~ archived since 2018 ~

Discussion: Is debating TRP pointless?

tempuserthrowaway5

October 29, 2017

7 upvotes

I was just sitting around and I think I had an epiphany. I'm wondering if in reality it doesn't make any sense to debate the red pill.

This is why.

If someone is gay or straight, we don't have to be the same as they are..we just accept it and move on.

Even further past that if someone is polygamous or poly-amorous it may not make a bit of sense to us but it's not really our business so if it's not affecting the rest of society we usually don't sit around and debate it.

If you want to fall in love with multiple people, it's not debatable it's your personal life.

So if the red pill wants to do whatever the redpill does, as long as they aren't affecting our rights and everybody is consenting to redpill-ery...

Maybe it just doesn't matter if we (blue pill and otherwise) agree with it. We couldn't debate someone out of polyandry for instance.

Thoughts?

Archived from /r/PurplePillDebate

r/PurplePillDebate is a neutral community to discuss sex and gender issues, specifically those pertaining to /r/TheBluePill and /r/TheRedPill.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Discussion: Is debating TRP pointless?
Author	tempuserthrowaway5
Upvotes	7
Comments	77
Date	October 29, 2017 12:43 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/79dp8f/discussion_is_debating_trp_pointless/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/discussion-is-debating-trp-pointless.265146 https://theredarchive.com/post/265146

Comments

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]snailypop 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

That's a bit of another story, one where the truth affects other people and it's about social change and propaganda not personal individual change.

Now if those black lives matter people were talking within their group and come up with useful but false strategies like "always avoid the police", "never say anything to them" that's another story. You can then enter their space and talk about how that's wrong because despite some there having lost 3 friends to racist policemen there actually are many who won't do that.

Now it's up to them to either say that what you just said was stupid as fuck or to add useless, obvious exceptions to their strategies. "Welp not all policemen are racists but it's better to always avoid them" That way they diluted their message to make it more suitable for outside sources. People who don't belong to their (target)group. Why should they have to try to please them?

Those are their survival tactics, they work and behind every 3-5 word long summary/term of these tactics is a whole bunch of articles, discussions, books, experiences etc. For weird reasons the followers of the white imperative thinks they are entitled to them formulating their stuff politically correct. They don't care about blacks not dying no they only care about that stuff sounding politically correct because god forbid them being offended at something that was not targeted at them.

[–]dakruNeither0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Now if those black lives matter people were talking within their group and come up with useful but false strategies like "always avoid the police", "never say anything to them" that's another story. You can then enter their space and talk about how that's wrong because despite some there having lost 3 friends to racist policemen there actually are many who won't do that.

I don't think that's really comparable. "Always avoid the police" is advice that can be good or bad, not a claim about the world that can be true or false. Unlike your example, TRP doesn't limit itself to advice. It also makes claims about the world that can be judged as true or false.

"Welp not all policemen are racists but it's better to always avoid them" That way they diluted their message to make it more suitable for outside sources. People who don't belong to their (target)group. Why should they have to try to please them?

I suppose you could describe "holding someone to the standard of not saying things that are untrue" as "expecting someone to please you" but I think it's really misleading.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think that's really comparable. "Always avoid the police" is advice that can be good or bad, not a claim about the world that can be true or false. Unlike your example, TRP doesn't limit itself to advice. It also makes claims about the world that can be judged as true or false.

Then change it to "All policemen are racist". It's stuff this group says to each other, why should outside sources care about the accuracy of it?

I suppose you could describe "holding someone to the standard of not saying things that are untrue" as "expecting someone to please you" but I think it's really misleading.

They are not saying that to you, they say that to their black friends. The #1 priority is not dying. So these blacks start believing "all policemen be racist" to increase their chance of survival. Then some white policemen read that, get offended and demand that they change their stuff.

That's like atheists demanding Christians to change their stuff "dear "potential" lord lend me thy light" "stop lying to us!" "Sir could you please stop interrupting the holy mass?".

The white policeman's #1 priority is not being offend, he does not have the black mans interest at heart. Them changing to please him is an unnecessary sacrifice of utility for the sake of accuracy and not offending people who don't care about them.

BLM does not care about the accuracy, arguments about that won't change their mind. Just like telling them they are racist for hating on policemen by saying that they are all racist won't change their opinion. And if you just want to troll them and say stupid stuff like "Ya'all be bitter fucks" then they won't back down either, all that happens is other people seeing you being stupid and realizing that BLM maybe has some merit. And strawmaning/misinterpreting their position won't change it either since they don't hold these believes. So if one would like to not waste his time with the BLM what should be try to criticize? In my opinion it's the utility. I also think it's sad that so many people don't realize that and just waste their time.

[–]WhiskersNTreddish purp3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wracky272RPG's are fun2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BearSaint 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Salty-Bastardjust an excitable boy2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BearSaint 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I've realized that a lot of the guys who identity as red pill in here have very reasonable views. I've become fairly convinced that most of these "senior" guys at TRP are actually extremely unsuccessful with women and that they don't actually follow any of their own advice. I have seen some of the users of the forum give some very good advice to other guys. Definitely not the endorsed guys. I kind of feel bad for some of the guys when I've read about their very bad relationships and thought about responding to them with better advice but then realized it would only be a waste of my time.

I'm more convinced that the guys running the married red pill forum are giving out really really bad advice and mostly they run the place to circle jerk and play pop psychologist. Which is a shame as a good marriage is a really wonderful thing to have.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've become fairly convinced that most of these "senior" guys at TRP are actually extremely unsuccessful with women and that they don't actually follow any of their own advice.

If they don't, they should because being able to provide advice from experience lends greater credibility to their points. However, I have seen them say that it's okay to take what works. You don't have to move to the dread phase if, for example, just being more straight forward and masculine keeps things humming along nicely. That's how I see it, anyway.

I do think the advice only works for men who have a chance: overweight introverts with nerdy tendencies (World of Warhammer 69K fans beware!) who become doormats and needy in relationships. They can still change their attitudes, exercise and build confidence.

Incels are a different challenge. Some would need surgery, therapy and a loooot of sex to help overcome their issues.

[–]Salty-Bastardjust an excitable boy0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempuserthrowaway5Good&Plenty[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sharp_rain3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tempuserthrowaway5Good&Plenty[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]notworthmuch20xx 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AllModsAreLikeThat 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WhiskersNTreddish purp1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempuserthrowaway5Good&Plenty[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]N0blesse0blige2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]N0blesse0blige0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempuserthrowaway5Good&Plenty[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]N0blesse0blige1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pope_LuciousSeparating the wheat from the hoes2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempuserthrowaway5Good&Plenty[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DB605Everyone's a BlackPill in the end2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ultimately, no, it gets nowhere. This place is of very little value, just as the BP is of very little value.

If RP is true, then it is true, regardless of how many feels it hurts or sensabilities it offends. If BluePill people refuse to buy into various premises to engage in a discussion, then not only is conversation trivial, but a total waste of time.

If someone really thinks respecting women harder is the answer to RedPill men's problem, what is there to talk about? You and your intellectual opponent aren't even on the same planet. Even if they're willing to listen, bringing them up to speed on the entirety of RP theory is time consuming and personally tiresome.

Furthermore, most people even here, have absolutely no interest in changing their opinion. I've literally demonstrated how someone's opinion made no sense, corrected them, had them concede that they're talking nonsense, and then viewed them repeat the same dumb opinion to someone else like 2 days later.

[–]dailyqtProcreation should cease1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]DB605Everyone's a BlackPill in the end1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dailyqtProcreation should cease0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DB605Everyone's a BlackPill in the end1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dailyqtProcreation should cease0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

I'm struggling to see how what you descibed here could be psychological abuse.

She doesn't want to have sex with you. Check.

You make it look as though other women will have sex with you (although RP would say that to do this you have to have other women wanting to have sex with you). Check.

???

Where is the psychological abuse ?

Either she responds to her new assessment of your attrativeness to other women by being more attracted herself.... or she doesn't... but in either case thats NOT "psychological abuse" in any way, shape or form.

Any more than...

He doesn't want to make a commitment to you. Check.

Make it look as though other guys are interested in you. Check.

???

Where is the psychological abuse ?

Either he realises that he's going to lose you unless a commitment is made.... or he is happy to let you go.... I'm not seeing any abuse here either, psychological or not.

Showing to people that they're in a "Shit, or get off the pot" situation isn't abusive. If anything, you are just revealing reality to them and allowing them to make up their own mind.

[–]dailyqtProcreation should cease0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I think that it's such a shame that some men(and women, mind you) are stuck in dead bed marriages. At the end of the day, however no one is obligated to have sex with anyone, married or not. No one is obligated to stay in a committed relationship with someone that is abusive, either

Exactly. You seem to be referring to RP Dread Game.. so I'm going to assume you are referencing that.

DG is about making this undersatnding.... You're not obligated to have sex with me, but I'm not obligated to stick around in this relationship if thats the case... explicit at an instinctual level. For the wife to understand there IS a choice being made here, and she is making it, and forcing that decision to be made consciously.

If a man is being subtly abused by his wife(ie she's withholding sex), he is in the right. If he actually says "shit or get off the pot,"(respect my needs or we're divorcing) he's still in the right.

OK, cool.

However, there's a very big difference between marriage counselling and coercing someone via fear into fucking you.

But thats the point. Fear of what ?

If it's "fear of a good beating" I'm with you, but RP doesn't advise that.

If it's "fear that he willl leave me because I am not having sex with him" thats NOT abusive... thats pushing the implicit agreement of marriage out into the open as an explicit choice.

The alternative is... he just leaves. Making it clear this is the choice she is making, and giving her every opportunity to change her mind before he leaves, is not abusive.

If anything it's extending her a lifeline to make the choice that she wouldn't otherwise have (if he just packed it in).

That just makes him the bad guy. It's no longer him that's being abused, he's now being the abuser.

It depends what "the fear" is about. If it's showing her that you really will leave in an honest way.... it's not abusive to show her that before you leave. There is no abuse here of the kind you are postulating given you conceded what you've already conceded in your first paragraph.

DISCLAIMER: Before anyone shits themselves, this applies for both sexes.

Absolutely. If she's not getting the "emotional connection" SHE needs and is considering a divorce as a result... it's not abusive for HER to take actions designed to force him to understand this, and give him a chance to provide that emotional connection, before SHE leaves.

If she was on the verge of leaving anyway due to something like this.... Why is giving him that last shot to realise he is on the verge of losing the whole shebang abusive either ?

[–]dailyqtProcreation should cease1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

gain, there's a difference between marriage counselling and "making her think that your dick stays wet regardless of her."(actual quote I've seen more than one user say) The latter is unloving, lacks empathy, and is simply abusive.

Well, if thats all you think DG is...

But we were talking of a situation where they are married, they are not having sex, and the guy is trying to rectify that situation... or will leave.

Thats not abusive... it's being honest about the situation, providing of course you do have other woman who are interested.

If you think DG is summed up in that sentence, you don't understand what DG is.

And before you or anyone else says "well that's not what I think," I've seen many people on TRP and PPD alike defend the very notion, even being as bold as to say that counselling and divorce aren't options because they're emasculating. It's back-asswards.

I defend the notion. I think it's more complicated than you are summarising here, but I still defend the notion that it's not abusive.

And divorce very much is still an option. The whole point of DG is that it's a path towards divorce if you don't succeed in creating a relationship within which you are happy. The "alternative" end game, if you don't start having sex again, is that very divorce. And DG prepares you for that as much, if not more so, than preparing you to resume your relationship.

I'd also say RP's views on marriage counselling are separate from DG. DG doesn't really take a position on counselling other than "The liklihood is that if she is not having sex with you, she is not attracted to you. Counselling rarely deals with this core problem. So you're likely to find the counselling ineffective".

Individual RPM (many of whom have had marriage counselling) take a more extreme view than this.... That it makes things worse, and not better. But generally DG is employed where counselling has already been tried and failed, usually for the reason DG states it's likely to fail (it doesn't make you any more attractive to her).

Again, you're really coming off as someone who doesn't understand what DG is more than someone with a valid critique of the whole thing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3l0ryg/a_shortish_summary_of_rp_dread_game_in/

This is what we defend as DG. If you're going to argue against it it's this you're going to have to argue against. Not whatever a random RPM said on MRP yesterday.

[–]dailyqtProcreation should cease1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

God, I just really have a hard time how y'all can just neglect such common sense. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be more attractive for your wife, or flirting with her and being a more pleasant person, but this is where you and I differ:

Communication is key. Your wife might not find you attractive, sure, but she might also not enjoy sex because of your performance, she might have gone through a trauma and still be uncomfortable with sex... there are literally hundreds of reasons. Just talk about it with each other, like goddamn adults. And that also applies to the later "stages." Instead of scaring your wife into having sex with you, just talk about your thoughts and feelings. If she still neglects to have sex with you(NOT that she's obligated by any means), then just skip to the divorce.

Why would you want to be having sex with someone that's only having sex out of obligation? Wouldn't you rather have a wife/SO that actually wants to have sex with you? I just... the logic is incredible.

Even at a young age, I made a very conscious decision that I would never marry/commit to someone that doesn't find me attractive or desire to be with me. It just seems like common sense.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Communication is key. Your wife might not find you attractive, sure, but she might also not enjoy sex because of your performance, she might have gone through a trauma and still be uncomfortable with sex... there are literally hundreds of reasons.

Yes, and they are the literally hundreds of reasons that guys sort out way before they come to RP with a DB. If talking was going to have solved the issue, it would have already solved it.

Guys don't turn up at RP saying "Me and the wife haven't had sex for a year, and I've never talked to her about it".

They turn up and say "Me and the wife haven't had sex for a year... and we've been talking and talking about it, and nothing ever seems to change".

OF COURSE, if you have never talked to her about this.... Go talk to her.

RP's DG is there for guys who have tried to talk to the wife repeatedly, or had counselling, or tried plenty of other things and they haven't worked.

And, as for the "abuse" objection... thats covered under "medical" (as is pregnancy and issues like vaginismus). All of our DG advice makes clear that you have to seperate off medical issues first, and deal with them, and that DG can't help you deal with a medical issue. That requires a doctor. DG isn't there to solve these situations... but the vastly more common situations where the wife has not been abused, and does not have a genuine medical conditions, and the couples are not have sex anyway.

The reason I didn't deal with it is largely because I assumed (seeing as you thought you knew enough to critique it) you knew enough about DG to know that we seperate off these issues specifically as they need a different solution, and so DG is not appropriate.

Just talk about it with each other, like goddamn adults. And that also applies to the later "stages." Instead of scaring your wife into having sex with you, just talk about your thoughts and feelings. If she still neglects to have sex with you(NOT that she's obligated by any means), then just skip to the divorce.

They do. DG is there for when they have talked to her and yet they are still not having sex even though he's made clear it's important, and they've talked about it.

What is a guy supposed to do ONCE he has talked about it (repeatedly) with his wife, maybe even attended counselling, and they are still not having sex ?

What then ? What do you do when the "communicate" playbook has failed ?

An RPM would turn to DG and say "Give DG about 12-18m and if that still doesn't work, divorce is your only remaining option".

A BP site would probably advice immediate divorce at this point. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

I am not sure it is immediately apparent to me that the BP option is the "humane" option.

Why would you want to be having sex with someone that's only having sex out of obligation?

You wouldn't. You want to have sex with someone who is attracted to you again. That is what DG is about. Re-creating that desire to have sex with you. Thats the point. If all you are getting is starfish sex out of obligation... you keep going up until you file the divorce.

Wouldn't you rather have a wife/SO that actually wants to have sex with you?

YES!

Thats what DG is about. Re-creating a situation where she actively wants to sleep with you again.... and (if that fails) building a guy who will be attractive to other women such that, were you to divorce, you'd be in your best possible position to find someone else who does want to sleep with you.

The standard disclaimer on DG is "RP guarantees that this process will lead to sex with a woman who actively wants to sleep with you again. We just can't guarantee this will be your current wife".

Even at a young age, I made a very conscious decision that I would never marry/commit to someone that doesn't find me attractive or desire to be with me. It just seems like common sense.

Yup, as did many RPM.

The problem isn't that she doesn't want to sleep with you on the wedding night, or the honeymoon, or for the first few months or years.... it's when this feeling fades, and she no longer wants to sleep with you.... and it's a last ditch attempt to re-create in her a desire to want to sleep with you, just prior to putting divorce papers on the table.

DG is there for when you want to put the divorce on the table already.

BP generally advises that, if you are at this point, just divorce the bitch. You lost. Fold this hand and be dealt another.

RP advises that. Before you do this there is one avenue left.... one that has a chance of re-creating desire for you from your wife... and (if this fails) also simultaneously prepares you for being in the best possible shape to divorce and find another woman.

So, at the point of DG stage 1.... BP says divorce... and RP says "We've got about dozen things for you to try, try these first. if it still doesn't work, then divorce from a stronger position".

Like I said, it's still pretty clear you have no idea what DG is or what it is intending to do, or how it works.

You might have to understand it a bit more before you're going to come up with valid criticisms.

The link above is the shortest explanation I'd trust to give you that general idea (because I wrote it to be the shortest description I could write of what it is). If you're not going to read that then you're going to keep being way off base about what it is, and what it's designed to do.

[–]dailyqtProcreation should cease1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

So it seems that the only thing we disagree on is when to apply the divorce. In my opinion, it's before emotionally manipulating her into liking you again.

Right.

So in BP worls... There is a marriage that could be saved, if you did the right things. And the BP advice is to divorce the bitch, even though she clearly doesn't want to be divorced. It's better to destroy both your lives (and your kids?) in that way than find a way to make here like you again.

In RP world.... We say "Hold on, this marriage is saveable" and we show a man a way to take control and create desire in her for him again. And by so doing, save the marriage, the divorce she clearly doesn't want, and the damage to the kids.

And the BP postion is that we're the assholes ?

In your opinion, it's after emotionally manipulating her into liking you again.

No, if she likes you again there is no need for divorce. Victory Condition Accomplished. You now have a marriage to a wife who likes you again. Chalk up another win for RP.

Is that correct?

With the amendments above, more or less yes.

We have a situation here where you are about to divorce. She does not want to divorce (or she'd have already put papers ont he table). We are trying a last ditch effort to prevent that by trying to get her to desire you again. If it succeeds, you stay married. If it fails you divorce.

In that same scenario BPs advice is to divorce the wife. Forget about any further attempt to save the marriage, talking has failed, therfore divorce. Take the damage to you, her and the kids. No need for further effort once "the talk" has failed. Just put a divorce on the table and walk.

And if so, why is there even a question as to who is morally correct?

ABSOLUTELY. I would say that there is no real question at all here who is morally correct.

You just seem to be unaware that it's BP that advises the clearly immoral action (Divorcing her whilst there are still things you could do to save the marriage) and RP advises the moral action (Do those things you could still do to save the marriage, before divorcing her against her will).

[–]dailyqt1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPole2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well in my opinion, emotionally manipulating someone is far worse than divorce. And, if I'm reading correctly, you find that divorce is worse than emotionally manipulating your partner?

I'm saying making yourself more attractive, and trying to rekindle her sexual interest in you and then divorcing her if this doesn't work is better than just divorcing her at the start yes.

Better for you, and her and the kids. (if successful).

And better for you, worse for her, and neutral for the kids (if unsuccessful).

Also, as long as we're bringing kids into this, I've never heard of kids resenting their parents for going through a clean, not-emotionally abusive divorce.

My parents went through a clean/non-emotionally abusive divorce.

I never resented them for it, to be honest (but I was 15).

Both my younger brother and younger sister did, though.

I have heard of them resenting their parents for using the kids against each other(Another example of emotional abuse!)

Yes, thats genuine emotional abuse. Neither I nor RP (as a system) have ever recommended trying to use the kids against each other.... although as with anything else RP related, an individual RPM could have said anything at one point or another.

and I've Definitely heard of children resenting their parents that don't really love each other staying together, and especially parents emotionally manipulating each other. But that's all completely beside the point.

Yes, I've heard of that too.

I think, again, we're talking past each other as what I am talking about is not emotional abuse. And you've made an automatic assumption that it is, without understanding DG well enough to see you are wrong.

So we're going to keep having these talk past each other exchanges whilst you still insist it's emotional abuse.... with no real grounding that this is the case, because you don't understand what we are doing.

You could rectify that my reading the DG link I gave you, but by this point it seems unlikely as you've already passed up 2 opportunities to read it.... preferring instead to continue to argue against something you've made up in your own head and called DG, rather than RP's actual DG.

[–]dailyqt1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPole1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I read the link, don't worry! And the parts that really stand out to me include flirting with people in front of your wife, telling her how many chances you've had to cheat on her, acting indifferent towards sex(wtf), and literally saying outright "if you don't fuck me, I'll divorce you and find someone that will fuck me." Of course, in real life I doubt anyone would speak quite that bluntly, but if they did... that'd just be really shitty of them.

Not after 2 years of no sex, and 1 year of holding back on putting divorce papers down in a desperate bid to become attractive.

At that point it's really not shitty. Because he's trying to save a marriage and has been for at least 12 months by purely positive methods.... which she hasn't noticed and which at this point he is trying to shock her into noticing before he decides she's never going to respond, and putting the divorce papers down.

And lets not forget, throughout all of this she can file for divorce too, and can the moment he flirts with another girls if she wishes.

In this situation, it's not shitty behaviour. It's real clear and direct communication about what is going to happen imminently if she doesn't realise she's about to lose him.

At this point he's basically trying to shock her into realising he's about an inch away from divorce paper filing, so she gets a chance to react before he files them. And if even this doesn't make her realise her marriage is on the rocks... the very next step is to prepare divorce papers and offer her the choice of signing them.

Do you need me to source exactly which parts I'm referring to? Because all of these things are emotional manipulation.

They're emotional manipulation. I agree. They're not abuse.

Just as I'd certainly argue that the fact she has been denying him a sex life for nigh on two years at this point is also emotional manipulation of him, but not abuse.

You are using the power you do have to manipulate the way she sees you.

Just as the fact that denying him sex has used that power to manipulate the way you see her.

There's no way of saying that in a way that sounds morally acceptable.

There is.

"Hit your spouse" is something that by itself is clearly morally wrong.

If there was a "guide to changing or divorcing a physically abusive spouse" for women. And after a half dozen steps of telling her lots of positive things she can do, it says on step 7 (or whatever) "hit him back" then it's not abusive.

It's dependant on that context. Not saying thisis good advice, just showing how context changes the action.

If there is a "guide to changing or divorcing a emotionally abusive spouse" for men. And after a half dozen steps of telling him lots of positive things she can do, it says on step 7 (or whatever) "flirt with other girls where she can see" then it's not abusive.

Because thats context dependent too.

The context here is specifically laid out in the way DG is advised... you've got to have been long term locked out of sexual intimacy, and talking about it hasn't changed a damn thing. Probably at least 12m. Then you find RP and DG. Then you're still physically locked out of sexual intimacy, for a further 12m or so, all the while you are becoming more physically attractive in order to benefit your wife, at that point it's not "abusive" on your part to use the same sexual manipulation she is using on you on her.

She wants you to stay married, and at this point has been locking you almost entirely out of sex for nearly 2 years. Locking a guy out of sexual intimacy like that for such a long period is emotional mipulation too. And in this circumstance, so long as he has genuinely tried a year of talking and a year of physical improvement FIRST, he should consider a little emotional manipulation back as justified as Divorce is a few months away anyway.

It's as morally acceptable as it is to hit back your physically abusive spouse.

Because he's been emotionally manipulated by being locked out of sex for too long not to consider being able to use it back in a last ditch attempt. And thats not abusive.

[–]dailyqt1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPole1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

See, with the examples you've given, there's quite a big difference between hitting someone in self defense and punching your husband, that's been known to hurt you, out of the blue(obviously there are some exceptions to this rule, like if he's holding you hostage or your life is in danger).

Absolutely, although both involve punching your husband, the context and history are important in deciding morality. The very process of dread game itself ensures there is a certain context and history to those last few "hard dread" actions before divorce.

In that case, neither of them has the high ground. It has become mutually abusive.

Well, myabe it has. And if her punching him back doesn't end it... time for divorce. Just as, with him, it is also the last roll of the dice before papers.

If your wife is emotionally abusing you, tell her how you feel with your words, divorce included, and if that doesn't work, divorce her.

Right.

So you're conceding that "If talking doesn't work... then regardless of whether there is anotehr means of resolution... divorce her anyway".

And RP is saying "If talking doesn't work... then there is another way. Try that out. And if this means of resolution doesn't work.... divorce her anyway".

It's hard to see how an extra 12-18m of effort on his part to pull the situation around, and avoid divorce, is the actions of a morally wicked man.

And it's easy to see those who say "Nah, fuck trying to be attractive and these other things. You talked, she didn't listen. Just divorce her." as not being very morally virtuous.

Don't emotionally abuse her back.

Again, it's not abuse. It's manipulation but it's not abuse.

Why not, as a last ditch wild card attempt the emotional manipulation she's already applied to you for 2 years ? What have you got to lose ?

At this point it's.... put the divorce papers down..... or do this, over 6-12 weeks and if it doesn't work, put the divorce papers down.

And from a man thats talked for a year, and failed. And got attractive for a year, and failed.

This is not abuse.

The relationship will just be mutually abusive.

No, it won't. If it remains absusive, he can still just divorce her anyway. Thats not a problem. He was going to do so anyway and is prepared for that.

People do turn it around at this point, do get back on track... Because seeing yiur husband flirt with another woman is not some horrific life-ending emotional carnage on the level of rape.... it's just seeing your husband (who you are aware you are losing) flirting with another woman and feeling bad about it.

This is not abuse.

Seeing your wife flirt with another man is not pleasant, but it's not abuse either.

An ended relationship is better than a mutually abusive relationship.

Here we can agree. Your problem is the assumption that "a man who flirts with another woman in front of his wife" is de facto abusive. It is not. As my example with the womans guide to phsyically abusive men should show.

You're throwing way a marrige that could still be saved, marriages that have been saved in your rush to divorce.

RP says give it another month or two and try this as your last ditch attempt to make her understand she's losing you.

[–]alreadyredschool1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPole1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So TGP how far would you go in dread game?

As far as would be required to save my marriage and no further.

As it happened I’ve never been in this emergency type situation, so very basic communication and “self-improvement” was all that was really required. Unusually I didn’t come to RP in a “crashing plane”. Just a plane that was flying low and level, and is now flying high and level.

Side note: One often underappreciated thing about DG is doing it for yourself. You build a support network, you build up your confidence and skill. So that after the divorce you can get back into the game. That's not just about dread, it's about saving your ass.

Yeah, it’s a dual purpose strategy.

If it’s succesful, you have a happy marriage again.

If it’s unsuccessful, you are in the best possible place you can be to initiate the divorce and be able to secure a satisfying sex life by other means.

As we say...

Dread Gane guarantees that you will be able to have a satisfying sex life. It just doesn’t guarantee this will be with your current partner.

"My way of the highway" is only according to BP not abusive.

Yeah, what I always think BP misses here is the context. DG doesn’t say “if you’re unhappy with your wife jump straight into hard Dread and scare the pants off her”. Not least because that just doesn’t work.

Where DG is describing a situation where, say, flirting with other women is appropriate is very clearly a situation where

a) You’ve been emotionally manipulated via lack of sex for 2 years or more.

b) You’ve improves to be at the most attractive you can be

c) You’ve already tried dozens of other things and they have not worked

d) Divorce is immediately imminent and this is the last dive throw before divorce papers and the A/B ultimatum is served forcing a divorce decision from her

In that context it’s a desperate last ditch gamble... not the creation of an abusive relationship where previously all was well.

[–]Belfura0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GroovyEFS 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempuserthrowaway5Good&Plenty[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GroovyEFS 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Salty-Bastardjust an excitable boy1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Salty-Bastardjust an excitable boy1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Belfura0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theambivalentrooster1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EsauTheRed0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tempuserthrowaway5Good&Plenty[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempuserthrowaway5Good&Plenty[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempuserthrowaway5Good&Plenty[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempuserthrowaway5Good&Plenty[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempuserthrowaway5Good&Plenty[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link