Blue Pill isn't "beta" | PurplePillDebate

myfriendscantknow · 2014-01-14T09:59:23+00:00

Guys who put women on pedestals, think they can exchange niceness for sex, become overly infatuated, complain about the "friend-zone", and have no...

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]HalfwySandwchRed Pill3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]HalfwySandwchRed Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]HalfwySandwchRed Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mycroftar0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lucaloo 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago* (118 children) | Copy Link

[–]Svarthofthi8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (97 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]AbracadanielleBlue Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Svarthofthi2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wchill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]wchill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I differentiate between nice and Nice here - nice people are genuinely good people. The other kind of Nice - that's where we have people who appear nice on the outside, but really aren't - they manipulate, misrepresent their intentions, and assume that being Nice is the only thing you have to do and it entitles you to a bunch of things. An LTR and/or sex being among them, much of the time.

In the case of Taylor Swift, the number of failed LTRs she's been in for her age (I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing, but combined with the next bit, it is) as well as the songs she writes about those failed LTRs (which delve into other peoples' private lives, a big no-no) are remarkably similar to the bitching that Nice Guys do - "omg all girls only want assholes, not the true nice guys like me".

There's some good material on the issue if you do a few Google searches, or alternately I can send you some stuff.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wchill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMuRP0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMuRP2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMuRP0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMuRP0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TyrianXIIIPurple Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (73 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool-3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's literally not directed at women. I'm not being dense or dishonest- I've made it very clear that I think mating is a zero sum game, and my advice is to best benefit men in a culture/society that is currently tilted towards women.

Men want two things: Easy sex, and/or relationships.

So I give advice on how to get either or both.

If a woman wants to come along and read our stuff to maximize her access to one or the other, good for her. It's not conflicting advice. Guys don't want to ONS with the type of girl he'd marry.

Likewise, we already understand women's dual mating strategy.

The only contradiction here is when blue pillers show up all high and mighty pretending that these dual mating strategies don't exist.

We already know that following blue pill's narrative won't get anybody laid or get anybody respect from a woman. We know they try hard to tell us that our way is wrong wrong wrong, look we're on a subreddit dedicated to just this.

But we know better. We do it anyway, and look, we're successful at it!

Blue pill's advice is don't do what works, and embrace what never worked for you. It's damned if we do, damned if we don't. But that's ok, we're smart enough not to listen to you.

Edit: I will add, the red pill doesn't deal in "shoulds." Women will act the way they act. We just observe and react accordingly. If a woman has a particular goal in mind, she should embrace certain lifestyles. There are consequences to actions. If the guy she really really likes doesn't like sluts, welcome to the real world. Doesn't matter that it insults your delicate sensibilities.

[–]SpermJackalope6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yasee5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Imagine you had a guy who got rich because he won the lottery or maybe inherited some money. Or maybe he was at the right place at the right time and just got a well paying job that he wasn't overly qualified for.

The red pill is men who are not that, who haven't had these experiences, and can relate to the pain of not getting what they want.

Because at the end of the day, they know pain, they know struggle, they know desolation and scarcity in the sexual marketplace. Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean the effects aren't real, and that the causes can't be known. And just because you're not personally experiencing the downsides, doesn't mean our analysis of the causes are wrong, only that there are a lot of market variables to consider. That's not evading description, it's attempting to describe. It's looking at the world around us and trying to understand and synthesize reasonable models.

What you do is close your eyes and explain it all as "magic!"

[–]polyhooly2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The entire frame against the red pill is basically that we don't have sufficient proof for our views and that we therefore should not have them

This is what I wrote to you on another comment:

Many people on TBP have acknowledged that methods utilized by TRP work on some women. The argument is not necessarily that they don't work, but taking issue with the methods as being borderline, if not outright abusive and malicious.

I also went on to use the example of my best friend as the type of woman TRP does work on. Why are you still harping on the notion that the only argument against TRP is that no one believes you? You don't get to define people's positions for them to fit your arguments. That's called a strawman. Again, I'm sure some of you are getting laid, spinning your plates, and even have a girlfriend/wife. I'm also sure that most of the women you attract are just as screwed up as you, and your relationship dynamics reflect that.

Choosing not to explore and theorize about the world because you're afraid of offending somebody or because you haven't seen a double blind study on it is resolving to chalk life up to random chance or magic. Instead of being proactive with one's life and making calculated decisions in mating, it's just crossing your fingers and hoping.

That's not the alternative to TRP, but I can see why you'd think that. You're a person of extremes, aren't you?

I have aksed you this many, many times, and you still fail to answer my question: You say women are solipcistic, unable to view the world from anyone else's perspective because they so narcissictic, wrapped up in themselves, but this is exactly what you're doing. You have even explicitly stated that if someone gets the results they want without RP methods, their methods still just don't count. How can you not see how absurd you are with this belief?

TRP is for insecure men who are tired of being insecure, but mistake the alternative to insecurity as being a bully. And yeah, some women, like my friend, do respond to that. I throughly believe that unless you are a sociopath (which some Red Pillers certainly are, even admittedly so), taking TRP's view of women, sex, and relationships will not solve any of the issues you think it will because it is just a different side of the same coin, it is the opposite extreme of the spectrum.Same shit, different package.

[–]redpillschool0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Maybe we are committing the same problem, solipsism. The difference between men and women as I see it is that women won't suffer the same ill-effects. They may be absolutely clueless what and why works in the sexual market, but they would nevertheless be at least moderately successful. Whereas a man in a similar position who believes mistaken concepts about the nature of attraction would at most be rewarded with random and rare success. Men might be completely wrong about women loving trenchcoats, but he's not going to be rewarded with sex for such a mistake. Women will get sex in-spite of such a mistake. (I will add that women may make bad decisions that lead them to never get a decent relationship- and I think a lot of women do come to terms with this, but I think that only happens later in life for women, because they mistakenly believe their ease of access to sex will eventually translate to ease of access to commitment when they feel the timing is right).

TRP is for insecure men who are tired of being insecure, but mistake the alternative to insecurity as being a bully.

I disagree entirely. For instance, I think you've read into "don't be nice, be an asshole" and assumed that means don't be pleasant to be around. Furthermore, a lot of guys weren't insecure, but instead just not knowledgeable. They were quite secure in bad habits!

I throughly believe that unless you are a sociopath (which some Red Pillers certainly are, even admittedly so), taking TRP's view of women, sex, and relationships will not solve any of the issues you think it will because it is just a different side of the same coin, it is the opposite extreme of the spectrum.Same shit, different package.

I think that it only seems sociopathic because most people don't analyze personal interaction this thoroughly or as obsessively. But that doesn't make it wrong, just unusual. As somebody who has always had moderate luck with women, I didn't really look at most of this myself until a few years ago. So I can see why anybody would consider it weird. I took one look at the seduction community and said, "ugh, there's a bunch of people I'm glad I'm not." But one day, shit hits the fan and you just look at the pieces left over and you can either pick yourself back up, try again, and hope for a different result- or you can try to understand where things went wrong in the first place.

I love women, I truly do. The best part of the red pill for me was accepting them for who they are instead of expecting them to be men with tits. I was trained by a feminist mother to expect masculine traits from women and was taught that feminine traits are beneath women. Ironically, she also taught that feminine traits were perfectly normal and healthy for me. I'm glad I escaped.

[–]polyhooly2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The difference between men and women as I see it is that women won't suffer the same ill-effects. They may be absolutely clueless what and why works in the sexual market, but they would nevertheless be at least moderately successful.

You become indignant toward me, and TBPers in general because you feel as if we just don't get where you're coming from, that because we may have never struggled in the dating, sex, and relationship department, we couldn't possibly understand what you and men like you have experienced, we think it is all just "magic." Well I can say the same to you.

No one knows what it is like to be in someone else's shoes. A core tenant of TRP is that men and women have different sexual strategies and reactions for landing a mate, yet you and your ilk fail to consider what a woman's perspective to all of this is, and you still apply a male perspective to the female experience in the dating/sex/relationship game. Examples I have seen from Red Pillers:

I go to the club to meet women and get laid, therefore women must be going to the club to meet men and get laid.
I would be ecstatic if I got hit on left and right, offered free drinks at bars, chased by women who want nothing other than to have sex with me, therefore because this happens to women more often than men, women are clearly living the life, and lapping it, those bitches.

You fail to consider that a woman may not see things from that perspective, your perspective. Many women find the latter example high pressure, intimidating, and even objectifying. Why do you think clubs will offer free cover to women? Basically what I am saying is that both men and women have challenges, often unique to their gender, to deal with when it comes to dating, sex, and relationships. Don't tell me one minute that women are not men with tits and then turn around and analyze the female experience from only the male perspective. Just like I don't know what it is like to be a man, you don'y know what it is like to be a woman.

I disagree entirely. For instance, I think you've read into "don't be nice, be an asshole" and assumed that means don't be pleasant to be around.

Going back to my friend whose husband abused her, she said something that really stuck out to me, something that made it so hard for her to muster up the courage to leave him: When things are good, he is the most amazing person to be around. When things are bad, they are really bad. They are hell. I'm sure you can carry a pleasant, light-hearted conversation, but the veneer will eventually wear off.

Furthermore, a lot of guys weren't insecure, but instead just not knowledgeable. They were quite secure in bad habits!

That's insecurity.

I love women, I truly do. The best part of the red pill for me was accepting them for who they are instead of expecting them to be men with tits.

You love what you believe women can do for you, because that's all you believe they are good for: sex, domestic duties, light-hearted companionship. Other than that women are useless.

I was trained by a feminist mother to expect masculine traits from women and was taught that feminine traits are beneath women.

If your mother touts traditionally feminine traits as inferior, she is not a feminist.

[–]redpillschool0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You fail to consider that a woman may not see things from that perspective, your perspective

Not only do I not fail to consider this, but red pill theory is based entirely around the concept that they don't and won't.

Many women find the latter example high pressure, intimidating, and even objectifying. Why do you think clubs will offer free cover to women? Basically what I am saying is that both men and women have challenges, often unique to their gender, to deal with when it comes to dating, sex, and relationships. Don't tell me one minute that women are not men with tits and then turn around and analyze the female experience from only the male perspective.

It seems to me like you're arguing with somebody else, or trying to give me a red pill 101 lesson. Women are the selective gender, I've always acknowledged this. Nobody is suggesting women have it easier in all ways than men. Men want sex, women have it. Women want commitment, men have it. You're making some assumptions here about my views but I don't think you've actually asked me about them. All these issues are of course compounded by people with varying values in the sexual market. I think there's probably nothing harder than being an ugly/fat woman.

When things are good, he is the most amazing person to be around. When things are bad, they are really bad. They are hell. I'm sure you can carry a pleasant, light-hearted conversation, but the veneer will eventually wear off.

You're making such a leap here. You're assuming that because you disagree with our views, then we must therefore be abusive, and therefore we must eventually be abusive! That's not only incredibly incorrect, but incredibly presumptuous and downright wrong.

Furthermore, a lot of guys weren't insecure, but instead just not knowledgeable. They were quite secure in bad habits!

That's insecurity.

That is literally not insecurity.

You love what you believe women can do for you, because that's all you believe they are good for: sex, domestic duties, light-hearted companionship. Other than that women are useless.

This is the most presumptive thing I've read so far. You know, people demonize theredpill for making generalizations to try to predict other people's behaviors, but we're just attempting to take best-guess actions to maximize attraction. You, on the other hand, are just straight up bigoted, and I'm certainly glad not to be like you at all. "Women are useless." I saw a good quote just earlier today. "Marie Curie and Norman Borlaug are more valuable to humanity than pretty much everyone, man and woman, that I've ever met. Neither has any sexual value to me whatsoever."

Obviously if you think we have the views you so sorely misattributed, you'd think we hate women. Because honestly you don't want us to like them. Unfortunately for you, we're going to do what we want independent of you and your bigotted views.

If your mother touts traditionally feminine traits as inferior, she is not a feminist.

Let's see, feminism never talks about how submission is demeaning, or how being a stay at home mother is beneath them. Women never wore shoulder pads in the 90s. Feminists never cut their hair short or burn bras. Please..

[–]polyhooly2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not only do I not fail to consider this, but red pill theory is based entirely around the concept that they don't and won't.

They don't and won't what?

You're making such a leap here. You're assuming that because you disagree with our views, then we must therefore be abusive, and therefore we must eventually be abusive! That's not only incredibly incorrect, but incredibly presumptuous and downright wrong.

Many Red Pillers, including your pal SoftHarem, have advocated physical abuse toward women to keep them in line. But I'm not just talking about physical violence, here, I'm talking about the emotional abuse of treating a woman you're in a relationship with as your inferior. You can sit here and tell me how you do not believe women are inferior and do not treat them as such, but what you have written on TRP and general consensus with the movement is that women are inherently selfish, childish creatures who pretty much only offer sex and light hearted companionship. This has been asserted many, many times, almost verbatim, by TRP.

This is the most presumptive thing I've read so far. You know, people demonize theredpill for making generalizations to try to predict other people's behaviors, but we're just attempting to take best-guess actions to maximize attraction. You, on the other hand, are just straight up bigoted, and I'm certainly glad not to be like you at all.

So basically you don't have any rebuttal to that other than calling me names..

Please, humor me, why is it inaccurate, and bigoted, as you say, to assert that TRP believes women are too solipsistic and childish to be effective leaders, that they do not posses such traits generally regarded as defining a good person such as loyalty, honor, integrity, etc... but certainly posses, and are driven by negative human traits such as greed, selfishness, dishonesty. That they cannot not, or just plain are not interested in higher levels of thought, or if they are, certainly are not match for a man's wits, therefore one should refrain from hurting a woman's pretty little head with talk of politics, science, philosophy, etc... Again, as I wrote, TRP believes that virtually the only value women add to their lives is sex, domestic duties, and light-hearted companionship.

Let's see, feminism never talks about how submission is demeaning, or how being a stay at home mother is beneath them.

Red Pillers love to talk about how the evil feminists are beating down those poor, perfectly feminine stay at home moms. How many stay at home moms do you know?

::extends hand:: Nice to meet, you, redpillschool, I'm a stay at home mom, and a feminist. Have some feminists expressed disdain toward stay at home moms? Sure. Is that representative of mainstream feminist thought? No.

I find it really funny that you and other Red Pillers who I have seen talk about this think you have a better grasp on attitudes toward stay at home moms, and stay at home mom's experiences, than someone who is actually a stay at home mom.

[–]yasee4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yasee6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yasee2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

To be blunt, these messages seem a little incoherent (if not outright contradictory).

For example, if blue pill advice was to be yourself, and you got laid, it wouldn't be because you followed the advice. People who aren't getting laid who try it out will continue not to get laid, and people who were, will continue in spite of it.

.but if you believe the majority of people are gonna get laid and/or pair off anyway, why do you tout RP theory as the one true road map to sexual success?

Because I believe the majority of men are not successful in their relationship endeavors. Divorce is at an all time high, many guys can't find a mate, or marry the first woman who will pay attention to them, and many guys get brought to the cleaners in divorce court.

Having sex, and having sex on your terms are two different things. The worst part is men thinking that feminism was their own terms, and getting bitten on the ass for it.

[–]yasee3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points3 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool-3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Try to refrain from being sarcastic to other users. I understand it's probably frustrating given that there are a lot of people giving you shit all the time all over reddit, but try to give the people that actually are responding to you without snark and condensation the same treatment.

As for anyone else reading this... stop antagonizing people just because of their username or past conversations you've had with them. Everytime a prominent Rper comes here they tend to get a lot of shit because people don't like them... which I can understand but try and leave your baggage at the door if you want to participate here. The debate is much more enjoyable if you treat everyone with some respect, regardless of what you think of their character. - And that goes the same for certain well-known BPers that you guys from TRP might have had problems with in the past. Let's keep it civil.

I really like this sub lately, we've been having conversations about topics that aren't really able to be discussed elsewhere on reddit without turning into a circle-jerk. We have a lot of different perspectives here and some problems are to be expected, but debating with some vigor is different than the bullshit that's been going on these last couple days... I thought we were all past this. The other mods are getting tired of it and will probably start being more generous with the banning if everyone can't clean it up a little. Thanks.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Svarthofthi4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Spartacus321 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_put_mukmuk_on_face5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_put_mukmuk_on_face2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

To you

No you are wrong and don't ever tell me what you speculate as to what i might consider a word to mean. That is very impolite.

But if we are discussing objective facts -- I'll bite.

No, to me "nice" does NOT equal "commitment" in a relational sense so much as "emotionally comitted". Nice simply is a guise that many beta guys put on in hopes of getting lucky. That is the only reason a betaboy will ever be nice to a woman. You see -- its the betas who deep down hold resentment for women's nature to have sexual attraction to others that aren't simply "nice".

Plus -- there are MANY MANY women who want commitment from men but can't find it. In order to get it -- they put their bodies out there. They have sex with many men who think they will be the guy for them. But these women are ill-advised just as the beta guy is ill-advised in thinking he can get lucky by being nice, accomodating, and committed.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_put_mukmuk_on_face1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_put_mukmuk_on_face0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_put_mukmuk_on_face-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I_put_mukmuk_on_face-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I_put_mukmuk_on_face-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I_put_mukmuk_on_face1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deebo333 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Because to guys it is the sole characteristic that usually decides if a man will marry a girl or not. We as men place a lot of importance on it because it is what we want to see in a long term partner.

Whenever I ask my guy friends and men in general who would they rather have; a supermodel that treats them like some regular guy, or a below average (in the looks department) woman that treats them like a king. The supermodel loses every time.

The problem is that since it is what most men want they kind of think that woman want the same thing which is not the case. With woman all you have to be is attractive and have money and you can pull woman all day. Hell if you have either of those things you can pull woman all day, but if you have none of those things you're a "loser"

There is no middle ground for a man. He can't just be a good person, and find someone. The best men I have ever met, the guys who respect girls, treat them well, the guys who hold them in high regard are always single. I'm talking about amazing people with doctorates in STEM fields are constantly disrespected by females that treat them as if they are some regular bums off the street.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AshleyYakeleyFlying Purple Pill Debater2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

You'll be hard pressed to find a mature person suggesting a guy should be a "nice guy". Being a nice person is important and most people should strive to be nice in their everyday life (random acts of kindness are good). Most advice you'll find for dating will include improving your looks (style or fitness) and being an interesting person (hobbies, job, traveling, etc). Nobody should rely on being nice to get laid. It'll make people more likely to respond to you (get more flies with honey and all that), but if your only attribute to your life and personality is being nice? You're going to have a bad time and likely be taken advantage of.

I don't see how this is so difficult to grasp. Trp goes full retard with this idea and replaces any form of niceness/cordiality with toxic masculinity (aka, the type of machismo attitude that makes them come across as assholes out Neanderthals). Their ideas for self help are good (exercise, don't put women on pedestals, have standards for your life and relationships, don't put up with useless bullshit). The remainder of their philosophy is bullshit and should be tossed out.

You don't need trp to find advice on how to improve yourself and get people to want to date you. You only need trp if you hate women and need an excuse to hang out in the he-man woman haters club. Need fitness advice? Go to /r/fitness. Need fashion help? /r/malefashionadvice. Want to find new hobbies or make new friends? Try meetup. Want to vent to your internet alpha bros about how you totally negged and pumped and dumped this HB9? Trp is that way.

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

No, I'm sorry, this is all on you. Let's take one movie, so we have something concrete to talk about. Bridget Jones' Diary, ok? Daniel Cleaver in the role of Alphahole. Mark Darcy as Betaboy. The core message of that movie is not "be like Mark Darcy!" Although Colin Firth is hot, can I get a show of hands?

The message was, yes, you can be a chubby aimless smoker alcoholic with a sad job and a big case of klutziness and all your life you've met and fallen for the bad boy .... but due to your inner kindness which managed to survive despite all the stupid shit you've done, you can have a rich lawyer fall in love with you, in fact, break up his engagement (reject a beautiful, educated, accomplished woman even) to come back to London from New York to be with you.

THIS IS A WOMAN'S FANTASY! No woman having watched this movie will tell you "Be more like Mark, be rich, be lawyerly, beat up my ex-boyfriend." It is a fantasy of the woman's innate desirability, despite outward signs of being broken and undesireable. Women's fantasy is to be loved for their innate goodness. The why is complex, additionally, I don't think men don't have this fantasy. If I had to guess, men's fantasy is to be loved for their power.

One of my old friends I knew as young adults went out with a girl and her brothers didn't like him. One night they cornered and beat the shit out of him, with the girl there, to teach them both a lesson. He said to me later, you know, it wouldn't have been so bad if she hadn't been there and watching. So, this thing about men being afraid to show emotion, or pain to women, it's not that women think less of them, that's not true. It's a myth that men have constructed for themselves, because in men's fantasy, their worth is power.

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]autoNFA1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]autoNFA1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Alright, I'll make time to watch it this weekend and I'll have something to say about it. I looked at the director, it's Cameron Crowe, which is a good thing. He made a movie I loved called Almost Famous, he's a pro at teasing out these really honest moments of human interaction that works because it rings true for all of us. This doesn't bode well for your theory because as much as Cameron Crowe is a great romantic, his character, for example, the eponymous Jerry McGuire is actually not a beta, didn't win a woman because he was a beta, even when he was trying hard to be a beta (marrying a single mother with a son for health insurance.)

Meanwhile, can I ask you for something. When watching TV, take note of the ads targeting men: shaving cream, razors, suits, electronic, home and garden stuff. See how they speak to men and ask yourself, are these ads telling men to be "beta".

[–]autoNFA1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I wasn't aware I should be taking life advice from Hollywood movies. In that case, I will be quitting my job and finding a gym that specializes in montages so I can lose weight fast and get some massive gainz and become a female Rocky Balboa.

But more seriously, someone who takes love or life advice from movies is, by definition, not mature. Why? Because they haven't experienced enough to recognize that life, and especially love, does not follow Hollywood's version of how a story should go. Love is not made up of constant grand gestures. Love is, in the day to day, pretty unremarkable for the cinema. But nobody wants to buy a movie where the couple go on a hike one day and go grocery shopping the next, then they go to work and maybe grab dinner and watch some Netflix. They want to buy the movies where the couple stay in love against all odds because all you need is love! Where the girl miraculously realizes her best friend is totally the right man for her because it's much better for the storyline than the more realistic alternative of she was never interested in him romantically and thought of him as her best friend.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AshleyYakeleyFlying Purple Pill Debater-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (101 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

There are people in those groups (nice guy, macho, male feminist) who have attributes that are worthy of criticism (entitled creeper, sexist, wanting tons of praise/drowning out women/not calling out sexism enough), but that doesn't mean that they're condemned, or that all men are condemned. You can be nice without being entitled, masculine without being sexist, and feminist without being self-centered (which is really what those things are all about). Feminists who criticise nice guys, for example, don't have a problem with them actually being nice, they have a problem with the idea of niceness being a mask for entitlement. It's the behaviour behind the label that gets derided.

If a man wants to be nice, masculine, and/or feminist, he can do so to his heart's content, but if he's also a douche he's gonna get criticised. That's life.

[–]I_put_mukmuk_on_face1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_put_mukmuk_on_face-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

The relationship of feminism to men is that of an abusive parent to the child she hates for reasons outside his control. When the child fails to gain approval whatever he does, he rebels and ignores his parent's advice, and asks himself what he wants. For redpillers, who want to get layed above all else, it appears 2-being macho works best.

Of course you can say that feminists are only criticizing some type of male feminists or nice guys, but there's just not enough praise of "good nice guys/good male feminists" to counterbalance the constant criticism of men in feminism.

Not that there ever could be enough love-bombing for me to ignore feminism's glaring ideological flaws. I'm speaking for people who care about the way they're treated more than the truth. And feminism treats men like shit, a side effect of believing in the patriarchy.

[–]gravvs9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gravvs4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

The relationship of The Red Pill to women is that of an abusive father to the child he hates for reasons outside her control, such as her hypergamous impulses. When the child fails to gain approval whatever she does, she rebels and ignores her parent's advice, and asks herself what he wants. For women, who want to be treated as rational, responsible adults above all else, it appears avoiding RP types works best.

Of course you can say that RedPillers are only criticizing some type of women or sluts, but there's just not enough praise of "strong women" to counterbalance the constant criticism of women in TRP.

Not that there ever could be enough love-bombing for me to ignore TRP's glaring ideological flaws. I'm speaking for people who care about the way they're treated more than the truth. And TRP treats women like shit, a side effect of believing in a ridiculous philosophy based on a metaphor from a--frankly mediocre--science fiction franchise.

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrackertronRed Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrackertronRed Pill Man-4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crackertron3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Canned_Wine1992 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fireflower4138 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fireflower4135 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]fireflower4135 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Men have girlfriends, daughters and mothers too, you know.

Yes, I do know. And some of those men look down on women for being women. Did I say that all men are misogynists? No, I did not. Did I say that no women are misandrists? No, I did not say that either. Why are you intentionally trying to misquote me? Meanwhile, back on topic,

Feminism doesn't have any qualms saying most men are misogynists

You're just re-stating the comment I already disagreed with. You're equating "some feminists" with "all feminists" or "feminism in general." Here we go again. I'll say "That's stupid, hardly anybody actually thinks that." and then you'll say, "But they totally do!!!" implying that somehow you know this because internet magic... and I, a female who believes in equal rights, does not hate men, believes in the men's rights movement as far as it pertains to things like child custody, etc., and is in a deeply devoted relationship with a guy who sees her as a complement to his own personality and an equal in rights ("male feminist", did you say? I don't think he's ever called himself that, but okay) am somehow not enough of a counterexample to change your mind. If you're going to claim something about "feminism in general" then I'm going to pull out that classic Red Pill card: show me what made you think that that's the view of anything but a tiny minority. Show me how that's not just a strawman that isn't even close to true. You can't, because it's a strawman and isn't even close to true.

Do you even realize that that's what just happened? That you called "feminism" out on hating men, I said that's not true, and I would know because I am in a far better position to know than you are...and then you called "feminism" out on hating men again? What can I possibly say to you that will change your mind if you're not even listening? How many feminists need to tell you that they don't think what you say feminists think, before you'll realize or admit that you're wrong about them?

Hating men is stupid, untenable and doesn't provide any benefits. Hardly anybody actually thinks that way. Stop taking exceptions as the rule. All you're actually doing is picking and choosing your evidence so that you don't have to change your mind.

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Did I say that all men are misogynists? No, I did not. Did I say that no women are misandrists? No, I did not say that either. Why are you intentionally trying to misquote me?

Are you serious? You just said it's "stupid" that someone would secretly hate the people they live with, yet it's one of the central premises of feminism with regards to men. Looks like you're frantically backpedalling now that I've pointed this out.

I never said that you believed all men are misogynist or no woman misandrist, if you paid attention all I said was "feminists believe most men are misogynist".

That you called "feminism" out on hating men, I said that's not true, and I would know because I am in a far better position to know than you are.

By virtue of what? As far as I'm concerned, a person outside of a cult has a more objective view on the cult than its members.

I could say you're blinded by your privilege, but I don't really believe in that shit. But at least it may help you to understand why an ideological opponent who believes that women are actually advantaged has no reason to take you at your word.

and then you called "feminism" out on hating men again?

All I did was pointing out that your argument that people can't live together and hate each other at the same time is bunk by pointing to feminist beliefs. You even admitted it: "I do know that men have girlfriends, daughters and mothers. And some of those men look down on women for being women.", contradicting yourself.

So your original argument against me "feminists can't hate men because they live with them" falls down.

[–]fireflower4135 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

it's one of the central premises of feminism with regards to men

You're still misquoting me. I haven't backpedaled on anything that I said. I said that hating men was stupid and provided no benefits, and that most feminists don't hate men. And you're still insisting that most feminists do hate men, that in fact it's "central" to feminism. Once again, I'd love for you to listen, but you're repeating over and over exactly what I predicted you would be, without listening to the answers. You're wrong about people. You think you know what they think, but you're wrong. But you keep claiming that you're right, directly into their faces. How is anyone supposed to take that seriously?

frantically backpedaling

On what? I agreed with you that SOME women are misandrists, and I said that I thought it was stupid. Are you actually disagreeing with me that misandry is stupid? The claim of yours that I took issue with was the one in which you said that all feminists hate men. I said that that would be stupid, I don't do it, and most other feminists don't either. Nothing about that is contradictory with the existence of a minority of examples, which by the way you still haven't sourced, that actually do hate men. I never claimed that nobody does. I said it was ridiculous to hold that view up as prototypical of the feminist movement, and you are STILL NOT LISTENING. STILL. NOT. LISTENING. Jesus christ.

By virtue of what?

By virtue of being a counter-example. If I say, "all men have red hair and believe in fairies" and you are a counter-example to both of those things, having brown hair and not believing in fairies, then wouldn't you get a little annoyed if I continually said, "NO, YOU TOTALLY HAVE RED HAIR AND BELIEVE IN FAIRIES OTHERWISE YOU'RE NOT MALE. I HAVE A MORE OBJECTIVE VIEW THAN YOU DO BECAUSE YOU'RE MALE." Isn't that ridiculous? What a stupid, baseless thing to say, right? If my little cousin has red hair and believes in fairies, and I come up to you and start talking about how you do, too, and so does every other man? Wouldn't you think that was just fucking stupid?

Because that's what you're doing to me and other feminists when you keep spouting claims about them. Telling them something ABOUT THEM that is not true. And doing it over and over and over again, like you actually can't hear anybody disagreeing with you. Stop covering your ears. I'm not in a cult, I have political opinions that influence how I interact with people. And you have yours, too. But you are not a feminist and therefore not even close to qualified to tell me what feminists think. The people who are qualified are trying to tell you. And you're not even bothering to listen.

women are advantaged

Like I said, I'm with the men's rights movement where it makes sense. I want equal pay for equal work, that's not an advantage or "special treatment" for women, it's equality...and meanwhile, I also want men to have a fairer shot when it comes to domestic abuse trials, custody battles, etc.. There are arenas in which it is an advantage to be female, and I am against that too. But according to your myopic view of feminism, I don't exist, or I'm lying, and really secretly deep down I actually don't believe those things...why I'd be saying them without believing them, I have no idea. Well I've had enough of being accused of not existing, so good luck. I hope you grow up.

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Jesus, calm down. You're not the one arguing in hostile territory.

If you want to refute my claim that most feminists condemn men, you have to do all of that:

you have to be what I consider a real feminist, not an MRA/feminist hybrid (which I consider to be MRAs, and not feminists). Believe in the Patriarchy in the West, male privilege, rape culture, etc. Do you? If you don't, then my criticism does not apply to you.
you have to convince me you don't hate men, which tbh would be very hard for me to believe if you adhered to the above theories. Certainly you saying you don't hate men would not be sufficient. Why not, you ask. Well, hate is not something people usually advertise, for one. Second, it is likely your hate would be invisible, even to you. If you saw someone spit on a man for no apparent reason, that would be hateful, right? But what if you believed the man to be a violent unrepentant criminal? Then it wouldn't seem hateful, it would be just deserts.
you have to be representative of feminism and not some anomaly, else it's just one person.

[–]fireflower4132 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)[S] 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)[S] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault918 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

Feminism like any "ism" has no 100% set rules but I think most reasonable people who call themselves feminists do not hate men

Your word against mine. You wouldn't take a bigot at his word on his bigotry either.

That's because your ideology condems all men, whatever they do.

Not true, mainly the societal stuff that harms women (and men)

Who is responsible for that and benefits from it, according to feminism?

There's a difference between a nice person and Somone who feels entitled to sex and is awkward

I don't see it. Wanting sex does not make you entitled, nor is awkwardness a good reason to condemn someone.

Weather or not somone is sexist depends on what counts a macho, you can be Macho without being sexist

Wikipedia :"Machismo is the sense of being macho or manly, the concept associated with "a strong sense of masculine pride...[with] the supreme valuation of characteristics culturally associated with the masculine and a denigration of characteristics associated with the feminine."

got nothing against male feminists

That's you personnally. For my argument to be a strawman, no feminist or only a tiny majority needs to believe that male feminists are a pain.

[–]shw3nn 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]shw3nn 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shw3nn4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shw3nn5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Feminism, by definition, seeks to achieve gender equality (more specifically, gender equal opportunity).

Then feminists have failed feminism. Numerous laws discriminate against men (VAWA, Selective Service, etc) and none against women(with the possible exception of walking barechested in public in NY, and joining the Navy Seals), yet the present situation is still framed as female oppression.

Any movement or group that attempts to discriminate against, by definition, cannot be feminist. They can call themselves feminists, but they aren't.

Then feminists aren't feminists, and the true feminists are MRAs.

This is the sort of absurdity you get when you confuse a movement's apparent aims with what it actually is and does. If white nationalists define their movement as being "for the preservation and well-being of the white race", that doesn't make every ideological opponent the enemy of the white race.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Then feminists aren't feminists, and the true feminists are MRAs.

Which feminists? Do you realize that feminism is a huge movement? You can't say "all feminists" are bad unless you disagree with the core tenants of feminism that link all feminists.

There are literally hundreds of noticeably different takes on feminism. There are even decent blogs on feminism.

http://arewomenhuman.me/2013/06/07/the-cult-of-the-greater-cause/

http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2014/01/masculine-and-muscular-and-other.html

This is the sort of absurdity you get when you confuse a movement's apparent aims with what it actually is and does. If white nationalists define their movement as being "for the preservation and well-being of the white race", that doesn't make every ideological opponent the enemy of the white race.

Feminists don't define feminism. Professional intellectuals do.

fem·i·nism noun \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\ : the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities

: organized activity in support of women's rights and interests

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.

[–]Jacksambuck0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points-1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vault911 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your word against mine. You wouldn't take a bigot at his word on his bigotry either.

Feminism isn't a science, there's a spectrum, you want to understand it better go read up on it, my point is what your saying is a simplification.... like me saying Freud thought everything was dicks and all men want to screw their mothers

Who is responsible for that and benefits from it, according to feminism?

Men...but that dies not mean men are "evil" as individuals or a group...there's no specific council of men who get together and think "hmmmm how shall we oppress women today?" unless your talking about those who restrict abortion but that's a whole other issue

like if I say that western society is geared in the favor of white people I'm not saying white people are bad

I don't see it. Wanting sex does not make you entitled, nor is awkwardness a good reason to condemn someone

oh for- ok let me explain it in redpill speak

nice guys are beta orbiters who think because a female is nice to them or becomes friends with them they are entitled to a relationship with her a d act all upset because they get "freind zoned" when really he never made his intentions clear and she clearly didn't want to go out with him

[–]shw3nn 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]shw3nn 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shw3nn 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault913 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lucaloo 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lucaloo 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

If you actually believe that, I don't consider people like you feminists. I seriously doubt most feminists would either.

It's a real shame that the radfems have pushed it that far. To the point that most people, even feminists themselves, dont consider reasonable supporters "true".

To be clear: you believe men and women are both oppressors and oppressed? You believe men can be oppressed as men?

Yes to both. I think that the idea that people are expected to act a certain way, be treated a certain way, live a certain way based on what is between their legs is absurd. Instead of raising men and women, we should be raising people. Both sexes feed into the separation, both sexes are guilty of causing the divide.
Men and women both oppress each other and themselves. Speaking as a female who has never quite "behaved like a lady should" I've caught flack from both sides of the fence. Actually, even more so from other women. Ive seen the same happen to men. People really like to blame the opposite gender for everything but a lot of the expectations and unfair treatment come from the same gender. I really dont get how people overlook that. The societal pressure for men to be the "standard male" is just as heavy as the societal pressure for women to be the "standard female". The pressure is placed on different values of course but its still the same.

I could elaborate and talk about law, economic bullshit and a whole bunch of other unfair crap but I decided to pick the thing that bothers me the most. If people cant feel free to be themselves then that is truly oppression in my opinion. People are too diverse to be able to fit into two boxes.

Then again, whoever you are, theres always going to be someone out there that wants you to be different. I guess it all really depends on who's judging lol.

Ugh, that ended up way longer than I wanted it to. I hope that clarifies where I stand on that.

Besides, it's always better to go in with a bang, so tons of people start to argue.

Eh, whatever floats your boat. I find excessive arguing to be pretty counter productive to actually getting things done. Emotions get in the way and things go down the shitter. Its good entertainment every once in a while, but its not really healthy for discussion.

Edit: For formatting and sp

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Canned_Wine1991 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault919 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault918 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenova2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenova2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scallopkidCardio bunny 🐇1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault9120 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]scallopkidCardio bunny 🐇0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think I phrased myself badly because I got annoyed by the insinuation in your original comment. I'm not trying to say I know weird alien men whose behaviour cannot be categorised, but that "alpha" and "beta" are a false dichotomy. I don't like alpha guys and I don't like beta guys, because I don't like extreme people. I don't like extreme extroverts (annoying) and I don't like extreme introverts (rude), but that doesn't mean I don't like people. I just like people that have a bit more nuance. An outright "alpha male" would make me angry beyond belief, and a true blue "beta male" would annoy the hell out of me. I don't have a problem with a guy who likes me to make a decision, and I don't have a problem with a guy who likes to make his own decisions, but I would have a problem with a guy who was incapable of making a decision himself, or incapable of letting me make a decision.

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points-1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points-1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]I_put_mukmuk_on_face-4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]vivaenmiriana4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)[S] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]scallopkidCardio bunny 🐇-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]scallopkidCardio bunny 🐇-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]scallopkidCardio bunny 🐇-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points7 points7 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]scallopkidCardio bunny 🐇2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

This is a stupid post...

You're taking 3 difference concepts of male attraction, mushing them under one banner and shaming for no other purpose than to feign comraderie amongst two groups of people who generally dislike each other....

A Beta is nothing more than a man with a majority of socio-sexually weak and/or not respectable characteristics

A Nice Guy is a man who has been tricked and mislead by women and feminism isn't believing blank-slatist feminist theory is correct, and women are as virtuous as men, which they of course aren't. Women are objective value sponges and have no use for men who do not offer them social advancement. Therefore, these men behave towards women in manners that would be effective for pleasing and befriending other men, not getting your dick in women.

Manipulative guys are manipulative guys. If a guy thinks he can pretend to be nice/weak and get sex from women than he's just an unintelligent manipulator, which has nothing to do with either Nice Guy Theory, or Beta/Alpha theory.

Stop spewing Feminist Nice Guy attack rhetoric.

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)[S] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shadow_Nirvana3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

This is weird. TBP's favourite dating advice giver is Dr. Nerdlove and from what I've read of him, his advice is definitely not the "just be confident" "just be yourself" type. He's made fun of this trope several times in fact.

I'm not talking about TBP as a subreddit, I'm refering to Blue Pill as simply the commonly accepted beliefs of modern society. A single member of TBP community may disagree with something; that's fine. I don't agree with 100% of TRP philosophy.

That being said, things like "just be yourself", and "just have confidence" are common and pervasive tropes; no one can really deny (with any semblance of intellectual honesty) that they aren't the most common forms of advice given to both men and women.

"men and women are the same" Who said this, please show them for us to see.

Feminist blank slatism is rampant, just about everywhere...this is like asking me to show you proof the sky is blue...It's pratically the mantra of /r/AskWomen...

Are you literally denying that the notion that men and women are essentially interchangable aside from genitalia and that gender roles are social constructs is not a mainstream world view? Because if so, we're going to have a problem continuing this discussion...

If you, at a point in your life, tried to take dating advice from such a genre, that's kinda your fault.

Straw man.

[–]Shadow_Nirvana4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes, people can give bad advice. The "Just be yourself" is something you say when you are giving a 3 word peptalk to someone who has already shown himself able but is having jitters. It is used out of place.

Although I'm not one, most feminists I have encountered agree that women and men are different. But intragender variance is shown to be higher than intergender variance on a number of topics (easiest one I can think of; sexual orientation and restriction).

We also have a problem differentiating cultural effects from innate differences. For example, the Nice Guy phenomena, caused by the earlier loss of parental guidance, having no role models, being a child caretaker. This causes loss of assertiveness. So without being given the tools in this aspect, a man can lose what would have previously been considered an intristic male ability. Do you think women are given the tools in this aspect or are they taught to be conflict-avoidant?

Or for example the latest brain research that shows there are stark differences between genders. Okay, what about neuroplasticity? What about the fact that we don't really know to what extent these differences effect our abilities? We are not at the technology level to take a brain scan and understand the talents and abilities. Unless you give someone the tools, you are leaving them in the dark. And how did the redpill exactly say "See, women and men are different, we were right in our assertion that women should be submissive and stay at home" I have no idea?

[–]AFormidableContender0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Although I'm not one, most feminists I have encountered agree that women and men are different. But intragender variance is shown to be higher than intergender variance on a number of topics (easiest one I can think of; sexual orientation and restriction).

Do you have an article or paper from a feminist source stating they believe men and women are fundamentally different? Because one of the primary tenants of feminism, as far as I understand it's proponents is feminist blank-slatism: the notion that the male and female human are perfectly identical save their genitalia and physical body structure. This concept is championed in almost all female centric subreddits, and cultures, the most prominent being /r/AskWomen.

the Nice Guy phenomena, caused by the earlier loss of parental guidance

I disagree.

Do you think women are given the tools in this aspect or are they taught to be conflict-avoidant?

Women have dramatically lower testosterone; they are naturally conflict avoidant/risk averse, but I would certainly say women are taught/reinforced to be conflict avoidant and risk averse.

Unless you give someone the tools, you are leaving them in the dark. And how did the redpill exactly say "See, women and men are different, we were right in our assertion that women should be submissive and stay at home" I have no idea?

That's not a scientific assertion TRP is making. TRP is a world view and a code of ethics and concepts at the end of the day. Either a good portion of proving TRP right or wrong would require honest self reporting for scientific studies to be conducted, and that's basically impossible, or the theories that would have to be researched are so violently counter-culture it will likely stay that way.

[–]Shadow_Nirvana1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContender2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shadow_Nirvana1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContender1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

1) "lel"? ...Really...? [CondescendingWonka.jpg]

2)

I spent more time in the manosphere than you, mate.

Doubtful.

3)

You don't get to say "I disagree" and disregard all of my points

You don't get to say what I don't get to say, kid. I disregarded one point because it was entirely off base and your the type of person with their head up their ass. If you were at all interested in a differing opinion, you'd have inquired as to why I disagreed, otherwise it would have splintered off into a tangent and one of your original criticisms was that one of my arguments was tangential

4)

and then try to educate a med student who's studying for his boards about testosterone

You being a med student means nothing except that you're insecure and making a snarky attempt at humble-bragging. I've met a lot of dumb "smart" people in my time, and if this conversation is any indication, you don't seem to be an exception.

4B) You don't get to pull a humblebrag/condescention combo while using "lel" in the same paragraph.

Don't swing your dick around unless you're going to be a real example of productive discussion in a subreddit created specifically for productive discussion amongst two groups characteristized for a lack-there-of. Seddit became a shadow of what it used to be because it had way too many people like you.

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Canned_Wine1992 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If I were more lively right now this exchange would actually rile me up really bad, instead it's just depressing. I'd really like this guy to get something out of this subreddit but judging by how he's not self aware enough to understand how his debate tactics create an indestructible wall of confirmation bias I really doubt it.

I'll take this as a moment to mention I'll likely be deleting this account and spending less time in debate subs on reddit pretty soon, next 2 or 3 weeks I'd figure. This place has been great in helping me understand the different viewpoints people in the western world have on male/female relations and it's been a pleasure discussing with people like you who care about these really specific issues like I do and seem to be pretty cool well adjusted folk. The problem is it's too much, I come around here way too much when I'm bored and the ideas discussed here pop into my thoughts when dealing with real life situations, kind of like mildly intrusive thoughts, that could get out of hand if I don't better manage my time. I spent 6 hours around from 12 to 6 in the morning once doing nothing particularly productive, which wouldn't necessarily be that bad except roughly 75% of that time was spent here and in related or similar circle jerks and associated reading materials, and you know getting really wrapped up and a little worked up at times in how some people have these malignant worldviews that colors their interactions with people in a really bad way and how fucked up they are and how upsetting it can be, when I decided this could become a problem.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

This comment also highlights your lack of understanding of the Nice GuyTM trope/social phenomena.

Well don't leave me hanging, explain it to me then.

My understanding is that a nice guy is a man who does favors, buys gifts, agrees with her constantly and is generally "nice" to a woman in the hope it will lead to sex.

Apparently this will never work because "women not virtuous like men"

So I have to conclude from the context that the "honorable" thing for said woman to do would be to fuck said guy she is not attracted to.

If I'm going wrong here though this is your chance to clarify.

Men's sexuality doesn't work that way, and even if it did, most men are so sex-starved, that "beggers can't be choosers" mindset kicks in. In fact, there is a male version of doing exactly that, which the manosphere has deemed "scarcity mentality".

Is that virtuous?

I didn't ask if desperate men exist, I asked what it is about men that makes their sexual preferences more virtuous.

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Well don't leave me hanging, explain it to me then. My understanding is that a nice guy is a man who does favors, buys gifts, agrees with her constantly and is generally "nice" to a woman in the hope it will lead to sex. Apparently this will never work because "women not virtuous like men" So I have to conclude from the context that the "honorable" thing for said woman to do would be to fuck said guy she is not attracted to.

I didn't posit women are less virtuous than men purely because they are not attracted to Nice Guys^tm but rather making an over-arching commentary on the nature of their general world view and sexuality = hypergamous. Women chase value; that's basically their own desire in life and you can see that in their fashion trends, their media, female culture in general, female subreddits, their sex habits, their attraction switches etc. They have no use for people not at least as socially valueble as themselves.

In contrast, I personally believe men have a far more robust concept of personal value. A friend of mine growing up whom was extremely extremely alpha had a best friend who was a computer/video game nerd. This guy had a bowl cut, a nasaly voice and was at least 100lbs overweight. In contrast my alpha friend was basically a gangster (had gotten in actual street fights) and had probably the most amazing skills with women I've ever seen (he used to literally tear family members apart...). He liked this guy because he saw something in him that he respected and could have fun with him. He enjoyed exploring dorky things like Dungeons and Dragons with this guy and that kind of shit.

Women don't don't do this, or at least, have a far lower capacity for this type of behavior in general in contrast to men because the sheer amount of attention, validation an unearned respect they garner by virtue of being born female means they can afford to.

Why see the value in the beat up old muscle car? Polish it up, show it some love and it could be a great catch with a lot of personality, but why bother when I can afford to buy lambos. I crash it, who gives a fuck? Buy another...

Is that virtuous? I didn't ask if desperate men exist, I asked what it is about men that makes their sexual preferences more virtuous.

Men's sexuality is based in one dimension, "do I respect this package? Does this package validate me? Am I attracted to you? Are you nice? Cool, we're probably good to go then."

Women's sexuality is based purely in what she get's out of the economic exchange of validation. Attraction itself, for women, is an economic exchange of validation. Women respect the package only so long as it is the best possible package based purely in physical fitness, social aptitude and economic success.

Small but hugely important difference. I would posit women don't give a fuck about personality so long as they're being adequately validated. Some would argue men are equally as shallow, and I would agree on the high end. A 9/10 guy is going to be fucking 9/10 women regardless if they're axe murderers or not...if they look hot in a miniskirt, they're good to go. However, I'd argue men are far more likely to go the other way; men can readily be happy with a 6/10 if the 6 makes him feel like a man, and has a great personality. A woman would never take a great personality 6 over an douchebag 9 if she can get 9, and most women can initiate sex with men in superior sexual market values. LTR'ing them is their challenge and so this is what you regularly see.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I didn't posit women are less virtuous than men purely because they are not attracted to Nice Guystm but rather making an over-arching commentary on the nature of their general world view and sexuality = hypergamous.

That was the context of the topic though = Nice Guys. Guys who chase women in X way when they should be doing it in Y way or whatever. I want to know what that has to do with virtue, and why the fact that women dont respond to X way makes them non-virtuous.

If we're going to make overreaching declarations about the nature of male and female friendship this topic is spiraling somewhere else entirely.

In contrast, I personally believe men have a far more robust concept of personal value. A friend of mine growing up whom was extremely extremely alpha had a best friend who was a computer/video game nerd. This guy had a bowl cut, a nasaly voice and was at least 100lbs overweight. In contrast my alpha friend was basically a gangster (had gotten in actual street fights) and had probably the most amazing skills with women I've ever seen (he used to literally tear family members apart...). He liked this guy because he saw something in him that he respected and could have fun with him. He enjoyed exploring dorky things like Dungeons and Dragons with this guy and that kind of shit. Women don't don't do this, or at least, have a far lower capacity for this type of behavior in general in contrast to men because the sheer amount of attention, validation an unearned respect they garner by virtue of being born female means they can afford to.

So women dont have close friends?

I'm not sure what an example of a guy being cool towards another guy he presumably wasn't sexually attracted to means in the context here.

Men's sexuality is based in one dimension, "do I respect this package? Does this package validate me? Am I attracted to you? Are you nice? Cool, we're probably good to go then."

What would you call that assessment of "the package" if not value?

Women's sexuality is based purely in what she get's out of the economic exchange of validation. Attraction itself, for women, is an economic exchange of validation. Women respect the package only so long as it is the best possible package based purely in physical fitness, social aptitude and economic success.

You've never encountered a woman who just wanted to fuck for the sake of fucking?

Small but hugely important difference. I would posit women don't give a fuck about personality so long as they're being adequately validated. Some would argue men are equally as shallow, and I would agree on the high end. A 9/10 guy is going to be fucking 9/10 women regardless if they're axe murderers or not...if they look hot in a miniskirt, they're good to go. However, I'd argue men are far more likely to go the other way; men can readily be happy with a 6/10 if the 6 makes him feel like a man, and has a great personality. A woman would never take a great personality 6 over an douchebag 9 if she can get 9, and most women can initiate sex with men in superior sexual market values. LTR'ing them is their challenge and so this is what you regularly see.

This is difficult to parse because it seems like you're using really arbitrary definitions of "value" that make it hard to determine what you're saying. To be clear:

Who places more emphasis on looks?

Who places more emphasis on personality?

Who would take a douchy/axe murder 9 over a nice 6? Men, women or both?

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That was the context of the topic though = Nice Guys. Guys who chase women in X way when they should be doing it in Y way or whatever. I want to know what that has to do with virtue, and why the fact that women dont respond to X way makes them non-virtuous.

If women were as virtuous as men, you would see a greater distribution of more types of value/characteristics winning over sexual partners. Men are far more likely to chose a less attractive partner because they like some specific quality about her than women are to do the same.

So women dont have close friends?

I never claimed women don't have close friends. I don't know where this is coming from.

I'm not sure what an example of a guy being cool towards another guy he presumably wasn't sexually attracted to means in the context here.

It's relevant because~ Men are far more likely to chose a less attractive partner because they like some specific quality about her than women are to do the same.

What would you call that assessment of "the package" if not value?

If you buy computer technology based purely on the speed of the processor, and nothing else, you are likely to make poor decisions fairly consistently. Opting for a slower processor, but leveridging that with more RAM, or a better graphics cards is a better deal, aka, value.

You've never encountered a woman who just wanted to fuck for the sake of fucking?

Sure I have. I have never encountered an attractive woman who fucked just anyone simply because she was horny. Attractive people have options. Why would a horny 9 fuck a 2 when she can get another 9 fairly easily. Having sex with a 2 gets her nothing, including validation and pleasure, which is what is desirable about casual sex.

This is difficult to parse because it seems like you're using really arbitrary definitions of "value"

Value is defined as any trait that would be socio-sexually advantageous and desired amongst the opposite gender or other people. For women, it's almost only ever their physical appearance. For men, it's usually A) physical success (fitness), B) social success (social respect/leadership) and C) economic respect (good, validating job). Other things can factor in depending on your situation in life...the host of parties has value, the one guy in your group of friends with a car who drives everyone everywhere has value, the teacher in a classroom has more value than his students by default, etc.

Who places more emphasis on personality?

Men.

Who would take a douchy/axe murder 9 over a nice 6? Men, women or both?

Women and unattractive men.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

If women were as virtuous as men, you would see a greater distribution of more types of value/characteristics winning over sexual partners. Men are far more likely to chose a less attractive partner because they like some specific quality about her than women are to do the same.

Based on what? Because if were just pulling anecdotal data out of our asses I'd say women are more diverse on their assesment of "value" than men, who trend towards liking overall the same kinds of things on women (certain hip ratio, facial features, smaller window of youth).

s relevant because~ Men are far more likely to chose a less attractive partner because they like some specific quality about her than women are to do the same.

I'm asking how you demonstrate this from an example of a platonic male friendship.

you buy computer technology based purely on the speed of the processor, and nothing else, you are likely to make poor decisions fairly consistently. Opting for a slower processor, but leveridging that with more RAM, or a better graphics cards is a better deal, aka, value

Stereotypically, which gender is more likely to take a "fixer upper" as a partner?

value is defined as any trait that would be socio-sexually advantageous and desired amongst the opposite gender or other people. For women, it's almost only ever their physical appearance.

Wait, didn't you just say that women are less virtuous because they only recognise a few types of value in men? Now you're saying that men rank womens value exclusively on physical appearance? Which is it?

I mean you're saying women care about looks or career success or social success while men care mainly about looks, then trying to spin that somehow into saying men are more virtuous, it makes no sense.

Women and unattractive men.

So your argument is that men are more virtuous than women because they recognise womens value in a less shallow way.

But even an unattractive man would date a 9 with an awful personality over a 6 with a nice personality.

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Based on what? Because if were just pulling anecdotal data out of our asses I'd say women are more diverse on their assesment of "value" than men, who trend towards liking overall the same kinds of things on women (certain hip ratio, facial features, smaller window of youth).

Then make that counter-argument and support it with a argument. If we're going to get into source-whoring this entire subreddit might as well close down...

I'm asking how you demonstrate this from an example of a platonic male friendship.

I'm not sure how I can make it any simpler; a man of high value chose to associate heavily with a man of low value because he wasn't low value to him. Men are more likely to choose social interactions like this because their value system is more robust. A very attractive woman would not associate with a highly unattractive woman because one has nothing to offer the other; women pretty generally engage in hypergamous social interactions. Men are not hypergamous to the same degree.

Stereotypically, which gender is more likely to take a "fixer upper" as a partner?

Women, in romantic comedies staring Jennifer Aniston. This does not reflect real life...

Wait, didn't you just say that women are less virtuous because they only recognise a few types of value in men? Now you're saying that men rank womens value exclusively on physical appearance? Which is it?

Men's tastes in physical appearance vary wildly. The only uniform thing mend tend to demand of women is being physically able-bodied.

Demanding a car with a fresh paint job is a lot less demanding than a demanding a car with anti lock brakes, 20 inch rims, and a forward tire pressire at least 5% higher than the rear.

I mean you're saying women care about looks or career success or social success while men care mainly about looks, then trying to spin that somehow into saying men are more virtuous, it makes no sense.

Yes it does, you're just making non-sequitors. I'm not saying women care about looks, OR, money, OR Career, I'm saying women care about looks AND money, AND career, in an exponential fashion.

The other issue is also minimum standard of attractive, of which men's is far lower than women's.

So your argument is that men are more virtuous than women because they recognise womens value in a less shallow way.

Basically.

But even an unattractive man would date a 9 with an awful personality over a 6 with a nice personality.

Yes, because you're comparing someone who's sex-starved to someone who can have sex with anyone she pleases at any time. An attractive man is more likely to investigate whether a woman of lower sexual market value might interest him romantically than an equally attractive woman would.

If you millions of highly attractive men and women, and tell them to go find a partner they'd want to date, I can almost guarantee there will be a wider negative variance of social value between the men and their partners than the women and their partners.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure how I can make it any simpler; a man of high value chose to associate heavily with a man of low value because he wasn't low value to him. Men are more likely to choose social interactions like this because their value system is more robust. A very attractive woman would not associate with a highly unattractive woman because one has nothing to offer the other; women pretty generally engage in hypergamous social interactions. Men are not hypergamous to the same degree.

1) One of the common "guy jokes" is that you need a wingman because when out approaching women every group of girlfriends has the "fat girl" and its your wingmans job to "take the bullet".

Which is a little crass but it points to the general truth that yes, attractive women do socialise with unattractive ones.

2) Im trying to see how your example of a guys platonic friendship relates back to your original point about Nice Guys, because as far as I can see, it doesn't. My question was why being nice would make someone want to fuck you.

Men's tastes in physical appearance vary wildly. The only uniform thing mend tend to demand of women is being physically able-bodied.

Benedict Cumberbatch has a sizeable female fanbase.

A quick skim also brings up Joshua Jackson, Marilyn Manson, Bruce Willis (58), Adam Driver and Steve freaking Buscemi, and a wide variation on ages and body types.

This has been demonstrated many times, men agree much more on what makes a "hot" woman, but women have a wider range of variation: http://www.wfu.edu/news/release/2009.06.25.a.php

Hell you can see this just with a quick glance at TRP, where the ideal woman should be no older than 24, have xyz laundry list of physical features and so on.

Yes it does, you're just making non-sequitors. I'm not saying women care about looks, OR, money, OR Career, I'm saying women care about looks AND money, AND career, in an exponential fashion.

If you can make up for being ugly by being wealthy and/or charismatic that seems like a pretty good deal.

Isnt the whole concept of game based on the notion that a man can pump up his value in more ways than just looks?

[–]pickup_sticks 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pickup_sticks 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sh1vRed Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First off, I feel you're misrepresenting the typical beta mindset. You've presented the most reprehensible possible example of a "nice guy". Some, perhaps, truly are sociopaths who believe they can con women into become their personal sex dispensaries. But the average "nice guy" is simply an individual who mistakenly believes that niceness is what women -- or at the least particular woman he is after -- truly desires. This belief does not just spontaneously arise through ingrained sexism -- if anything, the opposite is the case. Your typical nice guy IS genuinely nice. He enjoys niceness in others, and, out of sheer naïveté, projects these preferences onto everyone he meets who seems the least bit superficially nice. He longs for intimacy, would love to be approached by a nice, if shy female and treated nicely, fall in love and have loads of faithful monogamous sex. The nice guy is surrounded by other nice guys, is treated nicely by well meaning females who are nonetheless sexually repulsed by his niceness, and so his delusion that most people in the world value niceness the way he does reigns unchecked. If he is unlucky, he'll be further led astray by white knights, embittered alpha widows and manipulative carouselers who will use him as an emotional tampon, stringing him along with promises of a relationship that never materialize and carefully grooming him for maximum niceness - until a breaking point is reached.

This is why many new converts to TRP exhibit such frustration and anger. They have been misled.

A second point. TRP and feminists may both disdain typical nice guy behavior, but for different reasons. Feminism's objections are moral -- I admit, I don't fully grasp them, but I believe the gist of it all is that these men are somehow moral failures. TRP's objection is on strategic grounds. If niceness was a decisive factor in increasing a man's sexual value to most women then TRP would be the nicest place on the Internet.

Now ask yourself. If a woman found herself lusting for an intimate, and yes, physical relationship with a man of comparable attractiveness, and decided to take the "nice girl" approach of baking him things, spoiling him with little gifts, inviting him out and listening to him gripe about his ex, and slipping a hand in his pants at the end at the night as the culmination of her carefully crafted plan to become his loyal, committed highly sexual girlfriend... What do you think the response of that man would be? Even were he fully aware of her connivance from the start? Most men would be delighted that she put forth such an effort. Charmed by her shy, inexperienced but earnest attempts at seduction. Flattered by the notion that she saw him as desirable in every way, for both the short and long term. And his erection would be raging, and quite willing. The friend zone is nigh exclusively populated by frustrated males and there is a reason for this, and the reason is NOT that both sexes are so gosh darned ALIKE when you get right down to it.

That is why it's senseless for feminists to attempt to shame nice guys. They are guilty of no crime, save a stubborn insistence on believing that women ARE the same as men psychologically. Feminism derides them for this while imposing their own female-centric conceptions of what constitutes morally acceptable wooing onto the unfortunate nice guy. It tells him he must learn to love the friend zone because the world needs emotional tampons and it's the right thing to do. TRP educates him on how to punch through it.

[–]IIHotelYorbatreats objects like women-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Blue Pill isn't "beta"
Author	myfriendscantknow
Upvotes	14
Comments	279
Date	January 14, 2014 9:59 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1v6kb6/blue_pill_isnt_beta/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/blue-pill-isnt-beta.286371 https://theredarchive.com/post/286371

Comments