The starting point of red pill thinking is the frank recognition of the ineradicable and fundamentally distinct emotional structures which govern the behavior of (typical) men and women in regards to sexuality.

This is why, for example, the mgtow movement (insofar as this is understood to involve voluntary celibacy) is met with mistrust. I personally wouldn't trade the mere option to get laid in the future for the certainty of unlimited wealth, and there are strong evolutionary reasons for why I feel this way, even though this is not considered a "rational" way to feel by some people. Therefore a young man who claims that getting laid just isn't worth the effort is either a genetic anomaly, an ascetic who has chosen to reject "worldly" pleasures in general, or he's lying to himself, especially given the fact that we are living in a historically good time for getting laid.

This is also why I don't listen to feminists who claim that I should be willing to commit to a promiscuous woman. Even leaving aside the question as to whether past performance is an indicator of future performance (it is), there are powerful emotional forces at work within me which render issues of "fairness" pointless. I just don't want her, and I can only pretend that I do at best. And so, in the service of the feminist conception of fairness, am I supposed to sacrifice my own happiness in order to make a promiscuous woman not feel "judged" or "disadvantaged?" And after all, the "double standard" towards promiscuity arises from the fact that women don't revile promiscuity the same way that men do. It is not something imposed by men on women.

This is also why I reject the flipside of this kind of argument when it occurs in men's rights forums. For example, a men's rights activist might complain that "society" doesn't respect him for being a secretary. Sorry, but being a secretary is a job where you are bossed around all day doing things that other people are too important to do. For strong evolutionary reasons, women will have less desire to fuck you as a result. Meanwhile, being a secretary has no negative impact on a woman's desirability. It's a double standard, yes, but you need to get over that because it's part of the ineradicable structure of human emotion. Best case scenario is that you successfully apply whiney social pressure to people until they learn to pretend that it doesn't matter. And good luck doing that, because guess what? There's also an inherent double standard in the way people are influenced by whiney social pressure. Whiney social pressure works when used in the service of women, children, and weaklings, it doesn't work when used on behalf of the dominant.

This, by the way, does not mean you have to be a slave to your inborn desires and moods. It simply means that you have to recognize the control they do have over your happiness and sense of well being. This applies not only to lust, it applies to anger, the need for companionship, everything. As a man you are going to get angry sometimes, so you need to find a good outlet for that in the gym, or boxing ring, or whatever. You will feel a need to be part of a team, maybe to lead a team, so you need to find outlets for that in sports, careers, etc. You will feel the need to fuck, so you should go out and get laid. Which is all fine. But the sticking point is that, especially compared to the males of other species, you will feel the need to love and provide as well (more precisely, to be appreciated and respected as a provider). In this department you're probably fucked.

EDIT: Forgot to add that the only "hard teaching" of TRP seems to be to try and turn off this last desire. It goes against the grain for many guys, myself included. It takes hard experience even to consider it seriously. But the fact that so many men are unhappy, despite the fact that it's so easy to get laid, shows just how powerful this urge is, and why it is hard to get over.