BPers : What is TRP wrong about specifically?

freereflection · 2016-02-06T04:10:02+00:00

I find it difficult for you to claim that these are fringe opinions. They appear to be popular majority opinions. Are we on the same sub?

The top submission currently headlines at "The world is scared of men congregating"

The third highest comment on the football thread is "Women ruin everything that men can enjoy without them." The fourth is "I hate female sports reporters and why would any man allow himself to be coached by a woman?" You find these kinds of comments highly upvoted in virtually every thread.

the top post from the 400+comment female draft post: "You know those opening scenes of the Normandy invasion in Saving Private Ryan where all the men get mowed down by MG42 machine guns as they spill out of the boats onto Omaha beach? Now imagine if that had been women dying, instead of men. That's what equality looks like."

I personally find the above comment to be extremely poignant - as though this freedom is worth dying for, even for women. The intent of the author, is clearly different.

PoopInMyBottom · 2016-02-06T15:19:26+00:00

The 80/20 rule: the data that shows 80% of women are only attracted to 20% of guys comes from dating websites. On a dating website, you are basically judging somebody based on a photo alone. Surprise, men respond more strongly to photos than women. The gender that watches porn likes photographs. Women are considerably more attracted to men in real life than they are to men in photographs, so they rate pictures as below-average.

Hence, on a dating website, you get a skew. That skew does not reflect real life.

AF/BB: women only exhibit a biological tendency towards this when they are with a partner who is below their level of sexual attractiveness, and even then it is marginal. When with a partner of similar sexual attractiveness, women become more attracted during ovulation, not less.

Note that this also disproves the 80/20 rule.

AF/BB is the number one reason women cheat/dread game improves a relationship: the number one reason women cheat is consistently found to be a belief that their partner might be cheating on them. Unsurprising, really. When a woman sees her partner as hypocritical, she no longer sees the need to be loyal. She is also probably looking for another relationship, because her partner might not be around for much longer.

The Cock Carousel: the median number of partners for women in their mid-30s is around 10. That's less than one per year. Most women sleep with their boyfriends, and have a couple of casual relationships.

A woman will never love you: ridiculous redefinition of the word love. Women pair bond, often stronger than men.

Women find dominance attractive: women find dominance attractive when the alternative is meekness. When you actually isolate the word dominance and give the choice between a variety of adjectives, women actively dislike dominance. They like assertiveness and confidence. A few like aggression, but it is the vast minority (12%). None like a demanding man.

Easy-going was actually a preferred trait to even confidence.

Women like a lot of muscle: women consistently rate "otter-mode" as most attractive. Most women like swimmer's bodies. A minority prefer a lot of muscle, and they generally prefer a certain amount of fat as well. It would appear very few prefer muscular and cut. You can see the results of a poll done on this very subreddit which show those results.

Women like high testosterone males, especially during ovulation: to quote: "Humor and intelligence appear to be more attractive to women than testosterone-related masculinity when it matters most – during ovulation."

Note the other quote as well: "Thus, in this set of effects, women's preference for behavioural dominance was not generally stronger at high fertility than at low fertility."

Frame control is attractive: again, easy-going was rated as a consistently attractive trait. Being controlling was rated as extremely unattractive. Trying to control any interaction is unattractive. Letting interactions happen and being unconcerned with the outcome is considerably more attractive. Frame control is the antithesis to that.

Some people argue that holding frame just describes being unaffected, but that is dishonest. Holding frame is often used interchangeably with frame control on TRP, and that is specifically the concept I want to tackle.

LucilioVanini · 2016-02-06T05:27:34+00:00

TRP is not the shitty people it attracts, I have yet to find a core RP belief that isn't common sense if you're a confident, rational male. Sure, there definetly are some idiots on /r/TRP, even endorsed contributors these days. These are fringe opinions though.

No, TRP is absolutely the shitty people it attracts. And sure, 100% of RPers don't agree with 100% of what endorsed contributors say, but saying that they have "fringe opinions" is disingenuous at best. Now look, I don't disagree that there's quite a bit of truth to TRP, far more than any BPer is going to admit. But there's a lot of bullshit too.

The biggest disagreement I have with TRP is the unnecessary and unfounded paranoia it creates. Do women like 'alpha' traits in men? Of course. Are they full of shit when they say being nice is an attractive trait in itself? Of fucking course.

But where TRP goes wrong is claiming that if you aren't alpha, a woman is only using you for validation or financial support. Not only that, but you can bet your beta ass that she'll hop on the first alpha dick she can find. And if they aren't hopping on the dick, they are constantly thinking about doing it. Do some women do this? I'm sure they do. People are shitty.

From my perspective, it's very similar to the bullshit feminists generally spew. Consider the the whole concept of 'non-consensual sex' (feminists consider it a specific type of rape).

Feminists believe that there is always a legitimate possibility that men will kill a woman if they reject men's sexual advances. That in any given situation, there's an implication that men will turn violent. They'll name examples of it happening, and I'm sure it has happened before. Then they claim that because of said examples, women are completely justified in saying that just because a woman didn't reject a man's advances, doesn't mean she actually consented to have sex with him.

You know she was just way too scared to say no, because while she was making out with him, she just couldn't shake the feeling this guy might be a violent murderer.

Do you follow that logic? Does it make any sense? You're RP, so I assume you strongly disagree. Why? Because most men aren't psychopathic murderers. Most men would get angry/sad if they were rejected, but because they're human beings and have some sense of morality, 99% of guys aren't going to turn to violence over a rejection.

This is what RPers do with AWALT. Are there examples of women doing shitty, selfish things? Yes, of course there are. Do they instinctively find men with 'alpha' traits attractive? Yes. Will they start sucking off an alpha guy as soon as their 'beta bitch' boyfriend turns their back? Sometimes, but women like this are in the minority. Like men, most women do have a sense of integrity and morality. I don't think women are slaves to their emotions and tingles.

There are other examples, but the main thing is that...

TL;DR- TRP takes certain truths and magnifies them to the point of ridiculousness

Interversity · 2016-02-06T03:44:49+00:00

Sure, there definetly are some idiots on /r/TRP, even endorsed contributors

These are fringe opinions though.

endorsed contributors

fringe opinions

u wot m9

BhiQ · 2016-02-06T11:39:36+00:00

So, BPers, can you actually nail down core RedPill concepts that you can disprove?

No, because its delibirately unfalisifiable. As soon as you point to a concept thats clearly objectionable the response will be:

1) "Well thats a fringe belief that no one really believes" (even if its straight from the sidebar)

2) "Well thats just a heuristic not meant 100% literally" for specific claims like AWALT, whether alpha/beta is an actual valid ethological term for humans, hypergamy, female solipsism ect ect.

In fact I'd point to Karl Poppers criticism of psychoanalysis in this instance. He considers the example of a person pushing another person in a lake vs one saving someone, and realises that psychoanalysists will always claim to have a perfect answer that predicts why it happened.

I could not think of any human behaviour which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory. It was precisely this fact — that they always fitted, that they were always confirmed — which in the eyes of their admirers constituted the strongest argument in favour of these theories. It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness.

If you think of any hypothetical conflict of a woman and a man, there is always a red pill answer as to what happened. Either the man was not "alpha" enough, or the woman was being hypergamous ect ect. Red pillers always boast that they're constantly being confirmed in their beliefs (and with conclusions that more often than not, place women at fault) which to a skeptical minded person should be a massive red flag.

duckyhunter · 2016-02-06T08:34:04+00:00

People object to the Red Pill because it explicitly states that women are liars that police everything men do from the time they're children.

Men are trained as early as preschool to be extra considerate toward their female peers, to never be aggressive toward them, to always be gentler with them than male peers. The implicit message that boys are raised on is that this is what women want. That being good little nice guys will get them everything they need to be happy in life. For the naturally good looking men, it works. But the other 80% of men are left out in the cold, wondering how their upbringing could've failed them.

The Red Pill simply states what everyone knows but won't admit: that assholes are much more successful with women than nice guys. And it makes no apologies for calling women out on how they raise boys. Mothers and teachers implicitly groom their sons and male students such that only the most attractive men will find success courting their daughters.

Men aren't raised to be happy. They're raised to make women happy. And women and naturally good looking men don't like being told that they benefit from systematic upbringing that makes 80% of men miserable well into middle age.

[deleted] · 2016-02-06T12:55:32+00:00

[permanently deleted]

HalfysReddit · 2016-02-06T06:01:30+00:00

I don't identify with either pill, although I do tend to defend TRP's existence here.

That being said, there is plenty that TRP is misguided about.

Primarily though, its scope is too narrow. It focus exclusively on the dichotomy of men and women in heterosexual, monogamous relationships and exclusively on the end goal of men in attracting large numbers of women.

Now, the core of TRP is the concept that there exists a pecking order or hierarchy when it comes to attraction. I went into detail on this concept here so I won't bother explaining it again. It will suffice to say though that there exists a spectrum of attraction, where at one end people attract many mates and at the other end people attract very few.

Thing is though, this spectrum exists for everything, and in a much bigger picture the entire potential benefit of exposure to TRP and acknowledging these spectrums, is that one is then capable of acknowledging where they fall on said spectrums and acting to change their place on them. In simpler terms, it's much easier to win a race when you know you're a participant.

With that being said, TRP focuses too much on placing oneself at the far end of the spectrum of attracting mates. This in itself isn't terrible, as most people given the option would prefer to be perceived as attractive and have a larger pool of mates to choose from (as a larger pool of mates means it is more likely one will end up with a mate that benefits their life more than others). Or looking at the spectrum in the other direction, few people are content with scraping the bottom of the barrel.

That being said, the big picture that is missed is that ones personal goals likely extend far beyond attracting many mates. For example, if one derives no pleasure from say, lifting weights, and would not engage in that behavior on their own, it is not necessarily a given that the loss of pleasure from lifting weights outweighs the pleasure they gain from improving their position on this spectrum of attraction. Especially considering that if the mate they attract and choose to be with were only interested in them for their weight lifting activity, that behavior now becomes a sort of required maintenance for that relationship.

Now that's applying a very broad concept to a very specific situation. I myself was once an amateur bodybuilder and do look forward to returning to that life style (just not at the moment). Trust that I am not demonizing weight lifting, in fact I champion it and encourage anyone who is capable to at least give it an honest shot. That doesn't mean everyone would be better off lifting weights though.

The point of that example though, is to illustrate how the concept that one can improve their placement on one spectrum, does not necessarily mean that one is better off doing so. One does not need to be the sexiest, or the most intelligent, or the most charismatic, to attain ones goals and enjoy a happy life. In fact, if ones goals are defined solely as being the best, they are likely to find their goals unrealistic and unattainable.

In the end, acknowledgment of these spectrums has the potential to improve any given person's life. However ignorance is bliss, and some prefer to be unaware that they are involved in a race than to be made aware of it and feel pressured to improve their situation. Hence why the concept is referred to as "the red pill" - it is the removal of that ignorance, the loss of the ability to be blissfully unaware of ones standing.

BiggerDthanYou · 2016-02-06T17:22:23+00:00

I have yet to find a core RP belief that isn't common sense if you're a confident, rational male

And that's the problem we have with TRP. Why would anyone that is not a misogynist decide that TRP is the right thing for him?

Those things can be found everywhere else so why do you stay in a misogynistic shithole?

cookiebootz · 2016-02-06T07:04:58+00:00

Even if you don't share the same feelings, it shouldn't take a lot of imagination to guess why a lot of people would have problems with a subreddit that sidebars a thread called "Guide to Managing Your Bitches."

These are the things that personally gross me out about TRP:

It posits that women can't reach the same level of mental and emotional maturity as men.

It relies on ridiculously unscientific methodology. Red Pillers are constantly telling me things about how men and women generally think and act. Many of those things have the same ability to describe my experience as telling me women generally speak Klingon and men generally wear shoes on their hands. Any exceptions to these statements are labeled "outliers," although an actual relevant body of data almost never exists in order to make that label worth anything.

Red Pillers often defend its meaner aspects by saying that it works and thats all that matters to them. I think that's gross and also a really flimsy defense of any behavior.

Baldr209 · 2016-02-06T09:10:19+00:00

red pillers are fundamentally wrong about how the human mating dance works. studies dating back 30 or 40 years show that woman start the majority of relationships and escalate them at every stage. they just make men do all the legwork because women are lazy and cowardly.

Title	BPers : What is TRP wrong about specifically?
Author	BhiQ
Upvotes	3
Comments	141
Date	February 6, 2016 3:43 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/44eiwb/bpers_what_is_trp_wrong_about_specifically/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/bpers-what-is-trp-wrong-about-specifically.276425 https://theredarchive.com/post/276425

Comments

endorsed contributors

fringe opinions