What do you think about this 8 month old thread?

gotsickfromweed · 2013-04-10T00:59:14+00:00

The idea that a woman should put out because you spent money on her is very blue pill. "If I do A, she should do B." "If I comfort and console her when she comes to me with relationship issues, she should be with me after she dumps her boyfriend." "If I help her move her house, she should do something for me in return."

Outcome independence. If I buy her dinner, it's because I feel like buying her dinner. If I do not wish to buy her dinner, I won't. If she argues about it, she has no leg to stand on. I do things for my own amusement and pleasure, not for her. In this case, the man feels entitled to the woman's body, and the woman feels entitled to the man's money and time.

So yeah, if you buy her dinner once or twice and she doesn't put out, you can end it with her. She has no obligation to give you sex, just like you have no obligation to spend time with her just because she isn't crazy/ugly/a bitch.

If you are attractive enough, she WILL have sex with you. Sometimes, buying her dinner and all that shows her that you have money, shows her that a $80 meal is no problem, which makes you more attractive. But stay independent of the outcome. The whole "I bought you dinner 3 times now it's time for you to get naked" reeks of desperation.

theubercuber · 2013-04-09T23:27:54+00:00

The reason this is unsettling is because you are observing the sense of entitlement without any contribution or value.

The sentiment there is "Yes, a man should be a man and buy me dinner. I should never have to pay!"

But then... "Why should he expect anything from me? This is a two-way mutual relationship!"

Hamster's gonna Hamst.

It actually seems most of the top comments are on our side. Against stringing guys along for nothing but free food. The OP had a terrible representation of her BF, and the commenters know that. They are saying "yes, a woman should give some indication of where they stand if they have not yet done so by the third date". I agree completely with that.

[deleted] · 2013-04-09T23:35:55+00:00

Another example of the word rape being watered down and someone fighting for their right to have a man spend money on them without doing anything in return.

"You don't have a right to my body but it's romantic and traditional when I expect you to spend money on me"

pontifx · 2013-04-10T02:11:36+00:00

All womens positions minimize the value a man can produce for himself and attempt to maximize the benefits he produces for "others".

Additionally, when the smarter girl points out that its unattractive his sexuality isn't useful as an agency theres another level of solipsism occurring.

If you see this shit in your interests or conversations next them if a topic change doesn't work. The girls who get "offended" are seldom worth the effort.

Once the creepy rapometer starts its worse then a hamster.

[deleted] · 2013-04-10T03:41:24+00:00

He's not entitled it, just as she is not entitled to his attention/money/dates after 3 dates if she doesn't give him sex.

There is no patriarchal imperative here, it's simply 2 people having different expectations.

DavidTIntellectual · 2013-04-10T14:23:15+00:00

if a guy takes a woman out on some dates and buys her dinner three or four times, she is obligated by unspoken social contract to have sex with him, or at least kiss/engage in some form of sexual contact.

Well let's face it, he's not taking you out because he's such a big fan of going to restaurants, is he...

Title	What do you think about this 8 month old thread?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	11
Comments	10
Date	April 9, 2013 11:07 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1c0v37/what_do_you_think_about_this_8_month_old_thread/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/what-do-you-think-about-this-8-month-old-thread.3904 https://theredarchive.com/post/3904

Comments