We're probably all some what familiar with RPW, a subreddit dedicated to women using redpill theory. Their conclusion is that a woman's end goal is to find a high quality man to form a long term relationship with. I wonder why this is the female redpill, it doesn't seem to coincide with the male RP's ideas about amorality, and benefiting yourself over other, in fact on the surface it just appears as old morals rehashed.

TRP goes on about how a woman will never love you the way you want her too, and warns about the perils of women's hypergamy and hamster spinning, why doesn't RPW do the same? Posts like these are called axioms of RPW and claim things like:

"If Men existed in a universe where fully formed, hot 16-18 year old girls with long, silky hair and .7 hip-waist ratios grew out of the ground without agency, wants, needs and desires of their own and without families to care for and protect them, men would kill each other to collect as many of them as possible--replacing them with new ones as the older ones cycled out."

Doesn't this suggest men reduce women to mere objects only good for their sex appeal? Doesn't this confirm that a man will never love you the way you want him to, or possible that he'll never "love" you in any meaningful way at all. If TRP accepts the detriments of female nature and the fact they are incompatible with the male imperative, why doesn't RPW do the same? Why doesn't RPW conclude that a man's nature is incompatible with the female imperative?

One of TRP's key concepts is SMV. It is well udnerstood that a woman's SMV is more dependant on her appearance than a man's and that men and women's SMV's peak at different points. Shouldn't RPW accept that LTRs are inherently unstable as, as the couple ages her SMV will shrink faster than his and he will look to replace her with a younger woman?

A core tenet of RPW is to try and snag a "high quality man" but is such a thing possible? A common phrase thrown around in TRP, PPD and RPW is "too many options", i.e. the idea that when a man has too many options he simply sleeps around (rides the clitoris carousel?) instead of settling for one woman. Doesn't this inherently imply a man cannot love you/want you for you? It suggests that men don't actually want to be with you but only settle for you when their options dry up. Why would RPW enter into long term partnerships when RP theory accepts that men only settle for relationships. You cannot form a relationship with a high value man by definition because if he were a high value man he would be spinning plates.

Shouldn't the female RP be:

  1. A man will never love you the way you want him too
  2. Long term relationships are inherently unstable as they go against the male imperative
  3. Any man that willingly enters a LTR with you is settling
  4. Be amoral, use your sexuality to gather as much experience, enjoyment and resources as possible i.e. AF/BB

Edit: Added short paragraph on differing SMV peaks.