Does dread game work on men too ?

HappilySingleWoman · 2015-05-21T00:41:11+00:00

Should a woman try using dread game if her bf/husband doesn't bring enough to the relationship or it doesn't work on men ? According to my personal...

[–]beer77 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago* (108 children) | Copy Link

In theory dread game will work in proportion to the investment that the target has in the relationship. In practice though men don't get attracted by consensus/preselection. A woman will become more attracted to a man if other women want him. A man won't.

Also consider that men aren't as adept at picking up social cues as women are. A man running dread game on a woman might mention the 'funny' waitress at the sports bar, by name. That's enough to get the hamster going. Saying the equivalent to a man will likely result in a yeah-sure and no second thought. Think about how many dudes get blindsided by something like their supposed girlfriend taking a 'temporary break' from the relationship and then falling back on her round heels for another dude.

Dread game is by nature covert and men operate overtly.

Edit: and another thing. Women want a man they look up to, that they respect. A woman who successfully dread games a man is ironically going to end up less attracted to him, because she won't respect him. If she can make him dance to her tune, he's that much farther away from being the alpha she wants to fuck and that much closer to conversion to ATM/pack mule.

[–]PetticoatRuled 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (96 children) | Copy Link

A man running dread game on a woman might mention the 'funny' waitress at the sports bar, by name. That's enough to get the hamster going.

Depending on how it's said, that's the kind of thing that could cause a rift. If she feels she can't trust him, she'll start distancing herself, to protect herself from hurt and she'll start watching what he does.

Saying the equivalent to a man will likely result in a yeah-sure and no second thought.

No way. Depending on how it's said, it could produce the same negative feelings. He wants her only to be interested in him, not other dudes. If he's the jealous type, it will produce extreme negative feelings and he'll watch everything she does in future.

and another thing. Women want a man they look up to, that they respect. A woman who successfully dread games a man is ironically going to end up less attracted to him, because she won't respect him.

A man also wants a woman he respects. And anyone practising dread game on another will end up respecting the other person less.

[–]capt-next-a-hoeCherry Popper Red12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]PetticoatRuled 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]capt-next-a-hoeCherry Popper Red7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]PetticoatRuled 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]capt-next-a-hoeCherry Popper Red7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]PetticoatRuled 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]capt-next-a-hoeCherry Popper Red3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TheGreasyPole6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We know that. Ovulation game. Even BB gets thrown some sex once a month, unless he is in a really shit state.

With a poor partner choice women tend towards the once a month.

Take the same woman, with the same libido, and put her with a man she respects and is hot... 4 times a week.

The most common report of a BB cheated on is "I can't believe she had so much sex with him. She never showed that interest in me. She had sex more times on that weekend with him than we had in 6 months".

Women's libido varies wildly according to the attractiveness of their partner. That's why RP advises married men they have to get hot, get respect and get active TOO. It's not just for the single guys. Do this right... And you too, a married guy, can easily go from 1 p/m to 12-16 p/m.

Guys don't believe you when you tell them. They think their wife's libido is just "naturally low". We say try it out. Get hot. 12 months later ? "Thanks RP ! My sex life is awesome ! I never knew it could be so good ! It's like when we first started dating !"

Women can't help it. It's not under their control. They can't make him hotter. Only he can do that. RP shows married men how.

[–]PetticoatRuled2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPole5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I assure you that's not true. Women's libido is largely independent of the attractiveness of their partner.

Our lived experience and the vast array of married field reports and discussions would say it is true.

Women don't always respond. A minority have genuinely low libido, often due to medical issues.

By the variance in libido RP guys experience between "being a fat lazy BP twat" and being a "hot, active, dominant, RP twat" is usually startling and surprising to the man.

It may be that you already have a high-status man. You wouldn't believe it varies in that case. It'd always been high for you (or vice-versa... Always low).

But go from a low-value to a high-value man ? You'll "feel like sex" a lot more than you used to.

Go from a low-value hubby to a high-value hubby (cos he took the pill, lifting etc) ? You'll "feel like sex" a lot more than you used to.

It's their desire for their partner that is affected, not always their libido. Geez dude, how wrong could you be?

Not that wrong. I get there are two things here...

1) A woman wants a lot of sex, but doesn't desire her partner. He gets 1 p/m

2) A woman doesn't desire sex, even though she likes her partner. He gets 1 p/m

RP guys lived experience is that both change if HE is hotter, fitter, more confident, more dominant, a better man.

Some wives don't respond. If you've tried for 12-24 months and she hasn't responded, we tell them to fold that hand and be dealt another. Take the divorce hit.

I'd say thats only about 10-20% of married guys who take the pill. The other wives respond.

They get hornier. They get more willing to act on that with him.

Like I said. The girl for whom "12 times a year is perfectly sufficient. I don't feel like I need more than 12" becomes "I did it 12 times last month because I wanted to I'm feeling Soooooo Horny right now." when with a higher value man (either affair partner, or improved hubby).

Women actually get hornier AS WELL AS being more willing to direct that at their partner.

Ask women who've had affairs. They were "happ-ish" with 12 times a year.... They're happy to continue that 12 times a year with hubby, but can't beleive that they ALSO feel like another 48 times a year with the OM. "Why did my libido just quintuple ?"

Libido is not a fixed quantity for women. I don't think it is for men either, we just haven't thought/experimented/analysed/taken notes/swapped notes/analysed more/etc so much on men.

Women who can think thier libido is dead as a doornail... Just discover it rushing back.... AS LONG AS a high value man turns up.

[–]nomdplume2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PetticoatRuled1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nomdplume1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PetticoatRuled1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nomdplume1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PetticoatRuled1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nomdplume1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PetticoatRuled1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PetticoatRuled1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PetticoatRuled1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fzed1199 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappilySingleWoman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]capt-next-a-hoeCherry Popper Red9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappilySingleWoman 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]capt-next-a-hoeCherry Popper Red3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappilySingleWoman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]capt-next-a-hoeCherry Popper Red4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]capt-next-a-hoe3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HappilySingleWoman0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]capt-next-a-hoe3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HappilySingleWoman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]capt-next-a-hoe3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kill_Your_Ego2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HappilySingleWoman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kill_Your_Ego2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]beer77 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]PetticoatRuled 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

So, I can't have a fucking beer at the sports bar without you getting huffy about it? I'm telling you, bitches be crazy, man.

You gonna be talkin' bout biatches at the bar, she's gonna be walking.

Not so much. Think about the whole amused mastery thing. Notice how that isn't - could never be - a thing for women, yet it works well for men.

Men do want women they respect. You're all wrong, silly red pillers.

But amused mastery is correct. I'd call it something vastly different, but you guys can call it that if you want. Men can be way too emotional and this makes for an unhappy home because the emotions are too often irrational rage and anger.

Bloody hell, more amused mastery please. Teach it, spread the word, let it make you feel dominant if you wish. But yes please, more of it.

I tried to teach it to my previous two LTR guys. Probably no good coming from a woman and from their own partner.

[–]GuitarsAreGettingOld 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]PetticoatRuled 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappilySingleWoman -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]lorispoison0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]lorispoison1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

Of course I am talking about my own experiences with women here, even if I could point to a study on this it'd be flawed because social science is very soft - the participants would probably all be college students answering an online survey for a start.

Obviously there is no way for either of us to prove what we're saying because how people feel is not a tangible concept that can be properly measured in the first place.

women are choosing to pursue higher education and careers in ever greater numbers. But I still believe that they feel this other completely diametrical way, because....

But this reasoning is flawed and your argument does not contradict mine. What I said is that women do not need to be looked after anymore, which is precisely because more of them are getting educated and working as you've said here. So all you've done is agree with me.

I am talking not about any actual need for a provider, but rather a desire for the feeling of being looked after and protected. This is something I have found to exist in most women I've discussed these things with (obviously relationships are a common topic of conversation) and in all of the women I've been in relationships with.

[–]lorispoison1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

I've not seen that sentiment on RP but perhaps I've not read it enough. I disagree with it anyway. I certainly would not want my girlfriend to treat me like my mum does. That'd be kinda weird and not at all sexy. You know pretty much all of Freud has been debunked now right?

I think men do desire for a partner they can be openly emotional with, although RP advises against actually doing this since it reduces your sexual attractiveness, I think we do actually want it regardless. No one can be stoic constantly. However RP also seems to encourage men to be more emotionally open with each other instead which is good - at least that's the impression I get from it.

However I don't think that element of wanting to feel looked after is there for men. Women want to feel protected physically for obvious reasons definitely but it seems to go beyond that. RP states women are attracted to men who are dominant, decisive, and confident. This has absolutely been true in my experience.

Even if you look at the deviant BDSM community, how many female dominants are there? It's very rare to find one if you compare to the number of female submissives. When it comes to sex and relationships women don't tend to like being the dominant ones. They usually prefer the man to take that role. To look after things, make the decisions, sort shit out.

I am sure you can find exceptions to this, but I find it hard to believe you can really deny this is the dominant trend.

[–]lorispoison1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That'd be kinda weird and not at all sexy. You know pretty much all of Freud has been debunked now right?

Weirdly you don't see how the same is true for women. Most don't want to date their father, that's fucking gross.

I think men do desire for a partner they can be openly emotional with, although RP advises against actually doing this since it reduces your sexual attractiveness, I think we do actually want it regardless.

Agreed. People generally want to feel cared for emotionally. They want to feel like they are emotionally protected in a relationship.

RP states women are attracted to men who are dominant, decisive, and confident.

And many men also find these traits attractive in women. Honestly, I can't work my head around the men who enjoy the whimpering, indecisive, submissive types. How boring and unsexy.

When it comes to sex and relationships women don't tend to like being the dominant ones. They usually prefer the man to take that role. To look after things, make the decisions, sort shit out.

You're extrapolating sexual preferences to everything outside of the bedroom. Pretty much everyone in the BDSM community would lambast you for that. Also, there are a ton of straight male submissives, so...

I am sure you can find exceptions to this, but I find it hard to believe you can really deny this is the dominant trend.

I can deny it has any semblance of truth outside of sexual activity. And even then, I think you'd be surprised how many women enjoy taking charge.

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

Most don't want to date their father, that's fucking gross.

I didn't say otherwise. Although in my experience a lot of girls do like to call me Daddy...

And many men also find these traits attractive in women.

Yep, and if you go back to my BDSM scene example there are a lot of submissive men, so I am not denying there are men out there who like dominant women at all.

What I am saying however is that such women are basically unicorns. And even strong driven women seem to like having a man they know they can rely on at the end of the day.

I can't work my head around the men who enjoy the whimpering, indecisive, submissive types. How boring and unsexy.

And your views represent about half of men. But again most women seem to like being submissive when comes to relationships and sex.

You're extrapolating sexual preferences to everything outside of the bedroom.

No I'm not, I'm extrapolating (nice word) sexual preferences to relationships. I don't think that's much of a jump. Most people who like being dominated in the bedroom also like being submissive within the relationship. That doesn't mean they do a full on master/slave thing obviously, that is the kind of jump that would be a bit of a stretch.

Pretty much everyone in the BDSM community would lambast you for that.

I'm sure they would. But you know I've spent a lot of time in the BDSM community and I came to the conclusion that I don't really like the BDSM community. They're a bunch of elitist nitpickers who spend more time talking than doing and take the fun out of everything by going over the meticulous details of their "scenes" before "playing."

I understand a lot of it is serious shit and being safe and consensual is important but seriously they are ridiculous with this kind of shit in the BDSM scene. Just ask your partner about any limits they have, tell them to say "red" if they want to stop, and explore to see what you enjoy doing. Fuck sake.

And more importantly being into BDSM doesn't make you better than "the vanillas." Also stop acting like you're in some special club when most people have kinks.

(that's me venting at "the scene" not you in particular)

Also, there are a ton of straight male submissives

Yep, but as I said I was talking about the preferences of women, not men. I never claimed all men were dominant, I claimed women are attracted to dominant men. And indeed there are very few female dominants to go around for those submissive men, aren't there?

I can deny it has any semblance of truth outside of sexual activity.

I think it has truth within relationships too. But I'd agree outside of relationships and sex these things don't hold much importance.

I think you'd be surprised how many women enjoy taking charge.

Playfully and occasionally sure. But that doesn't mean they're attracted to submissive men, or that those women themselves aren't submissive.

[–]lorispoison1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Although in my experience a lot of girls do like to call me Daddy...

Haha, gross dude.

What I am saying however is that such women are basically unicorns.

Hmm. I know we're getting anecdotal here, but I have known so many driven, strong, confident, decisive women. I just can't imagine a realistic scenario where you've lived a life devoid of these types of women. An orthodox religious community?

And even strong driven women seem to like having a man they know they can rely on at the end of the day.

Is that evidence of submissiveness or needing a partner to 'lead' them? I would argue no- it's only evidence that people enjoy having a supportive partner.

And your views represent about half of men. But again most women seem to like being submissive when comes to relationships and sex.

I'll grant you that a not tiny proportion of people enjoy having a submissive, indecisive SO. But the reasons behind it strike me as more than a little troublesome, for men and women both. Doesn't it just make for an easily controlled partner? Aren't these all traits with heavy negative connotations?

Most people who like being dominated in the bedroom also like being submissive within the relationship.

Oh man, totally disagree! Like the stereotype of the high powered business executive subbing to the powerful dominatrix- I think people with a lot of control in their life relish "giving up" that control during sex. It's probably relaxing for them, and likely helps to separate their erotic life from their day-to-day. Also power inversions are just sexually stimulating to a lot of people.

(that's me venting at "the scene" not you in particular)

I was wondering for a minute. Not at all part of the scene for the record.

And indeed there are very few female dominants to go around for those submissive men, aren't there?

True. I do agree that women tend to enjoy being submissive more often than dominant. But I think most would classify as "switch" if they knew the term.

I think it has truth within relationships too. But I'd agree outside of relationships and sex these things don't hold much importance.

I agree with the latter statement but still have to contest the first- you don't think the majority of people enjoy having equal footing in a relationship?

Playfully and occasionally sure. But that doesn't mean they're attracted to submissive men, or that those women themselves aren't submissive.

Let me amend the statement I made earlier- I think most people would identify as switch (occasional or otherwise), male and female alike. I think it's as exciting for women when they take charge of their guy as it is for guys when she takes charge, you dig?

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

Haha, gross dude.

Hey if guys can call their girlfriends "baby" and that's considered normal then my girlfriends can call me "daddy" man.

I have known so many driven, strong, confident, decisive women. I just can't imagine a realistic scenario where you've lived a life devoid of these types of women.

Again I am talking specifically about what is desired within relationships. You say yourself later in this comment that powerful businesspeople often like to be dominated in the bedroom. How driven you are outside of the world of sex and relationships is irrelevant to what you want in a romantic or sexual partner. You said so yourself.

Is that evidence of submissiveness or needing a partner to 'lead' them? I would argue no- it's only evidence that people enjoy having a supportive partner.

If you're relying on someone else to make decisions and sort things out I would certainly argue there is an element of submission and desire to be lead.

Doesn't it just make for an easily controlled partner? Aren't these all traits with heavy negative connotations?

Why do you jump to the worst possible scenario? That's like saying cars are bad because it's easy to use them to run people down. I mean it's true you can do that, but most people won't.

Likewise yeah if someone is submissive you can take advantage of it if you're an abuser but that doesn't mean the trait of submission is negative in and of itself at all, in the same way cars aren't inherently negative because they have the potential to be abused.

You can abuse anyone or anything, if you go down this way of thinking you will end up classing everything is evil. Anxiety medication is evil because you can use it as a date rape drug. Laptops are evil because you can use them to watch child porn. Phones are evil because you can use them to contact a hitman.

Like the stereotype of the high powered business executive subbing to the powerful dominatrix- I think people with a lot of control in their life relish "giving up" that control during sex.

But this does not contradict my argument. I said nothing of the man or woman's professional life. I am talking about relationships and sex.

But I think most would classify as "switch" if they knew the term.

Agreed, but most switches still lean one way or the other. Most switches I met were female and most of them preferred being submissive but enjoyed being dominant now and then. Some were the other way around but again this was rare.

you don't think the majority of people enjoy having equal footing in a relationship?

No I don't. I think most relationships work better when someone is "wearing the pants" as the expression goes.

I think most people would identify as switch (occasional or otherwise), male and female alike. I think it's as exciting for women when they take charge of their guy as it is for guys when she takes charge, you dig?

I'd agree but with the addendum I made earlier - most switches prefer being either dom or sub most of the time and most of the female switches prefer being sub with some occasional domming.

[–]lorispoison1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How driven you are outside of the world of sex and relationships is irrelevant to what you want in a romantic or sexual partner. You said so yourself.

I argued that what is true in the bedroom is not true elsewhere. People use sex to work out all sorts of psychological stresses, issues, and baggage. Hopefully not in relationships.

If you're relying on someone else to make decisions and sort things out I would certainly argue there is an element of submission and desire to be lead.

I think we were using different definitions of "rely." I mean emotional support, not relying on someone to make decisions. I've met indecisive women, sure (and women who were otherwise confident, dominant, etc, even decisive in their professional capacity) but I've met just as many indecisive men. Same goes for the other attributes. Why do men get to ascribe themselves all the best traits? I honestly don't think they're gendered (again, based on my anecdotal experience which I recognize isn't universal).

Likewise yeah if someone is submissive you can take advantage of it if you're an abuser but that doesn't mean the trait of submission is negative in and of itself at all, in the same way cars aren't inherently negative because they have the potential to be abused. You can abuse anyone or anything, if you go down this way of thinking you will end up classing everything is evil. Anxiety medication is evil because you can use it as a date rape drug. Laptops are evil because you can use them to watch child porn. Phones are evil because you can use them to contact a hitman.

But being submissive is considered by virtue an unattractive trait in men. It's acceptable for women, but women have historically been defined antithetically to men. Submission, indecisiveness, timidity, lack of confidence, etc- these are all inherently negative traits. Trying to say "but they're okay for women!" doesn't change that.

But this does not contradict my argument. I said nothing of the man or woman's professional life. I am talking about relationships and sex.

I feel you conflate relationships and sex. They are intertwined, obviously, but not parallels.

No I don't. I think most relationships work better when someone is "wearing the pants" as the expression goes.

I believe this is the baseline disagreement between rp and bp. I really, really do think people prefer consensus over control.

I'd agree but with the addendum I made earlier - most switches prefer being either dom or sub most of the time and most of the female switches prefer being sub with some occasional domming.

Given the number of sub men and most women's preference for being submissive, do you think a large proportion of guys are having sex they don't really enjoy? This isn't part of my argument, I'm just curious after having discussed it.

ETA: Do you think these men are submissive to offset responsibilities they feel in their personal lives? Do you think women enjoy being submissive to 'own' the negative stereotype (since generally (hopefully) they actually dictate what can happen in bed, they are choosing to be submissive). Again, not part of my argument, this stuff just fascinates me.

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

I argued that what is true in the bedroom is not true elsewhere.

Sure but your relationship preferences are a lot more closely linked to sexual desires than your profession so I don't think your example makes that point.

Why do men get to ascribe themselves all the best traits?

That's not really what I've done. I already said around half of men are submissive. I am not trying to say all men are ultra dominant alphas.

All I said is that women are more likely to have submissive personality traits within relationships and sex and those women are more likely to be attracted to men who have dominant personality traits. We've pretty much already agreed that's true, you just don't seem to like it.

This, it seems, is the big difference between RP and BP fundamentally speaking. RP just writes down what they believe to be true regardless of how politically incorrect it is to say it and they encourage others to accept things as they are. BP encourages people to believe in a just world fallacy where things are as they feel they should be, even when that clashes with reality.

A better concrete example of this can be found in business, where anyone who can manipulate and game others has a big advantage against those who either can't or aren't willing to do so. Is this manipulating sociopathic person nicer than the people he fucks over? Of course not. Does he have more money? Yep.

Life ain't fair, the world isn't just. Society does not care about your feels and it never will. Not ever. You need to accept the world for what it is and learn to work with it.

So, without dancing around the subject, most women are submissive and like dominant men. That's not PC to say out loud these days but it's the truth and we have agreed as such already. All we're really doing now is splitting hairs.

Submission, indecisiveness, timidity, lack of confidence, etc- these are all inherently negative traits.

Only in your own value system. You cannot objectively define positive and negative so you are merely stating your own opinion. Personally I consider submission to be a very positive trait in a perspective partner. Many other men do as well.

"Definition of good and evil: Good is what you like. Evil is what you don't like."

I feel you conflate relationships and sex. They are intertwined, obviously, but not parallels.

One must compliment the other. There can be no successful relationship if you are not sexually compatible and yes I do think your sexual desires reflect how you behave in a sexual relationship because a sexual relationship is by definition sexual.

I believe this is the baseline disagreement between rp and bp.

One of many.

I really, really do think people prefer consensus over control.

You are painting two extremes. Most people do not like another having total control over them. Most people also do not like being in complete solace. Most people prefer something in between, but for that to happen there has to be a level of power dynamic in place.

And ultimately, sex and relationships aside for a second, all human interaction is about power. Skim the 48 Laws.

Given the number of sub men and most women's preference for being submissive, do you think a large proportion of guys are having sex they don't really enjoy?

Yep. I also think that we do everyone a disservice by having such a Victorian attitude towards discussing sex and that leads to a lot of dead bedrooms because this kind of shit is never brought up properly before the relationship becomes serious. Obviously this will lead to a lot of affairs as well, the man seeing a dominatrix and the woman fucking some "alpha" type.

[–]lorispoison1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure but your relationship preferences are a lot more closely linked to sexual desires than your profession so I don't think your example makes that point.

I think they're all separate spheres related in different ways for different people.

All I said is that women are more likely to have submissive personality traits within relationships and sex and those women are more likely to be attracted to men who have dominant personality traits. We've pretty much already agreed that's true, you just don't seem to like it.

I just agreed that many women enjoy being submissive in bed- and definitely do not believe this must carry over into other aspects of their romantic relationships.

This, it seems, is the big difference between RP and BP fundamentally speaking. RP just writes down what they believe to be true regardless of how politically incorrect it is to say it and they encourage others to accept things as they are. BP encourages people to believe in a just world fallacy where things are as they feel they should be, even when that clashes with reality.

I don't think it's reality. I think most women want driven, compassionate, sexy, funny, strong, caring men. I think most men want the same in women. I don't think we're so different.

A better concrete example of this can be found in business, where anyone who can manipulate and game others has a big advantage against those who either can't or aren't willing to do so. Is this manipulating sociopathic person nicer than the people he fucks over? Of course not. Does he have more money? Yep.

Weird analogy. Wouldn't most people prefer not to be manipulative sociopaths?

Only in your own value system. You cannot objectively define positive and negative so you are merely stating your own opinion. Personally I consider submission to be a very positive trait in a perspective partner. Many other men do as well. "Definition of good and evil: Good is what you like. Evil is what you don't like."

I'm not defining them as negative, they are by definition negative. That's exactly what I was attempting to make clear earlier. You don't get to say "___ (insulting trait) isn't insulting when it's said about women!" It doesn't work that way. It is insulting to be told that you are most attractive if you are 'unresistingly or humbly obedient' instead of showing any semblance of will or personality. A lack of something (confidence, decisiveness, drive) is only complimentary when the trait being qualified is negative. All those traits are positive.

Life ain't fair, the world isn't just. Society does not care about your feels and it never will. Not ever. You need to accept the world for what it is and learn to work with it.

No shit. Most people don't have to rely on revenge porn forums talking about how childlike, stupid, yet somehow still masterfully manipulative, and prone to infidelity women are to feel better about it. They don't need to pretend they'll magically become better looking with age while the mean women who turned them down in their early 20s will hit the hard wall of undesirability at age 30. It's not reality. It's a fantasy.

One must compliment the other. There can be no successful relationship if you are not sexually compatible and yes I do think your sexual desires reflect how you behave in a sexual relationship because a sexual relationship is by definition sexual.

It is separated from other relationships by the sexual/romantic component, sure. But how you behave during sex isn't a reflection of who you are as a person. There are tons of fascinating studies and theories about this. We touched on it earlier with the business exec example.

And ultimately, sex and relationships aside for a second, all human interaction is about power.

I can agree with that. But an exchange of power, a fluidity of power is what is necessary in romantic relationships. They will whither and die otherwise.

Yep. I also think that we do everyone a disservice by having such a Victorian attitude towards discussing sex and that leads to a lot of dead bedrooms because this kind of shit is never brought up properly before the relationship becomes serious. Obviously this will lead to a lot of affairs as well, the man seeing a dominatrix and the woman fucking some "alpha" type.

Agree about the dbr. I also think it sucks that men aren't allowed to be vulnerable, explore their bodies sexually, etc. But I feel like rp only furthers this line of thinking, no?

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

I just agreed that many women enjoy being submissive in bed- and definitely do not believe this must carry over into other aspects of their romantic relationships.

This distinction is what I don't get. Romantic relationships are sexual by their very nature as I said already. It seems blatantly obvious that your sexuality directly effects your romantic relationships.

I think most women want driven, compassionate, sexy, funny, strong, caring men. I think most men want the same in women.

We've already established half of men are submissive and the other half prefer to be dominant. The submissive side of that surely would prefer strong driven women. But as any RP on here would tell you, men who prefer the dominant side don't really care if a woman is driven or strong. They'd probably prefer the opposite if anything.

Weird analogy. Wouldn't most people prefer not to be manipulative sociopaths?

My point was not that you should aspire to be a sociopath, but rather that traits you consider "bad" get you ahead in life, and there is no just world. You may think generalising women and deploying RP tactics is bad, but I can tell you right now that shit works no mater how bad it is.

I am a logical individual, I follow the simple code of "do what works" when it comes to problem solving. If the problem is "I need to attract women" and the answer is "most women are submissive and like dominant men" then it's clear what my course of action must be.

Likewise I also have a business I am trying to grow into something big, and to make that happen I need to use those same type of skills really. Dominance, abundance mentality, and the 48 Laws as a whole. Much of the 48 Laws is basically a sociopath manual. I don't give a fuck if it buys me an Aston Martin though.

People are basically computers. It's easy to learn your way around a computer system once you understand how it's structured and what processes make it function. I can press the right buttons to control people as if they were computers. I was raised to have this attitude ever since I was a kid, I didn't need RP to teach me that. I was taught from an early age the importance of manipulating people.

I'm not defining them as negative, they are by definition negative.

By your definition they are negative. By my definition they are positive. It is entirely subjective.

revenge porn forums

RP has revenge porn? Where? Must have missed it. Is there a secret code you need to find it?

talking about how childlike, stupid, yet somehow still masterfully manipulative, and prone to infidelity women are to feel better about it

And you seemed so rational up until this point. You had to ruin it by bringing out the man of straw.

But yes you're right in the sense that RP is full of men who had a problem they are now fixing. No one goes on RP because they are already alpha. They go on RP because they were beta, worked out being beta wasn't getting them very far, so wanted to learn a new path.

But how you behave during sex isn't a reflection of who you are as a person.

But it is a reflection of how you behave in a sexual relationship.

a fluidity of power

Can you explain what is meant by this?

I also think it sucks that men aren't allowed to be vulnerable, explore their bodies sexually, etc. But I feel like rp only furthers this line of thinking, no?

Sure it does. But as I said RP isn't about trying to change the world, it's about taking it for what it is and dealing with it.

[–]lorispoison1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This distinction is what I don't get. Romantic relationships are sexual by their very nature as I said already. It seems blatantly obvious that your sexuality directly effects your romantic relationships.

How? Seriously, I'm baffled by this line of thinking. Sex is a component of romantic relationships, it's not the defining act. How you have sex doesn't dictate how you act outside of the bedroom. It's often the exact opposite.

We've already established half of men are submissive and the other half prefer to be dominant. The submissive side of that surely would prefer strong driven women. But as any RP on here would tell you, men who prefer the dominant side don't really care if a woman is driven or strong. They'd probably prefer the opposite if anything.

I don't know man, "power couples" are most definitely a thing. Like wants like more often than not. Opposites attract has a nice ring to it, but it's been debunked.

People are basically computers. It's easy to learn your way around a computer system once you understand how it's structured and what processes make it function. I can press the right buttons to control people as if they were computers. I was raised to have this attitude ever since I was a kid, I didn't need RP to teach me that. I was taught from an early age the importance of manipulating people.

Oh wow. We disagree on some very fundamental things. I think the influence of hormones makes people very, very unlike computers. We can be terrifyingly unpredictable. Also, this bit?

I was taught from an early age the importance of manipulating people.

Yeesh.

And you seemed so rational up until this point. You had to ruin it by bringing out the man of straw.

Aw man, I was truly hoping you wouldn't trot out that tired "straw man" bullshit. I'm being completely rational: it's all in the sidebar. I'm don't have to make anything up, it's all rp endorsed.

But yes you're right in the sense that RP is full of men who had a problem they are now fixing. No one goes on RP because they are already alpha. They go on RP because they were beta, worked out being beta wasn't getting them very far, so wanted to learn a new path.

This path isn't going to help them form meaningful, lasting relationships. It might help them get laid, but I kinda doubt it based on my own experiences.

By your definition they are negative. By my definition they are positive. It is entirely subjective.

Okay. This point seems to be eluding you: they are defined as negative. They are negative traits. No subjective reading necessary. You aren't fooling anyone here.

But it is a reflection of how you behave in a sexual relationship.

I really think it's just a reflection of how you behave during sex.

Can you explain what is meant by this?

People have different strengths. Maybe in a heterosexual relationship the guy knows more about cooking and nutrition, so he plans the meals for the week. Maybe the gal is better at planning trips so she makes those decisions. Etc.

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

How? Seriously, I'm baffled by this line of thinking. Sex is a component of romantic relationships, it's not the defining act. How you have sex doesn't dictate how you act outside of the bedroom. It's often the exact opposite.

Maybe it is the opposite, but either way the two things are very linked. If you still don't agree then perhaps we are just of two minds about this topic and there's not much point going back and forth repeating ourselves.

"power couples" are most definitely a thing

Sure but are they the majority of couples? Or even a significant minority? I would argue not.

Also your "study" was conducted with a sample size of under 1,000 members of an online dating date. It means literally nothing even if it was actually relevant.

We can be terrifyingly unpredictable.

Eh not usually once you get to know someone. And even then you can predict that they will be unpredictable then act accordingly. Still doesn't take away from my point in any case since some computers can also be unpredictable, ask anyone who's worked in IT.

Yeesh.

Do you have no argument against what I said then? Manipulation is a very good skill to know. Human beings subconsciously manipulate each other constantly and you're a fool if you think you are any different. Learning to take control of it and further use it to your own advantage is only sensible.

Here's a quick example for you of both people being like computers and the importance of manipulation, and why it doesn't necessarily have to be the ultra evil BP paints it as. Let's say you're a kid and you want a chocolate bar. Your mum has them hidden where you can't get them so you have to ask her for one. But let's say you go to your mum to ask and you can tell she looks a bit angry. You know when she's angry she's more likely to snap at you than she is to give you the chocolate if you go in and ask. Instead you go up and hug her to make her feel better first then you ask for a chocolate. Now she just laughs and gives you one.

That is reading someone and looking at them like a system which can be figured out, working out what buttons to press to get the desired result, i.e. manipulation. You will have done it since you were a kid.

You can deny this if you want, makes no difference to me. But it makes you easier to manipulate. The more you understand all this shit the less likely you are to be manipulated by someone else and the easier it is for you to be the manipulator, creating power instead of being under the power of others.

I'm being completely rational

If hyperbole is rationality now then sure.

This path isn't going to help them form meaningful, lasting relationships.

Why not? It tells you how to create and maintain attraction. Even BP tends to agree the methods work, their only arguments are usually "hurt feelz."

they are defined as negative

By you.

People have different strengths.

A very red pill thing to say ;)

And yeah you're right but ultimately someone has to make final decisions or they just either argue constantly or nothing ever gets done.

[–]lorispoison1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Maybe it is the opposite, but either way the two things are very linked. If you still don't agree then perhaps we are just of two minds about this topic and there's not much point going back and forth repeating ourselves.

We are absolutely of two minds.

Sure but are they the majority of couples? Or even a significant minority? I would argue not.

They are absolutely becoming the norm. Check out the stats for the numbers of single vs double income families spanning these past few decades.

Also your "study" was conducted with a sample size of under 1,000 members of an online dating date. It means literally nothing even if it was actually relevant.

It's absolutely relevant and was simply the first link on google. Go ahead and look for yourself- there are many studies replicating these results. Rp theory relies on the idea that women are 'lacking' in certain "masculine" (read: superior) traits and need a man in their lives to provide them. It's reactionary bullshit based on nothing but armchair philosophy and laughably outdated (not to mention summarily disproved) "science." Really, people like to date people similar to themselves. Seems obvious to me, but hey.

Eh not usually once you get to know someone. And even then you can predict that they will be unpredictable then act accordingly. Still doesn't take away from my point in any case since some computers can also be unpredictable, ask anyone who's worked in IT.

It's very easy to think you know someone. The reality of the situation is often very different.

That is reading someone and looking at them like a system which can be figured out, working out what buttons to press to get the desired result, i.e. manipulation. You will have done it since you were a kid.

I guess we read that differently. I'd assume most kids would want their mothers to feel happier plus aww yeah bonus chocolate. It's what we call a win-win.

You can deny this if you want, makes no difference to me. But it makes you easier to manipulate. The more you understand all this shit the less likely you are to be manipulated by someone else and the easier it is for you to be the manipulator, creating power instead of being under the power of others.

Not if I'm of reasonable intelligence. The people walking around thinking they're master manipulators capable of playing with people like marionettes are incredibly easy to spot.

If hyperbole is rationality now then sure.

Because the sidebar doesn't claim those things are true of women?

Why not? It tells you how to create and maintain attraction. Even BP tends to agree the methods work, their only arguments are usually "hurt feelz."

As I said above, people are generally quite capable of spotting those "master manipulators," so you're either dating idiots or being used for sex by a person who saw you coming a mile away. Women definitely do this too, by the way.

By you.

By the dictionary. Being indecisive is a negative trait: it is the inability to do something. That is negative. A lack of something good is by definition negative. Got it? Good.

It really shouldn't be so difficult to grasp..

And yeah you're right but ultimately someone has to make final decisions or they just either argue constantly or nothing ever gets done.

And I contend that in the vast, vast majority of healthy happy relationships it's incredibly fluid. How fucking boring otherwise.

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

Check out the stats for the numbers of single vs double income families spanning these past few decades.

Double income = power couple now? Since when? In most cases both parties have to work to make ends meet, it's an economic requirement. If that makes you a "power couple" then having a license makes you a Formula 1 driver.

Rp theory relies on the idea that women are 'lacking' in certain "masculine" (read: superior) traits and need a man in their lives to provide them.

That's not my view. I stated as such right at the beginning of this discussion. Men don't have to provide women anything right now in 2015. All I've said during this debate is that women still like to feel looked after even though it's not required anymore. And while you've danced around the subject you have already agreed with me on that. It's funny we're basically still arguing semantics there so that you can keep attacking RP with hyperbolic strawman arguments and so you can keep yourself looking politically correct I guess.

It's very easy to think you know someone. The reality of the situation is often very different.

Sure, people can keep parts of their personalities hidden pretty easily, but in most cases this does not matter where manipulation is concerned. Manipulation is concerned with taking the personality traits people display and using them to convince that person to act how you want them to act. To quote the 48 Laws "discover each man's thumbscrew."

And what I said about unpredictability also applies to mysteriousness. If someone acts in a manner that is unpredictable or mysterious then that in itself says something about their personality and can be used to model their behaviour.

I guess we read that differently. I'd assume most kids would want their mothers to feel happier plus aww yeah bonus chocolate. It's what we call a win-win.

Of course it's a win-win, that's my point! The kid is happy because he has a chocolate, the mum is happy because she got a hug from her son. Both parties are made happier by this arrangement. The motivations on the part of the kid were selfish as he just wanted his chocolate, and he knew his mum would only give him a chocolate if she was happy, but in changing her actions to his favour he also made her happier.

You're almost getting it now. Manipulation does not always have to be a bad thing, nor does it always have to be a form of abuse. That is exactly the point I am trying to make. It can be as innocent as a kid hugging his mum so she gives him chocolate.

The people walking around thinking they're master manipulators capable of playing with people like marionettes are incredibly easy to spot.

Again you resort to hyperbole. Manipulation tactics are indeed easy to spot if you already know about them but not if you don't, that's what I'm trying to say. If you're trying to imply everyone can just see through them then this is clearly false. These skills absolutely work and are usually pretty subtle if they are performed correctly. If this was not the case then manipulation just wouldn't work and BP wouldn't be screaming about how horrible it is. However we know it does work, so you might as well be on the right side of it.

Because the sidebar doesn't claim those things are true of women?

If you go in looking to interpret it that way sure. Especially if you only found RP through BP and prior to that already had a feminist lean in your beliefs.

By the dictionary.

Funny I don't see anything in the dictionary about submission being inherently negative. You're trying to paint it like submission is the lack of a quality therefore it's bad, but you could easily argue the reverse, that dominance being the lack of submission is bad because that's also lacking a quality, no?

Stop trying to spin words to fit your views. Submission's quality is entirely subjective. Trying to determine the inherent value of submission is like trying to determine the inherent value of brown hair.

t really shouldn't be so difficult to grasp.

It wouldn't be if it actually had any validity beyond simply being your own personal opinion.

And I contend that in the vast, vast majority of healthy happy relationships it's incredibly fluid. How fucking boring otherwise.

The skillsets are split absolutely, but let's say a decision has to be made on where to go to holiday, one of you wants to go to France and the other Spain. If you are genuinely "fluid" in all your decision making you'd never properly resolve that issue. You might be thinking "but we'd just compromise!" Great, and go somewhere neither of you genuinely wanted to go. One of you (male, female, genderqueer, doesn't matter) would have to make the final decision and say "we should go to [my place] because [reasons the other party would like it]" in order to convince their partner their choice is the best.

[–]lorispoison1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Double income = power couple now? Since when? In most cases both parties have to work to make ends meet, it's an economic requirement. If that makes you a "power couple" then having a license makes you a Formula 1 driver.

I'll be more explicit: look at the stats of double income families where both partners individually earn enough to place them in 'upper middle class' or higher. I'd call that a power couple, and the numbers of people who it applies to increases with each year.

That's not my view. I stated as such right at the beginning of this discussion. Men don't have to provide women anything right now in 2015. All I've said during this debate is that women still like to feel looked after even though it's not required anymore. And while you've danced around the subject you have already agreed with me on that.

Oh, have I? Show me where. Quote me.

It's funny we're basically still arguing semantics there so that you can keep attacking RP with hyperbolic strawman arguments and so you can keep yourself looking politically correct I guess.

Good god, that "straw man" business again. Retire it, guys. It only exists in your head.

The motivations on the part of the kid were selfish as he just wanted his chocolate, and he knew his mum would only give him a chocolate if she was happy, but in changing her actions to his favour he also made her happier.

You misunderstand, again. I think most children, in seeing their mothers unhappy, would either 1. forget about the chocolate and just focus on cheering her up or 2. cheer her up because they love her and then ask about the chocolate because they hadn't forgotten their original motivation for finding mom (if they really, really wanted that treat or were hungry).

If you go in looking to interpret it that way sure. Especially if you only found RP through BP and prior to that already had a feminist lean in your beliefs.

Tell me how I've misinterpreted. Quote the sources from the sidebar.

If this was not the case then manipulation just wouldn't work and BP wouldn't be screaming about how horrible it is. However we know it does work, so you might as well be on the right side of it.

It's horrible to manipulate people too stupid to know better. Luckily most do. I think decent people don't like to think of those incapable of protecting themselves (because they aren't mentally equipped) being manipulated. Because those people will still feel pain after the manipulator finishes with them and disappears. It's sad. It's a normal reaction to dislike this.

Funny I don't see anything in the dictionary about submission being inherently negative. You're trying to paint it like submission is the lack of a quality therefore it's bad, but you could easily argue the reverse, that dominance being the lack of submission is bad because that's also lacking a quality, no?

From the dictionary: "submissive: 1. of, tending towards, or indicating submission, humility, or servility"

Are you now going to argue 'servility' is somehow a positive trait? Ask yourself if you'd enjoy being referred to as submissive. Then lie to me and pretend it wouldn't bother you. Let's drop it, you bore me with this disingenuous nonsense.

If you are genuinely "fluid" in all your decision making you'd never properly resolve that issue. You might be thinking "but we'd just compromise!" Great, and go somewhere neither of you genuinely wanted to go. One of you (male, female, genderqueer, doesn't matter) would have to make the final decision and say "we should go to [my place] because [reasons the other party would like it]" in order to convince their partner their choice is the best.

Or you decide together to do the France trip now and Spain trip at a later date. What you are describing ("one of you (male, female, genderqueer, doesn't matter) would have to make the final decision and say 'we should go to [my place] because [reasons the other party would like it]' in order to convince their partner their choice is the best.") isn't making a unilateral decision, it is compromise. You are introducing information that may change their opinion. You aren't deciding for them. If it makes you feel better to pretend this isn't compromise and is instead "being the captain," get on with your bad self.

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

'll be more explicit: look at the stats of double income families where both partners individually earn enough to place them in 'upper middle class' or higher. I'd call that a power couple, and the numbers of people who it applies to increases with each year.

I can't seem to find data that specific, can you link a source if you have one? Closest I could find is this which breaks down earning by gender but not by class or any difference in income within specific couples.

Oh, have I? Show me where. Quote me.

Sure:

I'll grant you that a not tiny proportion of people enjoy having a submissive, indecisive SO ... I do agree that women tend to enjoy being submissive more often than dominant.

You did try to spin it into a negative and you seem to think sexuality and how people act in sexual relationships are completely different, but you still said it. Like I said we're just arguing semantics.

Good god, that "straw man" business again.

Well you're expecting me to answer for arguments no one but yourself is currently making so yeah that's a strawman.

I think most children, in seeing their mothers unhappy, would either 1. forget about the chocolate and just focus on cheering her up or 2. cheer her up because they love her and then ask about the chocolate because they hadn't forgotten their original motivation for finding mom (if they really, really wanted that treat or were hungry).

You seem to be of the view children are magical loving creatures when in fact they're blank slates who are still learning what emotions like love even mean. They are the ultimate image of self-interested humans.

Tell me how I've misinterpreted. Quote the sources from the sidebar.

Why should I? You never quoted any sources for your original assertion.

It's horrible to manipulate people too stupid to know better. Luckily most do.

You hope they do. I would disagree. If they did then the 48 Laws of Power would not work. And yet it is a book that has been praised by powerful people. We are not talking about some kind of niche that only works on a small percentage of people here, clearly.

This is why the ultimate manipulators - the genuine sociopaths - can so easily come across as nice people. Ask anyone who knew Ted Bundy if they suspected him of being a serial killer before it was on the news. Even afterwards people who knew him were saying it must have been a mistake, this guy could never do something like that.

If you can do it well enough manipulation tactics work on most human beings. You are confusing enhanced awareness on the target's end with poor execution on the manipulator's end. If you're shit at manipulation of course you won't get far. But if you're good at it then it will work on most people. You just don't want to think about that.

Are you now going to argue 'servility' is somehow a positive trait?

In certain contexts it absolutely can be.

Ask yourself if you'd enjoy being referred to as submissive.

In some ways I am, I see no shame in admitting that. Pretty much everyone has a mix of dominant and submissive personality traits.

Then lie to me and pretend it wouldn't bother you.

"It would bother me if you said I was submissive so it must bother you as well because feels."

Or you decide together to do the France trip now and Spain trip at a later date.

That's double the money spent which you might not have. Maybe you only have enough money for one holiday in the next few years. In any case, who's destination do we go to first?

You are introducing information that may change their opinion. You aren't deciding for them.

Of course. I never said this was some dom/sub dynamic. What I am describing is actually directly from the 48 Laws funnily enough: "when trying to convince someone, appeal to their sense of self-interest." Manipulation motherfucker.

[–]lorispoison1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I can't seem to find data that specific, can you link a source if you have one? Closest I could find is this which breaks down earning by gender but not by class or any difference in income within specific couples.

It was discussed on a recent episode of Marketplace.

Sure:

Oh, I get it. We're taking things out of context in a desperate attempt to change their meaning. How intellectually bankrupt and, yet again, disingenuous. Here, let me remind you of the original context:

[me] I can't work my head around the men who enjoy the whimpering, indecisive, submissive types. How boring and unsexy. [you] And your views represent about half of men. But again most women seem to like being submissive when comes to relationships and sex. [me] I'll grant you that a not tiny proportion of people enjoy having a submissive, indecisive SO.

A discussion of 'submissive' as a personality type, with no mention of sex on my part. Because I view them as separate spheres. I've repeated this ad nauseam, did you really not catch on?

Here's the second bit as it actually appears:

[you] And indeed there are very few female dominants to go around for those submissive men, aren't there? [me] True. I do agree that women tend to enjoy being submissive more often than dominant. But I think most would classify as "switch" if they knew the term.

Well how about that- we were discussing sex specifically. No mentions of relationships or personality traits anywhere to be found.

Weirdly, you admit I don't confuse preferred sex with personality type directly afterwards:

You did try to spin it into a negative and you seem to think sexuality and how people act in sexual relationships are completely different, but you still said it.

So, tell me again: where do I admit "women still like to feel looked after even though it's not required anymore," exactly?

Like I said we're just arguing semantics.

...No. We're not arguing about the meaning or concept of 'sexual submissiveness' (though that would be interesting- is it truly 'submissive' when you have complete control over everything that happens to your body? I would argue no, which is one of the reasons I have no problem agreeing that women tend to enjoy playing 'submissive' in the sack. I touched on this earlier) or 'dominance' as an idea.

Instead, what's happening is that you're willfully misinterpreting/misrepresenting the things that I say. That isn't semantics. Look words up before you use them.

Well you're expecting me to answer for arguments no one but yourself is currently making so yeah that's a strawman.

Shockingly, you failed to prove me wrong entirely. What a straw man that must be, that you are entirely incapable of countering the argument.

You seem to be of the view children are magical loving creatures when in fact they're blank slates who are still learning what emotions like love even mean. They are the ultimate image of self-interested humans.

You don't "learn" what love is. Love is a series of chemical reactions that occur in the brain. You can't "learn" it and if you needed to then you've got issues, and the mental potential for sociopathy. That's not great, bud.

Why should I? You never quoted any sources for your original assertion.

With pleasure:

"Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager In The House" "Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight and twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is a reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling things to the most important." Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved. For this dynamic and the practicality of enjoying the best of both genetic worlds, women find it necessary to ‘cheat’.

You're welcome :)

If they did then the 48 Laws of Power would not work. And yet it is a book that has been praised by powerful people.

So has 'The Secret,' dude.

This is why the ultimate manipulators - the genuine sociopaths - can so easily come across as nice people. Ask anyone who knew Ted Bundy if they suspected him of being a serial killer before it was on the news. Even afterwards people who knew him were saying it must have been a mistake, this guy could never do something like that.

Sure. Bundy's an outlier, as are all sociopaths. And I contend many people do notice there's something 'off' about many sociopaths.

In certain contexts it absolutely can be.

Hahaha sure buddy.

In some ways I am

Nope. You failed. Call yourself submissive as a wholesale description of yourself.

That's double the money spent which you might not have. Maybe you only have enough money for one holiday in the next few years. In any case, who's destination do we go to first?

You're compromising to figure that out. Which you agree with:

Of course.

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

It was discussed on a recent episode of Marketplace.

So no, you can't provide a source?

A discussion of 'submissive' as a personality type

Oh so you're now admitting the bit about a significant number of people liking a submissive SO was specifically talking about personality types rather than just sex? Awesome, even better.

we were discussing sex specifically.

And in reaction to the second bit, then, we were talking about sex.

So you have clarified my point even further, thank you :)

We're not arguing about the meaning or concept of 'sexual submissiveness'

Not really. Our only consistent disagreement was over whether or not people acted differently within sexual relationships than they do in the bedroom as a whole. But if you're now saying a significant number of people like a submissive SO in terms of personality type, and that a majority of women like being submissive sexually, that's close enough for me.

What a straw man that must be, that you are entirely incapable of countering the argument.

Why would I attempt to defend an argument I'm not even making?

You don't "learn" what love is. Love is a series of chemical reactions that occur in the brain. You can't "learn" it and if you needed to then you've got issues, and the mental potential for sociopathy. That's not great, bud.

Again with the bloody extremes.

You are right that "love" is a chemical reaction in the brain but the various concepts of love we have in our society absolutely are things we learn. You don't come out the womb knowing the difference between platonic and romantic love for example. You learn that later on.

With pleasure:

Oh so when you cherrypick out of context quotes that's a valid argument now? I thought you were just accusing me of doing that as a basis for why my argument was invalid. At least be consistent.

Anyway, to address the quotes themselves, they all pertain to only one element of TRP, which is the "oldest teenager in the house" thing. They are also all from one single blog post. That the best you can do?

So has 'The Secret,' dude.

No it hasn't. It was on Oprah's show but that's it.

Meanwhile the list of people who have shown public appreciation for the 48 Laws includes Busta Rhymes, UGK, Jay Z, Kanye West, Drake. Dov Charney liked it so much he put the author on the board of his company American Apparel and gave out copies of the book to employees. Curtis Jackson/50 Cent went as far as to co-write his own book with the author of the 48 Laws because it spoke to him so much. Even Fidel Castro was reported to have read it.

I know you probably wanna roll your eyes at the rappers but I want to express how significant it is they praise it. These are entrepreneurs just as much as Steve Jobs was, often rappers start off from poor backgrounds then work their way up to riches. 50 Cent is a perfect example and he is an intelligent businessman - most of his money comes not from his music but his clever investment in Vitamin Water which he made hundreds of millions from.

Now when people like that, along with people like the CEO of American Apparel, are saying this book has great value, I pay attention. These are precisely the people who know what the fuck they're talking about.

And as I mentioned earlier I was taught about how to manipulate people from when I was a kid. So when I read that book it rang true with me too. I could see the same behaviours in my own family, and I've seen it all play out in front of me, and well I grew up in a nice house as a result of it. You move up in business by manipulating people.

Sure. Bundy's an outlier, as are all sociopaths.

Of course Bundy is an outliner but you're missing my point. Sociopaths are evidence that well executed manipulation works. There is no real reason a "normal" person could not learn the same skills. They come more naturally to sociopaths for many reasons but they can be employed by anyone who is willing to learn and practice. The 48 Laws is practically a step-by-step guide.

And I contend many people do notice there's something 'off' about many sociopaths.

Well yeah because they fake all their emotions. They give a weird vibe of being "empty" like Patrick Bateman. But that's not something you have to contend with unless you are also an actual sociopath.

Hahaha sure buddy.

Top debating.

Nope. You failed. Call yourself submissive as a wholesale description of yourself.

Why would I do that? It's not true. As I said, I do not think it is as black and white as you like to make out. We all have a mixture of dominant and submissive traits. Even RP accepts this.

You're compromising to figure that out.

Where's the compromise? You're encouraging someone else to agree with your view. That's not what compromising is.

[–]lorispoison1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So no, you can't provide a source?

That's exactly what I did. Marketplace- listen to it on podcast, it's the one about HENRYs.

Oh so you're now admitting the bit about a significant number of people liking a submissive SO was specifically talking about personality types rather than just sex? Awesome, even better.

I never disagreed with that. I stated that the small but significant proportion of people it was true for creeped me out, and explained why.

And in reaction to the second bit, then, we were talking about sex. So you have clarified my point even further, thank you :)

Okay, I'm beginning to get that this is insanely hard for you to understand so I'll say it yet again: sexual expression and personality are separate. One does not dictate the other.

What point other than the above do you imagine I'm clarifying? What are you even arguing here?

Not really. Our only consistent disagreement was over whether or not people acted differently within sexual relationships than they do in the bedroom as a whole. [emphasis mine]

Yes! By gum he's got it!

But if you're now saying a significant number of people like a submissive SO in terms of personality type, and that a majority of women like being submissive sexually, that's close enough for me.

It's not close enough for me. You're twisting my words to pretend that I at some point agreed with your assertion, which I never did. You are the worst type of debater.

Oh so when you cherrypick out of context quotes that's a valid argument now? I thought you were just accusing me of doing that as a basis for why my argument was invalid. At least be consistent.

I didn't cherry pick at all. Show me how I took them out of context as I did for you.

Anyway, to address the quotes themselves, they all pertain to only one element of TRP, which is the "oldest teenager in the house" thing. They are also all from one single blog post. That the best you can do?

They are three separate assertions I made about rp's sidebar. The quotes are from three separate blog posts linked to on -- you guessed it! -- the rp sidebar.

It was on Oprah's show but that's it.

Oprah's not the definition of 'powerful'?

Top debating.

I'm pandering to my audience.

Why would I do that? It's not true. As I said, I do not think it is as black and white as you like to make out. We all have a mixture of dominant and submissive traits. Even RP accepts this.

Of course it's not. Something negative like that would never be true about you as a person. For fun, though- list the ways in which you are submissive.

Where's the compromise? You're encouraging someone else to agree with your view. That's not what compromising is.

That's exactly what compromise is for situations where there isn't a middle ground. Wrong again.

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's exactly what I did. Marketplace- listen to it on podcast, it's the one about HENRYs.

A podcast is not a source.

I stated that the small but significant proportion

Nice try. You said not insignificant number of people. You said nothing about small number of people.

creeped me out

Yep, you definitely did that, but that means nothing.

sexual expression and personality are separate. One does not dictate the other.

I never disagreed with this. I just think sexuality plays a big part in how you act in a sexual relationship. But alas, we've repeated these same arguments a gazillion times and neither of us are budging, so pushing this further seems pointless.

You are the worst type of debater.

That's right... a mass debater.

I didn't cherry pick at all. Show me how I took them out of context as I did for you.

I'm just skimming that whole "women are teenagers" one that's linked on the sidebar and funnily enough I find it supports my argument:

A parent who expects their child to also be their equal friend to lean upon for support, will also find himself sorely disappointed with the results. The child instinctively expects the parents to be superior and to cater to his needs. Expecting the reverse will only result in a resentful child and a heartbroken parent. The same order must be maintained between a man and a woman, lest she become resentful and seek out a man who actually will lead her.

I dunno like I said from the start this whole thing cannot be objectively measured. The closest thing you can do is link to studies of college students or online dating sites. There's no hard science for what people find sexy so really we're just shouting our opinions at each other ad infinitum. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours. I suspect many of our views on this have already been moulded by life experiences and no amount of reading about someone else's experiences online will alter that perception. It'd take you seeing these things with your own eyes to do that - but that may never happen if you keep yourself intentionally blind to them, as you seem intent on doing in regards to the manipulation tactics I discussed.

Oprah's not the definition of 'powerful'?

She has a powerful media presence certainly, but interviewing the authors of a book on her show is not the same thing as her saying "I followed this book and it helped make me successful." And yet that's exactly what a long list of successful and powerful (and rich) people are saying about the 48 Laws as I demonstrated. I notice you didn't bother to respond to that point.

Something negative like that would never be true about you as a person.

A lot of negative things are true about me. I can't function properly without my medications for a start.

For fun, though- list the ways in which you are submissive.

Why should I? I won't open up about personal details of my character to someone who clearly only wants to attack it. Even if I did what point would it prove?

That's exactly what compromise is

Hmm...

compromise

ˈkɒmprəmʌɪz

noun

an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. "eventually they reached a compromise"
synonyms: agreement, understanding, settlement, terms, accommodation; More

the expedient acceptance of standards that are lower than is desirable. "sexism should be tackled without compromise"

Yeah nah see if I get my way by convincing someone my way is the best way that doesn't really fall under that definition. Each side has not made a concession, only one side has. The standards are not lower than desirable because we're going where I wanted to.

Anyway, it's been fun but this has been going on for too long and all we're doing is repeating ourselves. I look forward to seeing you again around these old internets.

[–]lorispoison1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A podcast is not a source.

...You're not familiar with Marketplace, I take it. It's available on podcast, it's not a podcast.

Nice try. You said not insignificant number of people. You said nothing about small number of people.

Actually, what I said was "not tiny," meaning not insignificant but still small. Seems you're really just splitting hairs though.

I never disagreed with this. I just think sexuality plays a big part in how you act in a sexual relationship. But alas, we've repeated these same arguments a gazillion times and neither of us are budging, so pushing this further seems pointless.

Agreed.

That's right... a mass debater.

Alright, that earned you a chuckle.

A parent who expects their child to also be their equal friend to lean upon for support, will also find himself sorely disappointed with the results. The child instinctively expects the parents to be superior and to cater to his needs. Expecting the reverse will only result in a resentful child and a heartbroken parent. The same order must be maintained between a man and a woman, lest she become resentful and seek out a man who actually will lead her.

So you agree women are mentally teenagers? Oh, alrighty then.

Why should I? I won't open up about personal details of my character to someone who clearly only wants to attack it. Even if I did what point would it prove?

You just did! Literally in the line prior:

I can't function properly without my medications for a start.

So which is it- you're uncomfortable discussing personal details (disproven above) or you're uncomfortable discussing ways you are submissive?

Hm, kinda seems like the latter. How very shocking you would feel uncomfortable admitting ways you are submissive, even though being submissive is totally 1000% not a bad thing at all. Right.

Yeah nah see if I get my way by convincing someone my way is the best way that doesn't really fall under that definition. Each side has not made a concession, only one side has. The standards are not lower than desirable because we're going where I wanted to.

You gave an example where the middle ground is difficult to find. Maybe the concessions are 1. the other person gets to choose the hotel(s), 2. the other person gets to choose the entertainment (museums visited etc) 3. the other person gets to choose the restaurants visited, etc etc etc. This is what I imagine when I say

You are introducing information that may change their opinion. You aren't deciding for them.

Like "honey listen, France has that hotel you've always wanted to stay in! And look at all these museums, we could go to any you want" etc etc.

What are you imagining happens?

Anyway, it's been fun but this has been going on for too long and all we're doing is repeating ourselves. I look forward to seeing you again around these old internets.

See you around bud.

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

[–]lorispoison0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]beer77 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]beer77 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]beer77 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]beer77 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]beer771 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PetticoatRuled1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]beer771 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PetticoatRuled1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What could a woman do to make you admire and defer to her

The same shit a man would do, be excellent at something requiring hard work and discipline, have strong character, a self directed life, self awareness, etc. For example, some of my female colleagues in the medical field dedicated themselves to their profession for years and are extremely competent, compassionate people who push themselves far beyond what they would realistically have to do to stay employed, because they genuinely want to help people. I have immense respect for that. I even know a decent amount of women in this category who fucked up their lives via cock carouseling and having babies with criminals, deadbeats etc and worked hard to clean up the mess they made and provide for their own children, when they could just have easily sat around on welfare indefinitely.

would you have a romantic/sexual relationship with a woman you admired and deferred to?

If she was hot (physical appearance), most likely yes. I'm highly skeptical of an LTR working out that way, though, because in my experience and observation one person in the LTR tends to command more respect and female attraction is based more on adoration and respect than being adored and respected. In other words, due to hypergamy, the man basically has to be better than the woman in ways that matter to her or its likely to be a shitty relationship.

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

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fzed1199 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappilySingleWoman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]beer77 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_Your_Ego3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Kill_Your_Ego1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Kill_Your_Ego2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]thefisherman1961Red Pill Man11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This. In a way, dread is the default-state men are in because on a gut-level they know their woman theoretically could go out and get laid by some dude without even trying. In some patriarchal socieities where extensive mate guarding is a thing, women can't do anything without being accompanied by a man they've a first degree-relationship with (son, brother, father) unless it's their husband. If that social mechanism is not a reaction born out of dread intrinsic to men, I don't know what is.

But since we're in a progressive society, this fear is considered illegitimate by default. However, a woman who has the habit of doing things on her own (having extensive girls' nights, traveling around the world without her partner etc.) is using dread - she reminds her man that she could replace him on the whim or maybe even already be window shopping (regardless of whether that's her intention or not).

But generally it's interesting how bluepillers treat (intentional) dread game as something tantamount to rape and consider it pretty much mandatory to kick the dreader's ass to curb, but the (maybe unintentional) baseline dread game woman employ is considered a right and a aguy who reacts negatively to it is controlling and insecure. And then they deny that there's such a thing as the feminine imperative.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GaiusScaevolusMod TRP/AskTRP/BaM3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]APlaceInsideMyHeadRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aspiring_HoboNo Pills Necessary2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]RareBlur1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aspiring_HoboNo Pills Necessary1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RareBlur1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aspiring_HoboNo Pills Necessary2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RareBlur1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Aspiring_HoboNo Pills Necessary0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]truthiesttruth1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VermiciousKnidzzBlue Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RareBlur0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fzed1199 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]RareBlur0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]RareBlur0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProtoPillRed Before Red0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kenee24Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

Title	Does dread game work on men too ?
Author	HappilySingleWoman
Upvotes	3
Comments	141
Date	May 21, 2015 12:41 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/36p59o/does_dread_game_work_on_men_too/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/does-dread-game-work-on-men-too.282048 https://theredarchive.com/post/282048

Comments