intelligence or character itself so much as they are attracted to the fact that said women are "speaking the same language" as them.

[–]FollowThisAdvice3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How often do you see men specifically going after financially secure or high-status women? Or after creative/geek/whetever types?

Extremely frequently, at least among high-status people here. I dont live in the USA so the "conservative frat boy SAHM WASP" culture doesnt apply.

For example, men who are attracted to financially successful or smart women will self-identify as financially successful or smart themselves

I agree. I also think this applies to women attracted to those traits, at least in proper liberal welfare states. Not so much in the USA, sure.

[–]ruorgimorphu2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There was a documentary posted recently that suggested that while women can be just as good at math and science, they have less interest for it and are more interested in people-related subject matter. So I think I partly agree with you, though I don't believe women are actually limited when it comes to STEM, apart from being less intrigued by it.

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is true of me. As a child I was really precocious with school and did just as well as math as I did in other subjects. But by the time I was 8 or so, I just wasn't that interested in math. I love writing, reading, anything with words. Now I suck at math. It was almost like my brain poured so much energy into the subjects I loved that math had to suffer. It doesn't mean I was destined to be inferior in math though, just that I kind of chose to suck at it.

[–]ruorgimorphu0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think people need to keep in mind that students start to be bad at math because of disinterest, as opposed to the vice versa, which is that they don't like it because they're bad at it.

Not that it adds anything here but for what it's worth, I loved math at 8 and still do.

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

I'm sorry if I didn't use the best words. I'm not implying that women are incapable, any individual woman can be smarter than a dozen men, but I was going more toward what you said.

I work at an animal hospital. All women staff besides two men. I wondered why that was and it occurred to me that most big business meetings depicted in movies are all men and maybe one woman. I figured women are more willing to work hard with minimal pay for a good cause while a man is more money motivated.

Not that they weren't capable, but that it wasn't an interest like you said.

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree with the waiting. I was raised quite secular and felt pressured to have sex before I was ready, too early in relationships. I still met my H pretty young so I wound up not having sex wth that many people but man, I wish I had waited for my H. I would never tell me kids about my premarital sex or encourage it. It destroyed so much about my view of myself and the world.

I honestly think the world would be better if society assumed monogamy and if promiscuity was taboo for both genders.

To be fair though, you would think women are more attractive if you're attracted to them. I think men are more attractive.

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

I am attracted to men as well, but let me clarify:

If you picked out 10 random guys off the street, most likely only 2 or 3 of them would rank between 7-9/10 looks wise. On the other hand, in a group of 10 women, about more than half would be considered very attractive.

Not that one gender is better looking than another, but that an average guy has a better chance of going out with a girl out of his league than a girl does. Just my opinion based on observation.

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

hmm idk. I always saw it as equal, but I guess agree to disagree since there's no way of proving either opinion factually. I see as many good looking guys as I do girls, but it's also good to note that girls can wear makeup and heels and such, whereas men don't have many options in that area.

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

Both genders are equally capable of either loving unconditionally

I think it's quite the opposite actually, love cannot be unconditional. Say your SO does a 180 in regards to personality, I doubt you'd stay with him/her.

Same if he/she cut your tit off.

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

That's why they say only God can truly love unconditionally.

We do our best. Obviously, you're not walking around thinking, "you better not be a serial killer cuz that's kind of a deal breaker mmkay?" But you don't think, "If I find someone better for me, then you're getting the boot. Gotta look out for #1 y'know."

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Ugh, crazy ones. They'd be considered normal if not liberal by RP standards but insane by feminist standards since I'm a woman. I'm not quite a RPW though since I still have loads of gripes with TRP.

  • I don't think you necessarily have to wait that long to get married.
  • "Finding yourself" is an imaginary, privileged way to pass time if you're too rich to have real problems.
  • Promiscuity is bad for men and women and rarely indicative of a healthy attitude about yourself and sex.
  • If you marry someone you are obligated not to neglect them sexually (regardless of gender).
  • Sleeping with a married person is almost as immoral as cheating.
  • Gender roles are, to a certain extent, biological and insisting that they're 100% toxic is pointless. They will always exist.
  • Men like feminine women, heels, long hair and fit physiques. It's actually really simple to figure out what they like and no, it's not as simple as "everyone is different." Men and women by and large like the same stuff.
  • Fewer men would cheat if women put out more, and fewer women would cheat if men didn't give up on themselves and their marriages. Still doesn't make cheating ever OK.
  • Men are just as likely to betray you as women. As a woman you should always safeguard yourself against affairs.

[–]PostNationalismex-PUA4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If you marry someone you are obligated not to neglect them sexually

obligation sex is the best sex amirite

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, if it feels like an obligation there's something wrong. You should want to, and if you don't, instead of just giving up you should work on it. That's more what I meant to say.

[–]justskatedude0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"Finding yourself" is an imaginary, privileged way to pass time if you're too rich to have real problems.

I would argue this, but I'm rich so I can't. Only thing I'll say is that my potential is much higher than my current status, so I need to continue down that road until I can meet a female I feel is worthy. Also intelligence means much more than beauty, but why is it that some of the most intelligent girls I've met refuse to exercise? I never got that. I would totally date you if you lost 20 pounds. I feel like that's fair because I went from 160 to 130 and that wasn't hard.

If you marry someone you are obligated not to neglect them sexually (regardless of gender). I agree.

Sleeping with a married person is almost as immoral as cheating.

I agree.

Fewer men would cheat if women put out more

This has been studied and men who receive sex twice or more per week are SIGNIFICANTLY less likely to cheat. The most common reason for cheating is that your SO doesn't put out and you are horny.

Men are just as likely to betray you as women. As a woman you should always safeguard yourself against affairs.

Yeah that's why everyone needs to be aware of who they are dating and not just assume loyalty because of love.

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah, we have a lot in common. I come from an upper middle class family too, and I've been tempted to do the whole "I need to find myself" thing too, but to what end? I don't think being rich means you can't argue that. It's just reality, lol.

I also wonder about the exercise thing. I know several cool men/women who would do so much better with the opposite gender if they put any effort into working out or even dressing decenty. I don't get why someone wouldnt' do that. It's way easier than succeeding in your job, which they're capable of doing. Not saying everyone has to be 3% body fat with Gucci clothing, but anyone can improve.

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Sex: Apparently it's that 5 sexual partners is a "normal" amount. According to both pills I'm wrong. xD

I'm sorry for failing you RP.

And no BP a girl who has taken 50 dicks is not marriage material :/ Jesus Christ 50 dicks. If even 20 is considered acceptable here, I'm fucking off to Vietnam.

Relationships: (My own personal faults:) Alone time is important, maybe we don't need to go to that party. Or better yet you go, give the host my regards, and let me catch up on reading.

Attraction: I compare myself to ex gf's current boys. I normally win. :/ And sometimes I wonder if the only reason I actually got dates was because of a constant streak of women with bad taste. xD

[–]jacks10005 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

honest question: what does TRP think about a man who has had sex with 50 women? Still possible marriage material, or a permanent bad boy?

FTR, I'm fine with "double standards" - two different sexes, two different standards.

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

After 40 sexual partners you become a god amongst men, no woman should ever look in your general direction without fellating :/

I will say this: Any guy who can get his count past 50 is someone you want to take advice from concerning attraction because as we all know pussy is expensive, dick is free.

But no, I'd rather see any females in my life stay away from such a dude. He probably wouldn't fare too well in a traditional relationship.

[–]stubingPurple Pillz Here!6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That man may be a god at attracting women, but he most likely isn't monogamous marriage material at that point. You think people who have had sex with 50 different people over a decade(we haven't specified a time line) can just all of a sudden be fine with 1 person for the rest of their life?

[–]jacks10001 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But what if the person didn't wind up having sex with 50 women due to some driving need for variety? Maybe he just moved around a lot, hung out with a fast crowd, or got started really young?

Why not?

[–]stubingPurple Pillz Here!4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But what if the person didn't wind up having sex with 50 women due to some driving need for variety?

Why couldn't he ever keep some of these women around if he didn't need variety? Something big must be wrong with him if 50 people decided to pass on him after the short time of them knowing each other.

Maybe he just moved around a lot, hung out with a fast crowd, or got started really young?

That's still 50 people. If he stopped doing these antics a long time ago, and recently had a long term relationship with no cheating by his part, then I could see him as a reformed man who is marriage material.

[–]FollowThisAdvice5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Same goes for a woman in the same situation

[–]jacks10002 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Sigh

50 isn't that much for someone in their 30s. I know of a man who had sex with 200 women. Now that is a lot.

Any guy who can get his count past 50 is someone you want to take advice from concerning attraction

Here's my advice for bedding lots of women:

  1. Be good looking
  2. Make them laugh

It's easy.

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'll go get my passport. Fuck the sloots. :D

Also by 30 the quality of mate really does tend to go down. Those chicks with master's degrees may be quirky and independent, but they can't compare to a sweet young thing of 20. :P

Just look at NEET's at 30 and 18, I'm just suggesting the same process occurs with women. Their negative qualities get accentuated.

[–]boscoistRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

NEET's?

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEET

[–]autowikibot0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

NEET:

A NEET or neet is a young person who is "Not in Education, Employment, or Training". The acronym NEET was first used in the United Kingdom but its use has spread to other countries including Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

In the United Kingdom, the classification comprises people aged between 16 and 24 (some 16-year-olds are still of compulsory school age); the subgroup of NEETs aged 16–18 is frequently of particular focus. In Japan, the classification comprises people aged between 15 and 34 who are unemployed, not engaged in housework, not enrolled in school or work-related training, and not seeking work.

NEET is to be distinguished from the newly coined NLEET rate used in the 2013 report on Global Employment Trends for Youth by the International Labour Organization. The NLEET rate stands for "neither in the labour force nor in education, employment or training". It is similar to NEET but excludes the unemployed since they are still included in the labor force.

Interesting: Neet Covered Bridge | N.E.E.T. Recordings | National Eligibility and Entrance Test

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This- he might know how to attract me, but I'd be smart enough about my future not to go there. He'd be horrible reltionship material.

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not RP, but I would run at that. Nobody wants STDs, and even if he was clean that history hints at a flippant attitude toward sex and commitment. No thanks.

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Relationships: (My own personal faults:) Alone time is important, maybe we don't need to go to that party. Or better yet you go, give the host my regards, and let me catch up on reading

Is this controversial?! Alone time is essential for me as well, even with my partner. Maybe this is a bit of an introvert vs. extravert issue.

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Direct quote

"There's nothing wrong with 50 sexual partners, Heil Hitler!" -TheBluePill.

I was messing around with their assertion that the sexual history has nothing to do with fidelity and crap. Although yes 2 Blue Pillers did have this conversation with me, as they asserted that 50 wasn't "so bad", while another was more "realistic" and pegged it at 20.

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

nigga did you just link me to a trojan?

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How do you "accidentally" link someone to malware?

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, for what it's worth, a man who's dipped his whick in 50 vats of wax is a big "ew" for me :P

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

20 by 20 is more common than you think

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Women want to be dominated. As a member of the kink community i can say this fairly assertively. 75 percent of women in kink identify as sub while 8% are domme and about 16% are switch verse 50% dom/ 30% sub/ 18% switch for men. i don't see how this wouldn't translate to society at large to some degree. INB4 twue dom i am actually and bottom/sub leaning switch.

Women want men to sort their problems out for them,

women use hypoangency to greater degree

men are easily manipulated by the WAW affect

Men are actually more desperate for commitment than women but are more cautious about commiting due to laws and loss of identity.

the friendzone is real and is more nuisanced than either side is willing to admit

[–]justskatedude0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I hate reading stuff like this and then hear women complain about emotional consent vs passive consent. It is obvious from a guys perspective that you need to be dominate and escalating sex is up to you. The whole idea that passive consent is not consent makes me mad. The whole definition of being passive is not disagreeing. If you don't disagree, then by default you agree.

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

switch here, definitely agree

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

i actually got those number from a survey looking in to relationship health. 1000 kinky 450 vinilla. and also personal experince so take it with a grain of salt. personal side i wish more women were dommes

[–]McCaberBlue2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Premarital sex was the wrong thing for me.

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Could you elaborate? I just can't imagine marrying someone without knowing if we are sexually incompatible, so I am curious how you view premarital sex or sex in general.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are two genders male and female. It's ok to transition from one to the other once.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mens-brains-are-wired-differently-than-women/

This is my evidence, we think differently, to be mixed up at birth and be gay or trapped in the wrong body is fine as long as you don't make a shitshow of coming out or wanting attention.

People claiming that they are neither male nor women are by definition sterile and will remove themselves from the genepool.

[–]Christian_Kong80% Natural Red2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Sex:Any mildly attractive girl who has slept with less guys than her age is an anomaly. You are a slut and I will treat you as such, you can do the same to me.

Gender: Its bullshit. You can me a man/boy/male and like to wear dresses and makeup, this does not make you a she. Women can like to work on cars and watch sports this does not make you a he. Transgender are broken people that are not getting the help they need cause of the society of acceptance/tolerance we live in.

Attraction: Looks should be priority, everything else is settling.

Relationships: 33 years old, I still dont understand them. I cant name a single person I've ever known that I want to see/talk to every day. I dont understand pet ownership for the sake of relationships other than a sad reflection of their inner selves.

[–]PostNationalismex-PUA-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

the way you don't understand trans people or sex made me knew you were older

[–]Christian_Kong80% Natural Red0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Transgendered is a recent phenomenon, never happened before 2.2 years ago. You are correct.

Seriously; please enlighten me. I have been verbally attacked(not you) for my lack of understanding and no one cares to open my mind to the idea. Ive had light studying on the topic in the couple of feminism classes I took during college. Ive know a few trans from various scenes and bars and I just see them as regular people.

While you are at it enlighten me how I "don't understand" sex. I can only make an opinion based on 10 or so years of social experience both as a participator and observer. Explain to me how young people understand these things but not older. Please.

[–]justskatedude0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It's more of young people do not care about what others do as long as it does not affect them. That is why we have a trans acceptance movement.

I could be wrong, but I think the LGBT adopted the trans because they are a sexual minority (away from the norm, just like gays). Personally, I think that making yourself a women just to go after straight guys is kind of weird. Did you hear about Michael Phelps? His "girlfriend" used to be a man. She was BORN with both genitalia so I would argue that the situation is different. If a guy (with no vagina) decided to undergo surgery to become a woman just to pursue straight guys, I think that they have a duty to tell each straight guy that they used to be a gay guy.

I could be wrong, but for me, trans guys are just gay guys that wanted to go after straight guys (in terms of sexual preference).

KEEP IN MIND I DID NOT TALK ABOUT ISSUES WITH GENDER IDENTITY BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW MUCH.

[–]Christian_Kong80% Natural Red0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's more of young people do not care about what others do as long as it does not affect them. That is why we have a trans acceptance movement.

Nor do a lot of old people like myself. When I say I think trans are broken people its cause I think they are self loathing. The whole "Im a woman in a mans body" thing. I look at it like you are a man that likes to wear dresses or makeup or whatever. Trans will get shit for "cross dressing" in public, and its lame. So do other people who dress out of the norm. My buddy is "Punk" and regularly gets shit for wearing spiked jackets and whtnot. It sucks but if you are too far outside of the norm you are going to get shit(mostly from younger people) and looks(from everyone).

I do get pissed that trans get offended if I call them him, he or even dude(which I call girls that all the time.) Sorry you are clearly a guy.

I could be wrong, but for me, trans guys are just gay guys that wanted to go after straight guys (in terms of sexual preference).

Never thought of it that way, interesting. Always felt they were gays that just like the female look. Shit during the 80's with the whole hair metal and androgynous phase the female look was in with straight guys.

[–]justskatedude0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Here's a question: Do you think that all social change should be rational? I totally get where you are coming from so that's why I ask.

Always felt they were gays that just like the female look.

Yeah I don't want to scare you, but guys who get the sex change to transform to women usually do not seek gay guys or trans guys, they want the straight ones. I can understand your premise of broken people, because they literally want to change themselves and then go after a class of people who restrict themselves to people who are not trans/gay/etc.

[–]Christian_Kong80% Natural Red0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I am not too sure what you mean by social change.

As far as trans are concerned, Ive always assumed most transsexuals do not get a sex change (I assume it both expensive and dangerous). The few I have met(I think) are blatantly not post op. I know there are some that had the surgery and took the hormones to "fix" themselves. I am aware those will go after straight guys and not really a concern of mine cause I think the odds of running into someone like that is pretty thin.

[–]justskatedude0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Social change. What I meant was, you are saying that we should see trannys for who they are. What I am saying is, if society accepts a certain group, why can't we let them write their own history. If they want to say they are like that naturally, technically its true because any therapy to fix them would be "artificial" and thus fixing a broken person would produce an artificially normal person.

[–]Christian_Kong80% Natural Red0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I dont think social change will do much good for the individuals in this situation. I genuinely think trans people are uncomfortable in their skin because they are, not because everyone else is uncomfortable with them. Would social change make their lives easier, absolutely. I do not think anything other than real psychological help do anything other than make for short term ease of their self loathing.

I dont even know how we could possibly make a mass social change of that nature. As I said my "punk" dressing friends get shit for wearing what they wear. If I were to walk around wearing tye-dye suspenders and a giant "Cat in the Hat" hat people would give me shit too. I wouldnt know how to teach society that everything is "normal." I think we are still a long way from mass acceptance of gay people and they have been pretty well out in the open for a while(and I would say trans are a much smaller percentage of society.)

Another issue of social acceptance is accepting trans as the gender they choose/feel they are is it causes a lot of grey area shit. Do trans get to use bathrooms/gym facilities of the gender they identify with? Can trans play sports(particularly men playing womens sports) of the gender they identify with? Can you get a scholarship meant for (male/female sex) that is opposite of their "born gender" by claiming the other gender? Can a racist/sexist corporation claim they are an equal opportunity employer by saying they have transgender and transracial(I made this up but Im sure people will use this mass acceptance of other things for their advantage) people. Can trans sue for discrimination if they dont get treated as they feel they should be? Some of these examples may seem ridiculous but to me it seems like it could cause a lot of shit that society will not be able to come to an agreement on only to appease a incredibly small percentage of the population.

I see the whole mass acceptance as both unhelpful and unlikely.

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

I do not think anything other than real psychological help do anything other than make for short term ease of their self loathing.

I agree. Great to see the other side of an opinion.

I see the whole mass acceptance as both unhelpful and unlikely.

I totally see where you are coming from and I don't disagree. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Personally, I think that the worlds Gender and Sex mean pretty much the same thing, but if Trans people want to take the world "Gender" and bend it to how they like it, then we should start using the word "Biological Sex" in government papers, etc.

[–]LeGrandDiableBlancParochial Altruist2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Affirmative, vocal consent at every point during a sexual encounter is a hindrance and an unnecessary standard.

Enthusiastic consent is able to be given and received non-verbally.

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

only an autist would have to write this out

[–]LeGrandDiableBlancParochial Altruist0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You would think so, wouldn't you.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

That there is a HUGE difference between high-IQ and low-IQ people. To put it short, low-IQ tends towards redder pills because they are instinct driven, higher-IQ tends towards bluer pills because IQ tends to suppress instincts, leads to a hunger for information which leads to learning social science / humanities and from them, some empathy, and high-IQ people really, really, really care about autonomy / freedom / liberty / equality, this is why we tend to be so much left-wing, even anarchist.

This is what drove many revolutions and social changes I think. A 100 IQ teenager is generally OK with parental authority, but a 130-140 IQ teenager gets furious at the idea of dad giving orders, we rebel then carry it into adulthood and become left-anarchists or something similar. I cannot explain it to you better - there is something in a high-IQ that makes enforced obedience impossible to suffer. It just hurts your sense of selfhood to be treated like an asset and have your autonomy denied. It is for us a weird unreal horror feeling, as if your whole existence was questioned. For example military service does not quite work for us - we cannot be soldier number 1323, we just need to be individuals. This is why high-IQ people are driven to leftism, social liberalism, feminism etc. and very blue-pill relationships.

I mean I am not calling RP stupid, this is not my point. My point is I think RP men tend to target the stupider girls because they are more hormone driven. RP often looks like intelligent men simulating what stupid men do instinctively. Sort of training yourself into a "bro" because you think being a "geek" does not work for you.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

This is what drove many revolutions and social changes I think. A 100 IQ teenager is generally OK with parental authority, but a 130-140 IQ teenager gets furious at the idea of dad giving orders, we rebel then carry it into adulthood and become left-anarchists or something similar.

I'd like to see the study on this. From my experience, the lower IQ teenagers tended to be the most disobedient. The higher IQ teenagers tended to respect authority and work well within social systems.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/248967525_Rethinking_the_IQ-delinquency_relationship_A_longitudinal_analysis_of_multiple_theoretical_models

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8315131

This is why high-IQ people are driven to leftism, social liberalism, feminism etc. and very blue-pill relationships.

I think you have the correlation in wrong order. High IQ people tend to funnel into the elite college experience. The elite college experience tends to make people more liberal because the environment is conducive to egalitarianism.

Copied from another discussion I had... Consider the typical college experience:

  • we're hanging around peers of the same age
  • we're intellectual peers; we all graduated from HS and passed a certain minimum standard
  • we're forced to be around many people who study the same topics, or even in our same major
  • all effectively broke or relying on parent's money or scholarship money; most of us are not working full-time since we have classes
  • on the other hand, we're forced into some minimum level of work (or be kicked out of school for lack of participation)
  • not many rigid social/power structures. There are few authority figures, like instructors/professors (and for them, it's their job to be patient with students and listen sincerely to their queries and concerns)

I stop there, but there are countless factors in the college or youth experience that contribute to "bp thinking".

A lot of these people then grow older and become more conservative as they adapt to new environments (competitive markets, social hierarchies, etc).

[–]RedPillDadRustled Jimmies1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The elite college experience tends to make people more liberal because the environment is conducive to egalitarianism.

This is a far more plausible explanation. Intelligence = left leaning did not jive with my experiences.

Personally, I found the conformity of educational institutes much like the conformity of the military. Business was the competitive arena that fueled my creative juices. A worthy game.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I mean I am not calling RP stupid, this is not my point. My point is I think RP men tend to target the stupider girls because they are more hormone driven.

If you have 2-3 standard deviations from the norm, people with an IQ of 100 are stupid compared to you. Coincidentally, they're also the vaaaaast majority.

RP often looks like intelligent men simulating what stupid men do instinctively. Sort of training yourself into a "bro" because you think being a "geek" does not work for you.

Not wrong.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You nailed it. For someone at least 3 standard deviations above the norm, ones' pickings become slim if one only targets intellectual equals.

I have a younger bro who is generally estimated 160-170+ (he'd need one of those specialty IQ tests for more accurate results), had roughly 4.8+ gpa in hs, 4.0 in college dual major (deliberately picked most difficult two at his alma mater), and almost maxed out all his standardized tests. He's a genius and regularly calls me a dumbass (well-founded insult, relatively speaking!). Those supposed IQ 130+ bpers are to him what normal folk are to 130+ bpers.

What is he to do? Die alone? lol.

It's interesting... The hardcore bpers are the type to crow about nurture over nature anyway. They're the ones I see always making points against the heritability of IQ. Going by that faith, so long as the kid is raised well, he/she should do fine. For someone like my younger bro who became a millionaire from scratch within a year of graduating, and doesn't particularly care about the rat race, he has plenty of time and resources to raise a kid well if he chose to.

I personally don't make it a huge deal. I don't have much of a problem with normal or even lower IQ girls, so long as they have good personalities and adore me. Normal and lower IQ people can still be great people and great parents. I don't sympathize with the odd elitism/eugenics on this matter.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

A 100 IQ teenager is generally OK with parental authority, but a 130-140 IQ teenager gets furious at the idea of dad giving orders, we rebel then carry it into adulthood and become left-anarchists or something similar. I cannot explain it to you better - there is something in a high-IQ that makes enforced obedience impossible to suffer. It just hurts your sense of selfhood to be treated like an asset and have your autonomy denied. It is for us a weird unreal horror feeling, as if your whole existence was questioned. For example military service does not quite work for us - we cannot be soldier number 1323, we just need to be individuals. This is why high-IQ people are driven to leftism, social liberalism, feminism etc. and very blue-pill relationships.

Actually there are many studies which show libertarians/classical liberals (whom arguably care more about autonomy, freedom, liberty, and equality-under-law than people on the left) have higher IQs on average than left-liberals and leftists (whom in turn have higher IQs than social conservatives).

Quite a lot of Red Pillers, and also quite a few MHRAs/supporters of the MHRM, are libertarian/classical liberal.

How would your theory explain this exactly?

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

1) They probably both come from the same exact spirit of rebelling against oppression, they just put the source of that differently and also one is more inclusive than the others.

2) CL is a small elite in a huge sea of musch simpler rightwingitude.

3) There must be something interesting about the methodology of a study that does not predict the majority view of professors.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

1) Agreed, with the proviso of finding the word "inclusive" to be loaded. I do accept that libertarians tend to have a more narrow view of what constitutes politically relevant oppression than the left, but that doesn't make non-politically-relevant oppression morally irrelevant. And frankly, the use of the word "inclusive" is rather smug towards your own side. If you accept that both sides are about rebelling against oppression, you could've included a mention of libertarians as High-IQ types who hate being bossed around in your original post... after all, as Ayn Rand said, "thought does not bow to authority."

2) This doesn't actually contest or contradict my argument. It is factually true.

3) You're assuming that professors are necessarily high-IQ individuals (given some of the bilge produced in sociology and gender studies that's quite contestable). You're also assuming that very high-IQ individuals are typically professors. Finally, you're assuming that university culture has no effect on professorial views, and that political beliefs couldn't perhaps lessen one's chance of being successful in the academy.

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

And university culture was made by dump people? It is well known the general direction of intellectual culture is to the left, what do you think why?

BTW sociology is a combined discipline, made from stats, econ, psychology it is not half bad IMHO. Check http://www.reddit.com/r/badsocialscience/ on how they correct common bullshit views.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And university culture was made by dump people? It is well known the general direction of intellectual culture is to the left, what do you think why?

I assume you mean "dumb people."

Again, if you assume higher IQ means more correct politics then libertarians are probably more correct about politics than leftists.

And no, I didn't say that university culture was made by dumb people. However, it is possible that super-high-IQ individuals went to the private sector where they could make more money, with above-average-but-not-genius-IQ individuals more likely to get jobs in the academy.

In addition it is also likely that a highly left-leaning academy would be more willing to let fellow leftists into the academy over a similarly-qualified non-leftist.

Furthermore, the Progressive style of leftism (not the liberal style) can easily appeal to intellectuals because it flatters intellectual vanity. Progressivism supports the use of "enlightened" educated intellectuals to run society through technocracy. Progressive leftism (granted, this is only a subtype of leftism but its a very popular subtype within the academy) thus caters to power-lust and intellectual elitism.

There's also a public choice angle - much of higher education is publically funded. Any surprise why university faculty may support additional public funding for their institution?

Finally, there's the issue of specialization. Most academics aren't political science, political philosophy or economics academics - someone can have a high IQ and a professorship and still know little about politics.

A consequence of this specialization issue also imperils your argument; you are right that academia leans left, but economics departments generally are significantly more center-libertarian oriented than other university faculties. Wouldn't this imply, by your own logic, that economic policy should be market-oriented?

And I'm quite aware of what sociology is, thank you. I may be critical of many on the left but I am not some uneducated rube.

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

whom arguably care more about autonomy, freedom, liberty, and equality-under-law than people on the left

I used to believe this. Part of the reason why I moved left was when I realized it is not so. Libertarian care about that kind of open oppression that is clearly codified into laws.

The left understands that this is more complicated. Social institutions and human relations can be oppressive without the government lending them power.)

Let me give you a really primitive example. Gay people get beaten up. It has always been illegal. But it still happens, and when the police symapthizes with the bigots it does not get punished. The source of it is obivously not a law that says it is OK, there is none. The source of it is the hate felt both by the perps and perhaps police, so leftists work on addressing that. Sometimes figure special laws that help in addressing that but that is only a small aspect of it.

So the point is the left does not need oppresion to be codified into a law to notice it, libertarians tend to need that, don't really notice this other stuff.

Libertarianism is popular with software developers, as laws are the software of a society so this lawyering attitude matches. But from the viewpoint of someone who looks how it works in the whole organization, software matching specs and principles - comparable to laws being libertarian - is only a small aspect. I have seen software projects fall for entirely human reasons. Office politics got in the way of the implementation yet it was not codified into specs or organizatioal rules. It was People Stuff. And leftist see society consisting not only of laws rules markets and other impersonal forces but People Stuff.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So the point is the left does not need oppresion to be codified into a law to notice it, libertarians tend to need that, don't really notice this other stuff.

I agree that libertarianism per se (in the "essential characteristics" sense) focuses principally on legally-enshrined oppression (for example, Jim Crow). But this doesn't mean that libertarians deny the existence of oppression within civil society... they just see it as a moral rather than political matter and thus a matter which should be dealt with by civil society rather than with the State.

Indeed, the idea that socially-enshrined moral beliefs could be oppressive without being codified is affirmed by several libertarians, particularly in both Rand and Hayek (whom both focused on the impacts of cultural norms).

It was People Stuff. And leftist see society consisting not only of laws rules markets and other impersonal forces but People Stuff.

Markets are People Stuff - they're the result of people's interactions when taken in aggregate. It is people who do commerce - it would be hard to classify a market as being an "impersonal" force since without people there's no market.

But look, I'm not trying to say "libertarianism is right, leftism is wrong" - I'm pointing out that your own post was rather vain and self-glorifying.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Left wing is the opposite of liberty, it's all about being taken care of at the expense of liberty. RP follows libertarianism which is about freedom.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

I think it is about different definitions of liberty.

Suppose you have a hobby and I have a hobby. We also work and make money or don't. But I make a lot and you only scrape by. If they take some of my money and give to you so that both can do our hobbies, because you don't need to take a second job, this is left wing liberty. I.e. autonomy - it is attached to our desires, activities, personhood, not to our property. It is personal autonomy, of your emotions and selfhood and all that, not the liberty of things. Libertarian liberty is that I should keep all the money I earn. This is property oriented liberty. Of course if they would take so much of my money that I cannot perform my hobby that would be bad. The ideal is to distribute so that everybody can live according to their wishes - and that is autonomy.

The issue is, property is a currently necessary evil but an evil. It is an enemy of freedom. You want to go take a walk on that land but you are not allowed because you are trespassing on someone's property. Not good.

Kind of necessary as long as we are these vicious half animals who would seriously kill each other just to protect our fucking property.

But once human development gets to the level of respecting each other more than a patch of land, we will not need property.

Until that we on the left are trying to punch certain holes into property rights as much as possible in order to open more avenues to freedom. Visually you can imagine this as a land surrounded by a fence. The fence limits freedom of movement. Because that land is fucking private property. We cannot yet remove the fence, we will eventually, but we can already cut holes in it so the children can go in and play. These holes are taxation, welfare, regulations etc. they all are "demo versions" of the real freedom to come, because they restrict property, but liberate people's personal autonomy.

(You are going to ask how taxation and red tape liberates. Red tape does not, it is just a fucking stupid but necessary way to ensure the real point of regulations happen. Like that people are not forced by poverty to take a job where they lose a limb. Taxation liberates by financing welfare largely, not the fact of taxation itself of course.)

If it is too abstact, simply consider the left "time libertarian". Libertarians as "money libertarians". I.e. redistributing money maximizes everybody's time to spend on doing things they like. It does not take away the rich mans time from his hobby, but it gives the poor man time for his hobby.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't see how a recipient receiving something for work they didn't do and getting to decide how it's used is liberating in any sense to producer, who is actually necessary for the whole thing to work. That just seems restrictive, if you restrict the producers who are holding the whole thing up its doomed to fail.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Everybody is a producer, or at least the vast majority of people. Some produce kids. Few people enjoy complete idleness. Of course, not all kinds of production are paid by the market - because the market is restricted by property rights.

It is not a small number of producers keeping it all up like in Atlas' Shrugged...

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I've read into libertarian socialism and that is the only thing that had made sense to me remotely. There is no way I could ever see communist tendencies working.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Simply non-permanent property rights i.e. making employees and renters able to "homestead" property away from owners would make a decent enough system, it does not matter much if it is called socialism or anything else (I hate the word communism as it reminds me of the Soviet empire).

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well communism and socialism are completely different to me. Socialism is simply the means of production can not be privately owned. For example:

You could only own a restaurant if you worked there, and if you work there you must own it. So really the only way you would own it is if you are a chef and the rest of the chefs would be partners. Your food is your product. If you decide you want a serving staff you would have to negotiate a contract from a serving staffing company, of which there could be plenty in a free market. But each individual of that company would also own it. The company itself could serve at different restaurants. This supports union type of thinking so laborers are not exploited, while allowing for a free market so no one hold monopolies. It is also only the means of production. So you can have private property. Although personal property is probably a better word since you can't use it to make money. You could have your own house, you could not have a second house that you don't live in and rent out to people while not providing a service like say a hotel would.

Communism is just communal resources, so you are not entitled to resources you produce if you produce more than someone else. Everyone gets their share regardless of work put in.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is incredibly complicated and thankfully getting outdated. I am no Marxist simply because there less and less need for political philosophy at all. It seems things can be improved now without a lot of theory.

But basically much of the old socialist criticism of private property is based on a very specific and non-everyday understanding of property. It is not the stuff you consume, not even the stuff you work with, but just the stuff you use to employ people.

So their idea of a private property owner is an entirely absent, non-participating shareholder. An entrepreneur's company is less of a private property in this sense, and consumption goods are evel less.

This why Bakunyin's idea was that instead of complicated ideas you may as well solve it just by replacing permanent property rights with impermanent usage rights. You live in a house, work a land or work your shop, it is yours. But once you no longer want to live in them or work them but rent them out or hire employees, you would one way or another gradually lose it. It would be gradually owned by the people who use them, like the tenants or laborers.

Anyway this is old stories now, I don't think there is a need for so much political philosophy today.

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup, this is pretty much how most communists described the two systems. For them, communism was the utopian end goal, and socialism was the way to get there. Many socialists however, consider socialism itself to not be a transitory system, but a viable and desirable system in and of itself.

Communism: "from each according to willingness ability, to each according to need want"

Socialism: "each person should be able to earn the fruits of his labor".

[–]justskatedude0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sort of training yourself into a "bro" because you think being a "geek" does not work for you.

Ok so what advice would you give to a geek then? TRP works, and often geeks are the ones who missed out on sexual strategy early in life where most learn about power games and how to deal with girls unconsciously. People consider seduction and TRP bad because it throws the truth about power dynamics out into the open. Instead of hating on it, women should embrace the fact that they unconsciously are attracted to power and want what they can not have, and change themselves. But I'm not asking women to change, I am changing myself based upon what the sexual marketplace wants.

When I get into a LTR I will definitely go beta because thats at the core of who I am, sadly women claim to want that but in reality they do not pursue guys who exhibit those characteristics.

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

First of all TRP cannot be simply put into a works / does not work question, because it consists of two parts, Game and hate. Hate is not a working question. A PUA who actually likes and respects women is not TRP, because he lacks the hate aspect of TRP, the women-are-all-liars stuff, the nobody-wants-sluts stuff, the women-should-be-submissive-housewives stuff and so on. It's like being hybernated for 50 years and then being angry that the world changed.

PUA combined with actual respect and not being sore at the modern world would not be half bad.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

No doesn't necessarily mean no, it depends on context.

Rape is defined as forced sex, and consent is only a relevant concept in the case of an unconscious woman.

Statutory rape is a bullshit concept invented and supported by both women who want to limit sexual competition from more attractive girls, and bizarrely possessive fathers who secretly want to fuck their daughters (who, to be fair, probably look a lot like their mothers but better.)

Men are socially disposable, monogamy is sexual socialism designed to harness male sex drive to maximize their labor output.

Women are attracted to men who are above them or better than them in some way. It may not be obvious but its usually there somehow, or the woman just isn't attracted to them.

Men overall get way more enjoyment out of sex than women do.

Relationships are essentially defined by sex for men, the only thing they can possibly value higher than sex are relationships with their own children.

Mens attraction to women is almost entirely based on physical appearance.

Women are on the whole more irrational and make emotional decisions way more often than men, but I am not sure if this is a social conditioning issue or hard wired. Or combination.

[–]GridReXXit be like that6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No doesn't necessarily mean no, it depends on context.

No always means no in that very moment. A moment later she might say yes or give non verbal cues that she means yes. But something drove him/her to say no then. Don't escalate. Comfort. And 9/10 that no turns into a yes only moments later.

But no always means no when it's said. Doesn't matter why she's saying it. Doesn't matter if society is the reason. She said it. She felt the need to say it. Just wait for the moment to pass and continue on. If she says no again, comfort again.

She'll let you know when she wants to fuck.

Because any chick who says no a bunch of times and still ends up having sex was either raped or will regret it afterward and she's a potential "false rape" allegation.

This is my problem with "breaking through LMR."

You comfort her and she'll let you know what's up.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A moment later she might say yes or give non verbal cues that she means yes. But something drove him/her to say no then. Don't escalate. Comfort. And 9/10 that no turns into a yes only moments later.

But no always means no when it's said. Doesn't matter why she's saying it. Doesn't matter if society is the reason. She said it. She felt the need to say it. Just wait for the moment to pass and continue on. If she says no again, comfort again.

This IS my method of smashing through LMR. I'd say it has about a 60% success rate. No a lot of the time means "make me feel more emotionally comfortable first" or even "try harder to seem more dominant"

[–]PurpleHyacinth9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men overall get way more enjoyment out of sex than women do.

Translation: I've never been with a women who has seemed to enjoy having sex with me as much as I enjoyed having sex with her.

Relationships are essentially defined by sex for men, the only thing they can possibly value higher than sex are relationships with their own children.

Translation: My relationships with women are defined primarily by the sex I'm having with them and secondarily by the children they can give me.

Mens attraction to women is almost entirely based on physical appearance.

Translation: My attraction to women is entirely based on physical appearance.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Translation: I've never been with a women who has seemed to enjoy having sex with me as much as I enjoyed having sex with her.

WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG I have def been with some nymphos. My experience with women and sex is that the ones who know their bodies well know what feels good and makes them come, and will give very explicit directions on this. However, thats only been a few of them.

Translation: My relationships with women are defined primarily by the sex I'm having with them and secondarily by the children they can give me.

Mostly correct, except if I did ever have children I would prioritize them over sex. I'm pretty sure my Dad did that since my parents relationship is awful, and I think my paternal bond would force me to stay in a relationship or sacrifice pretty much anything to be involved in the kids lives.

Translation: My attraction to women is entirely based on physical appearance.

Me, and the rest of the male population. You are delusional to believe otherwise. Just because guys date ugly girls doesnt mean they arent more attracted to other cuter ones.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Statutory rape is a bullshit concept invented and supported by both women who want to limit sexual competition from more attractive girls

Statutory rape laws also protect boys from being raped by older women and men.

Men overall get way more enjoyment out of sex than women do.

Women can have multiple orgasms one after the other, and their orgasms are stronger and last about double the time that a male orgasm lasts.

I am not sure if this is a social conditioning issue or hard wired

No one's brain is "hard-wired" a particular way. Different people may have different tendencies, but you can always change your way of thinking if you have enough self-awareness and are willing to put in the effort. Also, there's a thing called neural plasticity.

[–]LeGrandDiableBlancParochial Altruist1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No one's brain is "hard-wired" a particular way.

That's demonstrably false. For example. No matter how self-aware you are, and no matter how much effort you put into it, you will NEVER be able to voluntarily stop breathing (if you hold your breath until you pass out, you start breathing automatically again) or stop your heartbeat.

Why should we believe that these are the only hardwired brain functions? Further, if we even restrict the hard wired brain functions to those essential for life (never-mind that this is an arbitrary restriction unless we have evidence), that still includes sexual urges, as reproduction is one of the fundamentally essential aspects of life.

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

You're talking about physiological functions. I was talking about psychological processes. I know that there are physiological reflexes that you can't control. Studies have shown evidence that people's brains aren't hardwired a certain way and you can, to an extent, change psychologically. For example, most would think that women are hard-wired to be more emotional and that men are hard-wired to pursue sex, but a woman could decide to stop feeling emotions at all, to an extent, if she really tried and a man could choose to be celibate and, after some time, would probably not even care that much for sex anymore.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If those "boys" are DTF older women and men then its not rape, and they don't need to be protected any more than girls do. If either gender is being forced into sex then its a rape charge on its own by my definition.

Yes women CAN do those things, but most don't. Its more likely to be a dude drilling them for 3 minutes and blowing his load. Then again, maybe those women who really do know their bodies and pick mates with a strong desire to last and please can pick up the average via excessive multiples? I kind of doubt it but maybe GridXXX or whatever can provide more input.

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Rape is defined as forced sex, and consent is only a relevant concept in the case of an unconscious woman.

Actually, the way sensible states define rape for an unconscious woman is that she is incapable of resisting, so it is considered rape. Makes sense.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Attraction:

Consensus mate preferences are the most sex-differentiated component of mate preferences, and aren't affected much by social roles.

In the attraction domain (as well as in other domains), in some ways most men are like that and most women are like that. That's why consensus attraction is a thing. There seems to be a human universal template to attraction, and it continually strikes me how little individual variation there is in this template. In some ways that template is sex-differentiated. Culture may fill the template or ornament it but the basic template is shared by all developmentally normal humans.

Gender:

We perform gender because we are biologically required to. Gender performance is part of the evolutionary game.

There's no meaningful distinction between gender identity and gender roles. There is only the question as to to what extent gender roles are socially constructed.

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

I have many controversial opinions that could probably get me fired if I ever expressed them under my real name.

The odd thing is that for most of human history they'd have been considered "common sense".

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You support slavery?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ehhh kinda

[–]17b29a1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well?

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

chicken bawk bawk

[–]mareenahBlue Pill1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

On sex? I don't mind if minors sleep with older people as long as they're safe and not pressured. I think sexual pleasure is just a type of pleasure like any other and could be enjoyed among all kinds of people in all kinds of ways, as a fun thing to do. If it weren't for the fluids and STDs, I wouldn't mind seeing people getting it on in a park or during lunch hour.

I think gender is just a big ball of confusing nope and I'd be happy with wider classification of sex based on different chromosomes and then just delete gender as a concept altogether. And that 'I feel male today and female tomorrow' is weird as shit. Gender as a concept is far too nebulous and nonsensical.

Some revealing clothing is trashy, tacky and I judge it and the personality of the wearer negatively.

We're all animals driven to mate with the most suitable and biologically compatible mate. We're all driven to the superior mate and a large part of it is pheromones.

Women and men are different. Should be treated with equal respect and equal standards but are still different biologically in general.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun[M] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

See this post.

This week tags are required. Please add one thanks.

[–]oxydercesBlue Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are generally speaking much more feminine, empathic, and sensitive than they allow themselves to be, and their vehemence about gender roles is usually overcompensation, since the price for expressing this femininity can be very high.

Men are also generally much more submissive than they let on -- they're just performing gender. Even when they're dominant, men are often quite preoccupied with a woman's pleasure. They've just convinced that females are inherently submissive. If they could get beyond that point, they wouldn't be so locked into the feeling of dominance.

Women are often as horrible at policing expressions of male femininity as other men are.

This is an enormous tragedy.

This is also changing.

Many formative feminine rituals specifically function to make women compliant and submissive and these are 100% arbitrary bullshit. Gender the social construct has a hierarchical dimension to it.

Some women and men are temperamentally more suited to patriarchy than others, but the vast majority have simply adapted.

Consent is not a magic bullet. It is the bare minimum of acceptable, and critique/analysis is allowed beyond that. "S/he consented to it" isn't a very interesting statement to me. No sex act happens in a vacuum.

[–]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

That men are fine and have not lost any rights. I've never known a victim of misandry, for example (wow "misandry" isn't even recognized by auto correct!).

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

LMAO we said controversial here, not commonly accepted mainstream idioms

[–]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

On this sub or in the real world

I guess I aimed for controversial on this sub.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Eh, controversial in TRP sure

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

have not lost any rights.

By the way, from a (radical) feminist perspective, just having legal rights for women isn't enough, right? Are you applying the same standards to feminism as to MRAs?

[–]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I'm not even talking from a feminist perspective. I am talking from a male perspective. none of the shit Men's Rights activists claim affect my life actually affects my life. I've never gotten in a fight at a bar because a woman provoked me and got arrested for it--I've never even gotten into a fight. I've never been divorce raped, parternity frauded, or called out as a pedophile just walking through a park.

Of course, it's early yet. I'm 22 and I guess I should say that you never know and that anything can happen. I'm willing to take it back if I or someone I know ever encounters such issues in their day-to-day lives.

[–]SOwEDEtizolam4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I've never been divorce raped, paternity frauded, or called out as a pedophile just walking through a park.

I'm 22

And I assume you've never been married or had children, so how could that stuff have happened to you? I think the people who have gotten accused of being a pedophile are older than 22.

[–]FollowThisAdvice5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm late 20s and I have also never had any of these problems nor do I know any men of any age that HAVE

[–]SOwEDEtizolam0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Again, if you haven't had kids or gotten married, obviously you wouldn't have ever experienced this stuff. Have you had any friends who got divorced?

[–]FollowThisAdvice5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No. My cohort are all young finance professionals dating other young finance professionals. Most are in multi year LTRs, a few are married or engaged. Very few are single. A couple have very young kids. None are divorced.

Unlike in the US, here "wife as SAHM" isnt really socially accepted among social elites anymore. 1-2 years off then back to high-flying career is the norm.

[–]SOwEDEtizolam0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I guess it should be noted that gender-specific issues vary pretty significantly country to country, even throughout the first world, so, being an American, we're not comparing apples to apples anymore.

[–]FollowThisAdvice2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree but TRP theory posits their observations are universal biological/evolutionary psychology driven truths (AWALT), when this is laughable to anyone outside of the USA "Look how fucking expensive my car is dude" fratboy culture (which by the way, is considered vulgar in the extreme over here)

[–]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

True across the board, I guess. Then at that point, are those even cases of misandry? Are they just...something else? The cases of misoginy are experienced across many female demographics, young or old, married or unmarried.

[–]SOwEDEtizolam7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

True, but I would argue (and some statistics would show) that different symptoms of misogyny affect different ages and classes of women (more young women are raped than older women), but this is true in some ways for men as well. The examples you listed affect older men who are/were married and have children.

However, men who are rape victims and victims of emotional and physical abuse in relationships are generally in the younger age group, and there is less support for them, and of course they are frequently told to adhere to their gender role man up, whereas women do not get told this anywhere near as frequently, and it is shameful to tell a woman to adhere to her gender role.

Nobody is winning like feminists and MRAs like to believe. Each side just loses in different ways.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just saying.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Do yourself a favor: don't ever call the cops if your gf, or any girl for that matter, attacks you.

[–]FollowThisAdvice3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

sexist cops is a symptom of sexism throughout society.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not sexist cops its bullshit laws and policies implemented by feminists. VAWA etc mandating arrests at any DV call regardless of circumstance.

[–]FollowThisAdvice2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

THOSE COPS AND THEIR FEMINIST AGENDA!!!

Seriously?? You seriously believe this? You think cops are biased against men because feminists made them be?

Rather than because they have old-fashioned sexist views that violence by a woman against a man is less serious than the other way around?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't "believe" it, I know it with absolute certainty from personal experience, having been arrested before and receiving this explanation from both of my lawyers, one of whom was female.

The cops don't have a feminist agenda, they had one forced on them by congress and the DA office. It intertwines nicely with the prison industrial complex. Corruption at its finest.

[–]PostNationalismex-PUA0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

i've called the cops when my gf attacked me

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

ONE

Men want and enjoy sex way more than women.

It baffles me though that they are upset at women for not craving as they do.

Like bitch it's good, it ain't GAWWWDDD. And none of your bitching is going to change that for womenz.

It's amazing a fraction of the time. And sort of just "okay, I guess sort of pleasant" the rest of the time. When have any of you ever craved something that's just "okay" most of the time.

I mean how many movie/TV scenes show just that? I can think of hundreds. The guy pounding away on top and the woman looking around bored like "When is it going to be over?"

Pizza when I'm really hungry is more consistent orgasmic feels.

Note: I'm being hyperbolic. Of course there are many times that sex is amazing and I want it like I need air. But I needed to drive the point home about the overall differences before someone counters with "But! I know a girl who squirts and orgasms every time and wants it more than I do!" She's not the majority. They exist. Or she's lying to please you. That also happens.

TWO

Women's interest may be piqued if a guy is CEO of a noted entity. AKA "Status." But if CEO 1 looks average. And CEO 2 looks like an Adonis.

The Adonis always wins.

Now when it comes to personality.

If Adonis CEO 1 acts like an insecure prick and/or loser. And Adonis CEO 2 acts like a self-assured decent human being.

Adonis CEO 2 always wins.

I think TRP or non-TRP gets too caught up in absolutes. It's a sliding scale. The more good qualities you have the better.

So yes a fat terrible looking man who is confident and rich and well-respected might sexually attract a small minority of women. But if you want to bank on not improving yourself physically, you're reducing your pool of potential partners needlessly. Not every woman gets wet for dollar bills with the face of a troll. In fact most women don't.

That man may "attract" a lot of potential partners (beta bux), but he will only sexually attract a few.

[–]purplethrows0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"I think TRP or non-TRP gets too caught up in absolutes. It's a sliding scale. The more good qualities you have the better.'

TRP encourages men to improve themselves in every aspect: physically, socially, financially.

[–]jacks10004 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think being a teenage mother is a wonderful thing and if I had a daughter I'd want her married and having babies by 21 at the latest.

I think we should encourage women to have children as soon as possible.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think we should encourage women to have children as soon as possible.

How soon exactly are we talking?

[–]PostNationalismex-PUA1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

u missed /s

[–]jacks1000-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

PostNationalism

u missed /s

[–]an_absolute_roseRed Pill Boy2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Downvote me.

I don't believe that sexuality is hard wired. So while I support human rights and freedom I am not a LGB advocate. They are living deviant lifestyles in my eyes, which is fine is all but let's call a spade a spade.

I don't believe we should encourage trans people. I don't think we should waste money on gender reassignments. I view it as Darwinism in action.

I think trans people should be reclassified as having a mental disorder. Put them with the loonies who think they would happier with out a limb.

Cis = normal

Let's see how popular this is.

[–]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Are those DEVIANT? Sure. Are they HARMFUL? No. We aren't wasting any money on gender reassignments. The people getting them are. You want to put trans people in a place with people who aren't functional in society. Trans people tend to be more or less functional in society. If they aren't, it's because people are being...ahem...bigoted about the whole thing. To be fair, I understand why you would be. I get the whole "why is this a thing, it doesn't need to a thing", but at the end of the day it's a free country.

There are people who will subscribe to Scientology and people who won't vaccinate their children. Out of all deviant behaviors I can think of. Being bi or even trans just looks...normal.

[–]FollowThisAdvice3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"I dont believe in things which are scientifically unquestionable ".

Well that is fairly controversial.

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't believe that sexuality is hard wired.

What do you believe it is then? I'm just curious about that. If you think it is a choice (I'm not sure you do though), can I ask you this question: Why would I choose to be gay?

They are living deviant lifestyles in my eyes

I hate the word 'lifestyle' so much in the discussion surrounding sexuality. It's like people are telling us that 'the gays' are living a significantly different life from 'normal' people. We really don't. We just prefer partners of the same sex. Nothing more, nothing less.

And sure...I'm living as a 'deviant'. I really don't see the problem with that. Just because I do not fit the 'normal standard', does not mean I am doing something wrong. It would be far more wrong for me to deny my sexuality and live a lie, than to embrace it and actually be able to be myself.

I don't think we should waste money on gender reassignments.

And what if gender reassignment is the most effective 'treatment' for transgenders? It increases their happiness quite significantly, as opposed to therapy or medication (which have adverse or no effects at all).

Do you consider that a 'waste'?

I think trans people should be reclassified as having a mental disorder. Put them with the loonies who think they would happier with out a limb.

It already is. Gender Identity Disorder or Gender Dysphoria. The most effective treatment: Gender Reassignment.

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

What do you believe it is then?

A spectrum of choices.

Why would I choose to be gay?

You enjoy it more than you hate it. If you tomorrow decided to try being straight you could do it. You may not be successful but neither were most of us at one point.

Now would you still prefer gay sex, I'd assume so. But it would be a conscience choice.

We really don't.

Gay men are much more promiscuous than probably any other category of people that I can think of.

I'm living as a 'deviant'. I really don't see the problem with that. Just because I do not fit the 'normal standard'

Neither do I. You do you. I'm doing me. I just don't like it when I see people encourage young children to pick that deviant lifestyle. I've heard people say stuff like "I want a gay son" and it bothers me. I'd much rather encourage people to do what makes them happy. If that's being gay, fine but let it be their choice.

what if

It is.

Do you consider that a 'waste'?

Yes if my tax dollars are paying for it.

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You enjoy it more than you hate it.

Tell that to 15-year old me who hated himself for quite some time for his 'choice'. I'm fine with it now, but back then I was a wreck because of it.

If you tomorrow decided to try being straight you could do it.

Nope. I couldn't. Women don't do anything for me. Could you be gay tomorrow if you wanted?

Gay men are much more promiscuous than probably any other category of people that I can think of.

Stereotype ahoy!

I just don't like it when I see people encourage young children to pick that deviant lifestyle.

Uumm...give me one example of this actually happening. I have never, ever heard or seen this. Sounds like the same Russian propaganda that is thrown around. 'Stay away from the children before you corrupt them with your deviant lifestyle.'

It's just pure nonsense. I can't believe you fall for that crap.

I've heard people say stuff like "I want a gay son" and it bothers me.

Never heard that and I would tell these people they are being silly. Being gay is fine, but it is still a disadvantage compared to being straight in many areas.

If that's being gay, fine but let it be their choice.

It's not a choice. I'm happy with being gay, but my only other option is being unhappy with being gay. I can't change my sexuality by just choosing to be straight. You may think that, but you have no idea what you are talking about here. That's the blunt truth.

Yes if my tax dollars are paying for it.

You do realize you would also pay tax dollars for the depressed transgenders who can't transition and need therapy/medication for it, right? Gender Reassignment would be in your best interest if this is your best argument against it.

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I am not a LGB advocate. They are living deviant lifestyles in my eyes,

Eh, deviant as in straying from the norm.... yeah but I honestly have no problem with that. As long as they keep their gay within the acceptable bounds that we set for straight couples then it's just whatever for me.

I'm no LGBT advocate either, but I'm extremely pro-gay marriage or civil union simply for the legal benefits. If you want to save your bro's life by giving him health care or let him visit you at the hospital then that's their choice.

Only problem is I'm super anti- at the moment due to their continued assaults on religious freedom. ;/ They want to silence people who disagree with them and for me religious freedom is important enough to turn against them. I'd turn against my own "group", if they threatened something like speech.

I think trans people should be reclassified as having a mental disorder.

If you're threatening suicide, or as /u/powerkick says cannot function in society, then by definition you do have a disorder. Personally I believe trans people ought to be left alone, given counseling/therapy and stopped from suicide until they can learn to accept their bodies. Like we do with anorexics or short people.

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Only problem is I'm super anti- at the moment due to their continued assaults on religious freedom.

Extremes always miss the mark. I'm gay and realize that traditional religious beliefs don't really connect with that.

I hope we can reach a level of 'tolerance' by religious people so gay have equal rights everywhere. I can't ask for 'acceptance' yet.

Personally I believe trans people ought to be left alone, given counseling/therapy and stopped from suicide until they can learn to accept their bodies. Like we do with anorexics or short people.

They tried counseling and therapy at first to treat transgenders. It's ineffective or even harmful for them. The most effective treatment is gender reassignment. I can look for a few sources if you want them.

Like we do with anorexics or short people.

Different issues, different context, different treatment. Anorexics aren't more happy by being thinner, for an example.

[–]FollowThisAdvice1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck religion tbh

[–]17b29a0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lol yea if i say im a cactus am i a cactus? no. QED mentally ill "trans" freaks

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

I see them as like midgets. Sure, they're genetic freaks, failures of the human genome to produce something viable, evolutionary dead ends which for some unknown reason show up fairly often when we roll the genetic dice.

But that's no reason to be dicks to them, just let 'em be. Being a dick to midgets or gays is just pointless cruelty and a waste of time.

[–]Vornnash1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Increases in the average age of marriage in a society leads to alpha fucks, beta bucks, omega no fucks, basically sexual redistribution.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Drumroll for HHL to bring on the grand finale of controversy, offensiveness, political incorrectness and cynicism

[–]FollowThisAdvice5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I lold. "A man cant commit rape of his wife because he owns her body" is an HHL

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's true though. Rape is a theft of a person's sexual autonomy. You can't steal that which you already own.

Or for those who're Christians: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10%3A7-9

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You can't steal that which you already own.

How does anyone own another's autonomy in any form?

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Marriage is one example (in which you own the spouse's sexual, reproductive, and private-property autonomy). Parent-child is an example where you own most of your child's autonomy in general. A legal guardian owns the child's legal autonomy but probably not any other autonomy (I could be wrong though).

[–]FollowThisAdvice3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Guys if any Purple or blue pill people were looking for absolute proof that TRP is a bunch of toxic misogyny for dinosaurs who treat women as property, this is it right here.

PS: I'm a lawyer. No-one "owns" anyone else's sexual or reproductive autonomy nor is it POSSIBLE to grant any kind of ones autonomy to another, literally by definition. A parent is legally responsible for a child, and a child may in some circumstances not have legal autonomy, but that doesnt mean the parent "owns the childs autonomy".

No mentally capable adult lacks autonomy.

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Guys if any Purple or blue pill people were looking for absolute proof that TRP is a bunch of toxic misogyny for dinosaurs who treat women as property, this is it right here.

What does this have to do with women? Ownership of your spouse's sexual autonomy applies to both genders.

No mentally capable adult lacks autonomy.

And yet there seem to be many mentally capable adults out there whose property disappears after their spouse gambles it away. They seem to lack autonomy over their property. Or how about prisoners?

For a lawyer you seem to be quite the idiot.

[–]MisteralcalaWhere's my dinner?2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

  • Sex: Men want it more than women, and women use it as a tool and a weapon more than men.

  • Gender: Biologically, there are only two - male and female. Penis or vagina. Those are the only two I recognize unless there are extra or no genitalia.

  • Attraction: In general, men are attracted to looks and women are attracted to status / money.

  • Relationships: Women want to be in a relationship, men want to stay in a relationship.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I pretty much agree with all of this except one minor detail. I think men currently want sex more, at least in the US, but only because the price of pussy in the SMP is so heavily inflated due to several factors.

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Gender: Biologically, there are only two - male and female. Penis or vagina. Those are the only two I recognize unless there are extra or no genitalia.

You are confusing gender with sex. In your view, transgender people can't exist.

[–]MisteralcalaWhere's my dinner?0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

They either have a penis or a vagina.

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

That's the point. Transgender people do indeed have either a penis or vagina, but identify as the opposite gender that is usually associated with that sex.

You're talking about sex (biological), not gender (mental).

[–]MisteralcalaWhere's my dinner?-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If I identify myself as an egg salad, I still have a penis. Some guy is 'transgender'? Gay. He just considers himself a woman, but whatever. He has a dick. He's a gay guy. How hard was that? Why complicate shit?

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Why complicate shit?

Because things are actually complicated. You can't just pretend that everything is simple, when it is obviously not the case. if everything was so simple, we wouldn't still be trying to find out how the brain works.

Some guy is 'transgender'? Gay.

You do realize you have MtF/FtM who like women and MtF/FtM who like men, right. Sexuality has nothing to do with being transgender.

[–]MisteralcalaWhere's my dinner?-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

either you have a penis, or a vagina, or neither or both. Either you like men, or women, or neither, or both. Why complicate things beyond that point?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Life is gonna really suck for you. It's all complicated.

[–]MisteralcalaWhere's my dinner?-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My life is very uncomplicated, and that's how I prefer it. I don't really care what others identify as, since it doesn't effect me. They can be octo-sexual transgender broccoli for all I care.

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

Gender: Biologically, there are only two - male and female. Penis or vagina. Those are the only two I recognize unless there are extra or no genitalia.

I have similar views on gender but am fine with people transitioning once. Like attraction to men doesn't automatically make you a girl(gays) I don't think been born with penis makes you a boy. Like you can't have light without darkness you can't have male without female. However there is no third state, no both, no neither. It's a not a scale like sexuality it's a binary.

How do you feel about that view?

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Sex: Most women enjoy a good rape fantasy.

Gender: Men and women are the same gender, and what we think of as women are really just lesser males with micro penises.

Attraction: Nothing you aint heard before. Women are incapable of loving men for who they are.

Relationships: We're all Machiavellian underneath all the pretty lies we tell the world, and who we are with just happens to be a matter of circumstance.

[–]Pointless_Endeavors10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Gender: Men and women are the same gender, and what we think of as women are really just lesser males with micro penises.

Lol. What? Mind expanding on that a bit, because that just seems batshit to me.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

It's easier to show you than to explain it. Fair warning, this is possibly NSFL, and definitely NSFW.

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Don't all fetuses start out female? Wouldn't that make males coarser mutations with overgrown clits?

[–]namae_nanka0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No they don't.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/11/pathways-to-sex/

If not for a protein women's ovaries would turn into testicles.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man-5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I've heard that but I'm too lazy to research it myself. All I know is that a clit is a really tiny dick, and that explains a lot.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You're like so close to not being an obvious troll. Maybe take it back like half a step and you're golden.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm trolling? Look, I didn't photoshop none of those pictures. Did you see them? You can't make this shit up. It's real. Women have micropenises, so, in a way, any attempt to tell a man he has a little dick is incredibly ironic.

[–]Pastiricawe're all sluts2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Little dick? You mean macroclitoris?

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If it's bigger than yours, it's still ironic.

[–]drebunny6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They're just divergent forms of the same tissue so you could say it the other way around too: a dick is a giant clit. Both statements are true in the sense that both organs are formed out of the same tissue in utero. Still not actually true because they go straight from non-specific gonads to sex-specific ones with the production of hormones, so a dick was never actually a clit and a clit was never actually a dick. The in-betweens (micropenis, large clit) are just caused by hormone irregularities - they're not an indication of one being the primary version because there is no primary version.

There was speculation for a while that all fetuses start out as the "female version" and then hormones activate and switch some of them to male - this was partially an attempt to explain the fact that men have nipples even though they serve no function, only women need them. I don't believe that was considered for very long, the prevailing opinion now is of a non-specific fetal form at the start.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They're just divergent forms of the same tissue so you could say it the other way around too: a dick is a giant clit.

I'm the most alpha female here. My clit is the biggest one of all!

The in-betweens (micropenis, large clit) are just caused by hormone irregularities - they're not an indication of one being the primary version because there is no primary version.

Sounds like what I was saying earlier about gender basically being a spectrum.

I don't believe that was considered for very long, the prevailing opinion now is of a non-specific fetal form at the start.

I kinda figured that's how it really is. Basically starts as a blank slate in fetal form and whatever chromosome combination forms is just what happens.

[–]drebunny2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm the most alpha female here. My clit is the biggest one of all!

hahahahaha alpha AF

I kinda figured that's how it really is. Basically starts as a blank slate in fetal form and whatever chromosome combination forms is just what happens.

Well, the chromosomes are already set, it's just the hormones, but otherwise yes.

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

Or a dick is an overgrown clit

[–]SOwEDEtizolam1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If men and women are the same gender, the whole micropenis thing aside, how do you explain transexuals? I mean, who would seriously go through all that trouble, and sometimes surgery) just because?

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

People who don't feel man or woman enough than they currently are apparently.

[–]SOwEDEtizolam0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So you think if I didn't feel man enough, it would be easier to cross dress and risk losing my friends and family than to just go to the gym religiously and make myself feel like more of a man?

I don't know why I'm even continuing this dialogue. You're part of the problem with the red pill community. There's a subpopulation of that community that thinks that red pill philosophy is so universally hated and disagreed with that if they support it, then they might as well stick to their guns on other universally disagreed with ideas, like "Gender: Men and women are the same gender, and what we think of as women are really just lesser males with micro penises." which is just ludicrous.

Seriously, just do a tiny bit of reading about hormones, and you'll realize that men and women are definitely not exactly the same.

Or, if you don't believe that, go get some birth control and take that. You'll notice a difference.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Seriously, just do a tiny bit of reading about hormones, and you'll realize that men and women are definitely not exactly the same.

Das misogoganogany!

[–]SOwEDEtizolam1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you have this much time to commit to trolling, you must be in high school.

[–]justskatedude0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Instead of educating men about passive consent, etc, we should encourage women to stand up for themselves. The whole idea that if I don't ask and their is no resistance should be taken as a yes. For almost every other situation ever, if you do not like it or do not want it you resist or say no.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but a woman can be passive and even if she doesn't say no, it is still the guys fault for not asking for consent or looking for enthusiastic behavior?

[–]Ignatius_Oh_Reilly0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The fact I want sex but never want a relationship, ltr, friends with benefits.

Women and men are mentally different due mostly to biology.

A man ought to be a traditional man, if he can't I generally think that's a deficiency.

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

No doesn't mean no, that's why safewords are a thing.

Women are simply not funny.

I do not care if you are transgender, I will refer to you based on what you have between your legs.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter