Fitness YouTuber drops some TRP knowledge. Why are we taught the opposite in society?

Reddit View
November 25, 2018

For anyone that knows Lui Marco (baby please), he drops gems of TRP truths on his channel and I came across one video that baffled me. I'm surprised I never came across the advice he shared in his video, on the TRP sub.

He states that women are inherently/instinctively meant to be monogamous, whereas men are meant to be polygamous given our genetic coding and animal instincts. It is well known that Hypergamy is a TRP truth that weakens this comment. However, what took me aback was his explanation of this theory applied to our contemporary society. Women are promoted to date around and have multiple partners until they find "the one". Albeit, not realizing that they will never be satisfied given that they emotionally donate a part of themselves to each partner. Leaving a woman a who was once whole, empty.

If this is clearly how we are naturally and instinctively programmed as human beings, why can't women figure this out themselves? Do they not realize that they actually do themselves more harm than good by being with multiple men?

TLDR; Why are women taught to be like men, when their genetic disposition implies for them to be monogamous. This is more harmful to them and why don't they realize it?

Post Information
Title Fitness YouTuber drops some TRP knowledge. Why are we taught the opposite in society?
Author btharmony
Upvotes 85
Comments 52
Date 25 November 2018 12:21 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit askTRP
Original Link
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
monogamypolygamyhypergamythe red pill

[–]Vermia113 points114 points  (10 children) | Copy

Women are not meant to be monogamous, they're meant to always be looking for a better partner, even if they are currently in a "monogamous" relationship. This is known as hypergamy, and it's part of nature. In the end, nobody should be expecting absolute monogamy from their partner, and those who do are deluding themselves.

If women understood themselves, they would probably be happier, though. Agreed there.

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

That's true and I should have reckoned that in my post. However, he made some solid points as to the fact that women are always thinking about their ex-partners and all the "good feelings" they had with them. If a woman was to hop from one chad to another chad, she would still have feelings for chad #1. I think that is easy to infer.

With that said, I believe the point he was making that hypergamy/branch swinging takes away the essence of a woman as she does not realize that a part of her has been lost to the first/second/third partner she has been with. I guess their solipsistic mind justifies this behavior.

Edit: When I state that their genetic dispostion implies for them to be mogonomous, this implies that their end goal is to be with the one, ultimate chad. This is monogomy.

[–]hawkeaglejesus14 points15 points  (2 children) | Copy

Quoting someone:

Men are like "Bluetooth", he is connected to you when you are nearby, but searches for other devices when your away...

While Women are like Wi-Fi shes sees all available devices but only connects to the strongest one.

[–]Invoker114 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

See the thing is that analogy would be good if it were at all true... She only connects to the strongest one as the first primary / preferred choice but she will ultimately get bored or discontent even of the strongest and will connect to one or more other devices even if she already has the strongest one... Which is against hypergamy and purely her choice which she never takes responsibility for... even though she should

[–]Invoker112 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

It doesn't matter if you are the best looking, the richest, the smartest, the kindest, the biggest asshole while being good looking, rich or richest, smart... it just doesn't matter.. SHE WILL CHEAT EVEN IF IT'S NOT SMART or pointless "just because"

Yes being rich, having good social status, good looks helps and shit but even these men get cheated on by the women though they are usually not aware of it

Women are physically meant to be monogamous but simultaneously hypergamous.... whereas men are meant to be polygamous but most men prefer a nice monogamous relationship with a decent to good looking woman who is healthy and kind with a nice personality

Most women also don't look naturally good when u remove fake up and other deceiving physical appearance alters

[–]191john1912 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

If people in LTRs only knew what you say that they can’t expect absolute monogamy these dudes wouldn’t be throwing themselves from bridges. And maybe they would start gaming chicks themselves and grow their spine back

[–]AshyBoneVR43 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

If women people understood themselves, they would probably be happier, though.

Plenty of guys out there who live in a deluded world because they think things should be one way, but they are another.

[–]Invoker111 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Sadly true

[–]Invoker111 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Almost right.. women are PHYSICALLY meant to be monogamous... they have to hold the baby and push it out.... but otherwise yes hypergamy makes them not monogamous but their body can only handle one body at a time

[–]mrpoopistan1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Hence the popularity of serial monogamy and the classic "It just happened . . . while I was on vacation . . . at a singles resort in Jamaica" strategy.

[–]TheStumblingWolf1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

If anything I'd say they're meant to receive the blessed genes of Chad, while stringing Beta Billy, Willie etc. on so as to extract comfort and resources from them.

[–]btrpb23 points24 points  (0 children) | Copy

Remember, a woman would be more careful with her virginity, and subsequent sex, before the advent of birth control. Her hypergamy would have been in action without her necessarily putting out. She would have to be much more selective of who she actively have her pussy to.

[–]markpf7322 points23 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think you are mistaking his statement for TRP.

It’s not. It’s an old evangelical trope from a book by James Dobson - “Bringing up Girls”.

It’s really a strategy on how to coach your daughter away from the inevitable cock carousel that she’ll find through our western way of life.

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy

Unlike the vast majority of other mammals and primates, human females conceal their ovulation. This directly facilitates the AF/BB mating strategy, where she locks down a beta for resources but is secretly on the lookout for alpha sperm. Society enforces (or, used to enforce!) monogamy through religion and social practices, precisely because biology doesn't.

[–]TheBadGoy4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

The best advice Lui has given is always look back at how cavemen and cavewomen behaved. Always look back at the past

[–]omega_dawg9320 points21 points  (12 children) | Copy

LOL at women being these mythical, naturally monogamous creatures. actually, i'm LMMFAO at that DUMB ASS comment.

women have ALWAYS wanted to do the same thing as men since the beginning of time = pass on their genes. the end. period. the frustration (for men) comes from the fact that they do it a different way with provisioning & protection and using men as literal 'tools' being part of their wants.

author robin baker: 'sperm wars.' read that book to understand women at a biological level, and learn how evolution helped (us all) develop into the humans we are now. there is a LITERAL war going on in the vagina because of a woman's NATURAL desire to seek out the strongest genes available to her. different types of sperm evolved bc nature REQUIRED it... prompted by what was going on in the vagina.

men spin plates, and women LIE TREMENDOUSLY about the number of dicks they're currently draining or have drained. pre-DNA testing, there was no control over women having kids for other men... now, they can be 'busted.' then, you add-in birth control, access to better education, pay, etc (which i have no problem with), and you have 'strong & independent' HUMANS that can act JUST LIKE MEN without any consequences for them. if women:

  1. need $ = get educated and get a good job.
  2. need protection = get an alarm system, learn how to use a gun, take self defense.
  3. need dick (for fun) = use protection and/or birth control pills and jump on the carousel. note: women fuck waaaaaaay more than you think.
  4. need dick (for babies) = catch cum from the guy they like, go to a sperm bank, etc.
  5. need dick (for babies... then cash & prizes if it doesn't work out) = get married. BINGO!!

the only one they really don't do is #2. the rest allow them to act-out on every emotional and physical whim they desire. MEN HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WOMEN'S CHOICES, and we shouldn't. let them do whatever the fuck they want to bc you will NEVER know the truth about how much cum they've caught. never... bc they lie and they rationalize their lies to become (their) truth. on top of that, "it didn't count," is real in woman world.

my advice: just live your life on your terms with your rules. when you find a woman you think is worth your time, enjoy her bc it will NEVER be just your pussy... only your turn to enjoy it. i suggest fucking her a LOT, respectfully using her for your pleasure, and checking yourself emotionally... knowing that #5 above is called, "societal insurance," that YOU will pay for her until you're dead.

don't want to pay, don't play the game.

[–]TGL-Jesse1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

How do you choose to play the game?

[–]omega_dawg935 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

you simply deal with women and accept their (true) nature and enjoy them... accepting that they've enjoyed WAAAAY more cock than you think, lie easily, are naturally manipulative, and very flaky; or you can go MGTOW, etc., and leave them alone.

i love pussy... so i'm all in the game (and the pussy).

[–]magx011 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

women have ALWAYS wanted to do the same thing as men since the beginning of time = pass on their genes. the end. period. the frustration (for men) comes from the fact that they do it a different way with provisioning & protection and using men as literal 'tools' being part of their wants.


[–]SilkTouchm-1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy

Nice rant you got there. You shouldn't be giving advice if you're still in the anger phase.

[–]look_good0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

you’re projecting, his shit isn’t wrong lmao

[–]SilkTouchm-1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy

projecting? did you read that word somewhere cool on the internet and wanted to use it somewhere?

his shit isn’t wrong lmao

It being "wrong" or "right" is irrelevant. Newbies shouldn't be giving advice to other newbies.

[–]look_good1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy

he’s not angry, he accepts reality. who the fuck told you you were wise.

[–]SilkTouchm0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

He's clearly in the anger stage by the length and angryness of his post.

who the fuck told you you were wise.

I never said anything about me.

[–]look_good0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

no anger bro. read it again u r projecting ur own anger

[–]SilkTouchm0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Sorry bro. I'm not going to do a detailed analysis of that post just to show you that it's full of anger, but it's pretty obvious. You are either in an equal anger stage (therefore it's normal to you), or you are on the spectrum.

u r projecting ur own anger

Nice to see you're using the new word you learned.

[–]look_good0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

what makes u think hes angry. give me a quote that tells u that u hamster

[–]omega_dawg930 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

lol. if you take what i typed as anger. you are dead wrong and saying more about the phase you're currently in.

it's called,'projection.'

[–]S2KMo5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy

I think some people are missing the point here. OP is saying the youtuber simply made an observation that when women go from one guy to the next, she loses a little bit of herself. I think that's actually pretty obvious to understand, as he even explained in the comments, she will be thinking about chad #1, #2, etc..

You also don't have to have sex with someone to know if they're going to be a good partner or not, so women can be monogamous, while being hypergamous as well. These two concepts don't have to contradict one another. I agree it's not really TRP, but it's something interesting to point out

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

Thanks mate. One of the first people to actually get what I'm saying. You nailed it and I don't really think it was that hard to comprehend..

But yea, I'm surprised it's not a topic that's been discussed here. To my knowledge at least.

[–]magx010 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

she loses a little bit of herself.

That's a cultural thing though. The result of the moralization of sexuality.

[–]redpharma77896 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy


[–]MrRoxo2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Lui is a clown. He's an old man acting like a 20 year old constantly getting into drama.

[–]FlyingSexistPig3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy

This is completely false.

What happens to a woman whose man gets killed? Is she supposed to not have more children?

Also, if there's one 'leader' in a tribe, his offspring are going to have the best chance of survival. Literally every single woman in the tribe wants this one guy's babies. But he's not going to provide individual protection and support to all of them, so they have to find another guy to fill that role. They will do what they need to to keep that one guy around, because they do like the support and protection. But when they want babies, it's always going to be the alpha that they seek out.

[–]c4toyourdoornobeef0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

But surely your last sentence goes against the idea of the Beta Bux?

[–]FlyingSexistPig1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

She has the alpha’s babies. But makes the beta think they’re his.

[–]c4toyourdoornobeef0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Ohhh gotcha.

[–]geo_gan0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

There is no way she could know whose babies they were, unless she never had sex with the beta protector, and I don’t think she would get away with that in those days.

[–]FlyingSexistPig0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You think tracking her cycle is a new thing?

Besides, women respond to their hormones. When they are ovulating, what they’re attracted to changes.

[–]BewareTheOldMan0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

We're in the 21st Century - not the Neanderthal Era, foraging and hunting for survival like a Pygmy Tribe deep in the Amazon Forest.

If women produce a baby/babies with loser men, then she suffers the consequences of Single Motherhood and all that comes with 21st Century responsibilities.

Let's not give women latitude for overt stupidity and bad life-choices.

[–]Caper671 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Stay the fuck away from anything that isn't 100% Red Pill backed. Fitness YouTuber did not drop some TRP knowledge.

Everything has an agenda. This is another example. Instinctively monogamous haha. That's a good one.

It's just your turn.

Go lift.

[–]xx-Rain_Maker-xx2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

That is pseudoscience. Mating systems cannot independently evolve in a species. How could that be even possible? Monogyny and Polygyny are not sex-dependent. What features are being optimised? What's the fitness? You are trying to give a scientific explanation with no actual scientific basis.

[–]chrisname0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

What do you mean “independently evolve”? Nothing evolves independently, and I don’t think that’s what’s being described anyway. Evolution is an arms race, and even within a species, the males and females can evolve adversarial strategies. In species where males rape females, the females sometimes evolve strategies to avoid being raped, resulting in the males becoming better rapists, and so on. In some cannibalistic spider species, the males evolve to be better at mating with the females without getting eaten, and the females get better at eating them. So I’m not sure what you’re saying has evolved independently.

[–]xx-Rain_Maker-xx1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

By independently evolve I'm referring to the sex-dependence. There can't be a sex that is monogynous and another one that's polygynous.

[–]chrisname1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Why not? Lionesses only fuck the alpha male lion, but he fucks all of them.

[–]Locoboy7130 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

He is a joke, worst bicep genetic and chicken legs. All his contents are boring with no value. I don’t get why the fuck people will have him as a “trainer”. Smh

[–]MarquisDePaid0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

Neomarxist agendas

The hyper individualism motivating the promotion of pornography

The same that denies biological factors indicating humans are monogamous creatures

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

I'll have to look into this.

[–]MarquisDePaid0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Here was (a sloppy) part of an argument that I had for biological/sociological indicators healthy humans engage in monogamous relationships

The other part to this argument (why anyone would be motivated to lie about this and distort it) requires an understanding of "Critical Theory", a social engineering theory that attacks and deconstructs social identities and relationships

Neomarxism replaced old Bolshevism, and brought "social revolution" to SLOWLY replace the "outdated" class struggle concept. "Revolutionaries" like Herbert Marcuse, Wilhelm Reich, and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading.

Herbert Marcuse wiki does a decent overview:

Herbert Marcuse (/mɑːrˈkuːzə/; German: [maɐ̯ˈkuːzə]; 1898–1979) was a German-American philosopher, sociologist, and political theorist, associated with the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. Born in Berlin, Marcuse studied at the universities of Berlin and then at Freiburg, where he received his PhD.[3] He was a prominent figure in the Frankfurt-based Institute for Social Research – what later became known as the Frankfurt School.

His best known works are Eros and Civilization (1955) and One-Dimensional Man (1964). His Marxist scholarship inspired many radical intellectuals and political activists in the 1960s and 1970s, both in the United States and internationally. He viewed the integration of Eros and Logos to be the liberation of society.

In the post-war period, Marcuse rejected the theory of class struggle and the Marxist concern with labor, instead claiming, according to Leszek Kołakowski, that since "all questions of material existence have been solved, moral commands and prohibitions are no longer relevant." He regarded the realization of man's erotic nature as the true liberation of humanity, which inspired the utopias of Jerry Rubin and others.

Antifa neomarxist groups advocate "early managed sexualization of children" to literally prevent fascism, while citing neomarxist Wilhelm Reich

By drawing on the work of Wilhem Reich, who examined the idea of fascism as a symptom of sexual repression, we are taking the 'Reicheann approach' by advocating for the early managed sexualisation of children so as to prevent the formation of any earlier fascist traits.

Another study of the effects

Is Pornography Really about “Making Hate to Women”? Pornography Users Hold More Gender Egalitarian Attitudes Than Nonusers in a Representative American Sample


Porn Breeds Pro-Abortion Attitudes in Church-Going Men

"Critical Theory" establishment shills literally view healthy humans needing to be biologically experimented on and "reconstructed" neurologically like this piece considers in 2015 about "threat processing parts of the brain":

Disabling parts of the brain with magnets can weaken faith in God and change attitudes to immigrants, study finds

By shutting down the threat-processing centre of the brain, scientists weakened people's faith in God and made them less prejudiced

And what this 2017 study "investigates" modification of neurological hormones for political goals (pro "refugees" bs):

Oxytocin-enforced norm compliance reduces xenophobic outgroup rejection.

Never before have individuals had to adapt to social environments defined by such magnitudes of ethnic diversity and cultural differentiation. However, neurobiological evidence informing about strategies to reduce xenophobic sentiment and foster altruistic cooperation with outsiders is scarce. In a series of experiments settled in the context of the current refugee crisis, we tested the propensity of 183 Caucasian participants to make donations to people in need, half of whom were refugees (outgroup) and half of whom were natives (ingroup). Participants scoring low on xenophobic attitudes exhibited an altruistic preference for the outgroup, which further increased after nasal delivery of the neuropeptide oxytocin. In contrast, participants with higher levels of xenophobia generally failed to exhibit enhanced altruism toward the outgroup. This tendency was only countered by pairing oxytocin with peer-derived altruistic norms, resulting in a 74% increase in refugee-directed donations. Collectively, these findings reveal the underlying sociobiological conditions associated with outgroup-directed altruism by showing that charitable social cues co-occurring with enhanced activity of the oxytocin system reduce the effects of xenophobia by facilitating prosocial behavior toward refugees.

And people wonder why so many people complain about "social engineering" and "social justice going way too far".

[–]FunCicada0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Herbert Marcuse (/mɑːrˈkuːzə/; German: ; July 19, 1898 – July 29, 1979) was a German-American philosopher, sociologist, and political theorist, associated with the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. Born in Berlin, Marcuse studied at the universities of Berlin and then at Freiburg, where he received his PhD. He was a prominent figure in the Frankfurt-based Institute for Social Research – what later became known as the Frankfurt School. He was married to Sophie Wertheim (1924–1951), Inge Neumann (1955–1973), and Erica Sherover (1976–1979). In his written works, he criticized capitalism, modern technology, historical materialism and entertainment culture, arguing that they represent new forms of social control.

[–]3chazthundergut0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Women are just like men. Scandalous, horny scoundrels.

[–]magx010 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

"He states that women are inherently/instinctively meant to be monogamous"

And he would be wrong. Very very wrong.

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

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter