~ archived since 2018 ~

Slam poet expresses the "Blue Pill" mentality about relationships

SpermJackalope · 2013-09-04T15:24:14+00:00

http://www.upworthy.com/when-this-guy-explains-why-women-wont-date-him-you-may-roll-your-eyes-but-2-minutes?c=slt1 What do y'all think?...

SpermJackalope

September 4, 2013

7 upvotes

/r/PurplePillDebate

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Slam poet expresses the "Blue Pill" mentality about relationships
Author	SpermJackalope
Upvotes	7
Comments	9
Date	September 4, 2013 3:24 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1lpwb3/slam_poet_expresses_the_blue_pill_mentality_about/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/slam-poet-expresses-the-blue-pill-mentality-about.286817 https://theredarchive.com/post/286817

Comments

[–]TDCRedPill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

As far as I can tell, I agree with almost everything he said and his ideas behind it. Sex isn't owed, being a good friend is part of being a good friend, entitlement to sex because you were friendly is dumb and manipulative, etc. I'm a bit taken back at this poet completely falling into the 'nice guys are bad' frame that's so prevalent, when just a few moments explaining the situation with him and remembering his own behavior at the time would straighten it all out. He made an error, but to the idea of feeling entitled to sex when he didn't feel entitled to it, that's seriously buying into an outside frame.

The part I disagree with is the implication that a friendzoned person, male or female, feels 'owed' sex. The reasoning for the other person to characterize them as expected or entitled is completely understandable, but it's still incorrect to do so because the friendzoned person has no feeling of entitlement or intention of pressuring or manipulating for it.

The friendzoned person made an error in how they behaved, and need to be educated about it, and WANT to be educated about it. The more the only education available is what has been sterilized and cleansed, the more the messages come from a place of keeping women as safe as the boy in the bubble, even at the expense of helping them be happy and involved in successful relationships, the problem will only continue to worsen.

TRP is men speaking to men in ways that matches how men think. The messages from the PC and female side aren't inaccurate, they're just incomplete, and are being misinterpreted by the men who hear them, and causing this sort of behavior, the Nice Guy problem. We empathize with them, understand what their feeling, and help show them how to make things better for their life and all of the people around them. You are demonizing them, shaming them, victim blaming, and preaching at them without the barest attempt to understand their motivations or listen.

We must be monsters. Lord knows you'll view us as such all the way until you make an effort to understand.

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

the 'nice guys are bad' frame

It's a meme that has been constructed out of whole cloth. Have you ever actually seen someone who acted as though he was "entitled" to sex?

It is perfectly normal to develop romantic feelings for a friend. It is perfectly normal to feel hurt by the inevitable rejection. It is perfectly normal to feel that the ongoing hurt of unrequieted love makes continuing the friendship impossible.

All of that is perfectly normal, and all of it happens to both men and women. When it happens to women, we naturally feel empathy. When it happens to men, there is no empathy. Instead, we attach all these negative attributes to the guy.

It is perfectly normal to develop romantic feelings for a friend. - NO, THAT SHITLORD WAS ONLY PRETENDING TO BE A FRIEND SO THAT HE COULD MANIPULATE HER INTO SEX!!
It is perfectly normal to feel hurt by the inevitable rejection. - YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO SEX YOU ASSHOLE!!
It is perfectly normal to feel that the ongoing hurt of unrequieted love makes continuing the friendship impossible. - AS IF THE ONLY REASON TO BE A DECENT FUCKING HUMAN BEING IS IF YOU GET SOMETHING IN RETURN!!!

not a single shred of empathy. I think the underlying cause is the tendency toward automatic in-group bias among women. So, it's natural, but still kind of shitty.

[–]TDCRedPill6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

This is what's killing me about a recent realization; I understand why they're making that mistake.

They're accusing the friendzoned guy of manipulation, because they feel like their being manipulated. From their point of view and the cliche things said during that event, I would totally feel like someone was trying to manipulate me. It is reasonable for them to feel like they're being manipulated. It is incorrect to state that the man is trying to manipulate them, or label him as manipulative.

They're accusing the friendzoned guy of feeling entitled to sex because of the things he's done for her. Considering how I would reflexively try to explain things to her after being accused of being manipulative, and how she wouldn't see those actions or experiences in a sexual light, she'll see those non-sexual activities (Took you to dinner, watched your dog, etc.) only along with what I was asking for then (sex) and reasonably conclude that I thought doing those things for her were the NiceCoins being spent to get sex. Not quite as clear cut and reasonable as the manipulation thing, but an understandable view, especially with solipsism mixed in. Nonetheless, it's an incorrect view that mischaracterizes the male position.

Girl tells the guy to cool his jets, too sudden, etc. He does so, and she sees less of him. He's trying to do exactly what she asked, and she complains that he only was her friend to get sex. Solipsism? Maybe so, but most definitely a lack of any kind of empathy. As a guy, that's about the point when you write her off entirely; if you can't even back off properly without her complaining, nothing to do here, just GTFO.

I'm pretty sure I've got the nice guy/friendzone problem nailed from both sides. I've got an article I've written on it I'm getting some feedback on, and hope to post up soon.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

t is perfectly normal to develop romantic feelings for a friend. - NO, THAT SHITLORD WAS ONLY PRETENDING TO BE A FRIEND SO THAT HE COULD MANIPULATE HER INTO SEX!!

It is perfectly normal to feel hurt by the inevitable rejection. - YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO SEX YOU ASSHOLE!!

It is perfectly normal to feel that the ongoing hurt of unrequieted love makes continuing the friendship impossible. - AS IF THE ONLY REASON TO BE A DECENT FUCKING HUMAN BEING IS IF YOU GET SOMETHING IN RETURN!!!

Does anyone actually say those things though? I don't know anybody, including the most extreme feminists and SRSters, who would say that there is anything wrong with developing romantic feelings for friends or being hurt by rejection. I don't know anyone who would suggest that there is a problem with breaking off a friendship when romantic feelings aren't returned and it's too difficult to remain friends.

Those things have nothing to do with the friendzone though, or the problems associated with "nice guys" complaining about the friendzone. The "friendzone" is the idea that favours and kind acts are performed by the man to the point where they are like a boyfriend, yet receive none of the "benefits" (i.e. sex).

The problem comes when "nice guys" start complaining about the fact that they are practically this girl's boyfriend, and yet she chooses to date and sleep with other people. As if doing nice things for her means that he should be chosen for sex - especially when often the girl has no idea that the guy even likes her.

The point being that you're supposed to do nice things for people because you like them as individuals and you want them to be happy. Doing nice things and then getting annoyed because they, in turn, do nice things for other people is having a sense of entitlement. If you are doing nice things for a friend purely in the hopes of getting laid, then you're a shitty friend.

This becomes even more psychotic when the "nice guy" starts dreaming up conspiracies about how the women is purposefully keeping men around to do nice things for her, and calling them "orbiters". This not only implies that the men should be entitled to sex, but the entire statement relies on the premise that such men deserve sex. If they didn't, then they would just be friends doing nice things for other friends who they might be attracted to.

You get similarly ridiculous claims from people who criticise women for not sleeping with them, or not performing a specific sex act with them, but doing it with their next boyfriend or even a guy they've just met. I obviously don't need to explain why that line of reasoning is moronic.

[–]TDCRedPill6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

(The entire orbiters paragraph is so loaded I dont even know where to begin, and would detract from this thread's subject.)

Does anyone actually say those things though?

notsureifserious.jpg. ...Yes. You are saying them right now.

Those things have nothing to do with the friendzone though, or the problems associated with "nice guys" complaining about the friendzone.

hand rubbing excitement. Wrong. Let me show you something neat.

Here's a part I aught to make clear: You're right. Someone doing dick moves for dick reasons is a dick. The problem is that you're assuming the people complaining about the friendzone have dick reasons. You definitely don't have anything to declare they were dick moves in the cliche scenario either; he was in fact being nice to her, propositioned her, and either continued in a friend role or left, all of which were approved by you as acceptable in nicethingyoucanthave's list. [But sadly I must concede a very good chance of being able to find examples of men and women doing dick moves after the friendzoning takes place. I make no claim otherwise. Rejection does harsh things to people, and can cause people to do harsh things.]

So the only way this can fly is if there are dick reasons behind his nice actions. You're explaining that these malformed and socially objectional reasons are signs of a deficient mind. You're right. The error is thinking that those are the correct reasons they were working on, that you're correctly identifying their emotions and thought processes. You're not.

The point being that you're supposed to do nice things for people because you like them as individuals and you want them to be happy.

Sure. No reason to believe that isn't exactly why they were doing them.

Doing nice things and then getting annoyed because they, in turn, do nice things for other people is having a sense of entitlement.

Sure, completely agreed. The only problem is, you're incorrectly assuming their emotion (annoyance) and motivations (nice coins to buy sex). Emotions of insecurity/rejection/shame/loss/depression all fit just as well. Motivations of 'trying to build a relationship' sound like a good fit, too.

If you are doing nice things for a friend purely in the hopes of getting laid, then you're a shitty friend.

Sure. But you haven't proven the antecedent, and that'd require know their hopes and dreams.

The problem comes when "nice guys" start complaining about the fact that they are practically this girl's boyfriend, and yet she chooses to date and sleep with other people.

Not too happy about the idea of people complaining being a problem. Not sure why you feel people complaining about relationships is a problem, but I disagree. I'm going to assume you don't see the complaining itself being the problem, which is why you needed the second line.

As if doing nice things for her means that he should be chosen for sex - especially when often the girl has no idea that the guy even likes her.

And yet after such a period of long cluelessness, she and you become Kreskin and able to see his motivations and emotions with crystal clarity. After all, it's the emotions and motivations you're hating on, not the actions.

You're condemning people who want to love and be loved for a thought crime they didn't commit.

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

(The entire orbiters paragraph is so loaded I dont even know where to begin, and would detract from this thread's subject.)

There's nothing loaded, the "orbiter" conspiracy theory is ridiculous.

notsureifserious.jpg. ...Yes. You are saying them right now.

No I didn't.

The problem is that you're assuming the people complaining about the friendzone have dick reasons.

No I'm not. I'm explaining that the only people complaining about the people who complain about the friendzone, are only those who have dick reasons.

That is, nobody cares when someone develops romantic feelings for someone and decides they can't be friends because it hurts too much. People care when a person calls the woman a "manipulative bitch" or whatever because she has the audacity to enjoy being someone's friend and not wanting to take it further.

The error is thinking that those are the correct reasons they were working on, that you're correctly identifying their emotions and thought processes. You're not.

No, the error is on your part. You're assuming that anybody has ever made the complaints in NTYCH's list, as they would be people who complain about the friendzone without dick reasons. But nobody ever says anything like what NTYCH says because when people complain about assholes talking about being "friendzoned", they're talking about people with dick reasons.

Sure, completely agreed. The only problem is, you're incorrectly assuming their emotion (annoyance) and motivations (nice coins to buy sex). Emotions of insecurity/rejection/shame/loss/depression all fit just as well. Motivations of 'trying to build a relationship' sound like a good fit, too.

I'm not wrong because at the beginning of my post (when I rejected NTYCH's list) I explicitly excluded those types of people from what we're talking about.

Sure. But you haven't proven the antecedent, and that'd require know their hopes and dreams.

We do know their motivations because these people say things like, "I wasted all that time hanging out with her and buying her gifts, and then she went and slept with her new boyfriend!". The idea that spending time with a friend is a "waste" because you didn't get sex necessarily means that they were doing nice things to get laid.

Not too happy about the idea of people complaining being a problem. Not sure why you feel people complaining about relationships is a problem, but I disagree. I'm going to assume you don't see the complaining itself being the problem, which is why you needed the second line.

Of course I don't see a problem with people complaining, the emphasis is on what they are complaining about.

And yet after such a period of long cluelessness, she and you become Kreskin and able to see his motivations and emotions with crystal clarity. After all, it's the emotions and motivations you're hating on, not the actions.

No I'm 'hating on' the actions and comments and attitudes towards women.

You're condemning people who want to love and be loved for a thought crime they didn't commit.

Haha, this comment has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said. I've never criticised people who "want to love and be loved", and at no point have I criticised someone for thought crimes. If you hadn't quoted a number of my sentences above, I would have assumed that you only accidentally replied to my post.

[–]TDCRedPill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No I'm not. I'm explaining that the only people complaining about the people who complain about the friendzone, are only those who have dick reasons

Damn, why didnt you say that in the beginning? I'd be behind you completely. Althought I do feel a little guilty; I think they're misguided, not malicious. Or you didn't think that sentence through completely.

There's nothing loaded, the "orbiter" conspiracy theory is ridiculous.

Then make a new post about it. It detracts from this subject.

People care when a person calls the woman a "manipulative bitch" or whatever because she has the audacity to enjoy being someone's friend and not wanting to take it further.

Easily could be called a dick move for name calling, but still requires that reasoning and emotions.

You're assuming that anybody has ever made the complaints in NTYCH's list, as they would be people who complain about the friendzone without dick reasons.

So there do exist people who complain about the friendzone without dick reasons? Glad we made it this far.

I'm not wrong because at the beginning of my post (when I rejected NTYCH's list) I explicitly excluded those types of people from what we're talking about.

Excellent! In return I'll concede the possibility that in this world of 7 billion+ people that there almost certainly exists individuals with the same style of deficient thinking. Im assuming you think the NYTCH group is rare while the deficient group is common, while I'm in the opposite. The question is, how can we determine which one they are in? In the cliche friendzone scenario, it's easily possible that the objective actions (and the subjective feels of the friendzoner, but I think we agree that's usually the woman in the cliche scenario) can be entirely identical. So how do we differentiate which one is which without knowing his motivations and reasoning at the time?

We do know their motivations because these people say things like, "I wasted all that time hanging out with her and buying her gifts, and then she went and slept with her new boyfriend!". The idea that spending time with a friend is a "waste" because you didn't get sex necessarily means that they were doing nice things to get laid.

No, it does not. That exact same expression is commonplace at the end of any sexual relationship where someone was heavily emotionally invested, even the one sided ones. Take the exact same situation and change only the fact that they were sexual; the exact same exclamation would fit perfectly. Anyone going through divorce, same thing "I gave him the best years of my life and this is how he treats me?". We don't jump on her saying "You're not entitled to his cock or cash just because he's known you for so long!" It's a statement of loss, regret, and pain. It is not the statement of 'Damn, my attempts to manipulate her failed.' He wouldn't be feeling pain if he didn't care.

I've never criticised people who "want to love and be loved", and at no point have I criticised someone for thought crimes.

If the only difference between NYTCH's lists and your fake nice guys is the motivations behind their actions, it's a thought crime.

Maybe there's a component here I'm missing. I'd love to have some objective action that separate NYTCH's list from your fake nice guys. But so far, all I see different is the motivations the person has for those actions, and a willingness to vilify a large section of failing men because it's more comfortable for folks like you to assign malice when ignorance fits, and IMHO, fits better.

[Even better, red pill explains why you'd be more comfortable with that. They're low value men and boys, made lower by their sexual and social inexperience and social disproof.]

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