Purple Pills, if you had to choose a pill today which one would you swallow?

Reginleifer · 2014-10-01T15:51:31+00:00

Or which pill do you identify with closer? Which pill do you believe is closer to describing human relationships? You've heard the arguments, you've...

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] -6 points-6 points-6 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SOwEDEtizolam3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points16 points16 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reezyredditsPurple Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I definitely find myself siding with redpill more than I do blue, because red works more often than blue. Redpill is also going to keep your game sharp against women who, in an increasingly feminist society, seemingly can do no wrong and have no responsibility at all. See, I like to think that girls aren't dummies. They're not children. They know what they're doing. However, I do feel that some women abuse their "female privilege" and many of which will then try to act innocent or use their femininity to espouse themselves of responsibility. For example: women who admit to crying their way out of a ticket, or women who accept drinks at the bar knowing that they would never give the guy a chance in hell. Or any woman that takes advantage of a guy that is interested in her for that matter.

My biggest problem with bluepill society is that it's not critical of women. Sure, redpill might be overly critical, but it's better than not being critical at all. Women aren't all angels. Redpill is just making us all aware of that.

[–]reezyredditsPurple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]assmunchinator1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, because you've never seen it, it doesn't exist.

The recent Ray Rice situation is a pretty good example. Media in the US was constantly talking about how we should be teaching boys not to hit girls. It wasn't teach kids not to hit each other, or teach boys not to hit boys. It was very specifically teach boys not to hit girls.

Similar situation where Hope Solo has been accused of domestic violence against her sister and nephew is allowed to play and represent the US National team while she is awaiting judgement. Ray Rice has been suspended indefinitely while Hope Solo represents her country internationally.

Sounds like the women is being treated as an angel. Seems like society is giving her special treatment.

Theres also been stats showed in ppd before how women receive lesser sentences for the same crimes that men do.

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mitreddit0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]reezyredditsPurple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Both pills criticize, I suppose. And the kicker is, each pill thinks their criticism is constructive in some respects. Redpill, for all its criticism of women, is still about self-help for men -- things like working out, advancing in your career, having confidence, holding frame, etc. are undeniable good traits for men. Where I see bluepill criticize is men holding the more (and I can give a leeway here) toxic ideas of TRP. Some ideas aren't so toxic, they're just un-PC.

I still think, given the two, redpill leads to more success with women. I pulled some 'redpill' esque stuff on a girl, where she said she was angry with me and this is where I think bluepill would advocate for apologizing or reasoning with her as to why she was mad. But the 'red' in me let her be angry, displayed amusement, etc. About 20 minutes later she was chatting me up again. She liked that I held my frame. She admired the strength.

This is why I don't see why TRP is so harshly criticized. Insofar that it works on women, who should we blame here.. TRP, or women? Haha

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

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

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TimeDoesDisolveBlue Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

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

By chaotic I was referring to the instances where we move outside of our personal identity due to outside influences, which is apparently quite an easy thing to provoke given the right circumstances.

Psychology and sociology are amongst the two subjects I'm studying for Humanities, so perhaps my understanding of behaviour is incomplete as I'm still in education, but from what I've learned so far I do feel that the red pill presents a very shallow understanding of behaviour. So I would say that to use the red pill as your source of knowledge is to handicap yourself, as there is a vast amount of relevant topics within psychology and sociology that remain untouched.

As for the blue pill? It is the rest of the world and the knowledge it offers. The subreddit doesn't present any sort of representation of a philosophy, but if we were considering opposite ends of the same horse shoe then the blue pill would be SJWs - and I don't think many of the self proclaimed blue pillers here are SJWs to be quite frank.

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

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

[–]nope_nic_tesla10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TimeDoesDisolveBlue Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (108 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (95 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaThrowaway808<('.'<) (>'.')>3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaThrowaway808<('.'<) (>'.')>2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]perly9 11 points11 points11 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Anyone who tells men to "just be themselves", to supplicate women and to disregard female sexual history is giving "blue pill " advice, not just militant feminists

I don't think most people are doing that. "Be yourself," means don't sacrifice traits/characteristics/beliefs/hobbies that are important to you for a partner, which is pretty much the opposite of supplicating women. And in regards to female sexual history, both genders tend to sleep around in their late teens and early 20's and both are then capable of switching into a monogamous relationship.

You can judge women for their sexual history, but you can't expect everyone will accept your judgement as a smart or efficient way to determine future character fidelity of a partner, when there are much better indicators, such as "Has your partner cheated in the past?" or "Does your partner have a pattern of selfish behavior?"

Overweighing people's sexual history rests on the premise that people don't change at different points in their life or that what they desire in their romantic life cannot change, which is fundamentally incorrect.

It is also many times disingenuous to suggest that overwheighing a partner's sexual history is not a reflection of emotional feelings towards the idea of your partner having had pleasure with others. In fact, negative attitudes towards female sexuality is pretty well correlated with insecurity in the people who express the negative attitudes. Where I mainly find issue is when people pretend that insecurity/personal discomfort is NOT the source of their vigilance and focus on their partner's sexual number and try to paint it as more rational than it is.

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

You can judge women for their sexual history, but you can't expect everyone will accept your judgement as a smart or efficient way to determine future character fidelity of a partner, when there are much better indicators, such as "Has your partner cheated in the past?" or "Does your partner have a pattern of selfish behavior?"

Why doesn't weighing all of these, including sexual history, make for an efficient way to determine future activity? Why the false dichotomy between "sexual activity OR X, Y, and Z" ?

If I said: "The best way to determine future infidelity (or relationship satisfaction, or whatever) is X, Y, Z, and number of prior partners" would I be incorrect?

I think BPers are uncomfortable with including that at all, not just with RPers purportedly ignoring other factors.

[–]perly9 6 points6 points6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because,

To put it simplistic, focus is a limited resource. You cannot endlessly calculate odds of multiple variables. You also weed out too many potential partners by having a laundry list of criteria. Efficiency is important as it allows you the flexibility of having options while simultaneously ensuring that your best interests are protected.
Generally, people like RP-ers OVERWEIGH the importance of sexual history compared to the other two things (and other things in general, I only listed two alternates, there are more characteristics that determine how likely is a partner going to be a good partner). This is generally what happens when you make emotional decisions; the feelings overemphasize the importance of something. Where a person is in their life, what they're looking for, their personality characteristics, their impulsivity, their selfishness, and their past relationship history is more than enough to ensure yourself the best odds of having a good partner, if you carefully take the time to acertain your partner.

So to summarize the above, overcontrolling, or adding too many barriers to a partner might 1) leave you frustrated in trying to find a partner that meets all of your lengthy criteria or 2) what I was talking about above, you may wind up dismissing great, loyal partners based on a weaker criterion like number of sexual partners.

After all, number of sexual partners is a weak predictor of future fidelity. Most of it can be explained by traditionalism/religiousness anyway, which, unless a RP-er is traditional or religious himself, is going to be absent from his options anyway. Non-traditional or religious but sexually inexperienced partners also carry a risk of deciding down the line that they missed out on opportunities and may develop a curiosity for sexual experience.

So, basically, there is a question as to whether sexual partner number is actually able to measure future fidelity or if it's just a confounding variable for traditionalism. In which case, it would make more sense to do what I said you should do above - look for what kind of person your partner is, what they want out of a relationship, and their morals.

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

So, basically, there is a question as to whether sexual partner number is actually able to measure future fidelity or if it's just a confounding variable for traditionalism. In which case, it would make more sense to do what I said you should do above - look for what kind of person your partner is, what they want out of a relationship, and their morals.

Because there is an open question there, it makes no sense whatsoever to disregard the sexual history question.

Person A: has slept with 43 people Person B: has slept with 0 people

Focus is not that limited a resource, such that I'm being uneconomical by factoring these into any relationship decisions. If you have access to the data - or reasonable certainty as to a range - it does not take a whole lot of attention to factor this in.

It honestly appears to me that BPers don't want people to factor sexual history into their relationship calculus. That is, if we're getting into motivations (which I think you did, above), it seems to me that BPers feel a great bit of unease about people "judging" others for their suitability as partners with (even partially) the sexual history question.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

http://i.imgur.com/rrLe319.jpg

It's not just infidelity. STDs, depression, unhappiness.

http://nationalmarriageproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NMP-BeforeIDoReport-Final.pdf http://socialpathology.blogspot.ca/2010/09/statistical-adjustments-to-promiscuity.html http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/352992?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104723503417 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16131411

The results of moderated multiple regression analyses revealed that a respondent's number of sexual partners, level of dysfunctional impulsivity, satisfaction with current relationship, and quality of relationship alternatives significantly predicted inclination to engage in both of the extradyadic activities

According to the multiple regression analyses, number of sexual partners is a significant predictor.

You can point out the possibility that low n-count is simply too closely correlated to traditional religiosity to come to any definitive conclusion on whether it, in and of itself, means anything. But that sort of speculation is not terribly pragmatic when it comes to the realities of dating.

"So Suzie has slept with at least 16 guys I know. But you shouldn't factor that in, as n-count could just be a confounding variable in objective studies on the matter, tightly intertwined with traditional religious values. The cross-cultural preference for greater chastity in women, alongside folk wisdom - You can't turn a ho into a housewife! - is probably suspect as well, and just the result of patriarchal suppression of female sexuality. And bothering yourself with the number at all (sixteen guys that I know of) is going to bog you down as sift through other, potentially more relevant factors. It takes a lot of thinking to think about that. So don't think about it."

Does that seem reasonable to you?

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

[–]TimeDoesDisolveBlue Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (74 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TimeDoesDisolveBlue Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]TimeDoesDisolveBlue Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What I believe as a person is separate from stupid online one side ideologies.

A person can obviously be defined by more than just a single ideology or even set of ideologies. That doesn't mean the ideologies don't exist. There are some key ideas that you take a strong position on (esp ones that are counter to certain unpopular rp ideas), enough that you've written very long and critical analyses of rpers on TBP the sub.

Is that not evidence against what you've said, "There is no bp because no one really advocates the opposite of rp"? You don't have to literally run counter to every single concept rpers accept. Many honest, self-identified bpers say, for instance, that they accept the concept of smv. That doesn't mean that there aren't many more critical points counter to rp that unite bpers with far less variation.

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

Misappropriating common ideals and a separate set of beliefs does not make me subscribe to a label. It also isn't an effective way to describe my own beliefs.

I don't believe that ideologies don't exist. I am saying you are trying to place me as a member of a group I don't identify with or agree with you that is actually an ideology... because it isn't. Unless you are talking more widely about feminism which I wouldn't describe myself as one of them either.

You are just so dead set that I am lying about affiliation... why? You think I am afraid of those titles? That there is shame in being a blue piller or a feminist? I wouldn't take shame in that. I do agree with feminists as I agree with less active and honestly insane and hateful MRA's.

This is all of course excluding that you have not addressed any points in this thread about the actual debate we're trying to have. Answer or not to my questions please stop trying to pigeon hole me to a set of few beliefs because you're more "radical" for one side.

[–]perly9 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think there is a BP ideology.

I think you can characterize it by saying it's what the average person would think or mainstream society.

Where it gets problematic is when RP-ers presume that BP ideology is as uniform and set as their own ideology. In fact, many RP-ers seem compelled to define it as rigidly as their own ideology, which inevitably leads to strawman like stances.

There is a lot more variance in BP ideology (70,000 self-identified individuals who actively adopt a particular ideology will have a lot more uniformity than millions of people who don't even have a unifying term other than "average person.").

Not to mention that many stances in the BP are a lot less rigid. For example, RP has very narrow outlooks on what constitutes a "good relationship," whereas in a "BP ideology," a good relationship can take any form, as long as both partners are happy and having their needs met.

A particular BP might argue for a certain type of relationship because of their individual beliefs, but that may not necessarily reflect the average person's feelings.

So I think generalizing or summarizing BP ideology is fine as long as RP-ers retain the understanding that it is a nebulous belief system with a huge amount of variance, and don't try to pigenhole it into being a mirror opposite of TRP. It's not. It's the thing that RP rejected to become TRP.

Edit: Even better way of defining Blue Pill is to say it's the sum of all of the alternatives to TRP that RP-ers have turned down in favor of TRP. There are certain themes that unify all of those alternatives but they still retain some degree of difference as well.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]perly9 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There is a ton of variance in the people who fit certain themes of bp ideology.

There's a lot more variance in the ideology as well.

Idk if you saw my edit, but basically an even simpler way of saying what I'm trying to say is BP are all of the alternate solutions that RP-ers would say haven't worked for them. There's going to be certain consistent themes that are present in the alternate solutions because they were all rejected for particular reasons. For example, they may all operate on the premise that equal respect is important, which TRP rejects in favor of a dynamic in which a man should be more respected, but those solutions still retain some degree of difference from each other. It's like a single solution (TRP) vs multiple solutions with shared characteristics (BP).

As long as you don't attempt to treat BP as a single solution that is counter to TRP, and only focus on those shared characteristics when you are talking about it, then it is fine to generalize it and explicitly refer to it as "BP ideology."

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't take any ideology as a single solution. Ideologies and even "Ideology" are nebulous sets of concepts. Obviously variations exist between people who identify with an ideology. Naomi Wolf is a libertarian feminist who argues against the rape accusations lobbed at Assange, and also seemed to do a 180 on gun control. Camille Paglia is commonly referenced by rpers themselves, but she's a self-identified feminist (of some kind). Apart from the individuals, variations exist between the ideologies themselves. Described before, as an example: libertarian feminists.

Sure. I thought that didn't even need mentioning, but I'm fine with getting that out of the way.

Variations don't mean "feminism" as an ideology doesn't exist. Not being a perfect negative image of rp doesn't mean it doesn't exist either, least of all not in the context of this sub.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TimeDoesDisolveBlue Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–]TimeDoesDisolveBlue Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points3 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]TimeDoesDisolveBlue Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Here's my argument since you seem to be ignoring context and misrepresenting it:

TRP extrapolates that a woman who has a lot of sex with different people is doing it for certain reasons. Many reasons actually. TRP says ALL women do this. That all women, feminist to TRPW, are trying to get ahead in the sexual market and that they are disloyal because you aren't good enough for them in one way or another.

TRP also enforces the sexual roles of men. Saying that a man who isn't strong and smart and has a lot of sex with attractive women isn't attractive himself.

Sex does not define you. What if I was having sex against my will? What if my sexual history is based not around attractiveness but I am depressed and sex helps me forget. What if I am struggling with a ex who wont leave me alone and the only way I can shoo him off is if I have sex with more attractive men?

In fact humans go deeper then "I want to have sex with him because he is blah blah blah." In the relationships that PUA and TRP advocate it is all ego-centric and power driven.

If a person goes to 100 football games they like football. If someone has been to jail several times... well there are a million reasons for that (good and bad) that this could happen. You see basic logic is based in facts, not silly extrapolations and stories that you and your friend read on the internet.

In fact it is more upsetting that you don't examine details. That you go for common scams (like TRP) to have one view of the world and especially one view of women who are as diverse and just as much people with their own agency as you are.

What defines a person is their choices, actions and behavior sure. Sex is an act. Any further then that without evidence is what we call "Assuming".

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

[–]TimeDoesDisolveBlue Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If a woman is disloyal, it is almost certainly because you are not good enough for them in one way or another.

Putting the pussy on a pedistal here bud. Right? She is something to be desired and achieved not related to. That's the problem.

Change "strong" to "fit" and "has a lot of sex with attractive women" to "has a lot of opportunities for sex with attractive women" and this also seems self-evident.

Strong, fit, semantics here. Opportunities not achieved are just failures right? Also the same difference.

Those all sound like remarkably good reasons not to get involved with you.

Sounds like someone is insensitive to the plight of others. Cull the weak, don't help them. How Social-Darwinism of you.

Oh, I'm sorry. I got my degree in criminal justice, where we build profiles of people based on extrapolations from facts. And we make assumptions like "past performance is a predictor of future action."

Surely you would more understand in a prison/ poor neighborhood that there is more then past actions that determine future ones? What about socioeconomic backgrounds? Unless no one has free will and can't change their outlooks and are just stuck infinitely with biology this is just... well cynical and also wrong.

That's a very presumptuous thing for you to say.

You're flipping from "past performance is a predictor of future action." and "I can control my destiny by getting more fit." Are you a determinist or not?

Oh lord, you're a very silly person

Ill take it above any other insult you're going to throw at me.

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

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]TimeDoesDisolveBlue Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TimeDoesDisolveBlue Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]DaThrowaway808<('.'<) (>'.')>0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TimeDoesDisolveBlue Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]chazzALB37yo Purple Perma-Virgin0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]deepthrillAlreadyRed Mod, TRP Endorsed Contributor0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TimeDoesDisolveBlue Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]deepthrillAlreadyRed Mod, TRP Endorsed Contributor1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I'm always up for rational discussion!

I'd reframe your comment.

The Red Pill is about how to get power over women.

I'd say

The Red Pill is about maximizing my own return.

As long as I feel like I am not physically or mentally torturing or hurting someone, I will maximize my own selfishness. I expect others to do the same.

This is really a question about the value of altruism on a micro (rather than macro) scale.

I am being the best I can be so that the world will be easier for me. I will attain power, influence, respect, money, in society and in my personal life, so that yes I can have power over other men and women.

But I strongly believe in agency. That as long as I am not doing something like torturing someone (I do have a set of morals), they have to take responsibilities for their own choices.

I don't manipulate people since that's immoral to me. But if someone successfully manipulates me, I say "nice play" and figure out how I can learn from him or her.

Rather than trying to control others ("get power over women") I am trying to make myself more efficient with getting what I want. Kind of like making myself a really appealing bait, with a very sharp hook underneath, rather than spear fishing.

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

Fear of feminism and assumption of american women:

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2hzhyq/wanna_have_some_fun_with_a_girl_try_yes_means_yes/ckxhj6i

Men being more dominant and women are disloyal and will quickly dump you for something better:

"Society’s message – “respect is earned” – is a true one. Where society fails us is in the shitty advice we’re given on how to earn respect. You’d think that being a loyal boyfriend, having an established history with a woman, moving in together, doing shit for her, planning on a future together – that all of this would lead to her respecting you, such that when she meets another guy she’s attracted to, she can shrug it off. Sure, the new guy is hot and fun, but she has history with you, right? You’ve done so much for her over the years, right? Tough shit. That’s not how you earn respect.

You do not earn respect by respecting others. You earn respect by respecting you. It’s counter-intuitive. By being a selfish ass who puts himself first and does what he wants, even at the expense of others sometimes, the whole world bends at the knee and chases after you, trying to win your validation. Everyone else is so fucking polite and respectful by default, while you’re busy respecting yourself instead. That rubs everyone funny, not just women. That makes people try harder around you.

Your job is to be powerful. Important. Successful. You don’t have to be a dick if you don’t want to, but being nice and doing shit for your girlfriend? That’s the path to being replaced. Your job is to do shit for you, that as a side-effect, benefits your girlfriend. Your job is to be a man that raises others up. That raises the value of everyone in the room just by being there. To be the man that every woman wants to fuck and every man wants to be.

From http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2hzzrm/respect_is_earned/

[–]TimeDoesDisolveBlue Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

I feel like you are trying to address things I haven't yet accused you of. None the less:

From what I understand TRP is about your relation to women almost entirely. It is mostly based off of PUA techniques with a "improve yourself more" twist. The feeling that feminism is trying to put men in a hole and is about man hating.

Saying that "being more efficient in what you want" excludes how you got there. I am glad you find personal responsibility in not hurting others but if you are really an adherent to TRP you would use things like dread game, holding frame, and making assumptions about women that are harmful to their own image. That, sadly, is manipulation which you probably use and have come up with an excuse for. Do you not use these techniques?

Dread game: Making someone think you're cheating on them/ making your own relationship look like it is in danger

Holding Frame: Not answering or debating your own actions with your partner when seriously questioned.

Assumptions: Women are stupider then men/ totally controlled by their emotions. Women only have value sexually. Women should be subservient and have sex whenever the man wants.

All of that is harmful and is entirely about getting power over women.

[–]deepthrillAlreadyRed Mod, TRP Endorsed Contributor0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

you would use things like dread game, holding frame, and making assumptions about women that are harmful to their own image. That, sadly, is manipulation which you probably use and have come up with an excuse for. Do you not use these techniques?

Dread game not in anything threatening, but having some female friends that I get along with, that always would let a girl know that I have other options if I wanted. Just because I am aware of the effect of this, does it make me wrong to understand the value in my friends? I don't go out of my way to "cultivate" hot female friends to elicit a jealous response. Rather, I recognize the value in having female friends for example.

It's more of a playful thing with me, like joke that "oh no, you won't give me a back rub? I'd better call up Melanie, she's always really good at that..." with a grin. I don't find the immoral, but it has the effect of this "dread game".

Holding frame is about not getting emotional when the other person is. I see that as a benefit to continue a mature rational discussion regarding the issue at hand.

Assumptions: Women are stupider then men/ totally controlled by their emotions.

Not totally controlled. I'd say moreso than guys, due to hormonal differences and my own admittedly anecdotal sample size of people I've met in my life.

Women only have value sexually.

Absolutely not. Women have great value as companions! But I know how to maintain the dynamic of the relationship such that both parties are feeling validated.

Women should be subservient and have sex whenever the man wants.

When I date a woman, I have sex when she wants and she has sex when I want, because we want to please each other and ourselves. It is reciprocated and goes both ways. If one party is too tired (or hasn't showered :-D) I'm not going to get my ball and chain and beat her until she subserves. If it becomes a habit I'll consider ending the relationship.

[–]TimeDoesDisolveBlue Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Dread game not in anything threatening, but having some female friends that I get along with, that always would let a girl know that I have other options if I wanted. Just because I am aware of the effect of this, does it make me wrong to understand the value in my friends? I don't go out of my way to "cultivate" hot female friends to elicit a jealous response. Rather, I recognize the value in having female friends for example.

None of that made sense and some of it didn't even make a sentence. No offense but could you maybe rephrase that or re-write it? Still, you seem to be jumping around the fact that you are threatening your relationship in that way. Which is manipulation, which you already said "I don't manipulate people since that's immoral to me."

Holding frame is about not getting emotional when the other person is. I see that as a benefit to continue a mature rational discussion regarding the issue at hand.

I have never, in all of my readings of TRP, ever heard this description. Holding frame is about not even acknowledging a woman's complaints/ other desires/ accusations. It's about being the stronger person in a debate/argument no matter what and especially if another person is riled up about it (emotional). Most people come back from that in a "I don't want to threaten our relationship" way or they leave. Thus again manipulation/ threats.

When I date a woman, I have sex when she wants and she has sex when I want, because we want to please each other and ourselves. It is reciprocated and goes both ways. If one party is too tired (or hasn't showered :-D) I'm not going to get my ball and chain and beat her until she subserves. If it becomes a habit I'll consider ending the relationship.

And here we get to the root of the problem in a much less violent way then some people that stick to the blue pill forum alone would accuse you of (or modern day feminists).

If one person doesn't want to have sex with you, that is up to them. Their reasons for it are irrelevant. Certainly if someone does not want to have sex with you all the time there is a bigger problem then just you not being attractive. I would say people that do have a lot of sex with different partners would be hard pressed to say they haven't desired someone more then just a romp in the sac.

The major problem though with this ideology is the power behind it (that you have already so eloquently explained). It is about power. It is about "being the better man". That mixed with "I have sex when she wants and she has sex when I want" becomes the very definition of rape. Many many young men read TRP and are looking to that for guidance. When they are in a relationship and that mindset of "I have to be in control or I dump her." or "She likes being pushed around and playing rough, why not go further." takes hold.... you can imagine now what happens right? Some people are not bright enough to see past that. That the world and people especially are not just one way with one culture and one set of ideals.

Feminism isn't really all the pervasive anymore. Which is what TRP is afraid of. Every other comment is about brainwashed feminists and false rape charges. That fear and the power grab that TRP advocates unflinchingly is only a recipie for disaster.

[–]TomHicksAntifeminist sans pills1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

Oh no! Least you tried reading comprehension. (nah just neggin you brah)

The major problem though with this ideology is the power behind it (that you have already so eloquently explained). It is about power. It is about "being the better man". That mixed with "I have sex when she wants and she has sex when I want" becomes the very definition of rape. Many many young men read TRP and are looking to that for guidance. When they are in a relationship and that mindset of "I have to be in control or I dump her." or "She likes being pushed around and playing rough, why not go further." takes hold.... you can imagine now what happens right?

Another thing to add, as you might argue, "Well, women can rape men too!" What happened to men being stronger biologically? That's also irrelevant I guess because women who are stronger then you wouldn't be with you right? They probably don't exist. Or maybe if we want to go fully around the hamster wheel "They will just drug you and fuck you then say you raped them."

Here's some evidence that TRP think's women are shit. I think this falls under the "Encourage men to take women because they are too stupid to know they want it." headline:

More disloyal bitches am I right? Can't even keep secret how many partners they had that slut:

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2i1rc1/most_women_are_shitty_confidants_despite_the_bp/

An archaic idea from the 50's that is on the front page:

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2i1c8x/anybody_else_suprised_that_a_woman_cant_run_the/

Treat women like children because they aren't as smart as men:

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2i150v/treat_women_like_children_seriously/

[–]TomHicksAntifeminist sans pills0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]deepthrillAlreadyRed Mod, TRP Endorsed Contributor0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No offense but could you maybe rephrase that or re-write it? Still, you seem to be jumping around the fact that you are threatening your relationship in that way. Which is manipulation, which you already said "I don't manipulate people since that's immoral to me."

I don't go out of my way to try to showcase other girls in my life in order to elicit a certain emotional response, and try to make my girl scared I'll leave. But I do recognize that when I bring up good looking female friends of mine to a girl, it makes her value me more (preselection).

in a much less violent way then some people that stick to the blue pill forum alone would accuse you of (or modern day feminists).

Agree.

If one person doesn't want to have sex with you, that is up to them. Their reasons for it are irrelevant.

Agree.

Certainly if someone does not want to have sex with you all the time there is a bigger problem then just you not being attractive.

Possibly. Or possibly her attraction to you has waned. Usually your (not you specifically; you generally) fault.

It is about power. It is about "being the better man". That mixed with "I have sex when she wants and she has sex when I want" becomes the very definition of rape.

Is it? If we both have sex with each other because the other party desires it, doesn't mean we don't desire it as well, nor is it unconsensual (which I thought was the "very definition of rape").

It is about power.

Most things in this world can be viewed through the lense of power dynamics if one so chooses. Or, in lesser terms, in terms of economics.

"I have to be in control or I dump her."

Again, I'd rephrase this as we both have to be getting what we want out of the relationship or we dump each other.

"She likes being pushed around and playing rough, why not go further." takes hold.... you can imagine now what happens right?

This is the classic "slipper slope" argument. If X isn't bad, but X + Y is egregious, then we must either avoid doing X, or very very careful about advocating others to do X.

My personal opinion is that accountability trumps all. So if TRP advocates its members do "X" (be dominant), but "X + Y" (domineering, abusive) is bad, that's on the person who chooses to do X+Y. I never advocated X+Y. I advocated X. Maybe their true colors are shining through if somebody "goes further".

Feminism isn't really all the pervasive anymore. Which is what TRP is afraid of.

I hope you're right!

[–]TheFallenHero3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

Title	Purple Pills, if you had to choose a pill today which one would you swallow?
Author	Reginleifer
Upvotes	6
Comments	107
Date	October 1, 2014 3:51 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2i004a/purple_pills_if_you_had_to_choose_a_pill_today/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/purple-pills-if-you-had-to-choose-a-pill-today.284713 https://theredarchive.com/post/284713

Comments