The Life Story of Carol.

Reddit View
April 22, 2017


This essay tells the life story of Carol - the woman who asks "Where have all the Good Men gone?", along with how the "Good Men" she's searching for are affected by her behavior. We conclude with lessons these men have learned after taking the Red Pill. It is one of my longer essays, however at certain sections I digress using quote boxes rather than using footnotes to add some depth to the points being made. You can skip the quote boxes but I recommend reading it all to get the full picture. By reading this essay, you will also learn why the jerks are so successful with women, and how to tell a woman rode the carousel just from reading her online dating profile.



We all know of the "Good Men" in society that women refer to. They're often called the Nice Guys; the squares who work the 9-to-5; who don't have a criminal record; the ones who support feminism; who compliment a woman's appearance and her accomplishments, and gives her a shoulder to cry on when she's down; the ones who make good providers and father-figures; and the ones who do their best to win women's affections through the respect, courtesy and "good personality" that women demand, such as here, here, here and here, with most men being taught such values from childhood.

So it would seem a no-brainer that women would readily date men who possess these qualities. However, what women say and what women do are often two different things.


A Double Life

Attractive women in their 20s have multiple opportunities to date the Good Men they claim to want, but they consistently reject or friendzone these men in favor of jerks and bad boys who just pump and dump them.

Many men fall for Carol because she projects certain "Good Girl" qualities worthy of a long-term relationship. She doesn't dress slutty or behave like she's from Girls Gone Wild. On the surface she dresses and behaves like a civilized lady.

But Carol actually lives a double life: the respectable "good girl" in public, and the "bad girl" (NSFW) in private. And whether she's one or the other depends on the behavior of the man who comes onto her. If he presents himself as a Nice Guy, then she's a prude who's "not that kind of girl", and "I don't kiss on the first date", and "I respect myself". But if he presents himself as the handsome Bad Boy, then she's "adventurous", "open to new experiences", and "down to fuck".

Good Men are frustrated because Carol misrepresents the kind of man she wants, claiming she wants a "good man who treats me with respect".[1][2][3][4] Then when these men present themselves, she rejects or friendzones them and dates jerks and bad boys instead, which suggests that women are more attracted to a man's looks and "bad boy" behavior rather than how nice he treats her. She says one thing and does another (NSFW), all with her hamster's full support.


In the midst of their frustration is the type of man that Good Men are often rejected for. Carol didn't reject him for men with STEM expertise, or rational intelligence, or great chivalry, or level-headed men who are advancing society in socially respectable ways. She rejected him for what is often considered the "lowest" men of society:[1][2] thugs, jocks, high-school dropouts, street-hustlers, criminals, dead-beats; men who are often rowdy, impulsive, and prone to violence, all of which suggests that for all the advancements men have made in science, technology, philosophy and civility throughout human history, women haven't evolved beyond wanting to mate with the most primitive of men since we were hunter-gatherers.


The Friendzone

But rather than give Good Men the courtesy of not wasting their time with a woman who has no romantic interest in them, Carol instead says "Let's just be friends". She intuitively knows he wants to date her - and at times he's made it clear - but she offers him "friendship" instead for no other purpose than to use him for attention and favors: "Can you hold my coffee?", "Can you fix my computer?", "Can you move my furniture?", "Can you listen to me complain for hours about the jerks who are fucking me?". She takes advantage of his openness under the premise that it's easier to manipulate someone when they care about you or want you.

To keep him wrapped around her finger - and the reason so many men stay in the friendzone - is she dangles the carrot of potential romance, but keeps it just out of his reach. She seduces him with compliments like "You're such a good man", "I love the way you treat me", "You're better than all the jerks I've dated", "You'd make a great boyfriend", "Maybe someday but not right now", "I value our friendship and don't want to rush into anything". All of which shows that it's not that Good Men are doing nice things in uncertainty. They're told by women that their behavior makes them ideal for a relationship.[1][2]

And as he waits patiently and attentively for her to come around to wanting to date him, Carol is going to the club and right-swiping on Tinder to ride the cock Carousel, for no other purpose than to indulge in the kind of hedonism that feminists have pushed for. She strings him along for attention and favors for months to years without a single date, while getting banged by complete strangers within hours of meeting.

Then whenever he complains about getting rejected or friendzoned for being the "Good Man" she claims to want, Carol's go-to response is "You are not owed sex for anything" and "Being nice doesn't entitle you to my body", which not only shames men for only wanting sex when they were really demonstrating good relationship material, but shows woman's utter disregard and lack of appreciation for men who were playing by her rules. Then to add insult to injury, she gives herself eagerly to men who are breaking those rules. He is then labeled the real jerk for calling out her hypocrisy, and further condemned for not really being a "Good Man" at all.


This is because attractive women in English-speaking countries lack any appreciative faculty for Good Men. They've been given constant attention and favors without merit or compensation since childhood that they think it is something due to them as a matter of course. So when Carol says "You are not owed sex for anything", she's effectively saying "You are obligated to give me copious amounts of attention and favors as the basic form of respect to which I'm entitled. But it doesn't make you worthy of sex, or even a date. I'm also shaming you for using our 'friendship' to get sex, to hide the fact that I'm using the same 'friendship' to get attention and favors from you." That she demands and receives most of the attention and favors in these "friendships" suggests that she sees Good Men more as servants than friends.

It is also worth noting that statements like "You are not owed sex for anything" and "Being nice doesn't entitle you to my body" are used to suppress male sexuality by making Good Men feel guilty for even wanting sex. Women who say these lines enjoy LOTS of sex through the carousel, but then turn around and shame men for wanting the same thing. So it's not that he wasn't doing enough to be worthy of sex. It's that his role as "servant" in her eyes meant he shouldn't be enjoying any kind of physical intimacy at all.

While I agree that people should have the willpower to walk away from situations they're not benefiting from, Good Men wouldn't feel like they were "owed" anything if women weren't stringing them along and using them in the process.


Chasing Chad's Commitment

So Carol lives this double-life (NSFW) of being chaste by day and slut by night for many years. But contrary to popular belief, she doesn't immediately go looking for a beta provider once she approaches the Wall.

Just prior to her decline in the Sexual Marketplace due to her less attractive looks, Carol goes through a period of "Chasing Chad's Commitment". She doesn't really want a Good Man just yet, but she now wants "more than sex" from men on the carousel. She knows she's getting older and competing with younger women for the same men, so she attempts to land the most attractive man for a long-term relationship. But instead of dating the men who offer her the attention, respect and financial stability she claim she wants, she still chases the jerks and bad boys for commitment.[1][2] Her logic is "If I'm good enough for him to fuck, maybe I'm good enough for him to want something more. Plus he gives me feels." So instead of dating a genuinely Good Man, Carol seeks "Good Man" qualities from the bad boys, and pushes them for committment.[1][2] It is also at this point that "strong independent women" who have college degrees and bigger paychecks tend to go after high-SMV men such as handsome doctors, attorneys and business owners.

But when the jerks pump and dump her in response, and the high-SMV men reject her wish for commitment, Carol whines about how much she "always wanted" a serious relationship, and how "good" and "deserving" she is. After freely giving away her most "precious asset" to men who represent the opposite of her idea of a "Good Man", she's still left wondering "Why won't Chad commit to me?"


The Karma of the Cock Carousel

And herein lies the karma of riding the cock carousel: Just as she used the Nice Guy for attention and favors while dangling the possibility of sex to keep him invested, Chad uses her for sex while dangling the possibility of commitment to keep her invested. If she friendzoned the Nice Guy with no intentions of dating him, then Chad fuckzones her with no intentions of saying "I do". And just as she shamed the Nice Guy for thinking he was "owed sex" just for being nice, she finds herself thinking she should be "owed commitment" just for being a slut.


"Where have all the Good Men gone?"

But when she's in her 30s with depreciated looks, jerks who won't commit, the likelihood of being a single-mom, and the social pressure from her married girlfriends and relatives, Carol finally asks "Where have all the Good Men gone?", which translates to "Where are all the nice, respectful men I constantly rejected to rescue me from loneliness, financial insecurity, my fatherless child, and social criticism, and provide me with the comfortable lifestyle to which I'm owed?"

She realizes her Sexual Market Value has tanked and that she failed in landing the man she really wants for a long-term relationship. So after a decade or more of steamy, passionate sex with dozens of bad boys she eagerly allowed to fill her holes, Carol is finally ready to date the Good Men.

To secure this Good Man for herself, Carol attempts to emulate Good Girl qualities, which includes projecting a virtuous persona, and renouncing jerks in favor of Good Men, often portraying herself as a damsel in distress to bait unsuspecting White Knights into rescuing her. Funny how back when she was young and eager for the carousel he was a "pathetic Nice Guy" who wasn't worth her time, but now that she's past her prime and needs a bailout he's a "Real Man" who treats her with respect.

Some think the Good Men will be there waiting for Carol with open arms at the end of the carousel ride, but that's not true, at least not as convenient as she would like. Due mostly to her now less attractive looks - and to my bias, because she constantly pushed Good Men away to ride the carousel - she's going to go through a "dry spell" where no man wants her except for sex, and she's going to experience what life is like through the eyes of the men she rejected. The few Good Men willing to give her any attention now are long-distance White Knights.

The point being that right around the time Carol is "ready" for a Good Man, is the time those Good Men have become aware of their increased value in the Sexual Marketplace, and many aren't ready to settle down just yet.[1][2][3] And the ones who are ready are simply not enthusiastic about sharing their time and hard-earned resources with an older woman they suspect had a promiscuous past. First off, she's no longer as youthful and attractive as she used to be. But that she was a "bad boy" chaser who would have likely rejected them in her prime - and now wants to carry her self-serving, unstable behavior into the current relationship - only reinforces their disinterest.


Women think their sexual history should have no consequences on their future behavior or relationships.[1][2] They think they can ride the carousel for a decade, then somehow easily play the role of faithful, loving wife, and shouldn't be judged for her slutty behavior because "The past is the past, plus we weren't together at the time I enjoyed getting gangbanged by the college frat."

The truth is once a woman has been fucked by enough cocks, especially big ones wielded by strong, dominant men who know how to use them, her ability to stay with one man long term is diminished because she judges her current partner by her carousel years. If he's too focused on "making love" and doesn't fuck her with the same measure of dominance that Chad did,[1][2] then she will cheat or leave. Good cock is an addictive drug (NSFW) to women, and is the root cause of Alpha-widowhood.


Lessons Learned

Fortunately, Good Men are waking up to the truth about how women operate, and with the help of an abundance of information in the Manosphere - combined with life experience - he learned a few lessons about women along the way:

  • He learned that women aren't really attracted to men who are attentive and respectful, because such behavior only builds comfort and isn't sexually arousing. Too much comfort results in being "too nice", and "boring", which are prerequisites for the friendzone. Conversely, women are turned on by good looks and Alpha behavior. So it's not necessary for him to be a thug covered in tattoos to attract women, because women are attracted to charisma, non-neediness and cocky-funny behavior from the man who doesn't let women have their way all the time; the man who can make women feel a variety of emotions instead of just the positive ones. At the extreme end is women's attraction to handsome alphas who disrespect, domineer, and abuse them.

  • He learned that women in their 20s are generally more interested in casual sex and serial monogamy rather than committed relationships until they hit the Wall,[1][2] with some Good Men having witnessed this behavior first hand, the exception to promiscuity being of course woman's desire for commitment from handsome jerks. She knows the genuine Good Men are the ones she rejects or friendzones, but she takes their qualities and projects them onto the jerks who are more handsome and exciting. And this is because at its core, the term "jerk" and "bad boy" represents the man who has sex with women while giving her minimal commitment and affection she wants in return. He withholds affection such as complimenting her looks, listening to her problems, buying her gifts, and saying "I love you", and only giving her those things in small doses to keep her hooked in wanting more. So in the prime of her youth, any desire for a "Good Man" is really a desire for the jerks she dates to be more affectionate, faithful and hard-working.

  • He learned that riding a carousel of cocks before settling down with a "Good Man" is not only planned by women,[1][2][3] but it's even encouraged by feminists. Some women will even run damage control to keep frustrated men patiently waiting while she rides the carousel a little while longer. So for her to ask about the Good Men after she's post-wall suggests they were available in her prime, but she rejected them thinking they'd always be around like a beta orbiter. Some women know they have a good thing early on and still want the carousel in order to "find themselves".

  • He learned that the real reason women shame Good Men who complain about getting rejected for jerks is so those women can feel justified in dating the jerks. She can't come out and say "I don't like men who respect me," because she's socially expected to want that, and it makes her appear trashy if she doesn't. Women are expected to want respect and courtesy from men through a combination of conservative and feminist conditioning. But good looks and jerkish behavior gives her tingles instead, creating an internal conflict. She can't find fault in Good Men's behavior because every Good Man she's encountered has indeed treated her with respect by not escalating, by not bringing up sex, and by "friends first". But she will never reveal how turned on she was by the handsome jerk who moved deep into her personal space to feel her up without her consent, who brought up sex within minutes of meeting like it was no big deal, and how he was not the type of guy she wanted her parents to meet because such an admission is "taboo", "slutty", and "unlady-like". So to resolve this conflict, Carol demonizes Good Men for pretending to be nice, for only wanting sex, and for self-entitlement to women's bodies.[1][2] Now that the Good Men appear worse than what they are in her eyes, Carol feels justified in pursuing the jerks, to include projecting "Good Man" qualities unto them.

  • He learned that women who rode the carousel generally don't make good long-term partners because they're self-serving, disrespectful, unappreciative, they aren't good homemakers, and they aren't committed. First of all, they seem to think that Good Men are okay being picked last to jerks,[1][2] like they're disposable toys she can take off the shelf and play with like she did on the carousel, which supports the perspective that "women are children."[1][2] And secondly, just like her relationships with friendzoned men, Carol will want the LTR to be all about her like a pampered baby, and that her current partner should have no problem that she indulged in wild abandon with hot strangers, but can't give the man who provides for her an occasional handjob of appreciation without him having to pull teeth (NSFW) to get it. Men in relationships with women they met in her late-20s or older should be aware of the signs that she might be a former carousel rider who is only interested in his resources and servitude, as it would shed some light as to why she's uncooperative in the relationship, and unenthusiastic in the bedroom.

  • And perhaps most important, he learned that the term "Good Man" has been hijacked by feminism to label the type of man it wants in service to its agenda of sexual dominance, which includes having subservient men at its disposal.[1][2][3] In other words, all "Nice Guy" qualities such as "respect", "courtesy" and "provider" are now feminist ideals that helps it divide men into two camps: Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks; the "bad", "domineering" men who women want fucking them, and the "nice", "respectful" men who women want providing for them. And that no matter what man she secures from the latter category, all she really wants from him is financial stability and pampering, not "love", despite her words.[1][2] And it is for this reason that men in the Friendzone are harshly judged for complaining about their meager rations of "friends without benefits": Because they're questioning the feminine imperative, and resisting the bondage which was conditioned into them since childhood. As a man takes the Red Pill over time, he sees the two camps with greater clarity, and with the right qualifications can choose which camp to participate in, or go his own way (with him likely only participating in an LTR as an Alpha-provider or Wolf Alpha). Ultimately, he will not allow himself to be defined nor controlled by feminism.



In response to women's actual sexual preference and mating behavior, Good Men have started exposing women's hypocrisy,[1][2][3] sometimes doing so through art, music, and even satire.[1][2][3] Even the "strong independent woman" is given a blunt response as to why - after acquiring a degree, bigger paycheck, and being "empowered" by feminism - she still can't find a "Good Man".[1][2][3][4]

So where exactly have all the Good Men gone? Well, some Good Men have become the jerks women apparently love just to get laid, and it worked.[1][2][3]. Others have left the country to find women who are more appreciative and accommodating to their niceness. And still others have stopped dating altogether because of women's deceptive, manipulative, and relentless shit-testing nature, with these men going their own way to pursue their passions. But many are still proverbial Good Men, but now with greater income, Red Pill awareness, and selfishness about their goals, so any carousellers hoping to cash in after the ride is over are likely to have their pussy pass denied.


tl;dr: Young attractive women consistently reject or friendzone Good Men in favor of jerks and bad boys who just pump and dump them. But when she's post-wall and looking for a provider, she asks "Where have all the Good Men gone?" Through Red Pill awareness, more Good Men are avoiding commitment to such women.

Post Information
Title The Life Story of Carol.
Author kevin32
Upvotes 933
Comments 149
Date 22 April 2017 01:57 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Original Link
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:

[–]2kevin32[S] 197 points198 points  (22 children) | Copy

I would like to mention here in the comments that in response to r-niceguys, which demonizes men for expressing frustration over women's hypocrisy, I started the subreddit r-WhereAreAllTheGoodMen to showcase what happens to women who constantly reject Good Men in the prime of their youth to ride the carousel.

[–]bastardstepchild25 points26 points  (2 children) | Copy

Any objections if I cross post from nice guys to where are all the good men? I'd like to see the differences in the discussions.

[–]2kevin32[S] 26 points27 points  (1 child) | Copy

I'm sure there are several posts with men on niceguys complaining about women rejecting them for jerks, but WhereAreAllTheGoodMen exists mainly to showcase the women who are looking for a "Good Man" at the end of the carousel ride when she's approaching the Wall.

Cross-posts of "nice girls" would be more appropriate provided she's looking for a "Good Man" while rejecting jerks.

At the same time, I've thought about creating a "nice guys" type sub that deals specifically with the differences in discussions you're talking about. It's something I'd like to do, but can't say when.

[–]Cesare_MA points points [recovered] | Copy

I get what you're saying and all, but God damn can we stop with the "women always go for thugs, badboys, etc." bull?

Yeah the "nice guys" you mention might be real smart and nice or whatever, but they're socially inept and fucking spineless. Would you befriend one of these guys, share your best memories with him, call him when shit gets real? No. So why would the girl wanna fuck him?

You're making it sound like you have to be a complete degenerate to be good with girls. Many of the guys here that can pull don't have criminal records and weren't at the top of the food chain in college/high school? Tbh using that terminology the way you do makes it sound like you've got a chip on your shoulder from an ex or you're still in middle school/high school and think you've got the world figured out. If you actually go outside you'll see that the majority of guys who have considerable success with women are not criminals or stereotypical football player jocks.

[–]DigitallyDisrupt26 points27 points  (3 children) | Copy

can we stop with the "women always go for thugs, badboys, etc." bull?

I posit, you do not get it.

He's right. I'm not a degenerate nor criminal, but afagac, I am a bad boy, because of my work and "hobbies" and interests. Throw in a dash of DGAF, and that's what he means.

[–]Cesare_MA points points [recovered] | Copy

I guess I just don't like the term "badboy" because a lot of the guys that use it are niceguys aka betas. You're right though. I've noticed as I've improved with girls I've also become douchier.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This post is good in how it sums up the whole pre-wall post-wall af/bb thing with women, but op comes off as a sad beta thinking its not his fault for not getting laid despite being a loser.

[–]2kevin32[S] 8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy

By saying "can we stop with the 'women always go for thugs, badboys, etc.' bull", you're saying you're not a jerk; that you're the "Good Guy who can get the girl". The problem is men like you still give a fuck. You still follow the status quo by doing the 9-to-5, following the rules and not breaking any laws. You won't hit a woman, or steal from the store, or run dread game because "that's wrong". You're probably handsome, witty and charming enough to bed her, but you're not narcissistic, deceptive or manipulative. You care about her feelings, and you give her more attention, affection and commitment than the jerk. This puts you in "good boyfriend" territory.

At its core, the term "jerk" and "bad boy" represents the man who has sex with women while giving her minimal commitment and affection she wants in return. He withholds affection such as complimenting her looks, listening to her problems, buying her gifts, and saying "I love you", and only giving her those things in small doses to keep her hooked in wanting more. Then when she gives him an ultimatum to fully commit and to be more affectionate, he dumps her. That's why he's called a "jerk": He never gives his all to her the way Good Men do.

I suppose the good news is that you're the "Ideal Man" women want to marry as they approach the Wall before they have to settle for the beta. But you're also potentially the guy that she will cheat on with the jerk precisely because your "good guy" behavior is all too familiar to her from her beta orbiters and most blue-pilled men.

The essay is meant to emphasize woman's stark contrast between her words: "I want a good man who treats me with respect", and her actions: dating every man except the "Good Man" until she's hitting the Wall, and being encouraged to do so by feminism.

So young women do have a strong attraction to handsome "degenerates", primarily because of their raw masculinity, and the dangerous but exciting DGAF attitude they exude. Men coming from beta backgrounds have to put in a lot of work towards inner game to even come within a mile radius of that level of alpha. The degenerates are pure natural narcissists from childhood.

And to my bias, I think the attraction is stronger to these dark-triad types than to even cocky-funny alphas. And as long as women keep choosing the degenerates over Good Men only to call upon them past her prime, the "women always go for thugs, badboys, etc." narrative will persist.

[–]2931333 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think 'degenerates' or 'bad boys' is just a bad example for 'hard to get' and 'mysterious'.

I don't think the real bad traits like criminal record are what get them (well, maybe for a quick exotic fuck), but maybe being hard to get and hard to read is what really makes them interested.

It's pretty much the same for men. You're not bragging about that slut you fucked after all, but about the model. So why should she be proud on getting emotional support from a nice guy?

[–]Cesare_MA points points [recovered] | Copy

I'm also a little biased in that I go to a wealthy university so there aren't many degenerate types around me.

I agree with you in most things, it's just I've seen the "Good guy/bad boy" dichotomy so many times and it's almost always from neckbeards, so that's how I imagined you to be.

Also, I would by no means consider myself a "good guy". I don't have a criminal record or anything, and I am studying a difficult major, but I can't say I care about the majority of women beyond my ability to fuck them. Never been in a relationship before, although majority of my life that was not by my own choice.

[–]p00nbrigade1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The "thug" and "bad boy" image is easy to paint with words. That's why he used it.

The men who are most successful with women are ones who enjoy women as if they are another fine complement to an otherwise prosperous life.

I enjoy different flavors of chicks the same way I enjoy some good old recreational drug use, shooting guns, getting a new tattoo and riding my motorcycle. Chasing new women gives me a thrill- they are just another form of entertainment for the time being and when I get bored of them (most of them are pretty boring) I just find a new one.

That's how you have to treat women if you want to be successful with them.

[–]thebluepool4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Subscribed! We need more equal representation to balance out this female liberal bullshit I constantly see on reddit.

[–]manzaneg0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I couldn't find that subbreddit

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

You're good at seeing through double-standards. I enjoy your trollery. May much chocolate come to you, may you find yourself with a delicious chocolate milk in your hand and the sunset at your back.

[–]Rudeyyyy74 points75 points  (3 children) | Copy

Oh my god this was me in high school. Befriending the hottest girls in school thinking they'd eventually fall in love with me because I played sports and waiting around meanwhile they're blowing the football team while I'm at practice. Some were cheerleaders too. God what a fucking beta faggot I was. Thank god I found TRP and am in college now.

[–]TryhardPantiesON15 points16 points  (1 child) | Copy

This was me too, i cut all those one-sided friendships with women, after seeing that i wasn't getting any from them for being nice but they were getting everything from me, then at the same time they were giving everything for Chad, while he wasn't giving them anything.

Not an expert but what i can extract from all this is:

  • Seduce and attract a woman.
  • Bring her to your frame
  • If she doesn't want to play by your rules or give you what you want, bye bye her
  • It is almost 100% guarantee she will come back, women want what they can't have
  • Keep pushing her towards your frame, and make her play by your rules

This is the only way to get what you want from women, NOT being nice, NOT doing them favors, NOT listening to their rants about Chad and drying her tears.

[–]Rudeyyyy7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

THIS^ I'm seeing it more and more every day in college. Girl in one of my classes asked me to help her with registering for next semester, told her no I can't because I have my own registering to do. Calls me a dick and I just laugh and walk away. Few days later she's physically running after me just so she can walk with me. How pathetic.

[–]Eydtkuhnen points points [recovered] | Copy

Love this essay. I'd say this is a great and brief introduction to TRP and I can relate to many of this points given here.

Next time, when someone complains about the friendzone or where the good man have gone, this one will spare me from many work and discussions.


[–]OmegaMan250 points51 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is a very good treatise on what young men should watch out for.

It's depressing to read, but then the truth is often painful. Still it is far better to have a grasp on reality than to blunder into a marriage with a ho, and most likely be divorce-raped within 5 to 10 years.

I sometimes think that a motto for today's world should be:

'Tis better to have never loved, than to have loved and lost it all in a frivolous divorce'

[–]mnemos_135 points36 points  (14 children) | Copy

Given the sheer breadth of examples you've linked here, you've comprehensively destroyed the "cherry-picking" defense bloopies throw up when they ask us to provide examples of the concepts we discuss.

Very impressive work sir, certainly one for the ages. This is going to become part of my "Greats of TRP" refresher cycle.

[–]d0lphinsex3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy


Also, I really love that there are a variety of sources: some from TRP, some from articles and some from women themselves.

[–]testmypatience-3 points-2 points  (12 children) | Copy

Large quantity =/= large percentage or accurate representation

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (9 children) | Copy

If you want, feel free to make a post that says the complete opposite of this with just as much evidence to state otherwise

[–]testmypatience-5 points-4 points  (6 children) | Copy

Examples =/= Statistical data

Nobody has objective stats on what we are talking about. Not even divorce stats are accurate enough to work with solidly. Who the hell would actually keep stats on why relationships break up? Even divorce cases aren't able to accurately nail it down and why no fault divorces started happening. Women were getting stuck in marriages that they were being beat and abused but couldn't get out of the marriages because they didn't have sufficient proof very often.

Everyone can go online and grab screenshot examples of the behavior but rarely does anyone have actual objective statistical data to show.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

Well ya, that's why I'm asking you for examples of the complete opposite. There's no statistic that can prove this, only theories. Just do what the guy above did but with the opposite happening.

If the opposite is more likely to happen then it shouldn't be hard to gather more examples than the OP has.

[–]testmypatience0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

If you live in the real world, it is pretty obvious that counter examples exist. Examples aren't useful for this kind of debate considering exceptions tend to exist to most things. Rule 34 comes to mind.

For example. If I wanted to say that there are tons of Furries and that most people are them, I'd just go to a few websites, forums, and videos that talk about furries being awesome and them all talking and use those as evidence. That would be stupid evidence.

Examples easily bring exceptions. Only statistical numbers can prove your point about the prevalence of a thing. Examples only prove to give you exceptions. So if you want something representative of a group, statistical type data is needed, not random google searches that are of course going to bring up what is searched.

[–]red-adherent0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

You are the beta fucking loser of the week. Jezebel is that way ========> And no, were still not going to vote for Hillary you complete fucking loser.

Lol you just typed two posts that say absolutely fucking nothing!

[–]testmypatience1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

It looks like facts upset you. You poor baby. Lol

[–]red-adherent-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

Did you go to hillarys inauguration?

[–]testmypatience1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

lol, I don't think you get it. Insults don't work on me. Only logic, so if you want to say something that has any actual impact, you are going to have to use reason, not insults, in order to do that. ;)

[–]mnemos_11 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Fair enough. I failed stats.

[–]testmypatience2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's a common issue with humans. Confirmation bias makes it even worse.

EDIT: Forgot the bias of confirmation bias

[–]1theoctopuss30 points31 points  (5 children) | Copy

I'm so glad I'm in my early 20s and have the opportunity to learn this information.

Its also fun watching the girls I banged out in high school/college show up at the bar alone, 30 lbs overweight, and no ring on their finger because the chump they locked down is at home watching the kids.

[–]Cunt_Robber8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy

Same. I was a hopeless romantic in my early 20s and got dumped repeatedly due to oneitis and beta qualities. Now a few years later I'm dating around and nexting as I please as girls my age scramble to find some man to cling to. We keep getting older and wiser, but there will always be girls in their early 20s to chase ;)

[–]manzaneg2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

What was your turning point Im still stuck in the bullshit oneitis over and over again

[–]Cunt_Robber8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

I had two main turning points. One was finding TRP and educating myself on female nature.

The second turning point: how my last relationship ended. I won't go into details but I lost something that I still can't forgive myself for, and that was finally the tipping point and I said enough is enough after becoming so disgusted with myself. It still stings man, and since then every time I've gotten close enough to a woman to feel a shred of emotional attachment and love toward, that sting slices right through. Awalt forever.

Why are you still stuck in the bullshit oneitis man? Hasnt trp made things like frame and abundance clear for you?

Edit: now that I think about it, age likely had something to do with it too. Maturity and life experience in general have really changed me since the naïve beta days of my early 20s. For men, a lot of things come with time... And a lot of work/effort/sacrifice.

[–]manzaneg3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Well my lack of abundance comes from. Wing overweight and not feeling entitlement. Because of that I latched on to the one girl who kinda showed me some shred of attention, this has since changed I think I'm actually at that point of feelings absolutely disgusted with myself. Like ugh! So I'm breaking off the friendship with her because that's all it is and it's not good for me at all. I have lost weight recently but I have another 30 pounds of fat to lose and recomposition to get to Chas status. My extroversion and personality aren't really an issue and I feel like once I am closer to my physical goal and actually start putting myself out there more I will start to get better. Right now I'm keeping to myself because although immediate rejection doesn't phase me when I have a girl in my bed or close to coming home and she changes her mind it super stings. Like I really feel physically disgusting also. So I want to look better so I can feel better and then just make up for the lost time

[–]Cunt_Robber2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Sounds like you have your priorities in order. Hit the gym buddy. I've been doing the same. Feel the burn on those last few reps, feels good workng on yourself. Good luck!

[–][deleted] 56 points57 points  (2 children) | Copy

This is my ex to a T. Fuck if it isn't all true.

[–]e4tshit17 points18 points  (1 child) | Copy

Also describes most of my ex's. Yet I'll be on some other corner of the internet and someone will drop RP truths and someone will chime in "go back to the red pill or what ever those faggots call themselves."

Too late for shaming tactics, the content here is way to spot on and I'm way to awake to be shamed back into my box. This place is a rosetta stone for cunts and they can't stand it because their power is in maintaining their illusions. We're suppose to be "useful" for them and their purposes, not wake up.

[–]thebluepool6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Best part is that when they mention trp where it's not even applicable, all they're doing is advertising this sub for more men. That's how I discovered it in the first place.

So to all the trp detractors and shaming feminists out there, thank you for opening my eyes to the poison that is the mainstream media and thanks for pointing me in the right direction to get the help I so desperately needed.

[–]Frenchy10022 points23 points  (1 child) | Copy

You can't resent a woman for not spreading her legs to a guy who doesn't turn her on (nice guy/good men). Mr. Nice guy is also guilty of seeking validation and not being a man. Neither of which is their fault. Where Carol is going wrong is that she is not honest with herself and gets into a victim mentality by blaming circumstances. Mr. Nice guy is doing the same thing. LESSON : you aren't a victim, take responsibility for your own actions

[–]askmrcia4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

You can't resent a woman for not spreading her legs to a guy who doesn't turn her on (nice guy/good men).

Yea you can because these nice guys are being taught by their single mothers and women in general that being nice is the way to get to their hearts. Not to mention when you watch TV, Disney, cartoons and movies and all the time it's the nice guy that wins the hot cheerleader.

See nickelodeon Doug as a great example. The issue is guys are being lied too.

Women say they want one thing but really want the opposite. Or at least they lie when they say things like "I look for in a guy is that he treats me right, respect me and is funny. Hehehe."

And we know those are lies.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil101 points102 points  (40 children) | Copy

So first of all, good post you have good analysis and I encourage you to keep writing for this community.

That being said, the evil two faced women archetype that you have described is a beta male construct created out of sexual frustration and animosity.

Let me explain, at their very essence women are followers. They don't invent or create anything and generally live in the value systems that other people create for them.

The problem is that the Beta Billies you describe in your essay do to. Guys who are squares and support feminism are examples of men who live in other men's frame. They are not leaders or creators they are followers.

Women especially the smartphone ADHD generation are constantly looking for new fun ways of defining themselves and adding meaning to their meaningless woman lives via men

So if you have strong convictions or a belief system that you impose upon the world women will come to you because you make them feel special.

People remember their trip to the Eiffel tower not to beta Billy Walmart.

So in conclusion it's not that women are acting out of conscious malevolence. That's just beta projection. Women are simply chasing their feels wherever they take them and rationalizing ex post facto.

[–]Ganaria_Gente15 points16 points  (30 children) | Copy

You're saying women don't have agency in her beliefs and conduct. You're implying feminism does not have an active self initiating role in destroying males, but is in fact a passive consequence, a result of beta males. That if it weren't for beta males, feminism wouldn't exist or be as influential.

Sorry but that's bullshit

[–]SaxManSteve10 points11 points  (27 children) | Copy

Let me explain, at their very essence women are followers. They don't invent or create anything and generally live in the value systems that other people create for them.

It really surprises me how this idea is so easily propagated on this subreddit. The scientific evidence is quite clear that women and men share near identical cognitive capacities. To claim that women have no executive functions and that they solely rely on habituated reflexes to guide their behavior is a rather ideological charged statement that is devoid of any scientific logic. Sometimes I wish that posts in this subreddit required scientific citations from reputable social/psychological journals.

[–]Frenchy10014 points15 points  (19 children) | Copy

Look at evolutionary psychology, look at history, men lead, women follow

[–]SaxManSteve8 points9 points  (18 children) | Copy

Which period of history are you talking about?, are you talking about ancient Greece where spartan women commonly owned land independently of their husband and occupied many important political positions. Are you talking about Ethiopian royalty where the queen supersedes the kings power? Are you talking about the numerous native-american tribes in which women were politically equal to males (like the Iroquois confederacy)? Maybe you are talking about the creativity needed to invent computers, in that case you would be talking about Ada Lovelace, who for some magical reason invented something without following the example of men. I could go on for hours, providing examples of how both genders have the possibility of thinking creatively and independently. The reason why in western history men have more traditionally been leaders, might have to do with the culture they lived in rather than inherent biological shortcomings in women. Clearly women have similar if not identical capacities than men.

[–]Frenchy10015 points16 points  (17 children) | Copy

Alright here we go. From the most basic of human communities, the family, the man provides and the woman takes care of the house and kids since the beggining of agriculture since the man is strong enough to plow the fields and protect his family against dangers, he leads. OK now what about the woman? According to historical writing and religious traditions in most major religions and in the Asian world, the woman would submit to her husband and follow. When you talk about those Greek women, and those royalties, you are talking about an infinitesimally small portion of the women of that time. Those women were born privileged and that comment does not reflect the vast majority of serfs or slaves that did not have the luxury to rise above their biologically programmed nature. When you take a look at science or mathematics, the vast majority of the great thinkers were not women. There were approximately 40 main scientists involved with quantum physics in the 1900s and only one of them was a woman (Marie Curry). And it's not just quantum physics, it's all of science. Sure some women made great discoveries, but it was men who for the most part shaped our understanding of the world as we know it. Women also don't have the same drive as men to achieve greater things, men are driven by a mission, much more so than women. Take a look at music production. They are 99.9% guys. The lack of women in that field is staggering. Why? Because the skills required to produce, mix and master music take years of practice and experience, and only someone with great passion and a drive to succeed could do that. I am not saying that women cannot achieve the same success as a man, I am simply saying that in that regard, they are at a psychological and biological disadvantage compared to men.

[–]SaxManSteve0 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy

As any good social scientist would say; correlation does not equal causation. All your arguments can be summarized to... "across history men have been more influential/dominant in X field, therefore it demonstrates that men are psychologically and biologically superior to women". An obvious flaw with this line of thinking is that you can easily misconstrue the influence cultural norms have on a perceived cognitive superiority. To address such a confounding variable, researchers have independently measured each sub component of intelligence, such as working memory capacity, attentional span, semantic processing and much more. Overall their findings suggest that the variation between men and women is superficially different , suggesting that the over-representation of men in political/cultural/scientific/artisitc affairs is simply a reflection of the cultural norms present in that society. These were presumably cultural pressures that put an emphasis on the submissive role of women in X society, which as science has proven is independent of their innate abilities. To put in other words, simply because women didn't showcase their innate intellectual capabilities across history it doesn't mean they lacked the capacity to do so, it just means that because of X cultural norms they were not as encouraged as men to do so.

[–]Frenchy10010 points11 points  (6 children) | Copy

Because men were more driven, not smarter, DRIVEN. This is why the culture took shape like that. If women were more driven we would be in a matriarchy

[–]SaxManSteve5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Define driven as a psychological construct, to what degree is "drive" correlated with creativity and intelligence, and again demonstrate how it's possible for a psychological feature to remain independent of the cultural pressures of the time. If you are actually interested in these questions, you will quickly realize that to get true empirical answers in social psychology you will need to devise "true experimental designs" where participants are randomly assigned and where the independent variable can be clearly manipulated (in this case it would be drive), even then you need to properly operationalize this "drive" variable. I say this because you keep using a high degree of certainty in your statements, while scientifically your statements are based on correlational observations, which are really at the bottom of the empirical totem poll, so to speak. If you want to say that men have more drive then women you have to show through a variety of quasi-experimental designs (longitudinal and cross-sectional studies) and "true experimental designs" that men objectively have more drive.

After browsing a couple of the influential psychology journals, i couldn't even find one study that used the word "drive" as their independent variable. The closest thing I found was a study measuring brain difference in a divergent thinking task (believed to measure creativity, still questionable whether it does or not). Their results suggested that men use more declarative memory regions, and that women use more theory of mind regions and memory regions associated with personal experience. However, both did equally as good on the creativity task, they simply utilized, with some level of variation, different brain regions.

Overall what i'm saying here is that the reality is extremely more complex than "men have more drive because of X historical reason". While men and women have some cognitive differences, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the difference is sufficient to claim that men are significantly more creative/have more drive than women. Because up to now these difference do not suggest a deficit in creativity results, rather a use of different brain mediums to achieve the same results as men.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

Men are smarter than women in two ways. Higher average IQ, which is why IQ tests normalize for gender, and why proxy IQ tests such as the SAT have had to be redone over and over to be highly weighed towards female strengths. Men are also massively over represented at the highest levels of IQ. At the top 99.9th percentile for intelligence there are 270 men for every woman. This also works in reverse due to the nature of the male bell curve.

I was going to reply to this "Steve" faggot but he's clearly a feminist pussy and a troll so I figured I'd reply to you instead.

[–]SaxManSteve4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy

Nice ad hominem there, buddy. First off there is no consistent evidence saying that men have a higher average IQ, if you look at the wiki-page, clearly studies have found a variety of results, making your generalization invalid. I can equally cherry pick data like you and say that this study : A 2014 meta-analysis of sex differences in scholastic achievement published in the journal of Psychological Bulletin found females outperformed males in teacher-assigned school marks throughout elementary, junior/middle, high school and at both undergraduate and graduate university level.

This meta-analysis clearly states that women outperform men in all academic level, can I say that women are smarter than men. Obviously not, since there are too many confounding variables that disable me from generalizing the results to general intelligence.

Its funny that when I use scientific logic to question your beliefs, you call me a feminist pussy. Clearly you are the one who is so butthurt as to reduce your cognitive dissonance by spewing ideological ad hominems my way. Maybe instead denying the complexity of the evidence, try to actually educate yourself.

[–]lala_xyyz1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy

All your arguments can be summarized to... "across history men have been more influential/dominant in X field, therefore it demonstrates that men are psychologically and biologically superior to women"

History is evidence by itself. If the nature of biology were any different, across countless cultures and civilizations, history would've yielded different results. But it's not so it hasn't. Patriarchy rules supreme, and women truly are dumb hormone cocktails evolved to bear children. You're hamstering the reality away like a woman.

[–]SaxManSteve0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy

History is evidence by itself

Wow, with this attitude whats to point of Psychology/Cognitive Science/Neuroscience if every part of behavior can be explained by some ideologically motivated historian.... Really intelligent arguments you are making here...

[–]lala_xyyz0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

History can be seen as an evolutionary competition between different cultures, representing different reproduction strategies, maximising or minimising different aspects of human potential. Unlike ideologically-colored theories fabricated by morons in the academia living off other people's money, it's reality itself, stripped of any kind of subjective idealism and preconceived bias. Centuries from now, when your bloodline which reeks of commie equalist beta degeneracy is extinct, along with that of millions of your intellectual peers, your dim-witted sarcasm will be but another short chapter in its books. They will say "here lies SaxTheMoron, who thought women were as smart as men".

[–]lala_xyyz2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

The scientific evidence is quite clear that women and men share near identical cognitive capacities.

No it isn't. Mens' brains are 10% bigger and structurally very different. From gray/white matter distribution to the degree of development at the same age. Women are dumber on every metric. They evolved to be reproduction machines not invent things.

[–]SaxManSteve-2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy

Are you gonna provide some peer-review citations for those claims, or did you just make those up? As someone how is doing their masters in neuroscience, your claims are not even close to being true. So please enlightenment me.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

Here's just a small start for you, with sources;

You are wrong. The girl brain is far different from the guy brain. I'd appreciate it if you stopped spreading your equalist religious bullshit and go read some of the actual literature.

[–]SaxManSteve1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yes, there are some differences between men and women in terms of their underlying genetic structures and the resulting differences in cognitive structures. However, I have yet to find substantiated evidence claiming that these differences make men more creative/higher drive than women. If you can send me peer-reviewed journal articles claiming that men are "leaders" and women are mere "followers" it would greatly improve your cause, instead of linking to some low quality pseudoscience website that cherry picks results from experiment without even talking about the methodologies used/experimental limitations. And even then that article didn't even say anything about men having more drive, it was mostly about differences in sexual preferences.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's not my job to educate you midwit. Gamma midwits always confuse using large words with actually being intelligent. You're not. I'm not trying to educate you anyway I'm trying to make sure everyone else knows that you're full of shit.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It's not bullshit, because women don't have agency for a variety of reasons. The first of which is that if women could truly make "the right" choice, evolution would not work... period.

The second, is you can't on one hand recognize what hamstering is, and then claim that women are above it. They're hard wired for it.

Then lastly, you look at the validation structures that women are given. Let's say she almost realizes she's acting in a horrible way. Do you think her orbiters and white knights are going to reinforce that, or do you think they're going to lay out a rationalization carpet for her, hoping, pleading, that she'll pity fuck him for showing her how dedicated he is to her.

Does it excuse it? No. But he's not moralizing the topic, you are.

[–]GEN_GOTHMOG0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Can you build on "Strong convictions"? It makes sense in my head, I just cannot think of how to project a strong conviction in any way that would result in attraction from females.

[–]AGrau9516 points17 points  (1 child) | Copy

I just discovered The Red Pill a few weeks ago and I'm trying to read as much as possible (maybe too much), started to work out 6 times a week, eat healthy, and went cold with two girls that are like Carol.

I'm speechless, definitely I have to read it again. It sums up many things (too many) that I've gone through and I don't want to repeat again. Good job and thanks.

[–]MaxWyght16 points17 points  (4 children) | Copy

Very well written.

This is a nice reminder that our SMV is starting to climb mid 20s, when female smv is plateauing at this point.

Really, if I wasn't red pilled, I would've already been locked down by someone who got off the carousel(Girls in Israel don't plateau at 25, they literally turn to shit).

Instead, I get to enjoy the fact that by the time I'm 30, I'll be debt free, and my selection of women for LTRs will be half my age

[–]Willow-girl3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Are 15-year-olds even legal? lol

[–]MaxWyght6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

16 year olds are technically legal over here, but tbh, the more money you have, the less chance you have of going to prison for boinking a minor.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

How do you even meet any 15yr olds besides your friend's kids?

[–]RPBulletDodger16 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy

So many Carols, so little time.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy

Literally just dealt with this exact scenario. Fuck that shit. Alpha or nothing.

[–]YongeArcade14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy

Just adding my Two cents

The one thing I think you are forgetting is how immature women are.

When she is crying for the "Good men" when she has hit the wall, she is not talking about Betas or her orbiters. She is talking about mythical men that she believes exist.

A Beta Chad Thundercock. The bad boy who takes all the risks and does not care about tomorrow and excitingly runs off to a foreign country at a moments notice, yet has a good credit score and steady good paying job and a retirement plan and treats her like a princess.

That is as immature as a man looking for a virgin who has all the sexual skills of a hooker ten years in the business and a sultry nightclub walk of a stripper.

neither animal exists --

Difference is a guy describing that "virgin" every guy around would roll their eyes and laugh, women's lamenting that mythical "Good Man", Chad Tundercock the good provider and male feminist is the story in every women's magazine and women nod along in agreement.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

Excellent post. Good work. I hope you get rewarded for it.

[–]segagaga11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

I was raised to be a good, kind and respectful man, and all I ever received from women was disrespect, outright lies and cheating for my trouble.

My childhood sweetheart strung me along for years, flirted with me everyday, banged guys decades older than her and then cried to me about it. Eventually she complained to Me about how she can't find any good guys, because the one she was dating had slapped her around a bit. I was there for her the whole time and loyal, honest and genuinely loved her, but she associated with guys like that. I stopped initiating contact and never heard from her again, her fate she brought on herself.

My first LTR whom I absolutely adored, was a devious person who sent her best friend to try to seduce me, which only ended up with the said poor Bestie sobbing her eyes out when I turned her down, ended up begging for me to sleep (and thus cheat) with her because she wishes she had a nice guy like me. Naturally I said no, and then dumped my LTR.

My second serious LTR who I loved enough to get engaged to, I was faithful to for 3 years, cheated on me twice with two different guys, left me for one of them (whom incidentally cheated on her and left her for that girl) complains about how there are no good guys and then ends up marrying a "man" whom I could only describe as the kind of guy who gives a limp-handshake.

My third serious LTR, whom I loved dearly, constantly accused me of cheating with any woman who I simply happened to know, or be friends with. She thought I was incapable of simply not wanting sex. It would go on for months until she focused on a different person. She seemed unable to comprehend the idea of a man who could be with a woman in private and not cheat on her. Yet she married a man who was a Long Distance thing from Amsterdam.

In the end, like the story of Carol, each drove away a good man and then bemoan their fate to a life without good men. I didn't really get why they felt that I wasn't a good enough man (although I do now, thanks TRP).


If young women don't learn to value good men, that does not mean you should stop being good. I can be good and still have needs and expectations. I can be good and still command respect. I can be good and not be a doormat. I can be good and value my physical appearance. Learn to value your goodness highly TRP bros. Earning respect starts with self-respect. Its ok to be Good. Be good and aware of sexual strategy.

[–]1------6EQUJ5-11--1- points points [recovered] | Copy

A small part of me just begs for Carol to read this post with great astonishment and denial only to realise a few days later that her follies are true.

[–]MaxWyght10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy

Except carols will just have their beta orbiters tell them that this posy is bullshit

[–]AlexCarlin6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

This should be on the sidebar

[–]Terribledragon4Hire7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

If you are a woman and reading this. I think some of this (regardless if you are redpill or blue Pill or whatever) has some subconscious truth for men. There is a reason that many men shy away from "high partner count" women. Deep down somwthing in their brain is telling them she is settling.

Also, I can't find it right now, but a study came out saying a marriage with high partner counts is more likely to fail

[–]gigitygigitygoo7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

At 34, I see this type of behavior from women all over the place now and only pursue those in their 20's. A few years ago I went on dates with those post-wall and quickly realized they were damaged goods desperately looking to lock down the best they could by employing a good girl persona which isn't any fun.

I see them on my social media streams as well. Once gorgeous and riding the carousel, they're now past their prime, posting stupid fucking walls of text about their inability to find a suitable man. I also have old acquaintances who've settled with some of these women; the men are happy because they "finally got the girl" and the women happy because they've set the terms of the relationship and live in comfort now.

I'm divorced and learned all this the hard way, through trial and error. Those of you in your 20's have the advantage knowing that this is how the dating world works. Being open and clearly stating your intentions upfront is the best possible advice I can give.

[–]Windryder5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is a fantastic compilation of sources and straightforward TRP knowledge. Well done.

[–]jetfuelmeltsmemes5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

Check out the blue pill subreddit if you want a good laugh. They posted about this and not a single girl (or feminist mangina) in the comments said anything of substance in order to refute the points made in this. Just the usual 'so much salt in these guys' and 'who's gonna read that long wall of text loooool' stuff that they think is an extremely witty response, lmao.

[–]askmrcia1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's how it always is? Whenever a person can't come up with a proper rebuttal, they resort to insults.

The post clearly had a TLDR, so it's not like you had to read entire thing.

[–]DoctorShroom2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Extremely well put great post.

[–]lukmeg3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Very nice work putting it all together.

[–]Sensei_Hensei3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Did anyone read that chasing chad article?

" Time is weird, man"


[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I am in college and am broke af right now but if I had money I would give you gold. Commenting to save this post.

[–]fuckeduphomebody5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

Jesus. I don't know what to think. This essay is fuckep up. It can't be true. This is mindblowing because some concept such as the carrousel cock is so true omg.

Omg. I save your post. I will read it again later with a deep attention.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

deleted What is this?

[–]d0lphinsex0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

[–]hookersandtrp2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

Good read, but the summary mentions the ability to see these qualities in women's online profiles.

I don't see any explicit mentions of that in the post beyond the summary.

[–]2kevin32[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It's meant to be learned indirectly by reading the profiles in combination with what you've learned from the essay. A few examples can be found in the section titled "Where have all the Good Men gone?" Re-read that section, then look carefully at the wording in the profile examples.

[–]MaxWyght-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

Just assume any single mom has an n count >100.

[–]SlyAM2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Great fucking post! This really sums up the modern female.

[–]SYL3NZR2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Somewhat technically nothing "new" but an amazingly written essay thats completely on the point, the inserted links really help the good thing out and make this a great summary about red pill.

[–]rdpislove2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Great post op I enjoyed reading your post Side bar material here

[–]butter_coffee2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Why is the shit women do so cringeworthy?

[–]_MysticFox points points [recovered] | Copy

Girls can have a good time from 15-30 and even longer if they play their cards right, but guys aren't guaranteed anything even after 25?

[–]MaxWyght3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy

"good" guys aren't guaranteed anything before 25.

Once you get your shit straightened out, your smv rises through the roof, even with age (look at lists of sexiest men. dominared by men in their 40s and 50s, because like carol, all women seek to lock down a good provider. And if you happen to look good as well? Chad's harem doesn't come close to your potential)

[–]_MysticFox points points [recovered] | Copy

My only issue with this is that most younger chicks especially in uni would be really uncomfortable getting with someone beyond the age of 23 or even 22

[–]MaxWyght0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Hence why Israel is such a nice place for rp men:
Instead of college, they spend years 18-21 (and some up to 23) in the IDF, away from feminazi brainwashing.

Once they finish with that, they're mostly innoculated to that bullshit, and while they do and ride a carousel abroad after compulsory service is done, they never reach the same n-counts American college girls get.

Sluttiest girls I know have an N count of 20(not self reported, but corroberated from multiple sources).

And that's at 25 and approaching the wall.

Interestingly enough, unlike in the US, SMV is negatively correlated with n-count(up to a point. 10s are the exception, but 10s are literally unicorns here):
highest n-counts (I'm talking >50) is with fuglies and landwhales.

[–]_MysticFox points points [recovered] | Copy

Unfortunately I'm not going to go to Israel to get a girl.

I know freshman girls with counts of 20. Easy. Especially when they're bringing home a new dude every weekend. Decently attractive girls too.

Also, are you talking about high n counts being bad? Because I think that's standardized across all cultures for women

[–]MaxWyght1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

No, I'm talking about landwhales having higher counts than the attractive girls.

Also, paradoxically, fuglies and fatties are more confident than the attractive girls.

Mostly because they become sexually active at 13, while the good looking girls remain virgins till like 16.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Men have no guarantees but much better EROI, also much higher ceiling. It's the trade-off. They get it easy, we get the chance to be gods.

[–]Interceox2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I have yet to see an outlier to this essay. So far it is 100% accurate in every way. All women do this, and all men do this. I hate it. But dammit he's right

[–]harsha_hs2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Side bar material. Took long time to read going through links and everything. This is very nicely done and must read for every one dropping by this sub.

Thanks for such a social service. So kind of you

[–]pateuvasiliu2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Great post. A part of me died inside reading it. Not because it's not true, but because I wish it wasn't.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Incredible writeup, very well done. Great post.

[–]wanderingreds1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Good post. I'm really starting to believe that women cannot and do not commitment the utter hypocrisy of this. Makes me feel very blessed to be born a man.

[–]alx7411 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

All the gods that have ever been invented bless you for posting this. I going to print it and have it in my desk drawer to re-read it every month or so. Thank you so much for such an amazing material!

[–]JcHgvr1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Considering all the links included that was a hefty read. But it was well worth the time. Bookmarked for future reference.

[–]Senior Contributorexit_sandman1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

"I thought Will was really cute and we would hang out a lot on the road. He liked to take care of me and never let me spend a dime. He was that kind of guy, real generous. I remember when they won their first award, he asked me to go out with him afterward. He was so excited. We were walking along the street getting ready to grab something to eat, and he just gave this homeless guy $100 dollars…I sometimes kick myself when I think about what could have been. He was so nice to me, but I really wasn't feeling him. I guess I couldn't appreciate a nice guy like Will Smith. He wasn't thug enough. I was attracted to thugs and hoodlums. Will was too nice to me."

Damn, Family Guy was right about him.

[–]GunsGermsAndSteel1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I've read about half of this, and I really admire the work that went into this post. I'll finish reading it later today when I have some more free time.

[–]TheIlluminatiEatPoo1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

This is the reality

I live in a wealthy neighborhood and all the under 30 women are banging black males with criminal records on the down low.

I know this because I'm friends with some of the guys.

[–]1empatheticapathetic-2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy

Woah. Black males did you say? Have you tried calling the police?

[–][deleted] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]AlexCarlin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This should be on the sidebar

[–]naija4it0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

great post...interesting points made

[–]srtor0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Great writeup. Sticky this.

[–]RedPillFreedom0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

These posts are very fun to read keep them up. Love those links.

[–]ivanttobealone0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

carol never wore her safety goggles, now she doesn't need them

[–]plutosheen0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Mgtow is the final conclusion after monkey dancing for women as a PUA or blue piller.

[–]wiseprogressivethink0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

this isn't a post; this is a book.

[–]thetrpthrowaway0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Excellent, excellent and again - Excellent post OP.

Just one question - What is the best resource on having the "Bad boy" attitude? Without tattooing myself or going to jail as you wrote.

[–]KingCobra40 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Who cares what random sluts do with their miserable lives? Just focus on improving your own. So what if people say one thing while doing another, no need to write a goddamn essay about it.

[–]stawek0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

They aren't lying. They really do want to have a nice guy to pay for all they need. They will even fuck one if they have to.

What they don't say aloud, though, is they want a bad boy to have them.

[–]wright0070 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Thank you for this. It's full of great resources and articles. Much appreciated.

[–]aBetterNation0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

great intro to trp.

I normally don't post on here on this account, but fuck it.

[–]plubb0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This is a nice stereotype enforcing story. I hope no one takes it too seriously.

[–]rudolftherednosed0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

In the post, Carol wrote that she was hinting that she would like her friend to be her boyfriend. Not that she was trying to "friendzone" him... Because he's a sweet, nice guy (exactly the type of guy you describe in your original post).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Majorly whiny post. I think you should work on your inner game

[–]Nyquil-Junkie-2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy

There went 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

[–]intuition254 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Better than 20 years followed by disillusionment.

[–]Willow-girl1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

In 20 years we'll be 70, lol.

[–]red-adherent1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

We are dying of laughter at how big this sub is now and how much it triggers you. You know we helped trump win right. The more you scumbags come here to post, the more we realize how on the money we are.

Lol, are you still with her?

[–]Nyquil-Junkie0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I'm not triggered... amused maybe. Yeah, I voted for The grand syphilitic cheeto too. I'm not sure what that has to do with Kevin's butthurt saga.

Am I not allowed to be amused by the long winded butthurt posts here?

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

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter