[–]Cbus_anonymous 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link

[–]coolironyguy 11 points11 points11 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chasingstatueszion was part of the matrix2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points-1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]chasingstatueszion was part of the matrix0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]coolironyguy 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chasingstatueszion was part of the matrix1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]coolironyguy 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Liberal creationism is this idea that evolution is real but somehow stopped wherever it's politically convenient for the kind of person who engages in this behavior. Whether it be IQ, race, sex differences, behavioral differences.

Good examples of this are Stephen Jay Gould leading mobs against Edward O. Wilson, the author of "Sociobiology" and arguably one of the most influential academic figures when it comes to the formation of evolutionary psychology.

More recently, the humanities frauds exposed in the Norwegian documentary series Hjernevask (Brainwash) who are anti-intellectual, anti-scientific turds trying to socially engineer society for the benefit of their in-groups.

A large amount of this discussion is backed by science. Just not your side of it. Which is why TRP is less wrong than your side of it and why a young, critically thinking man who wonders why some are more successful sexually than others would find what they are saying far more compelling than what you are saying.

[–]chasingstatueszion was part of the matrix1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

There isn't much of that, which is why they're less wrong than you, but still have more scientific fact behind what they're saying than you do.

Other things they do that annoy me is that this "alpha" posturing bullshit where a lot of them think that X bad outcome won't happen to them for some completely irrational reason related to their egos.

[–]chasingstatues1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]coolironyguy1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chasingstatues1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeti 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

"Men have been, and should be, the more dominant gender, not because of some imagined divine right or physical prowess, but because on some rudimentary psychological level we ought to realized that a woman’s love is contingent upon our capacity to maintain that love in spite of a woman’s hypergamy. By order of degrees, hypergamy will define who a woman loves and who she will not, depending upon her own opportunities and capacity to attract it."

"Hypergamy, by its nature, defines love for women in opportunistic terms, leaving men as the only objective arbiters of what love is for themselves."

"Women are machiavellian in nature, this means they are comparatively proficient at being manipulative versus the typical male. The evolutionary theoretical basis for this is due to smaller size and inferior musculature women had to learn to use men as tools rather than directly oppose them in a physical conflict (as they would undoubtedly lose in all but very few scenarios) this makes the pronunciation of their strength a propensity to be mentally violent rather than to be physically violent. Physical violence is outlawed whereas mental abuse is not, this allows women to get their way without being held accountable by a system of law, the law does not legislate interpersonal morality to this extent. Where a man's instinct is to hit, a woman's is to do a big shit in your mind instead."

I could go on, if you need.

[–]thedeti 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeti -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gavinok1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'll cut and paste my response from a discussion on this last night. I could get a lot more thorough with it, but this is ok for a first pass:

The way trp uses the term, a genetic component and historic component are both required, as they go to great lengths to talk about how this as a "natural strategy" is how women kept their children alive, but it ignores reality all over the place. Studies on our oldest civilizations suggest egalitarian structures were likely necessary for survival (which makes sense, as you'd require all hands on deck to get any work done when you have very few people in your clan). And even after more modern societies developed, women didn't play any role in selecting their partners until recent history, the parents of both marital parnters selected matches on the basis of mutual benefit to both families. There was no "marrying up", except potentially by increments, and then it would by necessity have to be evenly divided between the sexes. Arguing for one or multiple genes guiding a behavior that couldn't have possibly existed until recently is ridiculous, therefore not "inherent nature", not most or all women, not genetic, not evolutionary. And then they bank all future claims on the existence of this, so the whole thing crumbles at this point.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago [recovered] (19 children) | Copy Link

Trp is entirely predicated on things that aren't true

Which particular things would you be referring to and how do you determine them invalid?

[–]Cbus_anonymous 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

I'll cut an paste for you too, as I just had this discussion last night. It's not thorough, but will get across some of what I'm talking about. On hypergamy:

The way trp uses the term, a genetic component and historic component are both required, as they go to great lengths to talk about how this as a "natural strategy" is how women kept their children alive, but it ignores reality all over the place. Studies on our oldest civilizations suggest egalitarian structures were likely necessary for survival (which makes sense, as you'd require all hands on deck to get any work done when you have very few people in your clan). And even after more modern societies developed, women didn't play any role in selecting their partners until recent history, the parents of both marital partners selected matches on the basis of mutual benefit to both families. There was no "marrying up", except potentially by increments, and then it would by necessity have to be evenly divided between the sexes. Arguing for one or multiple genes guiding a behavior that couldn't have possibly existed until recently is ridiculous, therefore not "inherent nature", not most or all women, not genetic, not evolutionary. And then they bank all future claims on the existence of this, so the whole thing crumbles at this point.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

I too think the way RP communities use hypergamy is incorrect, but I don't think hypergamy as a concept it false, so I'd like to see if you can prove me wrong. For the purpose of better understanding your points I'm going to assume you're using it in a strictly "women are attracted to and seek relationships with men whome they respect, admire or are otherwise stationed above them in a relative hierarchy" sense, and not as a catch-all term for all claims TRP make against female sexuality such as dualistic mating and opportunistic loving.

Studies on our oldest civilizations suggest egalitarian structures were likely necessary for survival

Please cite a source here.

In my youth I held on much tighter to my socialist-libertarian ideals, and this led me to believe that humans were naturally egalitarian. This was one of my dearest held beliefs for a long time. But as I learned more about the human brain and human behaviour I had to abandon this idea. I now maintain that humans are naturally hierarchical, though informal hierarchies are often fluid and relative. The primary behavioural purpose for serotonin appears to be realizing this nature across many biological systems.

That social dominance exists shouldn't be under question. Please make very sure that you note that social dominance in this sense does not equate to aggression. Aggression levels may rise with status, but it may not. They are not the same thing. Some studies such as this one use the term dominance to describe aggression and thereby show that women are not attracted to dominant men, but rather highly prestigisous men. Note that in no instance were women not attracted to the higher status male expect through displays of aggression. However, if we continue to use dominance in a strictly endocrinology sense (a weighted flow of respect between two animals), that study once again shows how women are attracted to the most dominant men. That women are attracted to male dominance is shown in study after study after study after study and I really don't see how anyone who has even a general interest in human sexuality could deny it as a major component of female attraction.

And even after more modern societies developed, women didn't play any role in selecting their partners until recent history, the parents of both marital partners selected matches on the basis of mutual benefit to both families. There was no "marrying up", except potentially by increments, and then it would by necessity have to be evenly divided between the sexes.

If hypergamy were adaptational or otherwise had a genetic basis, this would have little long term mollifying effects. That society represses an aspect of human sexuality does not remove it eg that men are socially pressured to refrain from practicing polygyny does not stop them from having the required neurocircuitry and endocrine structures to suggest it as an ideal and natural practice.

Also, if you could provide a source on that assertion I'd be really grateful. It's something I need to learn more about.

For the final points, I think point one undermines their basis. That humans will have evolved within an environment encouraging hierarchy is found throughout the field of neuroscience and behavioural endocrinology, so to say women could not possibly have adaptational traits regarding hierarchy is unreasonable.

[–]Cbus_anonymous 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]_---_-_-_2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Challenge accepted, but this is going to be a dense series of posts, so bear with me. My plan is to divide them by category of things we’re addressing here. I’d like to start with a definition of hypergamy, because it’s actually far simpler than what you wrote. The genesis of the term refers to Hindu marriages within or above caste; I’m using the more diverse “marrying up” or “dating up”, meaning women are principally attracted to people they think are above them in finances, power, or prestige. Couldn’t use your definition, because, naturally, anyone who’s selecting even a dating partner will prefer to choose someone they respect or admire, regardless of sex. I’d argue that respect is the crux of every healthy relationship.

So, the whole next bit relates to your request for a citation.

Societies with few-to-no possessions, and no control of food supply, would require shared resources for survival, which requires cooperation. Because of the crudeness of the weapons available, unless they were hunting very small game, like fish, birds, and rabbits, hunters had to go in groups. The distanced weaponry they had back then, including things like non-extant bows/arrows and spears, just didn't have the force/lethality that ours do today, so the groups had to be relatively close to the target, and that target had to be hit multiple times in a really short span or driven over a cliff to be dispatched safely. There was no refrigeration and very little preservation, so monetizing a successful kill doesn't make sense. The resources would have to be shared.

These are specific hunter/gatherers and obligate foragers I'm talking about here, and the timeframe is roughly 70,000 BC all the way to Paleolithic period and just beyond. Archeological data suggests group size was fairly small.

Before I go any farther, it's worthwhile to point out that there are still tribes today that are thought to be ancient, and operate on these principles. Examples are the !Kung, the Hadza, the Batek, and recently discovered tribes in the Amazon, like the Zo'e; if it’s worth anything to you, there are many more than this, and I’m happy to produce a more comprehensive list. These groups have incredible sexual egalitarianism as well, with the !Kung having apparently no detectable distinctions in valuation between sexes. By all appearances, if tribes had no system of property valuation, and food is relatively plentiful, this is the default governing principle in them, and with decreasing nomadic tendencies, and increasing amounts of valued items, egalitarianism decreases. So there are hunter/gatherers that were more recent that don't fit this trend, or fit it less well.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/192713707/The-Condition-of-Egalitarian-Male-female-Relationship-in-Foraging-Societies#scribd

https://libcom.org/files/EGALITARIAN%20SOCIETIES%20-%20James%20Woodburn.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668207

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/796

https://books.google.com/books?id=ljxS8gUlgqgC&pg=PA197&dq=Paleolithic&lr=&sig=V-GOM-s3rCApE_baw2oRoaw24w8#v=onepage&q=Paleolithic&f=false

Really, the existence of societies today that practice egalitarianism already argues against hypergamy being a description of “true nature”.

[–]Cbus_anonymous 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So, onto the next bit. The following is simply not true:

The primary behavioural purpose for serotonin appears to be realizing this nature across many biological systems.

Serotonin is all over the brain, and involved in widely varied processes as a result. The fact that it drives yawning doesn’t suggest that its primary role is to influence the yawning reflex. The number and variation of serotonin receptors is staggering, and the response they’re driving ranges from excitatory, inhibitory, metabotropic, and modulatory for the release of other neurotransmitters. Basically, what I’m saying is that it isn’t really news that it would also play a role in aggression, because it plays a role in nearly everything brain-derived. Also, I’m not entirely certain what the point of demonstrating a role of serotonin in aggression is, relative to what we’re talking about.

Social hierarchies aren’t universal, and egalitarianism has stably been practiced in other cultures, which was the point of the previous post. That hierarchies also exist doesn’t wipe that out.

The first study is looking at whether women prefer someone who’s taken power by being an asshole, or someone who attained it by peer recognition. It’s not really helpful here, imo, because it’s not looking at whether women will in general seek high prestige targets. But the reality is this: prestige is highly context-driven. For example, I value intelligence, and don’t value athletic prowess. A famous, rich, but dumb sportsball guy is of little use to me. He’ll gain no quarter, since what allocated prestige to him isn’t interesting to me. Groupies may throw themselves at rock stars, but wouldn’t for famous attorneys, and so on. What’s denotes value differs from person to person. So we’re back to what I said in my last post: people in general want to be with people they respect, but there’s no recipe for what makes that determination.

I don’t know what you mean by “strictly endocrinology sense” at all, even with the parenthetical statement, but either way, you’re still talking about that first paper, and none of the three studies they conducted found that women prefer dominant men; they all went in the opposite direction.

The next paper literally has nothing to do with what we’re discussing. It speaks to using light touch in persuasion. The paper after that is the exact paper that your first paper was disproved the findings of. The next paper isn’t a paper, but either way, it shows that unattached women rate sluttier looking guys as desirable during ovulation, and it contains disproven claims that women prefer very masculine looking men. Your final study goes against your claims here. Not only did women not rate “dominant” men higher, they significantly preferred more feminine faces and voices on men who were bigger. The stats in the last study, btw, were difficult to comprehend, so maybe you just missed that somehow? It’s rare for 3d modeling techniques off of eignevalues to be used.

What are you even trying to show here again?

men are socially pressured to refrain from practicing polygyny

Why do you want extra spouses? If you want a harem, don’t marry? Society is actually ok with that.

That humans will have evolved within an environment encouraging hierarchy is found throughout the field of neuroscience and behavioural endocrinology, so to say women could not possibly have adaptational traits regarding hierarchy is unreasonable.

You supplied neither neuroscience links nor endocrinology links, and neither of those fields really address this topic anyway. I mean, there are researchers who look at behavioral outcomes given certain parameters, but that’s not addressing the “evolution” per se. Also, I didn’t say that women can’t have traits that help them deal with hierarchies, I said that arguing for one or more genes that encourage women to “marry up”, particularly when women didn’t even get to select their spouse until recently, is ludicrous.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Cbus_anonymous 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppdredRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppdredRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppdredRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ppdred1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The egalitarian societies I'm talking about were Paleolithic peoples and slightly earlier. The egalitarian ones that I'm referencing specific marital practices in today are existing tribes like the !Kung; we can't derive much about marital practices of Paleos because their history is unwritten, and eventually other social structures formed.

Once hieracrchical structures became the norm, arranged marriage did as well, and this has been the global norm for almost all of the rest of human history. Parents selected the spouses.

Sexual selection has a lot less to do with natural selection than you seem to realize, and seeing that humans are unlike all other animals, I don't really get why you'd try to lump them into that general pool.

If you can't contradict (and, you won't be able to) any of these points, reading anything you put up is actually immaterial.

[–]ppdred1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you can't contradict (and, you won't be able to) any of these points,

This conversation was essentially me pointing out your contradictions. Let me try again=

-Arguing for one or multiple genes guiding a behavior that couldn't have possibly existed until recently is ridiculous

-but are sexually free to sleep with whomever they want. (prior to hierarchial structures) -

You are admitting that prior to hierarchial structures, there was sexual choice, so the behavior of choosing sexual partners DID exist before recent times. You are literally contradicting yourself above.

reading anything you put up is actually immaterial.

What I put up is relevant to sexual selection in humans, and how concepts like - sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive- have a very real affect on reproduction rates, sexual success, etc

But given your position that sexual selection is not even real in humans because arranged marriage was a thing for awhile, I doubt you have the capacity to understand/appreciate any of that.

[–]Cbus_anonymous1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Archeological evidence suggests that those groups were very small, something called "bands" by current anthropologists. If we can extrapolate current bands to the Paleolithic bands, then there's a good reason to believe that there wasn't anything similar to current monogamy being practiced, and everyone fucked everyone. You would get sex by virtue of being there. The current bands we know about don't moralize about sex; if two people are aroused, they just do it due to proximity. They aren't selecting "partners", and while it's possible that there were preferred lovers within the group, there isn't really a lot of evidence of exclusion or selection going on. The children are all treated as if every person there is the father. There is no "selection" going on.

In larger communities, when you start to cross a clan, dynasty, or tribe threshold, arranged marriage begins to be practiced. In some tribes, both parents make the decision, in some it's the father or mother's decision only, but it's not selection by the one who will be getting married.

But given your position that sexual selection is not even real in humans

What you just did is the hallmark of a person who knows they can't support their argument, and so they're going to start just throwing fits. See, I repeatedly recognized that the dynamic changed with the advent of love marriage, but that that's a recent phenomenon. And again, if you can't address the points I brought up in any rational way, there is no point for me to read anything you put up. Realistically, no one doesn't recognize that sperm is more easily produced than eggs, but just as realistically, it's immaterial to this discussion. Sperm/egg fusion is characteristic of all animals except those who have parthenogenesis or single gamete offspring (happens in insects). From an evolutionary standpoint, real evolution here, not the kind redpill talks about, this means that system developed long before even proto-humans were around. It's like arguing that our behavior is governed by our appendixes or something. We have brains and we use them, superseding "nature" arguments in most cases.

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeti 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points3 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill-4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

We need a Purple Pill IRC channel (#purplehills?]

He was shown to be factually wrong in a debate with me the first day I posted in here,

In the same train of thought he's complained that no one "helped, instructed or trained" them and refused me for trying to exactly that He has no concept of his own sampling bias but refuses to think that other people have different experiences. (Or that asking a woman what she wants is supplicating her)

I honestly think he struggles in a way.

They all do.

This guy has no concept of what to do with female friends if you don't try to sleep with them.

He doesn't seem to have any concept of how this appears externally

The IRC channel is even sadder.

This happened yesterday:

22:18 < MMZephyr> I couldn't find the hole 22:19 < zkmr> sometimes you kind of have to just apply pressure and a downward motion until it goes in 22:19 < MMZephyr> zkmr, I was going more up than down. I was closer to the clitoris than the hole 22:20 < fea1a> It either works or it doesn't but on the girls that it does work on it's awesome. 22:20 < MMZephyr> What would you rate her, btw? I give her a 7.5/10. She has 34D boobs http://imgur.com/6afGhXi 22:20 < zkmr> you just start from the clit and go down, really

I don't even know where to begin to help some of them and the other ones are so lost and convinced it's a big conspiracy that they refuse to listen to someone a bit more what they're talking about.

GayLubeOil is some personal hero because he has his own InstaGram: https://instagram.com/gaylubeoil/ I know all of my "HB10" friends would take one look at that guy and laugh. The only women he's picking up are the ones that that type of guy can pick up, wash, rinse repeat.

[–]Cbus_anonymous1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DStoo2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh christ, what the fuck is that copied discussion from?

TRP IRC channel. I hang out on SRS, KotakuInAction and multiple other chat channels. TRP's is by far the saddest. Despite differing views of SRS and KIA they actually just hang out and chat.

TRP's IRC channel produces gems like the above.

I think trp is completely predatory for the rest, the ones who've felt confused

Exactly. Look at GayLubeOil. He happens to have a Vine, a Twitter & an Instagram. He's cultivating a 'following' no different than porn stars do. That's who confused anger phase kids are following. Which is just going to setup a feedback loop.

were looking for advice on how to improve their odds in the dating world

Which is what I'm altruistically trying to give but because I don't have something to sell and I'm not going to make a vine showing 20 year olds dancing around my apartment apparently my advice is invalid.

The "Women work on the referral" system thread was dead on. Except vapid, shallow vain women that are interested in only looks will use the 'referral' of other vapid, shallow, vain women to get "referrals."

I get referrals based on being a nice guy. (My friends know I'm not a rapist). So when their "HB10" friends are out at the bar they say "Hey this is /u/DSToo" and we hang out all night because Acquaintance trusts my friend. My friend trusts me, acquaintance trusts me. Personally it's why I like hanging out with lesbians. Some of my lesbian friends have the same taste in women and a woman walking up to a table asking for a seat is a lot more disarming than a guy cold approach.

Those are the women that shoot down cold approaches. It has nothing to do with how hot you are or how much you lift. It's that that woman isn't one that a 'cold approach' works on. If you're getting women with cold approaches they're women that are attracted to cold approaches, which are a small subset of all women and introduces a huge sampling bias into your "studies".

But they all refuse to accept that because they've never seen it, because they refuse to be just friends with women. (Why would I become good friends with her if she won't sleep with me?)

[–]Cbus_anonymous1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But they all refuse to accept that because they've never seen it, because they refuse to be just friends with women.

This is something I don't believe. When they see it, they reframe it in their minds as "She must have something up her sleeve!" and then pat themselves on the back for avoiding a scam that was never happening to begin with. It's more expansive than a sampling bias: they're coupling post-hoc analysis with foregone conclusions, and doing no corrections.

I wonder how many of them actually get that the logical conclusion for many of the thrusts that the forum makes is that it's ok to rape.

What's a HB10? Oh, and I tried to get into that IRC thing you linked and was blocked. But, realistically, if it's just a bunch of guys offering one another systems of misogynistic justification, it'll make me sad and I don't want to go there.

[–]DStoo2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"HB10" - "Hot Bitch. 10/10". A 10/10 girl.

According to this post this is one TRPer's scale: 5, 8, 10. What he (and others) completely fail to realize is that this is what a "HB10" normally looks like. I have plenty of "HB10" friends that go to class in sweatpants and their hair in a rat's nest.

IF you have a girl showing up to class at 7:30 in the morning looking like a HB10 there's a good chance she's trying to attract a Chad, so Chad like behavior works. The rest would rather fly under the radar and not be hit on.

But when we're out at the bars if you try a cold approach to one of my friends you're going to get shot down no matter how hot you are. The most entertaining shutouts are:

"You're in my calculus class."
"Naww, a girl you hot would never be in my calculus class. I've never seen you before"
"I sit one row over from you. I wear sweatpants because it's a calculus class, you're the douchebag that reeks of cologne."

So they chalk it up to either them not being hot enough or something and move on to a girl that does respond to those tactics. (Tactics like buying them drinks. Most of my friends are more intelligent than to accept a drink from a stranger).

But, realistically, if it's just a bunch of guys offering one another systems of misogynistic justification,

It's sadder than that. It's a bunch of guys going around telling each other that they have to lift. If you mention you don't lift you get kicked out and temp banned. Some of them have terrible, terrible diets. One guy's lunch was ~3000 calories of fish and rice. Because he need 'gains'. Plain nice. Plain fish. My wife and I thought it sounded like the most bland dinner in the world. He certainly wouldn't have made it to a 2nd date cooking like that for my wife (or any girls I've cooked for in the past).

It's not all bad, some of them are online 'lifting' pals. They keep each other honest about lifting and diet. But the method which they do it (calling each other faggots, 'negging' each other) isn't the best. You can definitely see how TRP takes a 'nice guy' and turns them into a douchebag Chad.

Edit: It's honestly like listening to a bunch of teenagers that are bad with women try to be this guy because he posts stuff like this on vine. It's one big causality loop. No doubt he's going to come out with a book or website that "only" costs $5/month to cash in on this (or just sell out to advertisers, if he hasn't already).

Meanwhile me and my "HB10" wife (that honestly looks better in sweatpants and can pack for a weekend in 10 minutes) sit and laugh on the sidelines. We went on a road trip and I talked her through all of TRP (She's a redditor just on 'sane' subs) and she just thought 'those sad sad boys'.

Attracting a HB10 STEM girl you're going to have to actually have personality and know how to cook.

[–]Cbus_anonymous1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DStoo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I am a short eurpean dude too. Do we all have the chip? Because at this point I am not sure what sex you are or or nationality but an idiot with a lot of arrogance and prejudice sure. Just regular internet garbage really, well done.

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]that_all_you_got0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DStoo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]probably_quite_drunk 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (126 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago [recovered] (56 children) | Copy Link

When a woman says she wants someone who is "nice" or whatnot, what she means is that she wants those qualities in someone she is already attracted to.

The problem is that they don't, or won't, communicate what that actually is. It's pretty easy to observe though and it's mostly physical. Unfortunately it's also mostly a have and have not scenario there. Guys can work out and get into better shape, but outside plastic surgery freakshows which more often than not leave someone looking weird they can't change their faces to look better and they can't grow taller or other congenital traits.

[–][deleted] 7 points7 points7 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]spacecanucksNo pills. No evidence? No point.7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

See, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Both genders like attractive people. That should be a given. I'm not sure why men should expect to have their hands held and to be explicitly told that women like physically attractive men.

Now, if we take attractiveness as a given, there is a much less standard 'attractiveness' for men. Women tend to like how a man makes them feel. You can be pretty but you gotta have that one thing that drives her crazy, and that bit differs a lot. Some women like a bossy, confident guy who takes charge. Some women like cute nerd boys who they unwrap like a present. Some women like to be argued with. Some women like a guy who treats her like an equal right away. I think that most people and most women can't define that spark of sexual attraction, so it leads to things like, 'I want a guy who is funny.'

She probably does want a funny guy. But he has to have that other quality she can't necessarily put her finger on. So, imo? Looks are less important for women, but that initial spark of interest is more crucial. I'm not sure if that makes sense, it's just something I've noticed in almost every lady friend, girlfriend and relative. It's also more obvious in lesbians fwiw.

I think it also makes it more difficult for men, and for women. I've never met a chick who won't say what she's physically into. I think you need to find yourself some honest friends.

[–]DStoo -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

What a woman says: "I just want a nice guy who treats me right"

What she means: "I just want a nice guy who treats me right"

What is so difficult for you to wrap your head around that?

Men are NOT told that physical attractiveness is important.

It isn't to a fault. You're not going to to be picking up HB10s when you're 400 lbs and can't touch your knees. I want to know who told you that was the case.

(b) they really can't articulate in words what turns them on.

Then you haven't been with the right women. I haven't ever had a problem with a woman telling me directly what turns them on.

When women discuss what is "attractive", they say things like "great sense of humor" or "good cook" or "is nice" or "is kind" or "loves animals" or "is adventurous", while physique and looks are just "presumed".

You do know that the latter can make up for shortcomingsn in the former? Right? A Chad that can't do any of the other things on the list will have less chances than an average looking guy that can do all of them.

[–]thedeti 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeti 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They're not describing what turns them on sexually. They're describing what makes them comfortable

With some women they're the same thing.

DStoo · 2015-07-01T18:57:38+00:00

The reason I joined PPD was to figure out what made TRPers click, why I didn't associate with them or their 'observations' and how to avoid...

This is what everyone that has been saying NAWALT the entire time has been saying.

The "AWALTers" are the type of women where they are turned on sexually by what you listed (Looks).

Men are predominantly "visual" sexual cues. When you get two groups of people that are turned on entirely by looks you have who TRP emulates and the types of women TRP attracted to and women that are attracted to who TRP emulates.

There are women that could shrug their shoulders at a guy's looks, but if he's actually interesting, (See also "So you're a boring fuck", they'll be interested. There are multiple women out there that aren't as heavily weighted towards looks as to 'what makes them comfortable'. This is what everyone has been trying to tell TRPers.

But as long as TRP only concentrates on the one group, they're only going to get the one group and continue to think that that's the only method works.

[–]probably_quite_drunk 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

its wrong for him to wrap his head around that, that women just want a guy who treats her right because that's a false statement.''

From what I've witnessed first-hand women aren't attracted to how a guy treats her. They're attracted to how a guy looks. I remember treating women in my league as good and as decent as I'd treat any long-term friend of mine and the women either treated me like crap(and the women who did this weren't even attractive) to rejecting me for some guy who was a 10/10.

I understand being turned down for a guy who is a 10/10, but the guy was a complete douchebag - not a douchebag in the sense '' guy gets laid and I don't he has to be a douche'' but in the sense of treating women like crap and still having women after him. High-quality women. Doctors, dentists, university teachers etc.

I'm not 400LBS.. I weight 60kgs on a 5'6'' frame. I'm not fat at all, i have the proper weight for a man with a slight build. The issue is being short. That makes me invisible to most women. I also look like the male version of Kirsten Stewart, so I'm pretty bland-looking.I might look good in some Countries but over here, most guys are good-looking and tall.

So women in my league and below my league are out of my reach. Although I've talked to many guys of decent-looks in several other Countries and Continents and they claim to be in the same situation.

Yes, I've asked women what turns them on and they told me it was a man's height(6 feet tall and taller) and his face, that they like faces like Christian Bale and Keanu Reeves. So, its impossible for me to turn a woman on.

No, personality doesn't make-up for physical short-comings. I'm smart, creative,outgoing, always happy, playful, I have interesting hobbies, I'm well-read and well-travelled. I am fluent in 3 foreign languages.

And I can't get laid at all. The women I went after when I still bothered pursuing women were all average-looking or below-average looking. So its not like I was chasing a 10/10, 21 year old Claudia Schiffer while being a 5(although I consider myself to be a 3 because of my short height and my sunken chest, and I don't like my slightly crooked teeth, so I'm what a 2? sounds about right).

Such is the life of the guy who isn't Luke Evans. it sucks.

[–]cuponoodlesisback 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First of all, I'm going to clarify something. I am not a red piller. I don't believe in such a thing as Alpha male behavior or Alpha male personality. I believe - and I've seen it - that women are primarily only interested in looks and that yes, they marry average men, when they are in their 30s and no longer capable of attracting hot men.

How many women I met?? Hundreds of women! I was one of the handful of guys in my class from kindergarden up to College and I never got laid at all, the junior high girls were dating the high school kids, and the high school girls were dating college kids, and when I got to college I was out-competing with older men in their 30s who could take their girlfriends everywhere, or I was in competition with 6'2'' feet tall guys who worked as male models in their spare time.

[–]LinaIG2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DStoo -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, it wouldn't be creepy. I keep hearing all the time from my female friends how some random hot guy approached them. How happy they are. Women who complain of receiving attention are very, very few.

I get to know them just fine. I still have friendships with women I went to 1st grade with, and guess what? They are incredible human beings. They're also single mothers who got knocked-up by douchebags who left them and don't pay child-support.

But rest assured that they love my company, so i have that going for me ;)

I became friends with the women who wanted to become friends with me. I'm not following you? Meet their boyfriend? To see if they had a boyfriend or if they use the boyfriend line against men who want to get laid? I met a few of their boyfriends, yes. Yes, I spent quite a lot of time playing league of legends with these girls and their boyfriends, or going to free concerts in real life.

Your point?

[–]chazzALB2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DStoo0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chazzALB37yo Purple Perma-Virgin1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chazzALB2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]probably_quite_drunk -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]probably_quite_drunk 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]chazzALB1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DStoo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chazzALB1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DStoo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chazzALB1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shesaiddestroy 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuponoodlesisback 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

There's a limit to how far that will go. Danny DeVito or Jason Alexander looking guys aren't going to be swimming in it just because they got ripped. Sorry for busting out a lil' realism on you here. I know the whole idea that it's 100% a meritocracy and you get out of it what you put into it is very comforting to what you can call "male psychology" but it ain't always so. I think in this day and age of the average guy having love handles and a little gut that it does increase your chance pretty well, though, but there are still some guys that are simply in no win scenarios that must really play hardball to get anywhere at all.

[–]shesaiddestroy 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women do that for several reasons. First, they are afraid of being lashed at if they tell the guy they've rejected, ''nah brah, you a bit too short for me. I need men to be 6'2'' and you are only 5'11''.'

Women also don't want that tap of attention to be closed. I've had women who had indirectly reject me and when I moved on they became angry and tried to make me jealous with some other guy, and this was from some of the most level-headed women I've ever met.

They are all addicted to attention. They'll guggle up attention from men they aren't even interested in and when the guy makes a move they get mad.

Second reason, women don't want to appear to other women and other men as shallow creatures. If they are honest and tell men that they are only interested in good-looking/tall men, who is the sucker who is going to continue pursuing women?

Instead of taking women seriously when they say, ''you were rejected/you aren't approached by women/ you can't get a date, because you aren't confident and confidence is what I look in a man'' guys would just give up and boot-up dat sweet Batman Arkham Knight on the ps4.

Third reason, when a woman says she wants a guy who is funny, witty, talkative, intelligent and charming.. they mean they want a 25 year old Orlando Bloom with all of those atributes.

The only good thing about the red pillers is that they know women are far more visually picky than men are, but they are deluded when they advice each other to ''grow big and grow strong and you'll have plenty of women interested in you''.

Unless the guy is a Chris Pratt, average when fat, Alpha male when in shape, women don't care about lifting. Most of the guys I see getting laid aged 18-25 are guys who are tall and are pretty boys. older men don't get laid. They're either married or in long-term relationships aka they're paying for their gfs and wives to bang other guys and they get none in return.

[–]OfSpock-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

It's funny to me that you need to use such extreme examples to claim that men are no different in this regard but they really are. Getting really defensive here. That's really cute.

The standards men have to be attracted enough to have sex with a woman without some kind of ulterior motive transaction of sorts being involved are much lower than the reverse. In real terms this just means that the average man has a real nightmare of a time finding someone when compared to the average woman.

This all really comes down to depressing and drab biology-related reasons; sperm is cheap, eggs expensive, so women have the more valuable resource and the upper-hand in the reproduction game in knowing when they have actually reproduced successfully to boot.

I don't really care one way or the other but reality is what it is.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]probably_quite_drunk 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeti 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]IramadanceRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeti 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And you're expected to figure out what's really going on, devise a new plan, and then execute that plan, all with no help, no instruction, and no training, from anyone.

Gee, if only someone invited you to an event where he's volunteered to give you help, full instructions and full training.. Down side is you have to hang out with Plain Jane Yoghurt Factory girls. Although they do have sex and walk around topless. Since they're a solid 3-4 TRPers should have no problem picking them up.

"it's your own fault for believing your mom. You

Never said that. I said don't trust TRPers on how to do something.

You were supposed to figure it all out! Why couldn't you clearly see what was all around you!?

If only there was someone that has volunteered to do this over and over again.. Sorry you can't find anyone to tell you what's really going on; device a new plan; and then execute that plan all with help, instruction and training.

You don't get to whine about not getting advice and then refuse it.

[–]thedeti1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOneNeither0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Being decisive means you're putting your own views/beliefs above everyone else's, and acting on them without really properly questioning those views/beliefs or the views/beliefs of others. That is being a dick, both because you are prioritizing your own actions over the needs of others but because you are basically acting in a way that leaves little to no room for debate and concession. That is, generally speaking, being a dick. Someone who is intelligent and kind, would typically be less decisive, because they are not only trying to come up with decisions that are beneficial to all but is constantly striving to properly understand everyone's needs. That creates a lot of grey areas and uncertainty. Being decisive means dismissing all those other factors to come up with a decision that you decide stands above all other solutions, and present in a way that is entirely dismissive of all these other grey areas and outside considerations.

[–]Cbus_anonymous 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not necessarily. Having the capacity to make a clear, swift decision doesn't mean you're obligated to follow through on it. Not giving a shit ever about the needs and wants of others may make you a dick, but even that isn't a given. Some people who display that need in their personality isolate themselves, because honey badger don't care. The isolated ones aren't dicks. The ones who use their capacity for decisiveness judiciously also aren't dicks; in fact, this is probably a superior capacity. Kindness doesn't mean you never put your own needs first, and intelligence is another independent quality. Reasonable use of decisiveness requires intelligence; otherwise we use a different word for that, impulsivity. Note well that that's not a positive trait.

Most of life is gray. Nearly every decision has costs and benefits. Decision making skills can be applied wisely.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeti 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeti 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

For dates occurring before commitment, I would prefer the former. For dates post-commitment (he's my boyfriend), I would prefer the latter. Realistically, the former doesn't need to be presented in that way, anyway. "What have been your favorite places to go on dates?" opens up a conversation that would tell you a lot about me. Among other things, you'd discover that I prefer small, cheap meals and lots of walking around, which happen to be totally in line with our recent explosion of food trucks that are set up in interesting areas.

In the latter scenario, it's preferable because you already know my tastes, and, in theory, aren't going to suggest someplace you know I'd hate. We also can devote our conversation to other topics, mundane or cerebral, rather than spending the time mostly learning about the other person, so a noisy restaurant isn't going to prohibit that or ruin the opportunity.

Anyway, that's my two cents. There needs to be latitude to take my desires into consideration; usually, this can occur pretty easily with two adaptable people.

[–]lolobviouslyRed Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DStoo -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeti -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeti 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeti -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

If that was the first time I had run across him, I can see your point.

He has a long history of burring his head in the sand when given direct advice.

For example in the thread that asked women what men could do to attract more women he flat out told someone giving him a suggestion she was wrong.

This advice just sounds like "be willing to pay for a date's new "things" and "new experiences".

Sense of humor is not attractive. It's beta comfort. That's not going to keep your woman with you long term.

Are you kidding? Women HATE men who emote. Emoting men are as unattractive as they can be.

Not a good list. I've tried them all before. They are good for beta comfort; they're TERRIBLE for sexual attraction.**

All in direct defiance to what an actual living breathing woman said she wanted. Meaning if he wanted to pick up /u/tomatostew and ignored everything she directly said he would have failed.

He has a habit of just sticking his head in the sand and going "Nope, doesn't work can't hear you AWALT AWALT" no matter the advice.

So "You're doing it wrong" was probably the most succinct way to convey my message without delving into the same conversation again and again.

Also, I did point out in that same post that there is a difference between asking what a woman wants and "deferential, pedestalizing and supplicating" a woman, but he has yet to explain how any nonRPer has ever said they are the same or to do the latter.

[–]probably_quite_drunk 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]probably_quite_drunk 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But I reiterate, how does one "act nice" without being a "nice guy"?

Why can't you be a 'nice guy'? What is wrong with being an altruistic 'nice guy'? I guess I don't have any clue how most TRPers meet women (especially if they all cold approach, I've never cold approached) or how they interact with them that being a 'nice guy' gets you taken advantage of. And if someone is taking advantage of you cut ties, don't stop being a nice guy.

Set up a scenario for me and tell me the Nice Guy/Non-Nice Guy approach.

Also, what qualifications do you have to be certain that the qualities you define as "nice" actually are?

True. Set up a nice guy vs not-nice guy scenario and maybe I can pick the middle ground. We're already talking past each other when thedeti thinks that being a 'nice guy' is pedestaling a woman, etc. That's not at all what it means.

Have you ever attracted a woman based on your personality alone, with no visual input whatsoever?

I met my wife on Plenty of Fish. Both of us had pretty terrible low res profile photos and talked for a few months before meeting. Does that count?

Aside from that I wouldn't say I'm particularly good looking (average to below average) and definitely not a Magic Mike ripped Chad. I haven't had a problem with "personality alone" but I don't know

[–]probably_quite_drunk 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Why can't you be a 'nice guy'? What is wrong with being an altruistic 'nice guy'?

I put it in quotation brackets to denote the popular and derogatory "nice guy", ie: the one who complains about being friendzoned by all women.

I met my wife on Plenty of Fish. Both of us had pretty terrible low res profile photos and talked for a few months before meeting. Does that count?

Nope. A pic is visual input.

I haven't had a problem with "personality alone" but I don't know

Not to be offensive, but it sounds like you don't actually have a constructive answer then. You want me to define scenarios so you can choose a "safe" option that people will agree with. But that doesn't actually help your case.

So if you don't actually know how to be nice, how can you say someone was wrong about what being nice is?

Incidentally, I'm not talking past you, despite your accusation of doing so. I am employing the Socratic Method to get you to specify your position to determine if it is actually tenable.

[–]DStoo 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

the one who complains about being friendzoned by all women.

The problem I've seen with most 'nice guys' is they fall for the first woman that talks to them. They make up a scenario in their head that they need to live happily ever after because they have some small thing in common without realizing that they'd never work out.

The Friendzone is an awesome place to be as a true altruistic nice guy. I've walked friends home from the bars. I do other nice things for my friends. And when we're out at the bar and a 2-3 degree of separation acquaintance of theirs rolls up I don't have to do any of the talking. I'll go to the bathroom and my friends will tell their friend I'm single. Just by the fact that I'm out at the bar with 3-4 other girls means I'm 'safe' so the acquaintance's stranger danger guard is down.

Being friends with women is the easiest way to pick up women. The "trick"(?) is to not fall for every single woman that talks to you.

This is where 'having interests' comes in handy. I took a Yoga class in college for sports. It was me and 50 college girls. Then when we were out at a bar I said hi, we talked. Then in class we talked some more. Give it 5 months and we'd go out to the bar together and they'd introduce me to their friends or sorority sisters. No cold approach needed all because I was a nice guy when talking to the girls from my yoga class and not asking them for their numbers or trying to hit on them.

Nope. A pic is visual input.

Spark Match back in 1999(?). Had 'one night' stands with 2 girls I met on there, that was pre-photos on dating sites.

So if you don't actually know how to be nice, how can you say someone was wrong about what being nice is?

Being nice is being nice. I don't what you're looking for but the dictionary definition works for me:

giving pleasure or joy : good and enjoyable
attractive or of good quality
kind, polite, and friendly

If you were being police and letting someone walk all over you, that's nice but doing it wrong. If you were being friendly and expecting to get laid just for being nice, you were doing it wrong. If you made a group of friends laugh (giving pleasure/joy) and thought that entitled you to sex of some sort, you're doing it wrong.

[–]probably_quite_drunk -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Any other questions? I can get everyone in TRP "TRP" results without resorting to the TRP methods.

There's nothing wrong with the TRP theory (and it's almost all true) but TRPers doing it the way their advised is only going to continue to get them the women that are attracted to how TRPers act (and the guys that they emulate and want to be).

TRP has a massive sampling bias. So do I. But the fact that my anecdotes don't overlap at all with theirs means my sampling bias is what ever they're doing and my sampling bias is what ever experiences I have different than them. It's why I asked such different questions on two different occasions. I haven't taken time to compile it yet

If TRPers would be interested in a Mechanical Turk style quiz so they can get paid for it, I'd be willing to fund it. I really want to know where their sampling biases are. Because right off the bat I can tell you they know a very low number of lesbians. What does it mean? Hell if I know yet. But I'm going to put some thought into all of the relationships with all the lesbians I know. (And I already have a good idea of what it is).

[–]Cbus_anonymous -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

There seems to be a break down in communication when you start framing things as "getting taken advantage of". It's possible that you're using this phrase in a sense that I'd agree with, like a woman has seen you as a mark, and then slowly begins asking you to pay for more and more things till you're paying for her rent. That would be taking advantage of you.

But the way people in trp seem to use it is more in terms of paying for a date, or taking someone to a doctor's appointment, or being asked to help someone move, or standing by a friend during an emotional crisis. People who are actually friends with people are "getting something" out of the relationship: emotional support, a social outlet for fun, exposure to new ideas, a system of people who can help you with all the aforementioned things, etc. There is no "friendzone", because true friendship is something that everyone wants. If your only reason for offering to help someone is because you think you'll get laid on the other side of the offer, you need to realize 1) you're not actually friends, and 2) you're not actually nice. Neither of these things are necessarily bad, but they don't describe friendship or niceness.

Truly being nice is pretty rewarding, actually. The cost of investment is generally zero, and the payout is that you're more connected to humanity, people value your existence, and you've lessened the burden of the world, even if only by a tiny increment.

Like the guy you're talking to (and almost all of the rest of humanity), I also follow the dictionary definition as a rule of thumb for what niceness is. And in the event that it isn't clear, niceness alone isn't sufficient for attraction, but it's necessary for attraction to form for many of us.

[–]probably_quite_drunk 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

There seems to be a break down in communication when you start framing things as "getting taken advantage of".

How about "allows himself to be taken advantage of because he believes that being 'nice' is the way to win over women"? That's probably more accurate.

Truly being nice is pretty rewarding, actually. The cost of investment is generally zero, and the payout is that you're more connected to humanity, people value your existence, and you've lessened the burden of the world, even if only by a tiny increment.

I'm going to disagree here. Generally the payout is nil. People, as a rule, do not actively care about those whom they do not interact with regularly. So me being nice to you means less than being nice to a coworker I see everyday. Sure, it's good karma in general, but other than knowing I wasn't a dick, there is no tangible reward. Same way with the general population. I am nice to pretty much everyone I meet. I'm Southern, and Southern Hospitality is a real thing. But that has never once actually paid dividends. The only times I've gotten anything in life were when I actively took them. No one gives out awards for niceness.

[–]Cbus_anonymous 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]probably_quite_drunk 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeti 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What we're talking about here is borderline personality disorder, and it's prevalence rate is fractionally over 1% (like 1.2% or something). This happens exactly as often as I think, but you're grossly overestimating its frequency.

Almost everyone will encounter this at some point, and fall prey to it as well, men and women both. This is how you learn. Virtually no one is given explicit instructions on how to spot and avoid a scam, so this "my mom didn't tell me!" stuff seems bizarre to me; the teaching opportunity occurs via exposure.

In general, if someone asks you for a ride home, it's because they need a ride home, not because they think you're a target, not because they're going to gradually expand their control over you, and work to make you feel bad about saying no. If you want to permanently avoid this risk, you can elect to do nothing for anyone for the rest of your life. Your choice. It's not "mean" or something to make that choice. The cost to this, though, is that you'll miss out on the bonding and friendship opportunities that go along with the 99.99999999999999% of times that a small sacrifice on your part would've yielded.

I'm not claiming anywhere that niceness by itself is sexually attractive to me. What I'm explicitly saying is that it's a necessary condition for sexual attraction to form. The opposite, a dickish guy, will guarantee that attraction is impossible to form for me.

When you see people saying that they need a nice guy, you're converting it into something they didn't say, declaring it to be a lie, and holding them accountable for it. Pay closer attention.

[–]thedeti1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thedeti1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thedeti1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]C0UNTdrama7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not going to sugar coat relationships. I'm going to let him know right off the bat that he is going to fail a lot and to not be afraid of his failures. I'm going to teach him the importance of appearance and physical attractiveness. I'm going to encourage him to find hobbies that he loves and support them. I'm going to teach him that women are different, but are not an entirely different species. They are human and as such have likes and dislikes which are similar to his. They are people; rejection isn't the end of the world. I'm going to teach him that compatibility is definitely key in lasting relationships and that he should find someone similar to him as a partner. I'm going to teach him how to stand up for himself. I'm going to teach him all the signs that point to an abusive woman and how to avoid them. And most important of all, I'm going to teach him that life isn't fair. This is just the bare minimum.

[–]Violently_Altruistic 10 points10 points10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gavinok -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

are you saying that if someone raises a boy with the mentality of gender equality, it will actually produce an effect of still putting women on a pedestal

No, it is perfectly possible to raise boys and girls that believe in gender equality. And it's perfectly possible to raise boys so that they don't pedestalized women.

because people interpret "equality" as only positive and not for both the positive and the negative?

I think that... BPers play lip service to the idea that women can have negative qualities. Take for instance the idea that men will hit on and sleep with women using promises that they will enter a relationship with them. i.e "Hit it and quit it". Both pills and everyone acknowledges that this happens. Now take the idea that women will use a man for a free dinner or act flirtatiously to get anything from a free drink or help moving. They will act like this phenomenon is so rare as to not even be worth mentioning.

I can see BPers telling their daughters not to let men use them if they are looking for relationships. I can't see some BPers telling their sons not to buy a drink for the girl who askes for one before asking for his name.

[–]dan_legend0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You have your perspectives and they're based on your experience and observation.

Exactly. And I have my own sampling biases that /u/probably_quite_drunk asked about and I gave.

And yet it seems impossible for you to comprehend that others have different perspectives

No, I fully comprehend your experiences. I've witnessed them from both sides. I'm not denying your experiences exist, nor have I ever.

I'm asking you to point out your sampling bias.

Being able to actually point out your sampling bias means that you've done a good study. When doctors get together to discuss JAMA articles or other scholarly data the first question they ask is "What is the sampling bias". Every study everywhere has a sampling bias. It's the basis of "How to Lie with Statistics". If you're pointing to a Cosmopolitan survey you're already biased to Cosmo readers. If you want to know who Cosmo readers are read the ads. I'm going to guess that the Cosmo survey has a sampling bias around the women that are into vain makeup, hard bodied men with no-shirts and wanting tips on sex. Do you know that not every girl is issued a Cosmo on their 18th birthday?

So your experiences say you have "always" seen something and my experiences say I have "never" seen something. We can both be right. It means what ever I'm doing I don't attract who you do and vice versa. So perhaps I might have advice on how to attract women that "never" do something.

also based on their experience and observation; which experiences and observations are just as valid and just as real as yours are.

Exactly! Your experiences are 100% valid and if I say I've never seen a koala bear and you say you've seen a 2 this morning the sampling bias means that you may be in Australia and I'm not.

So when you're talking about anecdotes in a subreddit you have to look at the sampling bias of that entire group. Ask yourself what everyone in 'red pill' has in common. That's their sampling bias.

And maybe, just maybe if my experiences differ completely from yours, I have the knowledge and advice to tell you how to remove your sampling bias if you'd listen to it.

Or you can refuse that my experiences and observations are valid and not listen to me, continuing the self fulfilling prophesy of TRP and who they attract and who is attracted to them.

So I ask you again. What is your sampling bias? (Because I'm going to guess it start with "women will use a man for a free dinner or act flirtatiously to get anything from a free drink or help moving.")

[–]IramadanceRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dispensation 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

PPD/BPers: How are you going to raise your sons?

This is more of a how would I because I am not planning on ever having kids. I think that'd get in the way of my greater plans in life.

But for the sake of interesting hypothetical discussions...

As far as relationships and all that goes, I'd encourage my hypothetical son to be open in talking about that kind of shit with me. Never understood why most parents treat sexuality like some kind of taboo no no subject. That's just not healthy and avoids the kid getting sage advice for this important part of life.

As for life in general I'd reflect my personal views I guess. I was brought up with a very individualistic view on life, heavy emphasis on using anything you can to your own advantage, and I looked up to my mum who made herself very successful after coming from nothing. I would hope to set the same kind of example by achieving even greater success myself and I'd tell the kid he can do whatever the fuck he likes in the world if he's willing to work for it and to focus on looking after number one instead of allowing himself to become a doormat.

[–]myfatbrokethewallNon-Red Pill1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

(Not sure if you want my response as my flair is "Non-Red Pill"...)

Well, I don't have kids so I don't know how realistic my view of parenting is...

I think raising sons who are happy with their lives would probably keep them from TRP, as they would have no need for it, and I don't see happy people being too into the negative stuff that seems to be part of TRP but I might be wrong. (I don't think TRP is all bad by the way, but I don't know if the negativity and the anti-woman stuff there is good, and not just from the perspective of what's good for women but from the perspective of what's good for TRPers themselves.)

How do you raise a son to be happy with his life? I guess you'd have to get to know him, his personality, what makes him happy etc. and to help him achieve it. When he's young he might not yet know what would make him happy, so you might have to help him find out by exposing him to different things and seeing whether he enjoys them. This might end up requiring a lot of time, effort, and money.

Now this is not particularly specific, and I suppose that's as it should be as people are individuals. I think there are some things that would be good ideas for all sons though:

Watch their diet so that they don't get fat (I don't know if this is realistic) and get them to be physically active (preferably in something they really like) starting at an early age.
To the extent that it's possible, try to raise them to be reasonably socially successful so that they're at least not outcasts at school. I suspect this might mean paying for reasonably nice clothes, a smartphone with a good data plan, perhaps giving them money to hang out with friends, and whatever else that's needed to fit in. If the kid doesn't fit in, he might not tell you, so it could be a good idea to be an intrusive parent in order to discover and address this (and if the situation is particularly bad this could mean moving the kid to a different school provided it's possible so that they could start over once the source of their social failures is addressed).

I think writing this is reminding me of how I don't really want kids, as it seems like raising them well would need time and money I could be spending on enjoying my own life instead. Then again, maybe I'll feel differently later in life.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Start when they are brand new. Love them. Care for them. Kiss and cuddle them, give them warm milk and dry nappies. Baby boys are precious, loving little bundles. Dr Christopher Green's "Babies" and "Toddler Taming" are great resources for setting boundaries whilst retaining a close and loving bond.

The first testosterone surge happens around 4 years of age. Boys csn exhibit challenging, defiant behavior, will have a growth spurt and will start to be able to retract their foreskin. Dr Steve Biddulph's "Raising Boys" is a great resource for learning how to use effective language and techniques to nurture your boy through this stage. BBL - little boy wants me to help him ride his bike, as training wheels are too babyish for a big almost 4 year old, but mummy having to run along helping him balance is ok.

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VerticalSmileyCyrus 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

That's right, i wish i could read only your anecdotes all thread long.

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

You are just a troll, go away.

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Nah, you are a troll because of your trolling. Bye now.

[–]DStoo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VerticalSmileyCyrus 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

The men who don't need to use traps to hunt, don't learn how to shoot a bow. The bue pillers don't understand how hard it is to get laid as an average man(normal weight for his height, full head of hair, not ugly, not short) with the average woman(also the same things) because of how easy it is for women to go for much better-looking men, and if the guy is short and doesn't have godlike-aesthetics he's destined to be a foreverAlone.

So I don't see the blue pillers needing to teach their sons how to get women, to avoid them from becoming red pillers, because the more blue the guy is, the more attractive he is, and he has a very high chance of spreading those genes to his kid, and since women choose men based only on their looks(when they are young) these guys won't need to become red pillers.

[–]DStoo -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

No, its not. If it was so easy to get laid there wouldn't be porn. The vast majority of porn consumers are men, and there's more and more young men ''addicted'' to porn because we can't get laid.

And in Japan the vast majority of the men who are 18-35 have no sexual experience with women at all, average men being so often(always) rejected by average and below average women that they've given up.

its not easy for men to get laid. Why is prostitution legal in Germany if it is easy for men to get laid? Why is it that in my ancestors Country of origin, the first few pages in their main newspapers contain dozens upon dozens of sex ads of women offering their sexual services?

Yes, but your 5'5'' friend is good-looking. Or the men around him are of such low-quality that women make do with him.

From personal experience. Now, maybe its because most people I see in real life are good-looking, it might be easier to get laid in a Country where most are obese or ugly, but from what I've seen only hot, handsome men get laid at all.

[–]DStoo -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Few women watch porn. I talk openly with my many, many female friends, we are honest about everything and they mention their low use of porn. They don't really have to. I wouldn't spend a couple of hours a day watching cam models get naked if I was getting laid lol.

Same goes for the men I know who are popular with women. They very rarely ever touch the stuff. porn was made for betas and omega.

I don't really see the point of going out and trying to get laid, bro. Most men, when they see a couple, they look at the women and don't pay attention to the man. i don't look at the woman. i look at the man and I compare myself to him.

Regardless of how average or below average the woman might be, she's always with someone who is taller than her, much taller, and the guy is more often than not physically attractive.

I can't compete with that. Even the women who share my level of looks or below can and do go higher than me, they can get hot men easily.

Prostitution is legal because of all of that, and because its so hard for men to get laid. Its not an excuse. I've met guys who were shorter than 5'6'' with plenty of women. Of course those same guys looked like a 25 year old Tom Cruise... i can't compete with that rip

[–]DStoo -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

Dude I met more than enough women. Hundreds is not enough? So I have to meet thousands of women and hope to be picked? Geez, so I can't approach women because its creepy, but I gotta have the free time and the money to take part in activities where, the majority of the women are in relationships already, or are looking for studs/in fwbs?

Thansk for letting me know. Do you know any woman who needs to meet thousands of men to get laid?

Look, the guy who was responsible for the fortune of the Hilton family went to church one day and saw a woman with a red hat. He followed her and introduced himself. Isn't that a lot more creepy than going up to someone I had seen several times before and making small talk?

oh, I forgot to mention that Grandpa hilton was tall and handsome. My bad.

And what about all of the women I see approaching handsome men? Those women are not creepy? Creepy is only a man-condition?

[–]DStoo -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

I have plenty of female friends. Its called having kindness, having a high Emotional intelligence, and befriending women for the sake of enjoying their friendship, not as an attempt to get laid.

Guess what? Hundreds of female friends who love my company, but no girlfriend and not even a date from those friendships, and yet all of these women - high quality women, intelligent, smart, kind women - are in relationships, or in FWBS.

many of them are even with players or douchebags.

Women wanting a man with a great personality? No such thing. They want those qualities on physically good-looking men.

And seriously? If you visit relationship forums you'll find plenty of women who are aghast at having being pursued by men they had relationships with. Most relationships and most hook-ups happen because the good-looking men approach random women in the street.

[–]DStoo -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do I need to meet all of the women in the world to figure out that most women in the western world have long hair? Do I need to meet every guy in the world to learn by many, many hundreds that women are not interested in men they have in the friendzone/real friendship circle?

Look, women don't befriend the men they are interested in sleeping with. Women aren't like men, who are more than happy hovering around women in the friendshipzone thinking they can get some by being nice enough.

Women make their interest apparent, and women don't really choose from their social circles the guys they sleep with. Sure, it happens, but its very rare, and from the many hundreds of women I know/I'm friends with, only 5 of them are dating guys they had before as friends.

And really, wouldn't it be a bit silly for me to be interested in a girl, be her friend, and then see her hook-up with all of those other guys who aren't me? lol

[–]DStoo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

many hundreds that women are not interested in men they have in the friendzone/real friendship circle?

I could have told you that, what do you want to know?

Look, women don't befriend the men they are interested in sleeping with.

Not been my experience. Have you ever been an altruistically nice guy? I've befriended multiple girls just being a "Nice Guy"(tm).

Women make their interest apparent, and women don't really choose from their social circles the guys they sleep with.

Of course not. She has other social networks that work on a referral system. When you're a good friend she'll introduce you to an acquaintance at the bar and 90% of your work is done for you because the fact that you're good friends with the girl means the acquaintance doesn't need to have stranger danger.

Women make their interest apparent, and women don't really choose from their social circles the guys they sleep with.

Absolutely, why would you ever sleep with your female friends?

And really, wouldn't it be a bit silly for me to be interested in a girl, be her friend, and then see her hook-up with all of those other guys who aren't me? lol

Not at all.... again why are you trying to hook up with your female friends?

[–]LinaIG1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You keep telling me to make more female friends. I have plenty of those, but I don't have any dates, so what would be the point of meeting more women, of making friendship with those women, when I wouldn't get to date them? i don't really have all of the time in the world to be able to afford meeting women who:

1)Have boyfriends.

2)Have FWBs with men much hotter than me.

3) Aren't interested in me.

Not your experience? Women are very upfront with what they want from men. They go up to men and they make a move. Seen it happen many times, ofc the guy also happens to be hot.

Yes, the vast majority of the women I've befriended were women I went to school with, women I played games, women I worked with. Not hot women whom i approached and befriended with the intent to creep my way to their pants.

To be truthful, I don't have conventionally attractive women in my social circles, at least the ones that are my friends. I avoid attractive women. i don't even look at them when out of the house. All of the women I have as friends are either average or below average-looking.

And I've hooked them up with my male friends more than enough times. I listen to their problems and their issues and I don't do it with the expectation of getting a sexual reward out of it. I do it because they are friends. I see them as men, but with long hair.

Human beings, really, not sex objects. Porn exists for that. Sasha gray is probably a lovely human being but I don't really see her as a friend ;).

ahaha, no. Women don't have single friends. The vast majority of women are in relationships. Oh, trust me, I know that there are attractive women who are single because guys don't measure up, but I've never been one to want anything to do with beautiful women. Too expensive and problematic from what I've seen.

I have several guy friends of mine who are as single as I am, better-looking and taller and they also have plenty of female friends.Guess what, they aren't being introduced to single women because there aren't any average-looking women who are single.

You're confusing me. You tell me that I should befriend women and then develop a relationship with them, but then you ask why I am trying to hook-up with my female friends?

So what is it? I should want to be friends with women and try having a relationship with them, but I shouldn't want to hook-up with them, or I should stop hooking them up with my male friends?

[–]DStoo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have plenty of those, but I don't have any dates, so what would be the point of meeting more women, of making friendship with those women, when I wouldn't get to date them?

Where do you go with your female friends? Sit around playing LoL?

All of the women I have as friends are either average or below average-looking.

And you know who has friends like that? Hot women.

Women don't have single friends.

Yes they do. Unless you're not accounting for your own sampling bias. I've had plenty of female friends when not single.

You're confusing me. You tell me that I should befriend women and then develop a relationship with them

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. What exactly is confusing about that?

What do you 'do' with your female friends?

So what is it? I should want to be friends with women and try having a relationship with them, but I shouldn't want to hook-up with them, or I should stop hooking them up with my male friends?

... You should want to be friends with as many women as possible without trying to be in a relationship with them or trying to hook up with them.

What is confusing about that?

[–]LinaIG1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I play LoL with them during the night. I don't go to nightclubs anymore. Not after I saw a guy getting stabbed to death by a couple of thugs who wanted to grab these guy's friend's ass.

During the day I visit museums with them. I go to the movies with them. I go to the beach. I have a few female friends who are into Australian Culture and Australian guys, so we sometimes go to the places where Australian dudes are.

Hot women have average female friends? Sure, so do most women who are average. What's your point? I don't talk to hot women. I don't want even to be near them.

I once had a random guy punch me in the face because he thought I was looking at his hot Asian girlfriend. I was looking at my cellphone, man. Hot women are nothing but trouble.

Dude, stuff like that only happens in movies. If it happens in real life the guy has to be hot. Women don't spend any time at all as single women. They are either in a long-term relationship or they are hooking up with some hot guy.

I've just told you. I do with my female friends what I do with my male friends. I hang out. I talk to them. I play video games with them. I go places with them. They talk about their love life and about their life in general. I listen. I offer advice. They either take it or not. i don't manipulate them.

When I see they are being used by a douchebag I shrug it off to the pains of maturing. Its not my role to judge anyone.

Its confusing because that's what women say they don't want. They don't want guys to be interested in them, guys who are in relationships with them.You do realize that I'm a human being, right?

Human beings have desires and such. Dude, let me be honest with you. One of the reasons I have so many female friends is because I don't hit on them. One of the major reasons I don't hit on them is because I consume so much porn that it pretty much kills my sex drive.

I can't really turn off and on my sexual desires like that. Meaning, that I enjoy my female friends. I enjoy their company. I'm not going to ruin that over some possibility of having a relationship with them.

I'm not hot. I'm not rich. I'm not going to be chosen by women, by my friends. maybe when they enter their wallet-seeking stage and decide I make good enough money to support them, but dad and mom didn't raise a sucker ;).

I don't befriend women who are attractive, that's another key to how I manage to have female friends.

[–]DStoo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Most of my female friends are women I met in real life. In school. College. Work. Bookstores. Through guy friends. I don't meet women only on online games. I know like 10 women from League of legends, decent enough players to duo queue with in ranked.

Most of the women I know in real life with the exception of one have more girly interests, like fashion and clothes and babies and whatever it is. Movies and music, also. Just the generic stuff that most people are into.

The girlfriends of the australian guys? Look, I can't get to meet everyone walking on planet earth? I don't know what their girlfriends are into, probably the same stuff my female friends are into.

Not really. Killing off my sex drive was the reason I was able to make so many friends in college. I wasn't sexually frustrated at all from seeing so many hot women in short tights walking around because I was pretty much asexual, I could still know when a woman was attractive, but I just didn't feel the same hunger most guys feel when they are around women.

Porn is pretty sweet .Gotta say that porn stars help out a lot of young men.

[–]DStoo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DStoo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DStoo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LinaIG1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thedeti1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DStoo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thedeti1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think you'll find that RP readily admits there are sampling biases.

RP (not just reddit but the so-called manosphere) is primarily comprised of men with a track record of difficulty and/or repeated failure in finding, forming and maintaining relationships with women. So there's a self-selection bias. I, and many men from RP, readily admit all of this. Any man who won't admit this is being dishonest. If I had already known how to do this shit and do it well, I would never have started reading here and elsewhere. Your implicit suggestion that men are somehow glossing over this is silly, really.

As for sampling bias, perhaps there's some. I've known, and dated, and had sex with, all sorts of women. One hot woman; most were average or above average. Most were a bit overweight; the rest weren't; most of above average intelligence; some were not so bright. Only one claimed virginity; the rest had some experience. Most were women I met at university in a "college town" and about 60% of those hailed from a major metro while the rest were from all over the place.

[–]DStoo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

One hot woman; most were average or above average. Most were a bit overweight; the rest weren't; most of above average intelligence; some were not so bright.

Yeah, that's not a "all sorts" of women. How many HB10 gamer chicks have you had sex with? How many athletic 4s have you had sex with?

How many intelligent cosplayer chicks have you had sex with? How many 'dumb blond' engineers have you had sex with? They all exist. Everything is an infinitely variable spectrum. You just listed off a few adjectives without telling who you had sex with.

If you cold approached all of them then you managed to hook up with a bunch of women responsive to the cold approach.

is primarily comprised of men with a track record of difficulty and/or repeated failure in finding, forming and maintaining relationships with women

And I have no problem with this. Over half of my facebook friends list is female. I don't hang out with guys. I don't understand going around calling each other 'faggots' or other retarded stuff guys do. I was told it was just "man talk". I don't get it. I've never gotten it. I'd prefer to be friends with women. Most of my guy friends were actually boyfriends of the girls I was friends with. Because I would rather be friends with someone they thought was worth dating than most other guys.

How many lesbians do you know? Like honestly know? How many would you know good enough for them to change in front of you & vice versa? Based on my poll TRPers have a disproportionately low number of lesbian friends.

It sounds like RP has a massive blindspot when it comes to the true nature of women because you have had "repeated failure in finding, forming and maintaining relationships with women."

So I ask you how you can claim to know the "true nature" of women and AWALT when you have a massive bland spot.

[–]thedeti1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, that's not a "all sorts" of women.

Yeah. I think I just admitted there's a sampling bias.

What you're telling me is that no one can ever truly know or predict the "true nature of women", unless he has had sex with all 3.5 billion women on the planet, which of course isn't possible.

But it gets a little better when you have something like 120,000 guys on a subreddit thinking, remembering, writing and comparing notes. Is it perfect? Not by a longshot. But it is better than anything else anyone's ever shown me. It has more predictive power than "buy your girl flowers and candy and shower her with compliments".

So I don't agree with your apparent suggestion that all people are special little snowflakes and that women's nature cannot be known or understood or predicted.

What you're essentially saying here is that there's no way to make educated guesses or predict how certain behavior will succeed or fail with women; because I haven't slept with or failed with enough women to make those predictions. I might not know everything, but I do know this: As a rule, women prefer confident men to fearful men. Women prefer dominant men to subordinate, mousy, weak men. Women prefer ripped men to flabby men. Women prefer men who have their shit together to men who are still struggling to get it together. Women prefer men with money to men who don't have money. Women prefer aloof, disinterested men to fawning, obsequious, supplicating men. Neither I nor 120,000 other men need to have fucked all the women on the planet to reach such conclusions. These conclusions seem to hold true across nearly all demographics: religious/nonreligious, Christian/atheist, and regardless of race, age, nationality, creed, socioeconomic status, and profession.

[–]DStoo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thedeti1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DStoo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BaadKittehMiss me, bitches?0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My son seems to be doing fine so far; 13 and had the same girlfriend for about a year, talks to her often and stuff, which is about as far as it should go at his age. I give him advice on how to take care of himself (as far as getting exercise, eating well, and keeping clean), to not be too bossy and lord over conversations or activities (as an only child, he took a bit longer learning to let other people make decisions when playing or hanging out), but I think the only piece of advice I've given him specifically about how to be successful with girls was to be nice to all girls, not just girls he thinks are pretty. We notice when you are "nice" to us, but treat our chubby friend like shit- and we know that you aren't really a nice guy. We know that your "niceness" under those circumstances has an ulterior motive.

[–]cuponoodlesisback 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VermiciousKnidzzBlue Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wont_tell_i_refuseRed Orchestra0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gianttribble -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dispensation -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]gianttribble -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

BP/PPers: How will you raise your sons to avoid needing to resort to TRP?

Comments

With some women they're the same thing.

You can be both.

Title	BP/PPers: How will you raise your sons to avoid needing to resort to TRP?
Author	DStoo
Upvotes	3
Comments	266
Date	July 1, 2015 6:57 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3bs8ok/bpppers_how_will_you_raise_your_sons_to_avoid/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/bpppers-how-will-you-raise-your-sons-to-avoid.281296 https://theredarchive.com/post/281296