Some thoughts I've had which may/may not be influenced by Red Pill

Inareskai · 2020-10-26T10:43:15+00:00

Women only love conditionally based on what you can provide for them. Men love unconditionally as a sort of evolutionary safeguard, where a woman is incapable of loving unconditionally.

There's a lot to unpack here, so please bear with me.

Should we encourage unconditional love except between parents and children? It's not healthy for anyone to devote themselves to someone else regardless of that person's actions.
What is the example of unconditional love they're using here? How do we measure it?
Men definitely do not de-facto love unconditionally. If that were the case, I think more people would be aware of this 'truth'. Men certainly cheat and leave because their partner isn't giving them what they need. And you know what, if someone wants to leave because their partner is 'providing' the right things for them (affection, socialisation etc.) then that's healthy. If it's all about money, which it could be for men or women, then that person is shallow. But it's not related to gender.
Women certainly can love unconditionally, there are lots of examples of it out and about in the world - usually when the man has cheated, lost his fortune, been in an accident - and the woman chooses to stick by him. Statistically women are more likely to stay with a partner with a terminal illness than men are. Is that not unconditional love? If there's some reason why that sort of thing isn't unconditional love, then I think the idea is just trying to paint women in the theory as the baddies for no good reason.

A man is more 'expendable' in a relationship, since it's likely the woman was one of his (very few) options where the woman can easily toss him, since she has lines of guys after her (by virtue of being a woman).

This is one of those ones where there is a 'general trend' hidden in there, but overall it's bullshit.

By virtue of being a woman, many women have men who are thirsty for them. This is a neutral statement. Depending on perspectives, the 'benefit' or not of this statement changes. For a woman looking for a relationship and/or not interested in casual sex, it's not good - there are men who do not care about her, won't necessarily treat her well, they're just looking to get their dick wet and move on, using her body as a fleshlight with person attached. That's really not a nice feeling. Lots of trp/incels might argue that it is good, because they want to be seen as desirable. It's important to note that this sort of thing rarely makes women feel desirable, it just makes them feel cheap and used.

This does not equate to men, especially men in relationships, being 'disposable'. Because as stated above, not everyone wants the firing squad of dicks and most of those 'easily attainable' men don't want a relationship. So in a (healthy) relationship there isn't really an interchangeable or 'expendable' person. Relationships are built between two specific people, if one can easily 'swap' the other, then something is already wrong.

80/20 rule --- If you are unattractive to most women, you're in the bottom 80%. Math hardly checks out on this one

Yeah, the maths makes very little sense. Same as just... looking at the world. Most people end up in relationships... so most people are in the top 20% by that logic?

This idea usually comes from a survey from somewhere like OK Cupid (I can't remember which one it actually...) and the study showed that the women surveyed marked 80% of men as 'below average' in looks BUT (and here's the important bit) the study showed that the women would all still message the men 'despite' these below average looks if they felt they would get on with him. TRP stuff tends to look at the first half of the sentence and declare women as shallow and it's all doom for anyone in that 80%, when the study directly shows that no, how physically attractive the men were wasn't actually a big factor in women choosing to continue the match.

Being rich/powerful/having high status is of utmost importance in attracting women

Given the number of women who date what the trp calls 'low lives', it seems like their own statement is contradictory. But from a general perspective - loads of people meet their significant others at work or at university. Where presumably they are either in similar roles (there's not some epidemic of women only getting with men who are in better positions than them at work) or they're both in the same level of debt.

There are things that can help with dating - being financially stable is one of them. But not because it makes you 'more attractive' to women by virtue of having money (I'm sure for some that's true, but not enough to make a grand statement about it). Being financially stable can indicate good decision making, independence, being hard working. All often desirable traits in a partner regardless of gender. And, as stated, there are still many relationships formed and/or continued when the man (or both) have difficult financial situations.

There is no 'one' thing that is of the utmost importance or attractiveness (although for women who want kids, being good with kids, dammmn it's hot). Even in TRP and incel places you'll find that some people insist height is everything, some insist face, some insist money, some insist social power etc. Usually what is being suggested as the one 'absolutely key' thing is the thing the person talking doesn't have - because they're blaming that aspect (or, women) for their lack of success.

Tl:dr - Those things are all incorrect. There is no one tactic or secret to getting women. Women are just people. People are varied.

magical_elf · 2020-10-26T08:22:44+00:00

Women only love conditionally based on what you can provide for them.

TRP seems to be stuck in the 1950s. I don't need someone to provide for me. I can provide for myself. I want someone who can contribute to building out lives together, who has the same goals and values.

More than half of university students in many countries are women. Do you seriously think those women are just trying to find a husband? It's a very expensive and time-consuming way to do so if that's the case. Women want what men want - to be able to support themselves, and find a loving partner to build a life with. This whole "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" spiel is getting old.

punkpoppenguin · 2020-10-26T09:31:13+00:00

I can only give you my personal opinion based on myself and the other women I know but this view assumes that a woman requires being provided for, which most of us do not.

I earn more than my partner, I’m extremely independent, and I get attention from other men but don’t consider leaving because I love my partner. He makes me laugh and we’re a strong supportive unit.

It’s offensive to be told that I’m expected to leave my happy relationship if someone flashes wads of cash or a Brad Pitt smile at me. I chose him, and if we didn’t work out I am more than capable of providing for and making myself happy.

xvszero · 2020-10-26T13:20:03+00:00

Yep, that's a lot of red pill trash alright.

I was unemployed and living with my mom when I met my wife, who was living on her own with a full scholarship to a prestigious university working on her PhD. What the fuck would I have provided for her lololololol.

My wife would probably laugh at the "lines of guys" after her. This isn't reality for most women. She had other options sure. So did I.

The 80/20 math doesn't check out at all, it's sheer nonsense.

Obviously being rich/powerful/etc. appeals to SOME women, but you generally don't want those superficial types anyway. I'm not rich nor powerful nor anything else and I did fine.

p0pcorn3r · 2020-10-26T08:17:39+00:00

That shit is the flat earth of gender theory.

Like, it's pretty obvious at first (especially if your unlucky in love, it helps to make sense of things) then it takes more and more space in your head until you become unable to trust or even like anyone you meet, hurting other people in the process and spreading the idea that love isn't real because men/women are evil.

Wich is obviously false. All it does now is serving as a marketing device for TRP products sold to tons of lonely people everday, just like the suckers for flat earth.

anon1880 · 2020-10-26T12:05:25+00:00

Not all women are golddiggers

rainbowbarfff · 2020-10-26T19:24:36+00:00

Women only love conditionally based on what you can provide for them. Men love unconditionally as a sort of evolutionary safeguard, where a woman is incapable of loving unconditionally.

Let's get one thing straight - ALL romantic love is conditional. Period, point-blank. It is conditional on how you connect non-sexually, how you connect sexually, how you function financially and domestically. The "idea" that romantic love should be unconditional is precisely what leads to resentment, to feeling unappreciated and thus leading to divorce. This isn't specific to women, this is specific to people of all genders. The ONLY people in this world who are expected to love you unconditionally are your parents and your children. That's it. With that being said, statistically, women have stayed through partners through financial ruin, illness, and even deformity well beyond men. The "incapable of love" argument is one that falls apart at the seams almost immediately.

I will say this though - if you validate your worth as a romantic partner based on what you can provide financially in exchange to what a woman can provide for you based on your determined standards - do not be surprised when you get what you put out.

Finally - I am sorry, but reading this makes me thing that you're under the impression the world is the size of a dime. Are we basing relationships on the limited amount of people surrounding the fire in our cave community? Good men AND good women that are sexually attractive will always be harder to attain as a result of their options.

And funny enough, this statement of yours circles back to point #1. If I'm in a relationship with someone who for some reason believes that I need to love him unconditionally like his mom (Jesus Fucking Christ, BARF) and begins to treat me as such.....yeah I'm going to leave him for someone who is willing to put in the work into giving me the kind of relationship I'm looking for, because I sure as shit don't have a problem doing it in return.

I think the biggest issue is that you're sticking to this very limited type of thinking that only reflects how sheltered you've been. The world is huge. There are BILLIONS of people out there. Please stop thinking that you are one of 12 neanderthal cavemen who can be chosen as a potential suitor for a fertile female. Grow up.

CaptinSuspenders · 2020-10-26T13:43:02+00:00

Unconditional love does not equal unconditional giving! Someone can still love you forever even if they can no longer tolerate poor treatment, which yes includes either partner not willing to support the household to their fullest abilities in whatever that may mean for the couple/family (emotional labor, domestic labor, etc). Being an attractive woman is in itself a contribution, I guess, but only a foolish man would invest in a woman purely based on that quality and they probably deserve what's coming to them if they do. Also, women get older and less hot, so it's not really "unconditional", is it? A woman loving you does not mean they have to indulge gross behavior, and the same goes for the inverse.

RedPillDetox · 2020-10-26T10:24:16+00:00

My opinions

Women only love conditionally based on what you can provide for them. Men love unconditionally as a sort of evolutionary safeguard, where a woman is incapable of loving unconditionally. Nature plays a cruel trick on men, by exposing him first to the only woman who will love him unconditionally - his mother - and having him believe such will be a template for future relationships. While I believe this is wrong, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this one.

I think unconditional love really depends on the person or the relationship you're in, namely the maturity and chemistry behind it. It definitly exists, i've felt it before in my relationships. Unfortunelly most relationships are not based on unconditional love. Men sure as shit don't love unconditionally, they'll leave a woman if she becomes fat, old, etc. They cheat more than women and often, if they don't leave a woman, it's because they don't have a better option atm, not because he loves her "unconditionally".

A man is more 'expendable' in a relationship, since it's likely the woman was one of his (very few) options where the woman can easily toss him, since she has lines of guys after her (by virtue of being a woman). Would also like to hear anyone's thoughts on (what I think) is a caricature of something that has truth in it.

For a woman, most options are either from creeps or weirdos. And those who are okayish options are only in it for the sex. Given that women are tendentially more long term mating oriented this severely limits her actual real options.

Being rich/powerful/having high status is of utmost importance in attracting women

Yes, but first and foremost, status isn't the only relevant aspect of dating. There are many other variables that come into play. And secondly, status is primarely defined by behavior as a whole. Being non-needy, having poise...

Besides, status is also subjective in a woman's head. Some women will just like you and respect you because of who you are. Typically, people can agree upon cues of status, and most people agree that money and popularity are consensual cues of status. But get a Corporate CEO in a frat party or a Goth party... you think he's still going to be viewed as the most attractive dude in there over the frat party animal or the Goth band singer?

Pokeconomics · 2020-10-26T23:55:35+00:00

I prefer Ayn Rand's idea on love https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQVrMzWtqgU

All love is transactional aka conditional. That goes both men and women. I do believe men have less requirements than women. It is much easier for woman to fall in love than a man. A man must have some status, wealth, and physical attributes while a woman just need to be feminine and a great personality, which is why Jordan Peterson says, "Women marry up and men marry down". Your mother will love you on the condition that you continue to be her son. She will stop loving you when you continue to hurt her in some way.

"A man is more expendable in a relationship" - It goes against our laws of nature unless you're a freaking spider. In the mammalian kingdom, it's the women that are "replaceable". If you're a self sufficient man, then you know "ALL WOMEN ARE REPLACEABLE". Male animals jump from one female to the next. No man should be having "one-itis". There are plenty of women out there and if she has a red flag that you don't like then you move on. You have to be the driver in your life and she needs to know that she's just a passenger. If she doesn't like the way you drive or the direction you're heading then she needs to get out of the car. This is why it helps when both people have similar values and outlook. The most important people in your life is 1. Your Life, 2. Your career, 3. Your mother, 4. Her. She should be the 4th person on the list. Always set boundaries, because if she has any hint or idea that she is replaceable, she will not overstep those boundaries.

80/20 Rule of Pareto's Law application into attractiveness could be true from the OKCupid. I don't know how much of the data is skewed. But remember, its much more difficult for women to attracted to a man. There are more requirements for her to be attracted. For men, if she's average and naked, it doesn't take much to get hard.

Jordan Peterson debunked that being rich and powerful was not needed to attract women. His research showed that it was the drive and ambition. They want to see you have the potential to generate money vs someone with a lot of money just burning cash.

KurkTheMagnificent · 2020-10-26T03:59:01+00:00

I tend to agree with everything you said in general. Unlike most TRPers, I do not live by them as absolute rules, just a theory that seems to fit the picture I see.

Evolution is god as far as I'm concerned, and the influence it has over us is unfathomable. Read Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, Carl Zimmer's Evolution.

DoryWasACrip · 2020-10-26T04:15:42+00:00

I'm literally a radical feminist and i agree with this lol. The mistake that redpill makes is that they blame women solely for this issue, when really we should be proactively working to undo these ancient gender roles, since theyre now mostly unnecessary for survival

Title	Some thoughts I've had which may/may not be influenced by Red Pill
Author	Weak_Alarm
Upvotes	14
Comments	87
Date	October 26, 2020 1:46 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/ExRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/ji5v3w/some_thoughts_ive_had_which_maymay_not_be/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/ExRedPill/some-thoughts-ive-had-which-maymay-not-be.323785 https://theredarchive.com/post/323785

Comments