~ archived since 2018 ~

Relationships & Sales

RedPillDad

November 18, 2014

9 upvotes

Yesterday, I had a conversation with female member of my team about seduction and sales. I put this together, and being that it's more of a female lesson, felt it belonged here rather than TRP.

Comments appreciated...

The goal for a man is to raise his SMV so that a woman offers him sexual access. The goal for a woman is to raise her RMV so the man is willing to stay with her.

That's Guy Game and Girl Game in a nutshell.

A guy with high SMV proves himself sex-worthy and stays out of the friend-zone. A woman with high SMV attracts many men, but must prove herself relationship-worthy with high RMV to transition out of the fuck-zone.

Many women have grown accustomed to being lazy in the sexual marketplace. The average woman lacks the skills to sell and makes little effort to build up her personal brand.

She never needed to make an effort to sell sex, because in her younger years, every man was eager to buy. And hordes of beta pussy beggar men drive up the "price of pussy" in the SMP.

After years of male validation, she acts with the entitlement of a wealthy shopper who doesn't realize the hard work required to build a luxury brand (a high-value man) and to orchestrate her purchase decision (his Game). She thinks it all just happens naturally.

She thinks she's being a smart shopper, because she only chooses to be with the hotter guys.

The problem is that those guys only want her for the free trial (ONS). She's sex-worthy but not commitment-worthy. She's stuck in the fuck-zone.

If she gets caught up in the feminist acceptance movement, she won't make the effort to improve herself. Her SMV begins dropping and she gets less attention from guys.

She's frustrated because the guys she keeps trying to buy (bad boys) inevitably hurt her. The nice guys (betas) seem so wimpy and don't appeal to her. And the occasion high-value guy she meets (alpha) is way out of her league.

The day she turns it around is when she realizes she's a seller, not a shopper... And as a seller, she has a diminishing asset that she was giving it away to less than suitable buyers.

What is she selling? It's not sex, because a higher-value guy can get that easily.

She's selling...

Herself as a luxury brand - she's the prize.
The "Girlfriend Experience" that makes him want to always be with her.
The "happily-ever-after" of a LTR.

Skillful selling leverages the psychology of how people buy. With experience, she learns how to package and present herself as the best option and activate his buying triggers.

Buying Triggers:

1. Friendship/Rapport - she acts likeable and shows she likes him (IOI's, green lights).

2. Commonality - she takes interest in his interests. She attunes herself to his frame and immerses herself within it.

3. Leadership/Followership - she encourages and supports his leadership efforts. She submits to his masculinity as her feminine side emerges.

4. Consistency/Commitment - she persuades him to actively declare and show his love for her. Once he does, he acts in accordance with his previous words and actions.

5. Reciprocity - she shows generosity and kindness, engaging him to give back and buy whatever it is she's selling.

6. Social Proof - she attempts to create a buying frenzy by having other suitors compete for her attention.

7. Scarcity - she makes herself not easily available and not easy. She creates a challenge for him.

8. Reason to Act - she responds to his advances, encouraging more. Once she has him hooked, she gives him the ultimatum.

Note:These buying triggers are adapted from Robert Cialdini's book Influence.

Question: How does confusion of the buy-sell relationship of genders corrupt the SMP?

Archived from /r/PurplePillDebate

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

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

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

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

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

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

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Relationships & Sales
Author	RedPillDad
Upvotes	9
Comments	172
Date	November 18, 2014 5:56 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2momvm/relationships_sales/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/relationships-sales.284337 https://theredarchive.com/post/284337

Comments

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun[M] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]GridReXXit be like that4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]zlex1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZenNate1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

As it is generally practiced on internet forums? Yes.

There's a fucking swamp full of just-so post-hoc justifications that coincidentally confirm everything the poster already believed anyway.

Clearly our evolutionary history must have an effect on our psychology as it does on our physiology. Are you going to get an accurate reckoning of the extent and nature of that influence from anyone, and I include myself for the most part, in discussions like these? The probability approaches zero.

I've seen so many ridiculous pop-sci articles that mischaracterize and elide 80-90% of the source research to create some sort of sensational headline and the people who post them around, that yes, my first impulse is always to dismiss that shit out of hand in these contexts.

That doesn't mean I'm not open to considering the evidence under more detailed inspection.

[–]ZenNate2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]zlex1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And yet some of us like chocolate and some of us like vanilla.

I'm a big fan of 'it is what it is.' This is an area that I must admit, I'm not too sure that state of the art knows 'what it is.' I don't see much biological evidence at all of mankind as deterministic unspoolers like bees or ants.

We choose what to value. Literally, within our highest level neural networks like constructs, how to weight the outputs of our lower level processing networks.

We got stuff that apes don't have, which permits us higher brain functions as well as the stuff we share.

I don't think it is a magical, mystical quality separate from our wetbits. We aren't snowflakes. I think it is a consequence of process of evolution. I regard the basic concept of neural nets as generally programmable wetbits, and we got more complex stuff, permitting those higher brain functions -- in the same way that apes got more stuff than earthworms and bees, and so on. We are able to self adjust our neural net weightings -- even, manufacture goals -- to a far greater extent than the apes. Even as we have a medullah oblongata, dumbly doing its thing.

I don't think we are simple neural nets, even as we might apply them; we are able to self-weight our own neural nets-- to on the fly choose what our highest neural nets value. There is a concrete example of this phenomenon called the checkerboard illusion.

http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html

Our changing perception of that illusion is an accessible and concrete exanple of our ability to self-rewire even normally autonomous functioning neural nets inside of us, evidence, to me, of yet higher order willfully reprogrammable neural nets. We can choose what we value.

In that example, what we value is usually always pattern recognition over gray scale value. The bias for pattern detection would still exist in primitive man. It is how he detected the lion in the grass. It was crucial to his survival.

But we can willfully choose. What I mean by this is, the first time you see that illusion, most people can only see the squares A and B as being different shades of gray. But after we understand the illusion, it is often difficult to see the same squares as anything but the same shade of gray. This concrete example is a very accessible personal experiment to the machine inside of us, as well as the insight into the willful nature of that machine. As well, the lesson of this example is, we can understand it, and in understanding it, willfully re-weight a portion of our visual processing system that normally functions almost completely autonymously; we don't usually consciously process such images, we simply look at them and comprehend them with our preset bias towards pattern recognition over gray scale.

If we can choose what to value at that level, then we can choose what to value at higher levels of abstraction as well.

Our 'personal preferences' for the chocolate/vanillia point to an ability to self-weight 'the same' sensory inputs differently. If we are all given essentially 'the same' evolutionary wetbits(that may be true in a coarse sense, but I don't think it is true in an absolute/detailed sense), and those wetbits are presented with 'the same' sensory inputs, then only a difference in weighting somewhere in all that neural network-like processing can explain why we reach different conclusions on the subject of subjective tastes.

We subjectively resonate differently to the objective world. It is what makes us individuals, and not identical cogs, marshallable bees in a giant bee colony, resonating identically in all respects to the same sensory inputs.

Evolutionary psychology is not a threat to those with the spirit of scientists, who find joy in what is. It may be a threat to philosophers who abuse the scientific method to opine about "How All People Work." But it is not a threat to scientists. What is, is. What can be, can be. What works, works.

[–]RedPillDadRustled Jimmies[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]FollowThisAdvice0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]FollowThisAdvice0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZenNate1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on evolutionary psychology; I've only spent about 2 dozen hours on the topic. I've only reviewed the works of professor Gad Saad of Concordia University in Montreal and Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky.

You can actually sit through all the lectures of one of Sapolsky's classes on YouTube, Introduction to Human Behavior Biology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&list=PL150326949691B199&spfreload=10

I'm also not an expert on RP philosophy but there are elements of TRP that Sapolsky's lectures support. One simple element that his work supports is the notion that women are attracted to dominance. As simple as that statement is, it was something I didn't believe when I was in BP world. It's also something that a lot of young men don't completely understand. That misunderstanding leads to a lot of failures in relationships.

I haven't run across any evolutionary psychological principles that contradict TRP yet. Which ones are you talking about and what did the data say about them?

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

[–]FollowThisAdvice0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZenNate0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZenNate0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

I disagree with the whole thing but in one way a sales parallel is useful. When another entrepreneur approaches you and offers to sell e.g. raw materials to be used in your business, this is a very objectifying thing. You don't see each other as human beings. You are a walking wallet, he is a regular shipment of materials. You negotiate hard and play it very selfish, squeeze out every possible advantage.

Fast forward 5 years. You have an established business relationship, got drunk together a couple of times, know the names of each others kids. It stops being sales and stops being objectifying. Now you are human beings to each other. This means: tolerance and loyalty. You will not dump your vendor just because another vendor offers 1% lower price. As long as your vendor does not fuck you over, you are loyal. Of course, not fucking you over means whatever cost saving methods other vendors implemented they should implement too, so not fucking you over means that they owe you to more or less follow the price cuts of their competitors, even if with a lag.

This is also how relationships work. Loyalty and tolerance, because you started it as a sex salesman but now you are fully human beings in each others eyes. However you owe it to you spouse to always up your offer to what the other options offer.

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

Effective sales is relationship-oriented, not win-lose exploitative. It's hard work to earn a customer, need to keep them happy. Screwing them over to make a quick sale is ridiculously short-sighted.

You're right, it's objectifying if you take a transactional approach - trading X for dollars. And unfortunately that's how most people approach their jobs, their relationships. They look for the shortest path to serve their own needs.

Effective sales is taking care of other's needs and guiding them, as their trusted advisor, to illuminate issues and make better decisions. People think of sales as slimy. But selling only becomes a dishonorable role in the hands of dishonorable people.

you owe it to you spouse to always up your offer to what the other options offer.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Is it reciprocation? Escalation of giving?

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

Screwing them over to make a quick sale is ridiculously short-sighted.

Of course, but this still happens a lot. This is a complicated topic. I kind of used to be libertarian because I thought everybody is focusing on long term self interest and as such trying to be fairly honest. Well, this does not seem to be the case... time preferences are going through the roof and I am not sure why. Conservative literature like Banfield's The Unheavenly City Revisited did not really give me a good reason why. But even left-wing literature cannot really explain it really.

My best guess is that the term "short-sighted" is inaccurate. It suggests that "short-sighted" person does not see the longer-term consequences of their actions. I think maybe it is not the case: they see them all right, they just don't have the willpower and discipline to give up the immediate easy gratification.

I also think it is probably not inborn, will is simply a muscle to be developed.

My best theory why the will muscle seems to be undeveloped and thus we see a lot of "short-sighted" activity is this:

Formerly it was trained in childhood and young adulthood by fairly strict and harsh external disciplining. Punishments etc. Authoritarian dads, often forcing their kids to do sports, military conscription, and schools that forced memorizing stuff learning by rote. Even in young adulthood external disciplining was forced - suits-only dress code in offices, and no first name terms with managers, and managers gave orders like I want this task to be done by tomorrow, they did not ask workers nicely please give me an estimate when can you do this like today. This all created a lot of grief and pain. Also it developed willpower and discipline.

As a left leaning fella I think the world got more enlightened in the sense of realizing that this feels really bad to have this external discipline pushed on you. It is painful. So we more or less abolished it at least rich countries did. We became nicer. But we also lost a lot of willpower and discipline and ended up acting short-sighted more and more.

The next challenge for human development is to do both. Make people develop willpower and discipline but not through harsh external discipline, not punishments, not barking orders, but in a nice and respectful way.

This is not easy but absolutely necessary.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Is it reciprocation? Escalation of giving?

Simplest example. Suppose you let yourself go in marriage and become really fat. Your spouse is fairly fit. She or he has the chance, the option to cheat on you or to leave you for a more fit partner. It is generally selfish for the spouse to do so, but it is also selfish for you to abuse her or his loyalty by not trying to keep up with those guys or girls who are fit and she or he could cheat with them or leave you for them if she or he was disloyal. So basically loyalty is owed, but in return it is also owed not to let whatever you provide get so shitty that the loyalty is really tested. That is my point.

[–]RedPillDadRustled Jimmies[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

This is an interesting topic. I will never apply for a job at your company because pretty sure I am staying in Central Europe (don't want to drag family around) and I figure you must be Reddit Default Nationality i.e. American :) so we can discuss this freely without personal interests playing a role.

In your view, a man working as a "one man department" with a partial role of managing external service providers (like outsourced programmers) once in a while but that part not being major, how close to qualifying for a management role at another company? 30%, 60%, 90% ? I.e. if your question is "how much management experience you have" and the answer is "well I managed myself for 8 years, and the occasional external help", is that instant rejection or put into a staging zone?

Because this is self-reliance. And I do this. But it sounds like for you it is an employee requirement not a management requirement, that one is much higher.

My problem: if you are a narrow specialist, you are not often given a team. You are more often a one man specialist expert department. For example I know fairly lot about accounting and I know a lot about programming/IT as far as it is about making Microsoft Dynamics NAV serve any possible accounting need. But I don't really know that much about general accouting or general IT, I could not work as a generalist in these fields. I used to work at consulting companies, but they are usually like they have 1 owner who is the project manager, and 10 consultants. So they never get promoted. I switched to an end-user company, an electronics one as the internal NAV guy. It is bigger, present in 6 countries roughly 20 people per country. I am now a one man department, completely independent, getting broad guidelines from the owner and then doing everything independently. One day I am proving German auditors that yes our software does accounting right because of principle x y z, the other day I am doing programming, the third day I am talking to a French outsourced warehouse to simplify their invoices so that we can book them without a huge pain in the butt. Very, very independent. But I don't have a team, no subordinates. On my own. Will I ever make management material this way?

[–]RedPillDadRustled Jimmies[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

Well managers are paid better, and I would love to delegate all the boring details to subordinates. Ultimately, my problem is that a career means promotions and without it, with being a "dynamite technician" for 30 years now until retirement, just feels boring, because there is no "score" to collect, nothing to look forward, no awards, no trophies.

Full disclosure: European culture is while egalitarian in money and income, is not egalitarian in social status. (This is our best kept secret. We pretend to be socialist. But when less visible aspects of social status is taken into account, we are not. Librarians may get paid less than plumbers but get so much more status, it obviously demonstrates a ruling class aristocratic culture.) So there is also a lingering aristocratism here. Until you have 5-10 subordinates you don't know if you joined the aristocrats or you are still a peasant. For example I dress "smart" but it bothers me I am not required to dress "smart". If I was already in the rank of aristocrats, it would be a requirement. Being allowed to wear jeans, even when I choose not to, feels not really having "made it".

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

I find myself in the position of being wall to wall guys who want commitment.

They may be saying that they "want" commitment. And it very well may seem genuine. But it is linguistic smoke and mirrors. The real transaction is that they are offering commitment. They view your sexual resources as high value, and thus offer their resource to coax you. Give it another 25 years and see how man men are "wanting" commitment. The correlate situation is men of high value who have women that "want" to have sex with them.

So what's with all the guys who sincerely don't want to just fuck me?

If you offered to "just fuck them" without any need for a relationship, I'm pretty sure many of them would not say no. These same guys who "want relationships" are pandering to your desires in the same way that women "love blowjobs" pander to men in order to coax commitment.

Am I sitting on the lost tribe of the "good men"?

Negative, you are sitting on a tribe of thirsty men. Your screening process frames your relationships for you to be in the position of power. That is, men offering their commitment while you slow play sex.

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]FollowThisAdvice0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]FollowThisAdvice0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

The term sounds pejorative, and that is not my intention. Use the verb of your choice "educating," "parenting," or "brain-washing."

Like it or not, we as human beings are still part ape, and those apish tendencies have to be muzzled in our youth to make people ready for the social constructs they are sure to encounter. For men, it is their tendency to cultivate harems (polygamy), and for women it is to attach themselves to the highest value male (hypergamy). While these conventions served us quite well in small, social groups, they are quite toxic to large societies. So, we must do our best to suppress them. And marriage is quite a effective tool to do so.

Another example would be Rape. Rape is an effective reproductive strategy. However, it is unacceptable in terms of society, so it is suppressed.

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

we as human beings are still part ape

Yeah, but our closest genetic relative, bonobos, doesn't make harems, they are horny little buggers whose male status is determined by maternal inheritance. Hell, one step over into chimpanzees where the males don't simply get status from their mothers and you still don't have one man monopolizing the women, you have female chimps mating with multiple males- so you effectively have polyandry AND polygyny.

Even one more step over into gorillas and the exclusion of several males is still imperfect and you see other things that are nothing like you think of as normal, such as females in the group swapping out their ape group a couple of times in exchanges for another group of equal value. (This appears to combat inbreeding- they don't appear to be trading one silver back for a better one)

Humans are actually quite peculiar with our persistent insistence on pair bonding. If you were just being anything like your close genetic cousins the concept of a "wife" or "wives" would be absurd- they'd just be the females in your geographic area with whom you mate during estrus- or in the case of bonobos, out of estrus and also with your kids and the other males and basically anything that said yes.

[–]FollowThisAdvice0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaThrowaway808<('.'<) (>'.')>1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

MissP you have stumbled across one of the fundamental self-fulfilling features of TRP (albeit in reverse).

People who practice TRP behaviours subconsciously (or consciously) filter out strong independent women (like you) who aren't amenable to TRP manipulation.

They then observe that all the women they date/fuck/try to fuck follow a particular pattern.

They then conclude that therefore AWALT.

What is actually happening is a particular subset of broken men is attracted to TRP, and TRP causes subconsciou pre-filtering for women (also likely broken) upon whom TRP techniques work.

Thus when someone on TRP comments on how all relationships are adversarial, all women are one wink away from hyperagamous infidelity etc, they are actually CORRECT for the women in their own social sphere.

You on the other hand inhabit a very different sphere, with different pre-selection criteria, and will never experience the attentions of these TRP guys because they have pre-filtered you out.

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

People who practice TRP behaviours subconsciously (or consciously) filter out strong independent women (like you) who aren't amenable to TRP manipulation.

I agree with the "Red Pill" approach to masculinity and leadership. I am married to someone who is, by everyone's account, primarily "strong and independent", and I am very attracted to "strong and independent" women.

(I can't/won't even bother addressing "manipulation", since I've seen no productive conversations on the subject, probably because no one seems to agree on any remotely common definition. I'll just say that I don't consider myself unusually manipulative, nor would anyone who knows me.)

What does that make me?

all women are one wink away from hyperagamous infidelity

AWALT does not say that women are "one wink away."

AWALT says that, in any given specific set of circumstances, any woman can and will act in that way. Women can be long-suffering, but even the most saintly woman can be tempted if they find themselves in what they see as a shitty relationship. And less saintly women are more easily tempted. There is no "paragon of purity" out there for men to find.

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaThrowaway808<('.'<) (>'.')>2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaThrowaway808<('.'<) (>'.')>2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaThrowaway808<('.'<) (>'.')>4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

However there's nothing you would think implicitly tells the average guy I'm teh femdom.

I've been very involved in many sexually alternative and "open" communities. It's gotten to the point that I feel I can correctly identify a femdom within minutes of interacting with them (actually, I feel I can correctly identify where any woman lands on the spectrum within minutes, but femdoms, in particular, stand out to me). Given that I meet women in such an "open" environment, it has been easy for me to confirm with them my identifications. And, as far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with anything "obvious" (visual markers, body language, etc). As my sexuality is strongly centered on the "dom" side, it's always about the "chemistry." I just know. Can't tell you why or how, but I do.

My wife (who is very much a sub, but needs a strong dom to bring it out, otherwise she's comes off as much more of a "top from the bottom" type) has gotten very good at identifying the dom/sub status of men and women as well (she is a hard-core femdom when playing with other women), so can she help confirm my analyses, too.

Incidentally, it's not uncommon for me to meet women who self-identify as "femdom", but who, upon further exploration, turn out to be far more "submissive" than they thought they were, lol. My dick never lies, as they say. They are usually (like my wife) the type who adopt a "top from the bottom" position when presented with a man who doesn't have a strong sexual personae, so they assume they are a dom.

My guess is that, for men who are sexually aware, you are telegraphing your desires much more loudly than you realize.

I have some very good (and hot!) friends that are femdoms. Despite their attractiveness and our comfort level, I feel very little sexual attraction to them (unfortunately, in some cases - I have a really hot dom-ish friend whom I love dearly, who seems to want me on some level, but with whom I've never been able to make any chemistry happen!).

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Hmm, but in practice I tend to be a chameleon as far as attraction- for example the doms tend to read sub off me, the subs dom and the switches whatever their in the mood for that moment.

There are vastly more sub guys than doms, if you take initiative in your relationships, and a lot of the doms are actually switches being pragmatic about gender norms- but my sexuality is based on button pushing, so I also seek power through playing dirty (eg preying on a man's desire for apparent vulnerability in me). For me, of course, I reign this in (because no "pure" dom is consenting to be fucked with) but the relationship I have with a switch is layers of carefully constructed power struggles. It's turned into meta D/s. :P

In practice though, I tend to read as wife material even to guys I am simply offering sexual contact to. All I can say about my dominance is that I can play masochistic games till the cows come home, but discovered that any effort to submit for realz has felt like having my jimmies rustled on some sort of profound level.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearl1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's a weird old world.

My personal experience is that the older (35+) folk have more M/f and the younger scene is like if Tumblr decided to have an orgy. Basically Midlife Crisis of Gor Vs What's My Gender Anyway?

Realistically sex research gives male submissive fantasies a slight edge, but a huge amount of people have some switchy tendencies. There's also things like the way a lot of people can be bi- but only in a lazy way.

But then again the sub/dom stuff gets even more complicated when you have very demanding men (and women) who want their sub fantasy to be just so. In my personal experience just like there's a lot of women who are topping just 'cuz it's easier, there are a lot of sub women directing the show from the bottom.

But your right that Dom VS Dom is like trying to bang two magnets of the same polarity together. I just haven't found I don't initially attract, it's just awkward as fuck because of course like your sub, there's nothing about outward demeanor to throw everyone off. Although it would be hilariously unkind to start telling them "You're not a reeeeeeal dom or you wouldn't be attracted to me." :P

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

In my personal experience just like there's a lot of women who are topping just 'cuz it's easier, there are a lot of sub women directing the show from the bottom.

Word. My wife always feels like someone has to be in control. So, in the absence of a strong natural dom, she'll half-heartedly take on the role (which happens most of the time).

But her favorite is a guy who gets sick of her "topping from the bottom" shit and just dominates the hell out of her. Craay as it might sound, I see her "topping from the bottom" as a total shit/fitness test, I kid you not. Kind of a "are you man enough to just take what you want without consideration?" It really seems to be a Red Pill sort of thing.

Although it would be hilariously unkind to start telling them "You're not a reeeeeeal dom or you wouldn't be attracted to me."

Yeah, that would be unkind, but they probably wouldn't be that attracted to me anyway, lol. My one friend that I would love (in an ideal world) to figure out how to make something work is kinda ambivalent about any attraction (as am I, in the real world, lol).

Mostly, it's me being attracted to them that indicates that they aren't a reeeeeeeal dom (of course, part of my being attracted to them is I sense an attraction from them as well, so those two things are rarely separate).

I have a good friend who is convinced that she's a full dom, but given the kinds of guy she dates, I totally understand how she sees herself that way (and she's not particularly sexually sophisticated or self-aware - just particularly sexual, lol). When she gets around me, though, there doesn't seem to be a dom bone in her body, lol. She's totally submissive. Someday, I want to show her that she's really a submissive, lol. Hopefully she tries to top me in the process... ::evil grin::

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

[–]FollowThisAdvice0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

lonely feminized beta males

I don't know if I'm good at spotting the differences between masculine and feminine in men.

I think vaginas are a lot cheaper than TRP seems to imply. Or at least there's the fantasy that men who hold high levels of social capital who can get sex easily must therefore indulge constantly, like those fairy tales from people who faced starvation where the magic item was an endless oatmeal pot.

I always consider TRP insistence of semen removal and dinner service being ideal as being a matter of holding women to extremely low standards- like you feel like you can't do better.

Of course the other reason is you're the hot stuff guys want...

Don't make me blush! @_@

This is tricky- I'm pretty sure if I posted a picture of myself people would find a thousand things objectionable. I feel like physically speaking there are other women with just as nice body configurations, but not many women like me as a person.

I feel like you can work your flesh only to a point, and then there's diminishing returns or even working against your goal from trying too hard. For example you can't pass a certain threshold on female beauty manipulation without looking like her.

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

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

TRP is a therapeutic mind-fuck to help a mangina transform back into a man. The stuff is imbalanced, but helps a guy make the transition from loser to sexual pig. Getting him beyond that is might be beyond the scope of TRP, but doesn't stop some of us from trying.

To some degree TRP helps makes men more husband-worthy. It grows them up.

For example, once a guy gets a girl, he has this nasty habit of turning into her beta serf. At first she likes the attention and control, but she gradually loses respect for him... If he can gain some awareness of relationship dynamics (most guys have zero), he can resist this trend and sustain himself in a LTR.

Making a woman more wife-worthy? Different ball game. One thing I can tell you that the collapse of gender polarity isn't new, and I was initially drawn to my wife because she was the most feminine person I had ever met.

[–]MissPearl1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedPillDad1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MissPearl1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Will_Im_Not 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillDadRustled Jimmies[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]taiboworks0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]taiboworks0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedPillDad1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]buarthaDelights in homosexuality1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]buarthaDelights in homosexuality1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think this is also caused by opportunity vs reward vs effort. Most of the men who've decided to tap out are either dealing with health problems (or which every generation did, but we tend to forget the people with polio and their impact) or there's really no point in trying harder. For example a good wage in a factory is more encouraging than a shitty wage in a service based economy.

Looking back three generations of men in my family, the older batch had to deal with various European powers dragging them into their shit and were the lucky ones who survived that world wide double set of punch ups and the plagues, famines and so forth around it. The grandfathers both married smart women and dealt with being fairly forward leaning regarding their wives being both unusually educated and employed- but they had nice solid jobs.

My father worked his ass off, but had a lot of opportunities based on time and place that I don't think any hypothetical sons he produced would have today. Certainly as his daughters none of us are lazy, just our education cost more than his and the employment opportunities ask a bit more out of us.

My half brother is very hard working, but what he can achieve with that work is not the same as what his grandfather did- and he can command the exact same salary as his father (my step father) despite the latter's greater experience. Unless I work extra hard to send him money he'll probably have a lot of trouble moving out. His father at the same age did not have this problem and was an entirely independent adult.

Me, I got extremely damn lucky. I worked on getting where I am, but not having student debt but graduating from a good college is awesome compared with my peers who will owe for an eternity. Nonetheless, college just ain't worth what my dad's was. Now I'm seriously considering post graduate education- (Law School) but once again even for the effort, that's no magic bullet.

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

No, it's that economics is so broad that it can be applied reasonably well to most things. Romantic relationships are just not particularly fitting for this application. And, the OP didn't even do a great job. There's no justification per se for why women are the sellers and men are the buyers. Men still have to use similar techniques (or just be cool people outright, or have high value in some way shape or form) to get women interested in them. In truth neither party strictly plays the role of the buyer; the whole situation is better described as the signing of a treaty, or something more reflexive.

Economics in general is not useless just because it doesn't apply particularly well to every situation (or, this particular situation). There are many situations it is useful for, though, like, I dunno, actual markets. And it has influenced many useful branches of math/science such as game theory. OP's post didn't even take advantage of the model properly or creatively. Every point he made can be made with plain English more concisely.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There are many situations it is useful for, though, like, I dunno, actual markets.

It's called the "dating market" and it's being systematized as social trends and technologies progress.

Besides, I brought up markets to point out that market economics aren't exactly perfect either. In this case, strategicatomicmoose was talking about economics in general, not just market economies. That includes barter economies, which when considering "services" (not just goods) can describe dating. I agree that it becomes a lot more abstract on the matter of LTRs.

And, the OP didn't even do a great job.

...

OP's post didn't even take advantage of the model properly or creatively. Every point he made can be made with plain English more concisely.

Sure, OP's post isn't complete or comprehensive, but I'm not the OP.

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's called the "dating market" and it's being systematized as social trends and technologies progress. Besides, I brought up markets to point out that market economics aren't exactly perfect either. In this case, strategicatomicmoose was talking about economics in general, not just market economies. That includes barter economies, which when considering "services" (not just goods) can describe dating. I agree that it becomes a lot more abstract on the matter of LTRs.

Okay. My personal opinion is that OP did a meh job of relating economics to this particular issue, and a lot of the problems with his post involved him falling back on RP cliches (guys, when women are submissive, everything is better) that don't necessarily have anything to do with the analogy to economics, etc. etc. etc. I'd say you were backpedaling a bit here, but that would open a whole can of worms I don't give a shit about.

...

Yeah the followup to that sentence was in all the text that came right after that you decided to not quote.

Sure, OP's post isn't complete or comprehensive, but I'm not the OP.

Who gives a fuck? Tautologically this is OP's thread, so I chose to include some comments about the OP. But, my main point of rebuttal to you was:

It sounds like an argument that economics in general is useless and doesn't deserve attention.

I don't think this is at all what strategicalmoose was getting at and I wanted to highlight why I don't think their comments indicated that they believe what this quote indicates you thought they might have.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd say you were backpedaling a bit here, but that would open a whole can of worms I don't give a shit about.

I don't think I was backpedaling at all. I responded specifically to strategicatomicmoose. He might have had a good point against OP, but he didn't express it in a way I found satisfactory. That's all there is to it. Economics do describe human relationships, and I felt it was a fair reminder.

If you have a problem with OP's points, then it would be more productive to let him know about it directly instead of criticizing it to me.

I don't think this is at all what strategicalmoose was getting at and I wanted to highlight why I don't think their comments indicated that they believe what this quote indicates you thought they might have.

Well then he could have done a better job of expressing what he "was getting at". This was the comment:

Lots of stuff can be modeled economically, but human relationships have too broad a scope to be modeled in such a way.

Would you not agree that the comment can be rearranged as such? "Human relationships have too broad a scope to be modeled [economically]."

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillDadRustled Jimmies[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]xthecharacter1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think modeling relationships as economic principles with actors of equal standing would be better, for example where people are controllers of resources, and the relationship would involve negotiating shared use of the resources both have. I also think a good model for relationships would be feedback systems, because I think that one of the important aspects of a relationship to capture with a model is the reaction of one party to the actions of the other. I think there is a high sensitivity in relationships to both the other person's actions and I think there is context-variance, so some kind of feedback system with triggers or catalysts would make a lot of sense I think.

I can think of others too but those are the ones I think are the most interesting and that happened to come to mind.

[–]drok0071 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]xthecharacter1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zara789 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah the problem is that mostly your post makes sense (in a very basic, obvious way) except for the completely artificial difference between guys and girls that you embed within it for god knows what reason. Seriously, it's the least correct part of the analogy and it's purposeless. Men have to engage in the same shit, or no woman wants them. Yeah the exact nature of the sale differs marginally because men and women do have their (physical and statistical) differences. But it's not like men get to go around and pick whatever girl they want so long as they have enough "money" (which is...what exactly in this analogy?) and then everything works out peachy keen. Really, it's an exchange, more of the signing of a treaty than a sale.

And yeah I wanna know what you mean by your question. Do you mean that if a woman had made this post, would we be so critical? The answer, at least for me, is yes. This is like writing a two-page explanation for how to factor polynomials and then expecting a colorful discussion to emerge.

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

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

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

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

On female laziness: There's a tendency for anyone to relax into an advantage. It's easy for an attractive young woman to get lazy because she's getting so much male attention already, why work on self-betterment? It's tempting to bet it all on beauty and go the gold-digger route.

Do I see many young women like this? No. I see far more apathetic young men who are just drifting. Most young women I meet have their shit together.

On female attitude: This is the more frequent problem I see. There seems to be a lot of young women carrying a huge chip on their shoulder. They seem to be angry and think they deserve better.

It's as if computer games have pacified all the angry young men, only to be replaced by lots of angry young women. Not sure why they're so angry... Perhaps they've taken the victim route, only to find it's a dead end.

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

The problem with TRP's "SMP" view is that it all depends on women's goal being relationships, and men's goal being casual sex. As OP states, women supposedly sell sex in order to get relationships from guys, and guys try to get as much "bang for their buck" ..i.e., sex for their commitment. However, this simply isn't true. The vast majority of people, both women AND men, are driven to find that special partner to spend their lives with. Men want relationships! And although some guys just want sex, there is an analogous pool of women who just want sex. I have seen a countless amount of posts in /r/foreveralone from hundreds of guys saying how much they want a loving relationship, with thousands of men in the comments agreeing. I've even read posts where the man wants a relationship so badly that he writes something to the effect of, "DAE want someone to love them and not even care if we have sex?" Here are a few posts that I got with a really brief search that demonstrate how much guys desire romantic relationships:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ForeverAlone/comments/1hzm3x/i_dont_want_sex_i_just_want_someone_to_love_me_do/ "I don't want sex, I just want someone to love me." " I simply don't want to have emotionless sex just to satisfy my urges, I want it to mean something. All I ever want in life is to find a girl who would love me" "You're not alone. All I want is to be with someone who likes me for who I am and to have fun with them, not just to have a fuck buddy to mess around with." <- all these comments are from MEN. Do you really think guys just want sex and give commitment only to get sex?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ForeverAlone/comments/207j5n/does_anyone_else_feel_like_they_arent_worthy_of_a/

https://www.reddit.com/r/ForeverAlone/comments/10wtcg/dae_see_relationships_as_mythical_and_unattainable/

https://www.reddit.com/r/ForeverAlone/comments/2cyob2/relationships_and_happiness/ "relationships as necessary component of happiness" <- written by a MAN

https://www.reddit.com/r/ForeverAlone/comments/2bpyy6/proof_that_relationship_is_the_single_biggest/

https://www.reddit.com/r/ForeverAlone/comments/1tmht6/i_am_in_my_mid30s_still_havent_had_a/

https://www.reddit.com/r/ForeverAlone/comments/2ffrth/why_the_f_is_it_so_easy_for_most_people_to_get/

https://www.reddit.com/r/ForeverAlone/comments/krl2d/desire_for_relationship_vs_desire_for_sex/ "Sex takes a serious back seat when it comes to my priorities." "i would rather have a relationship anyday than sex. i assume sex is great and all but i just want a girlfriend........." <- comments from that thread

And so on and so forth. That's just one subreddit, I could go on askmen, askreddit, r/relationships, etc. and I'm sure find an equally convincing selection. If pressed, I could also find plenty of instances of women who want NSA sex, just like if I go on TRP I can find men who want NSA sex. Both men AND women want love and relationships, it's not anywhere near as simple as "Woman sells sex for love, man sells love for sex."

[–]40WattsAmused Master1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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