~ archived since 2018 ~

Madonna-Whore Complex and AF/BB are the same thing.

October 22, 2022
41 upvotes

People with this behavioural complex think, often subconsciously that sex is degrading for women.

They seek a loving relationship in which partner Madonna/BB is loving, caring, respected, virtuous. But since they consider sex degrading for women, men can't degrade their wives, women can't degrade themselves. Leading to vanila sex and dead bedrooms.

They love what they cannot desire.

They desire whores and manwhores (AF) with which they can have that degrading sex. But since they consider sex degrading for women. Men cannot love "dirty" women, and women consider themselves unworty of love.

They desire what they cannot love.

So MWC and AF/BB are the same thing. A behavioural complex due to which people cannot feel love and desire for one single person. They only see people as sluts/mansluts or loving partners.

The difference is that speaking in general men love sex more and women love comitment more.

That's why generaly speaking men do not feel bad about just being used just for sex, if anything they love beeing used for it. And women don't feel bad about being given comitment without sex. They love having orbiters at hand which do not try to make things sexual.

Offcourse this is not always the case. Men can end up feeling frustrated because they are used for sex but are not considered as relationship material. And women can end up feeling frustrated because they are given comfort and commitment but are not considered for sex.

Men feel bad for being BB's, giving commitment while getting vanila sex. Women feel bad for being used just for sex.

I am hoping this post will help you understand each other's side, and maybe even make you a bit empathic for each other's issues.

Posted as debate, because I want people to debate about this. Please mods leave the flair as it is.

P.S. sorry for any spelling/grammar mistakes, I'm typing on my phone... keyboard small, fingers big, starseeker frustrated.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

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

Post Information
Red Pill terms in post
Comments

[–]KirthWGersen 23 points24 points  (34 children) | Copy Link

In a lot of BB relationships there is a lot of sex at the beginning. That is what sucks them in. It is also the "price" a woman who is not overly attracted to a man pays to get whatever she wants from him (security, resources, a father, etc.), although at the beginning, with new relationship energy, she is likely to genuinely want sex more anyway.

Two things then reduce sexual desire, and I don't think one of them is usually the Madonna-Whore complex (though it may be in some cases). Those two things are commitment and cohabitation.

If you want a woman to continue to have sex with you over time, the best approach is usually neither to marry nor live with her. Because then sexual attraction naturally dies down due to familiarity, security, boredom, taking one another for granted and relying on one another to perform tasks (specialising in roles within the relationship) and being disappointed with their performance on occasion. It just isn't very sexy.

It is obviously a lot more complicated than that, and couple dynamics vary a lot, but the Madonna-Whore complex is relatively rare.

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

That does exist, and it is not a part of this complex.

For instance my sister in law has used a lot of sex initially to get my BB brother to commit. Then she reduced the supply of sex and used sex for trade.

It's a textbook example of a transactional relationship because they openly trade money, favours, chores and sex.

As for MWC I'm writing this because I know people (men and women) which are like that. They can only separate people into these two categories. When I meet people like that I enjoy messing with them by sending them mixed signals and they keep trying to fit me into one of those categories.

[–]KirthWGersen 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

That sounds like such a horrific relationship to me! But each to their own...

🤣🤣 Any manipulative person deserves to be out-manipulated!

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Their relationship made me feel sucesfull for staying single 😁

I do think it's a good thing for them to be together because they really deserve each other. It would suck if the two of them had ended up ruining the lives of two good people.

[–]NockerJoePervert Palpatine 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nothing makes being single feel better than watching other peoples relationships.

[–]Weatherornaughtbasedpilled 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Is she at least a 10?

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

At her peak she was a 3/10.

[–]Weatherornaughtbasedpilled 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

🤢🤮

Why is he doing this damn

[–]toasterchild 0 points1 point  (22 children) | Copy Link

If you can schedule date nights when dating you can schedule sex time when living together. A lot of what women need is time to mentally prepare for sex, we can struggle with switching quickly from caring for kids to feeling sexy for example. It doesn't have to be as difficult as never live with someone, if you live with someone just don't get complacent.

[–]FlyV89 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yesterday I said "hi" to a girl by text. There was a spam of only 30 minutes between her "I'm sick" initial response and the time she came home.

If women need time to get in the mood, she may have broke a record right then.

[–]toasterchild 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

She probably was already in the mood, that does happen depending on the day. Cool story

[–]Weatherornaughtbasedpilled 1 point2 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

if you live with someone just don't get complacent.

Could be that living with someone invites complacency in the first place

Why not cut to the chase and avoid it rather than keep having to fight against it

And not cohabitate

[–]NationalistGoy 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Reminds me of the quote:

"Familiarity breeds contempt"

[–]Weatherornaughtbasedpilled 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So true

[–]luroot 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

💯!

Ofc, if you have a child under school age, living separately makes caring for it exponentially more difficult.

So I would say, realistically, cohabitate temporarily to raise kids under school age, but never get married.

[–]Weatherornaughtbasedpilled 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Interesting way to split the difference

[–]toasterchild 0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

Lots of people want more than that, but if it works for both of you that's great. It's really not nearly as difficult to maintain a sexual relationship as some people like to make it out to be. Lots of people just have total shit communication in their relationships.

[–]Weatherornaughtbasedpilled 1 point2 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

not nearly as difficult to maintain a sexual relationship as some people like to make it out to be

Guess it's just too hard for some people 🤣

[–]WilliamWyattD 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

BB can be more complex than that. A lot of women would never consciously pay that price. Rather, in a complex manner, the women are able to find the Beta guy sufficiently attractive that combined with NRE and novelty, she is able to have some enthusiastic sex for a while. But it can't last. There is a lot of self-deception or compartmentalization that goes on in this process. Few women these days have the gumption of women of old and are able to straight up fuck guys they consciously admit they are not attracted to just for security and resources.

[–]KirthWGersen 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you there. Women are no longer dependent on men as they were in earlier history. So unless they want a particularly large income that they cannot earn themselves, they can make their own money.

I think this makes modern relationships more honest and desirable.

[–]shakeandbake8 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I actually kind of agree with this.

Men see women as sluts or wives.

Women see men as hot fucks or fathers/husbands.

That is the Madonna whore complex reflected across genders.

We see this in both sides ignoring aspects of their partners. Both shut down sexually on their partners because they don’t appreciate them as sexual beings as they did for the men/women they previously dated/hooked up with when they were more sexually adventurous

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A lot of people are married with children and are having kinky sex.

So I think it's a super smart idea to outright vet people which are giving us the Virgin Marry act. Expecially when we get older.

[–]NationalistGoy 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Great minds think alike 😁

Hopefully this one is not going to turn into a shitstorm.

[–]tinasnow-poty 13 points14 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I see where you’re coming from but I don’t think women see having sex with their BB as degrading, more they’re just not physically attracted to him and love him for other reasons. Whereas men with MW complexes see sex as degrading and something they can’t do with the mother of their children. Slightly different.

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They, men and women with this complex see sex as degrading for women.

Yup, men with MWC can't degrade their virtuous wife by doing anything non-vanilla. Because that would turn her into a slut for them.

Women with MWC never seeked a loving partner which they also find sexually desireable. Because they think sex is degrading for women. If they have non-vanilla sex that will turn them into sluts and their partner wont love them.

[–]boomershack 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Slightly different.

Ofc it'll be slightly different because men and women are different and not the same.

What one finds degrading; the other wont.

[–]BigZaddyZ3 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Technically, you’re incorrect. They’re not the same. But one isn’t necessarily better than the other. So if what you’re trying to say is that they are equally bad then I agree. But they aren’t literally the same thing tho

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Not literally the same but... it's the same thing 😂

It is bad, and it is unfair. I think that this should be considered a mental disorder rather then just complex.

[–]BigZaddyZ31 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Haha yeah, but that’s actually kinda what separates them. M/W is much closer to a mental pathology or illness. It doesn’t really benefit men to have this complex and if anything, makes life more difficult for them.

Meanwhile AF/BB is a legitimate evolutionary adaptation that makes perfect sense from a pragmatic standpoint. It actually solves multiple problems within the mating game:

  1. The average woman can get a genetically elite male to fuck and possibly impregnate her, but can’t get him to provide resources or protection because he’d rather give his time/money to a genetically elite woman.

  2. The genetically elite male has a large sex drive, but can’t possibly commit valuable resources to every woman that wants him to.

  3. The beta male has ample resources but cannot physically attracted a woman to spend them on. (It’s also worth noting that BetaBux provides the beta males with an opportunity to perhaps sire his own kids, which would not have been possible otherwise. Thus creating a new class of betas for the next generation.)

AF/BB solves all three problems in one swoop. Everybody wins in a certain sense. Thus it’s a legitimate mating strategy that will never go away. Hope this helps clear things up a bit.

[–]SmilesLikeMardiGrasseriously, like have you seen my silhouette SHEESH 5 points6 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

eh, no. MEN see sex as degrading to women so women have to lie about their sexuality to get BBs

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Popularity and tabooesnes of fetishes by gender

I'd argue that more women see sex as degrading for women then men do. Or women see sex as more degrading for women then men do.

It does make sense for a woman to lie about her sexuality to get the BB.

But... why would she provide her BB with starfish sex then? It's not like her BB will leave her if she is wild in bed with him.

[–]SmilesLikeMardiGrasseriously, like have you seen my silhouette SHEESH 3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

because BBs JUDGE women for being sexual, being uptight low sociosexuality moralizers themselves. women arent fools, to have a BBs love youhave to be more childlike innocent and asexual, to have an AFs love youhave to be more sexual

i dotn see how your link supports anythign being discussed here

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

So the only way for you to be sexual is with someone who is not a relationship material.

And the only way to receive love and caring is to repress your sexuality.

Because you think men consider sex is degrading?

But most male fetishes are not at all about degrading women. And you can find a partner which is loving, caring while at the same time doesn't find sex degrading for women.

[–]SmilesLikeMardiGrasseriously, like have you seen my silhouette SHEESH 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

ok well im not talking about me because i dotn date or marry betas. beta males judge women for being sexual, isnt that obvious to you? men thinktheir OWN penises degrade women why do you keep bringing up fetishes

[–]AutoModerator[M] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]wordcell_ 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think the more interesting point is built off of that presupposition, which is how to raise as many people as possible without such a complex/prejudice, or how to best de-inculcate that very harmful mental framing

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The first step is recognizing the problem. But your point is a much more interesting one.

We are probably the most sexually repressed species on the entire planet. No other species has this much complications and disfunctions with relationships and sex.

Shaming female sexuality is still happening all the time. It's just not as open as before. Men and women talk shit behind the back all the time.

Male sexuality is super represed and it has been so normaluzed that people do not even comprehend it. Yes it's OK for men to sleep with lots of women, but at the same time men get labeled as creeps just for approaching women.

Animals are swinging their dicks around and singing "I want to have sex" 24/7 and homo sapiens can't even approach a woman without getting shamed for it.

[–]Peacesquad 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Same posts every day haha

[–]BigZaddyZ3 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Lmao, yeah. It’s cause we’re actually still in the discovery era for a lot of this stuff. When it comes to the science of human mating, none of this stuff is common knowledge yet. So everyday there’s a new person discovering things like AF/BB or M/W. They don’t realize that their reaction is the same as many others before them.

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A lot of guys incorrectly say that MWC is wanting a woman which is a Madonna AND a "slut" for them. Only recently did I find out that MWC is thinking that Woman can only be a Madonna OR a Whore.

So... yeah, now I can make the connection.

Also previously I thought I have the MW Complex. Now I know I don't.

[–]Peacesquad 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think everyone should study biology and understand just how different men and women are. I get shamed for stating biological facts on Reddit

[–]mrmudzi 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok ok.

So explain the desire for a "lady in the streets but a freak in the sheets"

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not saying that all man and women have a MW complex. Most of us have a desire for a partner which is "giving their best to us and no one else".

A lady in the streets but a freak in (my) sheets.

A partner which rejected everyone else and gave everything to us.

A guy which is tough for everyone else yet carring and loving for his partner.

This is often wrongly labeled as a MWC because we want a woman which is a Madonna AND a "Whore" (for us).

MWC is when Woman can only be a Madonna OR a Whore.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

They're not the same because MWC is about putting women into two mutually exclusive categories. On the other hand, women want men who have a mix of alpha and beta traits for commitment. Men with MWC do not want a woman who was "part whore" for commitment. They want the "100% whore" for sex at first and the "100% madonna" for a relationship later. Women don't want a "pure beta" for a relationship. They want a man who is alpha enough to be attractive, but beta enough to be a committer and provider.

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, but when you say women want a man which has a mix of alpha and beta traits... these are normal women. They always seek a valuable partner. Yes they can try with guys out of their league when younger, then shift to less attractive guys when older. Some might even settle with a guy just for comfort.

But they always looked for a good alpha/beta partner.

Women with MWC or AF/BB don't. They look for a fuckboy or a virtuous partner.

I would really like you to meet one such women, and have an opportunity to talk with her. She litterally cannot think outside of the fuckboy/BB labels.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women with MWC or AF/BB don't.

I don't think so. The reason that they are going for alpha guys is that they are hoping that they can "tame" them and bring out some beta qualities on them. On the other hand, MWC men having sex with promiscuous women are not hoping to bring out "madonna" qualities in them. Their plans are to discard these women after having sex with them and find a "virtuous" woman to marry.

Women aren't actually attracted to the BB men at all like MWC men are to the "madonna" woman. That is a big difference.

[–]Historical-System972 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol, women don't love BB.

[–]FlyV89 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Madonna-Whore complex it's just a theory Freud made up from observing a context (victorian England) were sex was extremely taboo and the population of both men and women were extremely repressed by religion.

In short, it's not that men prefered the prostitute but married the Madonna, it's just that men COULDN'T have sex with women until they got married, but they STILL HAD A SEX DRIVE in a cultural context where prostitution was not only not prosecuted and punished by law, but also kinda "overlooked".

So what did those men do? They fucked prostitutes WHILE waiting for marriage.

Now, when your culture gets over sexual religious restrictions, what happens? The men who can fuck around don't go to prostitutes, they just fuck around with random women.

Prostitutes are not the male epythome of beauty or femininity, they are just a moist hole. It's sad, but that's the truth.

An Alpha man, on the other hand, it's the male epythome of beauty acording to women's standars.

He's the most sought after man among all men.

A prostitute is not the female equivalent of an Alpha man, a beautiful 22 years old femenine and educated virgin tradwife is (I mean, to manosphere standars lets say).

Men fuck around with sluts and give their wives the best they have, and what these women (supposedly) want the most: marriage, commitment and a family.

Women give good looking, high status men what men want most (sex) and fuck over their husbands.

Basically, if the genders were reversed and these women were men, they would be treating like shit the hot unicorn tradwives and getting married to prostitutes, which from a male perspective doesn't make any fucking sense.

This is why Madonna-Whore complex and AF-BB are not the same thing, and actually are the polar opposites.

Of course, this is all theory, but if I'm getting redpillers right, the AF-BB is not the way you are framing it.

[–]BigZaddyZ3 3 points4 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Madonna/whore is much closer to a mental pathology or illness. It doesn’t really benefit men to have this complex and if anything, makes life more difficult for them.

Meanwhile AF/BB is a legitimate evolutionary adaptation that makes perfect sense from a pragmatic standpoint. it’s only bad from a deception standpoint So, Like I said previously, there both bad in a sense. But M/W isn’t remotely as legitimate. AF/BB actually solves multiple problems within the mating game:

  1. The average woman can get a genetically elite male to fuck and possibly impregnate her, but can’t get him to provide resources or protection because he’d rather give his time/money to a genetically elite woman.

  2. The genetically elite male has a large sex drive, but can’t possibly commit valuable resources to every woman that wants him to.

  3. The beta male has ample resources but cannot physically attracted a woman to spend them on. (It’s also worth noting that BetaBux provides the beta males with an opportunity to perhaps sire his own kids, which would not have been possible otherwise. Thus creating a new class of betas for the next generation.)

AF/BB solves all three problems in one swoop. Everybody wins in a certain sense. Thus it’s a legitimate mating strategy that will never go away. Hope this helps clear things up a bit.

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 2 points3 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Yes but these alternative sexual strategies usually have a niche within which they are sucesfull. Let's take a strictly monogamous village of 100 as an example.

One woman decides to pull an AF/BB and she is more sucesfull then her strictly monogamous sisters. Her AF/BB strategy gave her chiefs genes and a BB provider.

Next generation 49 women try to pull AF/BB. They all get impregnated by the chief but... there is a great shortage of men willing to be a BB. Not only that, but a lot of men have left their traditional roles, and even left the village.

Now that one woman which simply picked the 2nd best guy in the village is the evolutionary winner. Her kids get to not starve the next winter.

So this strategy can work for several women in the village. But if too many women use it it becomes less sucesfull.

Curently a lot of women end up being single. So I would argue that ATM AF/BB strategy is on the losing side.

[–]FlyV89 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

So this strategy can work for several women in the village. But if too many women use it it becomes less sucesfull.

This is why, arguably, casual sex wasn't really popular among women before the pill, abortion and the modern welfare state.

You know, the women having casual sex right now with top tier men, are still indulging in a sort of "AF-BB" dichotomy even if they don't get pregnant, since in a more premature, underdeveloped society that sex would still lead to reproduction.

On a evolutionary perspective lets say, the subconscious primal impulse of these women (the drive behind their lust) it's to mate with the "Alphas", even if they make the rational decition of not breeding with them for economic and moral reassons.

And I see how this sort of evolutionary fear of being "cucked" men seem to have, can play similarly to women's evo-psyche, even when there are no logic and factual reasson to think the woman is pregnant with another man's child. In the man's hindbrain that woman has already "mated" with another man, or several of them. On a subconscious level, she's already "pregnant", even when she's not really, and a man can take all these proofs and try to rationalize the feeling, but this "ick", this disconfort, won't go away easily.

Jealousy, for example, it's an animal emotion, an instinct, and it can arise in animals even when they are not intelligent enough to have abstract ideas such as procreation, paternity and family unit for example.

For animals, being jealous is something that just "happens", for no reasson at all. It's an extention that often conflates with territoriality.

The fact that men and women are rational living beings doesn't mean our evolutionary "animal brains" are not there anymore, and when our rationality clashes with our animal feelings and instincts, we can have a very though time rationalizing some ideas and concepts.

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes. For hundreds of milions of years we have evolved while condoms did not exist.

We are emotional beings which use logic and rationalizations to achieve our emotional goals, fullfill our emotional needs and feel happy. But we can't rationalize ourselves into feeling happy.

Chad feels happy when he fucks different women. Since women use contraceptives he doesn't achieve anything, rationally he is just wasting his time. Yet he decides to waste 10 years doing the thing that makes him feel happy.

Woman feels happy having protected sex with Alphas. Once again she doesn't achieve anything, she is just wasting her time. Yet she decides to waste 10 years doing what makes her happy.

And then a guy is supposed to rationally decide that he shouldn't feel the ick, and he should rationalize himself into feeling happy with BB role.

So people doing irrational things to feel happy are arguing that BB's frustration is irrational.

[–]FlyV89 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly, more or less what I was saying.

[–]BigZaddyZ3 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Interesting… but there are problems with your theory. One example is this idea that the majority of men will ever opt out of mating just because they realize they are betas.

This will never happen for a couple of reasons.

For one, the opportunity to get some type of sex will always be more enticing than no sex at all. So a woman, no matter how ran-through they are, will almost always find a beta willing to bux them. As for him it’s either that or no sex at all. This is why even pornstars can get wifed up eventually.

Secondly, the men who act as you’ve described will leave the earth without a lineage. Therefore men who are more natural okay with BetaBuxing will only become more prominent with each generation(due to passing on their betabux-friendly genes). Either way you end up back at square one. Which is one of the reasons AF/BB will never go away. It’s mother nature’s official answer to the inequalities of the dating market.

[–]smallstarseekerCritical thinker[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So how come there are a lot of single women with children?

If those children are made by Alpha Fucks then there is just going to be more and more Alpha Fucks genes around, which are not willing to take care of their own kids, let alone someone else.

Also you are ignoring that it's not just about the genes.

Kids raised in single parent families do divorce more and earlier. Today even kids know about the AF/BB and RedPill, 30 years ago we were playing in mud as kids.

[–]BigZaddyZ3 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

These single women are still under the delusion that they’ll bag an alpha-male. The wall will hit them hard, and they’ll become much more receptive to the beta male at that point. This is ultimately what guys like Kevin Samuels were trying to articulate. You could think of these women as being bad at the AF/BB. They’ll either come around eventually or end up forever single

I suppose there are also some stubborn beta-males who are holding out for a “magical prime Stacy” who they think will view them the way most most women view Chad. Most of these men will end up disappointed as well. (Men hit a wall to in a sense). These men will accept that they aren’t chad and then they’ll become willing betabuxxers. Those ones that don’t will fail to pass on their genes resistance to AF/BB and will be eventually be slowly removed from the genepool.

Also you seem to be under the impression that betas never pass on their genes.. This isn’t true. You’re thinking of full-blown cuckoldry which is extreme rare lol.

[–]BigZaddyZ3 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Edit : my dumb phone seems to be double posting replies for some reason.

[–]lovelythecove 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

More women end up single now because they don’t need to rely on men for money anymore. Women can afford to be pickier because they have the freedom to pursue their own financial success. So BB strategy doesn’t pan out for men as hard anymore. There’s only so many BB men who are attractive enough to be chosen. An otherwise average woman who can make decent money (and even potentially have a child solo if she desires) isn’t going to settle for an absolutely ugly guy who has a similar warning potential as her, whereas in the past, a woman would have had to settle for these uglier tier BB men. They couldn’t have been financially successful otherwise.

[–]smallstarseeker1 points [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes, yes most women end up single with children because thats what they want. They are still super desireable, but remain single because they aint need a man in their life. They still have their OLD profile active, because... reasons.

You do realize how similar this sounds with MGTOW's cope?

If these women are not getting approached by guys willing to comit, then they don't get to say it's due to other side being ugly. And guys asking them out is not the same as guys willing to commit.

Nobody is buying this B.S.

Nobody.

[–]lovelythecove 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Most women aren’t single mothers. My point was that women don’t need a male partner for money or children anymore. Even a woman who desperately wants to be a mother has more options now than even 20 years ago. So why would they settle for significantly uglier men? Sure, some women will settle for less attractive men who have enough money to make up for it, and some even uglier women will settle for uglier men than usual with only some extra money to bring to the table. But there’s still a good chunk of women who no longer feel the need to do this, because a man having some money while being ugly is no longer enough. It was enough when women didn’t have any other financial options.

In the 2020s, it simply doesn’t carry enough weight. Only uglier men who have significantly more money can pull this off (or slightly unattractive men with moderately more money.)

[–]jellybeanzandtingsModerator[M] 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children) | Copy Link

Your comment was removed for cope.

[–]krich8181 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

MWC does make sense from an evolutionary perspective though. Sleeping with many women who let him (the so called "whores") means that a man increases his reproductive success, but settling down with the kind of woman who doesn't sleep with many men (Madonna) increases the odds that he doesn't end up raising some other dude's kids.

[–]BigZaddyZ3 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah but that’s not really where the “complex” part comes from. True Madonna/Whore Complex is when you believe so strongly in the concept that you try to place this dichotomy on your own wife. Meaning you resent your her or lose respect for her the more she has sex with you. This causes a lot of men distress as they feel that the more sexual they get with their wife, the less he see’s her as a Madonna and the more he see’s her as the whore he was trying to avoid. This complex can ruin a man’s sex life. Because he only pedestals women he isn’t having sex with.

[–]krich8181 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok I see, I didn't realize the complex went beyond just the dichotomy that men often put women into. Fair enough then.

[–]Stunning-Potato-1984 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I feel genuinely bad for people with these mentalities. I feel like they've never been truly loved or loved anyone.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter