~ archived since 2018 ~

The Red Pill and Dominance/submission

March 27, 2014
12 upvotes

So this forum is a debate about TheRedPill and TheBluePill.

I think TRP and RPW are pretty average young people figuring out dominance and submission for the first time. It seems somewhat obvious to me that a lot of the red pill guys want to make themselves more dominant - more "alpha" - and a lot of the RPW want to make themselves more "feminine" (read: submissive) and find themselves an "alpha" (read: dom.)

I think Blue Pill exists to shame these people, stalk them, and call them perverts: they call the men abusive rapists and call the women ignorant doormats. Which is ironic because many of TBP women are self-admittedly into BDSM to some degree. In fact, it seems a lot of the subbie Blue Pillers feel somewhat ashamed of their own desires, and project that shame onto TRP and RPW. TBP women have this need to "explain" their "kink" and how it's "just in the bedroom" which supposedly makes them better than RPW, who are of course just "doormats" with "low self-esteem."

In the "BDSM community" this is called "your kink is not ok." "Oh sure, I like getting tied up and spanked, but those people who use nipple clamps are just gross perverts!"

I think TheBluePill is fundamentally similar to a hypothetical fundie forums cyber-stalking a gay site. TheBluePill attacks both TRP and RPW over their sexuality. This is sub-shaming.

So, the questions. Does anyone else see quite a bit of similarity between "the red pill" and dominance/submission? And if so, what does that say about the hostile reaction from TheBluePill?

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 This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate.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
Comments

[–]bobthegravy9 points10 points  (34 children) | Copy Link

I have no problem with men who want to be dominate or women who want to be submissive. If you're into that kind of thing, then more power to you. I'd actually lump myself into that group (not the red pill, but people who enjoy dominance or submission).

However, I don't think the red pill looks at it the way you think they do. I may be wrong, but the general gist I get from TRP is that men should be dominate, and women should be submissive. It seems they tend to think less of men who are not dominate, or god-forbid men who enjoy submission. Like they're not "true" men. They seem to think that women who do not want to be dominated only feel that way because they are ignorant to the real nature of women, or they are simply in denial about their own feelings.

That's what I have a problem with, the idea that it's right for men to be dominate and women to be submissive, and somehow wrong to be anything else. But again, maybe it's not actually like that and I'm misreading the situation a bit.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (33 children) | Copy Link

I may be wrong, but the general gist I get from TRP is that men should be dominate, and women should be submissive.

I think you're totally wrong about this. TRP says that most women want an "alpha" dominant. RPW say most men want "feminine" (submissive) No one in the red pill is saying everyone "should" be a particular way. For some reason, blue pillers tend to think everything is about them personally.

[–]bobthegravy8 points9 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Okay, but then you get stuff like this.

Obviously, she is an aberration in that she consciously recognizes that her place is beneath a man, and also acts upon it. However, she's hardly an aberration in how she functions.

We know that taking a woman seriously is a surefire way to, at the very best, to make her unhaaaappy, and at worst, to get cuckolded and frivorce-raped.

Don't. You gain nothing.

So be the boss. You'll be happier, which is the main thing, and as a side-effect, she'll be happy too. You know, synergy and such.

This isn't a "if you are into that" kind of thing, it's a sweeping generalization of men and women. "If you are a man and you take your woman seriously you will both be unhappy. So take charge. Despite what she thinks, she will be happier."

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Change the pronouns in that paragraph and it could very well be a scene. He's talking about women he, and his fellow redpillers, are interested in. He doesn't mean you specifically. He doesn't mean "all women." He's talking about his/their potential future partners.

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

AWALT, brah, AWALT

[–]jacks1000[S] -1 points0 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

it's a sweeping generalization of men and women.

Yes, generalizations are necessary for communication and thought. Whoever wrote that wasn't talking about you specifically, or "all women." They are talking about their hypothetical sex partners, which obviously doesn't include you personally.

So how is it they are "projecting" anything on to you or telling you what you "should" do?

It's not as if feminists don't make generalizations, everyone does.

[–]bobthegravy11 points12 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I think part of the issue here is that the generalization itself is wrong. It's not the case that most women consider themselves beneath men and don't want to be taken seriously by men. That's why I object to the generalization, not because I consider myself to be an exception.

"Red pillers are abusive to women." If I said that in earnest, would you object? Why? I wasn't saying that you were, just most of the other red pillers are. Generalizations are necessary.

My other problem with the post is that it's not directed at the women (you seem to be acting as though it is) it's directed at the men on how to treat women. The post is basically saying, "Men, treat your women like they're children and your relationship will get better." The woman gets no say. Johnny Whatever reads that post and decides that he should begin dominating his girlfriend. Does he ask her if she's into it first? No, of course not, only betas care what their woman thinks. He knows better than her, anyway. This is a problem, because if the woman doesn't sense what's going on and get out right away, it could very easily escalate to an abusive relationship.

If you don't think that TRP is propagating this mindset, look at how it's phrased. It doesn't say, "Find a woman who likes to be dominated," and it doesn't say, "Ask your girlfriend if she's interested in domination." It says to just do it. Women are not to be taken seriously, so obviously any objections should be disregarded. You will be happier, and although her happiness doesn't matter, she will too.

[–]jacks1000[S] -1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

The woman gets no say.

That's just not true. Women have a say in their relationships.

This is a problem, because if the woman doesn't sense what's going on and get out right away, it could very easily escalate to an abusive relationship.

This is denying a submissive woman's autonomy and choice. If a woman doesn't "sense" what's going on it might lead to "abuse." It's a fundamental misunderstanding of D/s to think the submissive is passive.

Women are not to be taken seriously, so obviously any objections should be disregarded. You will be happier, and although her happiness doesn't matter, she will too.

This is mischaracterization of course.

[–]bobthegravy2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

That's just not true. Women have a say in their relationships.

Unless they're in a relationship with a red piller, of course.

This is denying a submissive woman's autonomy and choice.

Horse shit. A submissive woman always has the power to ask their SO to be more dominate. A non-submissive woman might be afraid of the consequences of confronting her red piller SO.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of D/s to think the submissive is passive.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature if you don't think that someone who believes that women are inferior (such as TRPers) might be able to manipulate some women against their will.

This is mischaracterization of course.

You are so obviously in denial if you read the passage that I quoted and honestly believed that I was being unfair in the interpretation. He literally said you should not take women seriously. I don't understand how you could possibly object.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

A non-submissive woman might be afraid of the consequences of confronting her red piller SO.

Horse shit. All you are doing is pretending that women are victims of red pill men. You are assuming their dominance is going to led to abuse. If a woman doesn't like the relationship dynamic - she can leave. No one is preventing her from making a choice. She's not "afraid" of anything. You find RPM to be repulsive, so you can only imagine a woman liking a TRP as some sort of abuse.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature if you don't think that someone who believes that women are inferior (such as TRPers) might be able to manipulate some women against their will.

Inferior at what? Women are generally inferior to men at lifting weights. Men are always inferior to women at birthing children. No one has ever said that women aren't human beings.

You're insane and understand nothing about women - or people - if you think that "manipulation" in relationships just goes one way. You confuse leadership with "manipulation" - precisely what I'm talking about. You have a problem with TRP "manipulating" their women - but you wouldn't have any problem with the typical way that a woman manipulates a man.

You simply want to define certain people's relationship as "manipulative" - not for any concern for the supposed victim, but due to hatred of the supposed "manipulator." It's not uncommon at all, it's very common for feminists to do this. They even try to convince otherwise happy women they are really being "abused" and "manipulated."

This "inferiority" kick is really telling though. I mean, I read sentiments like "girls are better than boys" - I wouldn't actually create an entire subreddit to stalk the women that say that. I find them somewhat silly, but they don't arouse hate in me - like TBP.

He literally said you should not take women seriously.

In context, he's saying your girlfriend will likely "shit test" you, use power talk as opposed to straight talk.

[–]bobthegravy0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

if you think that "manipulation" in relationships just goes one way

Good thing I never said that then. It's just that TRP actively encourages manipulation and "training" of women by men specifically.

I read sentiments like "girls are better than boys" - I wouldn't actually create an entire subreddit to stalk the women that say that.

You have an odd definition of "stalk," but show me a popular subreddit full of women touting the inferiority of men and saying that men should be subservient to their women and I'd be happy to make fun of them too.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

It's just that TRP actively encourages manipulation and "training" of women by men specifically.

You call it manipulation, we call it romance. As for "training" well that sounds kind of hot. Tell me more.

subservient

You have a problem with that?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, except the implication often is all women or most women. The "Is TRP for those who have been unsuccessful" thread on this sub has people insisting that anyone happy in a non-RP relationship is either lying, delusional, or completely unusual. My beef with RP is based on the fact that I know I'm not unusual. I'm not just taking personal offence, I'm saying RP theory does not adequately explain the behaviour of the men and women I grew up with.

If RP was just "how to get laid" or "if you are attracted to submissive women you should act like this to obtain them" then I wouldn't care about it at all. I don't get mad about PUAs as a group, for example, because while some are sexist, most don't care whether the behaviour is natural or social. A lot of PUAs just want to play the numbers game, whereas RP bills itself as a mind-blowing explanation for all human relationships.

[–]jacks1000[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, except the implication often is all women or most women.

I suggest it's most women. 50% + 1. Even if that's wrong, outrage over such a generalization is something more than just disagreement.

My beef with RP is based on the fact that I know I'm not unusual.

Yeah, well that's my beef with feminism, I know I'm not unusual and most of the women I know are not unusual. And we all tend to be pretty "red pill."

TRP would just be a group of guys if TBP wasn't stalking them. TBP tells themselves they are just "making fun of idiots" but that's not at all what they are doing. They go out of their way to mischaracterize what TRP says, the refuse to use the Principle of Charity when arguing with them, and shames them for their sexual preferences and relationship ideals. The attacks are one way - TRP is not talking to TBP.

However, TBP reads TRP's generalization and literally thinks they are talking about them, personally. This dynamic is a lot more than just people on the internet trolling each other.

[–]steakmeout4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

When TRP members wish death and violence on women and these comments have been heavily upvoted? These happen and they are not generalisations which are unfair to malign TRP with - they are accurate depictions of your member base. There is a constant stream of threats of violence on women from TRP. And we constantly report on these and we will continue to do so.

And you continue to whine that we're mischaracterising you as a group when what you should really be doing is singling these negative comments and individuals out and dealing with them publicly. You won't though.

Keep hamstering and blaming the critics.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I admit I don't hang out on TBP and am just "blue pill" in the sense that I'm not red, so I can't really argue with you there. I discovered TRP because I kept seeing RPers in other subs aggressively giving advice to guys who showed no indication of wanting a submissive partner. I think that kind of thing has potential to fuck over insecure guys who prefer equal partnerships because they might think they have to become "alpha" or they'll lose everything.

[–]GODZILLAFLAMETHROWERBlue Pill Man2 points3 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Please explain how wanting a submissive person to be in a relationship with is different from wanting to be dominant in this relationship.

[–]jacks1000[S] -1 points0 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Please explain how wanting a submissive person to be in a relationship with is different from wanting to be dominant in this relationship.

Please explain how wanting a submissive person to be in a relationship with is different from wanting to be dominant in this relationship.

I'm unsure what you mean. Wanting a submissive person to be in a relationship? What does that mean? Wanting to be dominant in a relationship doesn't seem to have a bearing on wanting a submissive person to be in a relationship?

I presume what you are implying is that if a man wants to be dominant in a relationship, but a woman doesn't want to be submissive, if she goes along with him, that's bad, abuse, etc. But of course, if a submissive woman wants her husband to be more dominant, and the husband does it for her, I doubt anyone would have a problem with that.

I also doubt that any feminist would have a problem if a woman convinced her husband to be a sub. It's really only the dominant man, submissive woman dynamic that feminists have a problem with. Reversed gender roles are fine too.

To be clear, I'm not comparing "dominant" and "submissive" to homosexuality. Leftists say that homosexuality is an inborn, unchangeable sexual orientation. I don't think that "dominant" and "submissive" are "inborn, unchangeable sexual orientations." Just that the reaction of TBP is similar to the reaction of homophobes stalking homosexuals.

A common complaint from TBP is that these men are "forcing" women into a subservient position. It's rather silly. It silly just like "PUAs" tend to be silly. I'm sure a lot of "PUAs" think they "gamed" some women, but women aren't stupid. If a PUA is "successful" with a woman, it's because of her decision as much as it is his.

[–]GODZILLAFLAMETHROWERBlue Pill Man3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Wanting a submissive person to be in a relationship?

What's written is "to be in a relationship with".

It's really only the dominant man, submissive woman dynamic that feminists have a problem with.

Which feminists? And why suddenly talk about feminists when we were talking about TBP? Only half of BP is feminist.

I'm feminist, I have no problem with a male dominated relationship. I have a problem with those that says that this is the only dynamic for a healthy relationship, as TRP does.

Just that the reaction of TBP is similar to the reaction of homophobes stalking homosexuals.

Now you're being silly and insulting.

[–]jacks1000[S] -2 points-1 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Which feminists? And why suddenly talk about feminists when we were talking about TBP? Only half of BP is feminist.

The feminists in TheBluePill that stalk TheRedPill. The non-feminists blue pillers aren't relevant to that statement.

I have a problem with those that says that this is the only dynamic for a healthy relationship, as TRP does.

Clearly, for a lot of TRPs, that would be the only healthy dynamic. Yet it's Blue Pill feminists that stalk RPW and say their relationships aren't healthy precisely because it's male dominated.

Now you're being silly and insulting.

No, it's not silly, it true. TheBluePill is motivated by hatred, plenty of blue pillers have said as much.

[–]GODZILLAFLAMETHROWERBlue Pill Man4 points5 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Clearly, for a lot of TRPs, that would be the only healthy dynamic.

For these individuals it is A-ok to say that it is the only kind of relationship they seek. It is not when they try to theoretize this, make a social commentary and explain that every man and woman is better off in this kind of relationship.

I know you understood what I wrote. You purposefully misrepresent it, and you know full well what you are doing. You are being intellectually dishonest, and as such this discussion is bound to nowhere.

[–]jacks1000[S] -1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

It is not when they try to theoretize this, make a social commentary and explain that every man and woman is better off in this kind of relationship.

Yet feminists constantly say that every man and woman is better off in an "equal" relationship and anything other than an "equal" relationship is abusive. Why are their generalizations ok but the red pill's aren't?

I mean, we all know the answer.

You purposefully misrepresent it, and you know full well what you are doing. You are being intellectually dishonest, and as such this discussion is bound to nowhere.

I think you're being purposefully dishonest about your motives as well as the motives of TRP. Yes, this discussion is bound to nowhere.

[–]GODZILLAFLAMETHROWERBlue Pill Man2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Yet feminists constantly say that every man and woman is better off in an "equal" relationship and anything other than an "equal" relationship is abusive.

Which feminists? I am one, I don't say that, so now what?

Why are their generalizations ok

So this is a critic of feminism? I thought you were discussing TRP from a sub-dom standpoint, and why TBP critic of it was uncalled and hateful. Way to broad your claim.

You did not at all explain this bit:

"Please explain how wanting a submissive person to be in a relationship with is different from wanting to be dominant in this relationship."

You said

I presume what you are implying is that if a man wants to be dominant in a relationship, but a woman doesn't want to be submissive, if she goes along with him, that's bad, abuse, etc. But of course, if a submissive woman wants her husband to be more dominant, and the husband does it for her, I doubt anyone would have a problem with that.

Obviously that's not what I wrote, nor is it what I assume, or what I imply. My point is that if a man deems that his relationship should be with a submissive woman, then this man is dominant. You said that this was false. I asked you to explain why you thought it was false, and you only made a straw man and put words in my mouth. So yeah, this is intellectually dishonest.

Right after, you go on by saying

The feminists in TheBluePill that stalk TheRedPill. The non-feminists blue pillers aren't relevant to that statement.

So first a generalization, then when called out on it, you backpedal and correct yourself. Be fucking precise if you want to critic something.

I think you're being purposefully dishonest about your motives

Oh yeah? What motives are they exactly? And how am I being dishonest with them? At least I'm not the one making straw man and insulting you. You're pretty fucking bold to make all of these spurious claim and then say that I am the one being dishonest.

[–]jacks1000[S] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Which feminists? I am one, I don't say that, so now what?

So, any generalization of feminism is proven wrong by a single exception? In that case, all your generalizations of TRP are wrong because you can find some exception.

My point is that if a man deems that his relationship should be with a submissive woman, then this man is dominant.

Well I clearly misunderstood you then. My apologies.

Oh yeah? What motives are they exactly?

Your motives for being in the Blue Pill, or attacking TRP.

[–]Frensel0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No one in the red pill is saying everyone "should" be a particular way.

Sure they are. I wouldn't call it the "elite" position but it's certainly a very prevalent mindset.

[–]rulenumber30316 points17 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

I don't think your analysis is true in the majority of cases, but if it was.... people who project their particular kink on the rest of us and say that is the way we all are naturally can go fuck themselves and I don't care if they get sneered at mercilessly online. "Oh these are just poor oppressed kinksters" is NOT an argument that brings out my sympathetic side.

[–]jacks1000[S] -1 points0 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

people who project their particular kink on the rest of us

This is a common blue pill complaint, but I've never actually read any red piller projecting a particular "kink" onto anyone. I've never actually read any Red Pill woman saying that "all" women must do this or that.

Yet blue pillers seem to constantly believe they are.

[–]rulenumber3038 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Ah, but I've seen red pill women accepting that what red pill men say is pretty much gospel, and red pill men do an awful lot of saying that all women are the same when it comes to what gets them off.

[–]jacks1000[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I've seen red pill women accepting that what red pill men say is pretty much gospel

So red pill women agree with red pill men, this hardly seems surprising. Are you suggesting that red pill men are "tricking" red pill women into agreeing with them?

all women

This just isn't true. Just because someone makes a generalization about men and women doesn't mean they are saying "100%" This is a purposeful misrepresentation of what they are saying.

[–]rulenumber3035 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Any who aren't generalising their personal behavior to the rest of us and aren't supporting other people in generalising their personal behavior to the rest of us, and accept their kink as a personal charcteristic for which they take personal responsibility are fine.

Those for whom signing up to red pill ideas is a form of generalising they indulge in because they are too gutless to accept individual responsibility for their kink can be ripped to shreds online and I'll bring popcorn and feel free to repost their stupidity for further mocking by wider audiences.

[–]jacks1000[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Those for whom signing up to red pill ideas is a form of generalising they indulge in because they are too gutless to accept individual responsibility for their kink can be ripped to shreds online and I'll bring popcorn and feel free to repost their stupidity for further mocking by wider audiences.

You seem to be operating under the idea that generalizations have to do with you, personally. As for "too gutless to accept individual responsibility" I don't even know what you're talking about. In what way is TRP "too gutless to take personal responsibility?"

TBP seeks out TRP, not the other way around.

[–]rulenumber3036 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Generalisations do have to do with me personally when people are training each other to view the behavior of individuals within a demographic I am part of as limited and dictated by membership in that demographic. When people do this in a public place such as a subreddit, I have every right to indulge in the pleasure of pointing and laughing and mocking and criticising.

[–]sh1vRed Pill Man-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

AWALT bro. You don't need to take it on yourself to make TRP palatable to the rest of the world. Our PUA and RP forefathers have invested a lot of energy into figuring out what works with the largest portion of women. Being in a relationship with a dominant man = better behavior out of most women, that's what we've learned. Not just the slice that consciously identify as subs.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, to be blunt, I'm not a regular TRP'er, and I'm not so much "pro-TRP" as I am "anti-TBP." TBP feminists - especially the ones into BDSM - know exactly what they are doing.

[–]sh1vRed Pill Man-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I fully agree that there is something fucking weird going on over at TBP. Whether it's a giant defense mechanism or misdirected rage or bluepill programming to hate and ridicule idealogical foes or inability to express their disagreement in a coherent manner, I dunno, but it's not exactly normal for a large group of internet folk to gather in mockery of another group. Opposition, sure, but what TBP is doing goes beyond mere opposition.

[–]jacks1000[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I fully agree that there is something fucking weird going on over at TBP. Whether it's a giant defense mechanism or misdirected rage or bluepill programming to hate and ridicule idealogical foes or inability to express their disagreement in a coherent manner, I dunno, but it's not exactly normal for a large group of internet folk to gather in mockery of another group. Opposition, sure, but what TBP is doing goes beyond mere opposition.

Hint: a bunch of aging feminist women into kinky sex that is not quite really acceptable by their more radical feminists cousins stalking the red pill and crying about how abusive, manipulating, controlling, and domineering these red pill men are. The stuff fantasies are made of. They read and critique your "field reports" like it's a rape fantasy.

That, and leftist white guys like Manboobz who get off of being offended and mocking people. As leftists, they feel morally superior by projecting bad intentions on to other people.

[–]sh1vRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Could well be.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

I think Blue Pill exists to shame these people, stalk them, and call them perverts: they call the men abusive rapists and call the women ignorant doormats.

The blue pill is satirical. They exist because people like to laugh at the perceived stupidity of red pill.

I think Blue Pill exists to shame these people, stalk them, and call them perverts: they call the men abusive rapists and call the women ignorant doormats. Which is ironic because many of TBP women are self-admittedly into BDSM to some degree. In fact, it seems a lot of the subbie Blue Pillers feel somewhat ashamed of their own desires, and project that shame onto TRP and RPW. TBP women have this need to "explain" their "kink" and how it's "just in the bedroom" which supposedly makes them better than RPW, who are of course just "doormats" with "low self-esteem."

You're conflating sex and love. Most people tend to separate their sexual aspect of their relationships from the love aspect of their relationships because sexual attraction and love are two distinct emotions. You can love someone without being sexually attracted to them and you can lust after someone without loving them. A relationship exists when there's both love and lust.

In this case, the blue pillers that like BDSM view that as a sex-only type of thing. They might like being dominated in the bedroom (in their sex life), but they don't want to be dominated outside the bedroom (in their love life).

I think TheBluePill is fundamentally similar to a hypothetical fundie forums cyber-stalking a gay site. TheBluePill attacks both TRP and RPW over their sexuality. This is sub-shaming.

There's an equal amount of shaming on both sides. Blue pillers are always ripping on red pillers. Red pillers are always ripping on blue pillers. Both red pillers and blue pillers are always ripping on purple pill debate. Everyone is shaming each other.

So, the questions. Does anyone else see quite a bit of similarity between "the red pill" and dominance/submission? And if so, what does that say about the hostile reaction from TheBluePill?

No. There's absolutely no similarity. TRP has nothing to do with BDSM. It's part sexual strategy, part political, part social commentary.

The reaction from the Blue Pill is expected. TRP is very much extreme when compared to societal norms. Generally when a group of extremists pop up, there's a reaction from people that dislike those [perceived] extremist ideas.

[–]SilverDotsHas Tried A Lot of Pills6 points7 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

You're conflating sex and love. Most people tend to separate their sexual aspect of their relationships from the love aspect of their relationships because sexual attraction and love are two distinct emotions. You can love someone without being sexually attracted to them and you can lust after someone without loving them. A relationship exists when there's both love and lust.

Well said. It seems to be a common misconception from TRPers that BDSM is some sort of proof that men were meant to dominate women in all aspects of life, often ignoring the fact that there are a great deal of men who also prefer to be bottoms and dominated sexually.

Sex Kinks =/= Lifestyle Preferences

[–]jacks1000[S] 1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

a common misconception from TRPers that BDSM is some sort of proof that men were meant to dominate women in all aspects of life, often ignoring the fact that there are a great deal of men who also prefer to be bottoms and dominated sexually.

This is a mischaracterization of TRP on your part, and you're the one that is confusing sex kinks and lifestyle preferences. We're quite aware there are feminist that have a "sex kink" called BDSM, and that they are not interested in a "submissive lifestyle." Then again, there are lots of "red pill women" where there is very much a lifestyle preference, and the D/s dynamic is more than just a "sex kink."

Essentially, feminists want to define D/s as "just sex" any any relationship that is D/s is labeled as "abuse." This is why they constantly attack women whose submissiveness is not "just" a "sex kink."

They aren't attacking red pill women for their "sex kinks" they are attacking red pill women for their relationships.

[–]SilverDotsHas Tried A Lot of Pills2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I apologize if it sounded like I meant all men. NAMALT and such. But I stick to my point that it is a common misconception by RPers, at least the less experienced ones, that BDSM is some sort of evopsych proof of the RPM/RPW being the ideal relationship. I've seen time and time again RPs commenting this idea, just as you say you've seen

feminists want to define D/s as "just sex" any any relationship that is D/s is labeled as "abuse." This is why they constantly attack women whose submissiveness is not "just" a "sex kink."

Personally I have never heard this stated by any women I know. Maybe I'm fortunate enough to avoid such misguided individuals, or maybe no one is speaking about it around me, but I know plenty of women who enjoy BDSM type sex and can tell the difference between sexual preference and actual abuse. I imagine the individuals you refer to are as confused as the RP individuals I was referring to.

They aren't attacking red pill women for their "sex kinks" they are attacking red pill women for their relationships.

As for this, I'm not so sure. I've perused RPW from time to time and seen the thread in which RPW were asked if they would date RPM and the majority said no they would not, and generally described the sort of man I and my female peers would also prefer. You can't really attack someone for liking the same thing you generally like.

I can only speak for myself but its not that I don't like the 'Captain, First Mate' scenario, its more the 'don't value yourself so much' vein that rankles me. I believe there was a RPW thread not long ago in which someone asked about remaining a virgin until marriage, and another RPW answered back 'no, you are basically useless post-wall and men aren't going to wait around for you when there are so many other women to have sex with' and it was pretty dark. What if its important to your religion or just your personal values to remain virginal until marriage? Should you give up your values because they are just not worth as much in today's world? It just seems like a nasty thing to hear that your body and values aren't worth what you think they are, whether the speaker is right or not.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Essentially, feminists want to define D/s as "just sex" any any relationship that is D/s is labeled as "abuse."

If it's consensual, then how is it abuse?

You've mischaracterized the criticisms of TRP. I don't post in the blue pill, but I've read it enough to know that they're criticizing the perceived stupidity of comments/posts on the red pill, or perceived creepiness. Examples:

  • This is currently on the blue pill. They're making fund of the stupidity of calling women children. The notion that your average women wouldn't be able to control her emotions enough to know when to launch nukes is absurd. There's no scientific or other basis for such a statement.

  • This is being mocked for the percieved creepiness. Here we have redpillschool saying he's dating high school chicks. To someone used to societal norms, a 30 year old dating 18 year olds is very odd.

They're not criticizing anything regarding D/s lifestyle choices. If it's consensual, I think most people are fine with that kind of thing.

[–]jacks1000[S] 3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

These sorts of attacks on "red pill women" are not confined to reddit's red pill. Feminists attacking "red pill" women and women who want D/s relationships are all over the internet.

So sure, feminists say they are ok with it as long as it's consensual, but then turn around and say any woman who consents must be brainwashed, have self-esteem issues, is a doormat, etc.

Feminists very clearly target submissive women, unless it's "just sex."

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You're straw manning. I'm sure there are some feminists that do what you're talking about, but there are others that don't. Those that do, should stop.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

You're straw manning. I'm sure there are some feminists that do what you're talking about, but there are others that don't.

No, TheBluePill itself does that, major feminists sites like Manboobz do that, and feminism has a long history of doing just that. You're calling it a strawman because you don't want to defend that aspect of feminism.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Again. Only a portion of blue pillers are feminists. And they absolutely straw man. Its openly a circle jerk subreddit (you're not supposed to take it seriously). The red pill is a circle-jerk pretending to be something meaningful.

[–]jacks1000[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

you're not supposed to take it seriously

No one takes it seriously. TRP ignores it. But TBP makes claims about their motivations and their actions which are clearly not true.

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

TRP ignores it.

Bull fucking shit.

[–]caxica0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

TRP is pretty apolitical. They aren't out to change laws, they are about improving themselves and helping others improve themselves while adapting to the social environment we inhabit

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

In theory, yes. In practice, no. The TRP main sub is full of posts complaining about society, complaining about feminism, conspiracy theories, ect.

[–]caxica0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Complaining about politics is not the same as being politically active. I think the consensus is that there is no use fighting feminism politically and we have to do it on an individual scale. TRPers channel Ghandi and feminists channel Stalin

[–]oliwoli0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Can you elaborate on this metaphor? Gandhi did organise political resistance on a greater than individual scale,and Stalin was very much not a feminist - to the best of my knowledge.

[–]caxica0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Gandhi: be the change you want to see

Stalin: Disagree with me and you are done

[–]jacks1000[S] -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Most people tend to separate their sexual aspect of their relationships from the love aspect of their relationships

That would be news to a lot of people. Many people do not, in fact, make some great distinction between their sex life and their love life. I mean, we even call it "making love." I understand exactly why the "BDSM community" tries to define it as "just sex." There are other models of relationships that involved D/s that are not part of the "BDSM community" - Christian marriage being one. "Wives submit to your husband." That's dominance and submission, and that's more than "just sex" although it clearly involves sex.

TRP is very much extreme when compared to societal norms

I don't find that to be the case at all. Feminism is a minority ideology and considered extreme by many people.

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

That would be news to a lot of people. Many people do not, in fact, make some great distinction between their sex life and their love life. I mean, we even call it "making love."

I suppose it doesn't even matter what people do. What matters is what's logical. The emotions that constitute love and the emotions that constitute lust are not codependent, and this is well documented in the biological and social sciences. There's some affiliation, but one is not a prerequisite for the other.

I don't find that to be the case at all. Feminism is a minority ideology and considered extreme by many people.

For one, blue pill is not feminism. Only half of the blue pillers surveyed were feminists.

Secondly, feminism is less extreme than TRP, at least as far as the numbers go. Keep in mind, everything is relative. Roughly 1/3 of Americans are feminists. A much smaller number of people consider themselves red pillers.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

The emotions that constitute love and the emotions that constitute lust are not codependent, and this is well documented in the biological and social sciences. There's some affiliation, but one is not a prerequisite for the other.

That's true, and irrelevant. Most people's intimate relationships include both sex and love. Marriage is generally expect to include both sex and love. It's just irrelevant to the entire point.

In fact, it seems to me it's precisely at the intersection of sex and love that feminist go nuts over D/s.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

That's true, and irrelevant. Most people's intimate relationships include both sex and love. Marriage is generally expect to include both sex and love. It's just irrelevant to the entire point.

Ok, but why do the nature of a couples sex and the nature of a couple's love have to be the same? They should be whatever people want them to be.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Ok, but why do the nature of a couples sex and the nature of a couple's love have to be the same?

They don't. Who said they did?

They should be whatever people want them to be.

Except for RPW, evidently.

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

Straw man. RPW can do whatever they want. Its their first amendment right in the US. And it's TBPs 1st amendment right to make fun of them.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, and it's my first amendment right to call out TBP for what they are: haters engaged in hate, not satirists.

If TBP was satire it would be funny. It's not as if TRP isn't a pretty wide target. Yet, TBP "totes alfalfa!" Plus, trying to distance yourselves from feminism, the SJWs, and SRS is transparent.

Maybe mostly my objection to TBP is that it's a crime against satire. What you're doing isn't satire, it's snark. Stop ruining the name of a perfectly good literary genre.

[–]GridReXXit be like that3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

It's the whole AWALT approach that's insulting. If they kept it to "I personally want a woman who naturally submits to my alpha will" then sure.

But they don't say that.

Also it's offensive. I don't think they realize the engrained entitlement in it. But I'm sure if a woman said all women are the captain and all men are the co captain every man would call her an entitled ::insert profane word:: and be rubbed the wrong way.

A little bit of empathy goes a long way.

[–]caxica0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

The AWALT thing is pretty accurate with a lot of traits. You are not a special snowflake

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Never said I was. I like watching TV sometimes. And eating medium rare steak sometimes. And dressing well. And playing with my data analytics software.

I'm sure there are millions of women like me who also don't fit into your assumptions.

There are layers to this shit. To quote a rapper I heard on the radio.

[–]caxica0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

You are talking about things completely irrelevant to sexual strategy. No one who says "AWALT" thinks all women have the same hobbies or dietary preferences

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

And you're completely missing my point.

In the same way all those things are different for different people, same logic applies to everything else including "sexual strategy."

[–]caxica0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I got your point. I just disagree

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Cool. Then we can agree to disagree.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

But I'm sure if a woman said all women are the captain and all men are the co captain every man would call her an entitled ::insert profane word:: and be rubbed the wrong way.

You know honestly women say this sort of thing all the time: behind every successful man is a woman! Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but backwards in high heels! It never bothered me personally, just like it never bothered me when men talk about their wives as being "the better half." But I can imagine how this sort of "Women Are Wonderful" effect might start to rub younger guys the wrong way.

Most of TRP and the manosphere are backlashes to third wave feminism. Women tend to engage in powertalk, "fat is beautiful!" - no one actually thinks that fat is beautiful. Instead, that means "never make a fat person feel bad so tell them they are beautiful even if it's not true" Sure, I'll do that, but some young nerdy redditor who only understands "straight talk" actually believes what they say.

Much of TRP is engaged in their own form of power talk - "all women are like that" doesn't literally mean "100% of all women throughout history are like that." It's power talk for "the woman that denies she is like that is probably like that."

So yeah, empathy would go a long way. Empathy for the red pillers. They are self-described people who believed in political correctness about men and women and may be bitter and having believed lies for so long. Think about how they must feel.

But honestly, I'm not really here to defend TRP. I'm not really a regular poster there. Really, I'm here to attack TBP and the antis. They claim their motivations are humor and satire, but it's clearly hate, and plenty of them have now admitted it. If they were interested in satire, they would be satirical, but it's certainly not good satire, it's snark. There's a huge difference. It's a crime against satire.

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a crime against satire.

Some of the stuff is downright hilarious.

You know honestly women say this sort of thing all the time: behind every successful man is a woman!

So we're going to ignore the "behind" part I see.

[–]moizer4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There is no blue pill. TBP is a circlejerk subreddit for humor. What is there to debate?

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

Tbh I never shamed anyone for liking BDSM or wanting a dom/sub relationship.

What I do disagree with is that TRP thinks it applies to every goddamn woman on Earth and forces it upon people that may not be ok with it. The keyword here being 'consent'.

"LMR-busting", "passing shit-tests", avoiding "FALSE" rape accusations, "training your girlfriend" and other fucked up concepts are NOT part of the BDSM community. They are NOT kinks.

Also, there is much more to the whole red pill 'truth' than just guys and gals finding out about their sexual fetish.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

forces it upon people that may not be ok with it.

That's not true, no one is forcing anything on anyone. You're lying.

are NOT part of the BDSM community

Who gives a shit about "the BDSM community?" What does the "BDSM community" have to do with anything? Are you going to tell us about the "Oral Sex Community" next? What does the "PIV Community" have to say on the subject?

there is much more to the whole red pill 'truth' than just guys and gals finding out about their sexual fetish.

Yes, that's right, it's not about a "sexual fetish" at all, it's about a sexual strategy for men in a culture that devalues masculinity.

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

It was you who used the exact words BDSM community and now you're going to tell me it's a stupid concept just because it's inconvenient now. Are you going to ignore the fact that a lot of people from TBP are not okay with you guys and your hateful bullshit?

And what's all this about sexual strategy? I thought this topic was about kinks and that we're supposedly laughing at your kinks. We're not. We're laughing at you because you're a bunch of idiots. We could try and set up a discussion forum but you've proven time and time again that you're not willing to show even the littlest sense of understanding so we might as well get some enjoyment out of it.

Your "culture" is about devaluing masculinity and you don't even realize it.

[–]Archwinger[🍰] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Nope. BDSM is a sexual kink thing. The Red Pill isn't hyper-focused on being "dominant" and seeking out "submissive" women under the same definitions a BDSM community would use.

The Red Pill exists to help men maximize their potential via sexual strategy and self-improvement. The large majority of women are attracted to men who are masculine. Physically fit, professionally successful, interesting, skilled, socially apt, confident guys. Men who embody these qualities are going to typically be men who know what they want and pursue it, and are used to getting what they want much of the time. Guys who don't sacrifice what they want for any particular woman, because if a woman requires that of him, he might as well go find another woman and keep what he wants without sacrificing it. Because guys like that have abundant opportunities with multiple women.

The large majority of men are attracted to feminine women. Women who respect men to whom they are attracted and will do what is necessary to retain the interest and commitment of a man worthy of their respect. Necessary things typically include sex and domestic duties, not because The Red Pill demands women be "submissive" house slaves, but more because a guy who's fit, successful, and busy all the time doesn't have a lot of time to keep house or cook dinner, so he derives value from a partner that plays a support role in his life. If a woman kicks ass professionally and is stronger than Thor and Hercules combined, but she still respects her man, more power to her.

The masculine role to which most women are attracted is more "dominant" than the feminine one to which most men are attracted, but not in a BDSM kinky way.

The reactions of the Blue Pill and other detractors mainly exist because The Red Pill uses uncensored and derogatory language regarding women. If you state a generally Red Pill concept elsewhere on Reddit, but don't mention The Red Pill or use recognized Red Pill terminology, everybody loves it, because it's true. Women like men who are men, and men like women who are women.

But if you use extreme language and say bad things about women, that means you're actually a virgin rapist living in his mom's basement, because only stupid people would recognize the propensity for evil and selfishness in a woman and talk about it in a way that doesn't present a fair and balanced viewpoint about male deficiencies and females who are exceptions to the evil. A male-centered discussion forum that presents a solely male-centered viewpoint without acknowledging the validity of the other side's position is evil!

[–]jacks1000[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Nope. BDSM is a sexual kink thing. The Red Pill isn't hyper-focused on being "dominant" and seeking out "submissive" women under the same definitions a BDSM community would use.

Nope, the "BDSM community" is not an authority on BDSM itself, and most people who have some sort of D/s relationship or engage in various sexual activities are NOT members of the "BDSM community."

Many people like oral sex. Does that mean they are members of the "oral sex community?" No, it doesn't.

The masculine role to which most women are attracted is more "dominant" than the feminine one to which most men are attracted, but not in a BDSM kinky way.

Only if you allow the "BDSM community" to define dominance and submission. The red pill seems to be all about the D/s dynamic. I suggest that most relationships are D/s to some degree.

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

The whole point of the OP is that TRP shares commonalities with BDSM. And that BP mocking of TRP parallels shaming people for their sexual kinks. Not so for the reasons I articulated, and other reasons.

Pointing out that every single human interaction under the sun involves dominance to some degree means what, exactly? That all BDSM comparisons automatically have merit in all situations?

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

No, that's not what I said. I said "dominance and submission" and specifically how it relates to relationships, not "just sex." The "BDSM community's" view of human sexual behavior is not the be all and end all of D/s.

Pointing out that every single human interaction under the sun involves dominance to some degree means what, exactly?

No one said "every single human interaction." We're talking about relationships between "red pill" men and women, not "every single human interaction."

The gay analogy works perfectly. Are gay relationships "just sex?" When a fundie attacks gay marriage, are they attacking just sex acts? No, they are attacking the fundamental premise of the relationship.

Just as TBP defines red pill relationships as "abuse."

[–]GODZILLAFLAMETHROWERBlue Pill Man2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that TRP is actually talking about "every single human interaction", not just their own.

[–]Bonig0 points1 point  (24 children) | Copy Link

Relevant source:

Here a mod of RPW makes clear that "RPW is not BDSM". Also in that thread, you can see a TRP mod agreeing with the statement.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (23 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say that TRP "was BDSM." I repeatedly made a distinction between "the BDSM community" and D/s relationships. I repeatedly made the distinction between "just sex" and relationships.

Here's a good example: TRP says to treat their wife like a child, that women are the "oldest teenagers in the house." TBP gets outrage boners over this. They pretend that TBP is talking about them personally, when it's obvious TRP is talking about their potential or current girlfriends and wives.

So a TBP hears "treat women like children" and misinterprets that - purposefully - to mean "all men should treat all women like children at home and in the workplace" when it clearly meant, "treat your girlfriend like's she's just a silly girl" - just a common dynamic in a relationship, no different than a woman saying her man is "just an overgrown boy."

TRP is counseling men to be more dominant, which will appeal to submissive women, and TBP has a fit about that, because it's not "equal." Because it's not "just sex."

Everyone understands that feminists are fine with polyamorous BDSM group sex, what they have a problem with is a relationship that is more than "just sex."

[–]Bonig7 points8 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

TRP says to treat their wife like a child, ... it's obvious TRP is talking about their potential or current girlfriends and wives.

No, it is far from obvious. That's just your personal interpretation.

You can't just throw around generalisations and then suddenly claim they only apply to a small subset. Be concise and be specific. People will understand you better and you will encounter less "rage boners".

I'm pretty sure many BPers will lose interest in harrassing TRP if TRP stops using generalizations and stops depicting women as inferior.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (21 children) | Copy Link

No, it is far from obvious. That's just your personal interpretation.

Considering TRP is about "sexual strategy" is sure as hell is obvious, unless you include yourself in the category of "possible future sex partner of a red pill man."

Do you? If not, the how the hell did you get any other interpretation?

I'm pretty sure many BPers will lose interest in harrassing TRP if TRP stops using generalizations and stops depicting women as inferior.

Everyone makes generalizations, the blue pill makes generalizations. You aren't harassing TRP and RPW because they are depicting women as "inferior" you are harassing them because you are repulsed/fascinating by their sexual interests.

Which really adds some interesting color to the "outrage boner" thing, doesn't it? They just can get enough of reading about the sexist misogynist rapists and how awful, awful they are.

[–]Bonig3 points4 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

When I read "All women are like that" I understand "All women are like that" and when my experience doesn't fit into that claim, I will point it out. It won't get simpler.

fascinating by their sexual interests

If you're into D/s that's great, but you shouldn't try to find people who share your personal interest within a group that clearly distances itself from BDSM.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (18 children) | Copy Link

When I read "All women are like that" I understand "All women are like that" and when my experience doesn't fit into that claim, I will point it out. It won't get simpler.

Sure, but you know you are purposefully removing the context. It's a trope of the manosphere, anytime someone makes a generalization, a "blue pill type" will say "but not all women are like that."

Within the manosphere and TRP, "all woman are like that" is a clear and unambiguous reference to the trope "not all woman are like that" and it essentially means "most people are not exceptions to the rule."

In context, TRP and manosphere jargon is perfectly understandable. Sure, a person just reading it for the first time might misunderstand it.

But you cyber-stalkers do understand the jargon, and purposefully misrepresent it. Because, as you admit, you think you're being satirical and it amuses you.

Which again, is fine. But own it. You're picking on a group of people you perceive to be less sexually attractive than you. You're a cyber-bully. This isn't about "equality" or "feminism" or some social goal. This is you getting off on stalking people.

I admit it, too, I'd probably be a Blue Piller myself if your "satire" was actually funny. I bet I could mock TRP way better than TBP. But honestly, I just don't have the hatred you people do.

[–]Bonig1 point2 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

You're mistaken. The word stalker doesn't mean what you think it means. Stalking means seeking personal contact. I never did that and it's nothing that TBP supports.

I understand where you are coming from because I started from a view point similar to yours. During the last few months I had to learn that TRP had no interest in being explained by sexual preferences like BDSM.

As you said, TRP is a strategy, not a preference. Making fun of a (in my opinion shitty, because it's so limited) strategy is not the same as harassing a group of queer people.

I see that generalisations can be helpful to quickly convey a certain aspect of that strategy. However, TRP is not only a strategy it's also an ideology. A central point to that ideology is that all women are the same in that they responded similarly to male insecurity because they were submissive by nature and needed to be guideed. BDSM disproves this. Your analogy doesn't work here.

Edit: The existence of BDSM and the people who practice it disproves the claim that all women are submissive. There are plenty of women who are tops in 24/7 relationships, who dominate and guide their male counterparts.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

BDSM disproves this.

"BDSM" is a description of certain kinds of human sexual behavior, it has no ability to "disprove" anything. The "BDSM community" is but a fringe group of people who practice BDSM. I also don't think that dom/sub is a "sexual preference" on the level of homosexuality, I don't think it's "inborn."

I'm not even talking about "BDSM" per say, I was talking about D/s in the context of relationships, not "just sex."

I understand fully well what the "BDSM community" has to say about all sorts of things, but they are irrelevant. That Red Pillers with dominant preferences or desires would not want to identify with "the BDSM community" doesn't surprise me at all. I don't identify with "the BDSM community" either.

I have read plenty of posts on TRP about men wanting traditional marriages, which in many circles, such as Christianity, is mostly about D/s inside and outside the bedroom. That is precisely what I posit TBP is actually reacting to.

[–]Bonig0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

"BDSM" is a description of certain kinds of human sexual behavior, it has no ability to "disprove" anything.

Let's not pick on wording. I meant the existence of BDSM and people who practice it, disproves... See my edit.

don't think that dom/sub is a "sexual preference" on the level of homosexuality, I don't think it's "inborn."

There is no proof that homosexuality is inborn, either. It is definitely not purely genetic, because identic twins with differing sexualities exist. Homosexuality either develops during pregnancy or during the earliest years of life. No one knows. It's exactly the same for BDSM.

That Red Pillers with dominant preferences or desires would not want to identify with "the BDSM community" doesn't surprise me at all. I don't identify with "the BDSM community" either.

If you gain any sexual pleasure from inbalances in power, you are a BDSMer, regardless whether you identify with the subculture or not. If someone believes in what the credo says they are Christian regardless whether they go to church or not. A man who's in love with a man is still homosexual, even if he isn't interested in folsom faires.

I have read plenty of posts on TRP about men wanting traditional marriages, which in many circles, such as Christianity, is mostly about D/s inside and outside the bedroom.

I won't doubt that there is an overlap between TRPers and CDD people. Also there certainly is an overlap between CDD and D/s kinksters. However, TRPers are not "just D/s kinksters, who live the lifestyle 24/7".

That is precisely what I posit TBP is actually reacting to.

As it has been emphasized numerous times, I will repeat now: TBP has a problem neither with BDSM in general nor with D/s in particular. To me, the upsetting parts are not in which TRP and D/s share similarities, but the parts in which they differ.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

If you gain any sexual pleasure from inbalances in power, you are a BDSMer, regardless whether you identify with the subculture or not.

Sure, I'm fine with that. It's a descriptor, not a set of rules, or a culture, or a community.

I meant the existence of BDSM and people who practise it, disproves...

Perhaps I misread you.

I won't doubt that there is an overlap between TRPers and CDD people. Also there certainly is an overlap between CDD and D/s kinksters. However, TRPers are not "just D/s kinksters, who live the lifestyle 24/7".

OK, TRPers are not just D/s kinksters, who live the lifestyle 24/7. But it's clear that for many of them, a traditional D/s style relationship seems to be their ideal.

One of the most tantalizing power differences in a relationship - thus, according to you, makes you a BDSMer - is and older man with a younger woman. He has power over her - experience, charm, resources - and she has power over him - her youth, beauty, and inexperience.

So, that's D/s - and everyone acknowledges that's a power difference, thus BDSM. So isn't it fair to say that it's precisely the power difference that TBP complains about so much? TRP supposedly use their superior power - "game" "manipulation" "age" etc. - over these women.

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

"Picking on a group of people you perceive to be less sexually attractive than you"

...oh you tried with that. You know that's not the reason TRP and "manosphere" gets hammered on general Reddit.

[–]misserzulie0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No but such a dishonest spin makes his argument sound way more reasonable than it is. Poor little TRPers, being stalked and shamed by TBP for being less sexually attractive! It's exactly like homophobia! They're just fighting eeeevil oppression!

[–]GODZILLAFLAMETHROWERBlue Pill Man3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, I am mocking them for their depiction of women as inferior. I have a pretty similar way of life (minus one or two thing), so I am hardly repulsed/fascinated. Stop fucking strawman-ing, you are doing this in every single post here, this is not constructive.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Thank you, TheBluePill, for giving me such a clear illustration of your sexual hangups and an illustration of everything I've been saying in this thread!

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/21n8tl/rpw_when_he_gets_home_sit_him_down_hand_him_a/

Remember, TheBluePill purports to be a "satire" - but no one is making jokes, this is essentially saying "eewww" and character assassination of some people discussing an utterly normal, uncontroversial interaction between a couple where the woman is submissive - that is not "just sex."

Sit him down someplace comfy when he comes in. Give him a beer or whatever he likes to drink. Put your head down on his thigh by his knee and tell him how much you appreciate all that he does and how much it means to you. And keep your head there, showing that he has a little bit of power at least somewhere in life. For however long is comfortable, maybe 5 minutes or more, just to switch him into home mode. And give him a slow blowjob.

This is an act of D/s and power exchange that is not "just sex" - it's essentially foreplay. If even includes a submissive physical position. If an act is "just sex," an act of purely sexual submission, you'd have two responses: some would say, "not for me but whatever you do in the bedroom" and the others would say, "I like to submit in the bedroom but other than sex I never submit."

Now notice TheBluePill responses:

God damn it, if the sole purpose of women isn't to prove to an insecure man that there's somebody even more worthless than him, then what the hell is it?

Remember what we're talking about here, a wife comforting her husband after a bad day. This act of simple love, that likely most healthy couples do, is described as devaluing women and reducing women to tool of men. Also, the man is, for whatever reason, "insecure." Precisely because it's an act of submission that is not "just sex."

The whole pose is so childlike... it's reinforcing their view of women as children.

A submissive pose is childlike ... that's a really interesting interpretation. We're talking about a wife putting her head on her man's lap. Utterly normal.

What kind of man is so insecure that he needs to hear this from his wife every fucking day? I don't know what I would call that man but it certainly wouldn't be "alpha."

This is an odd comment. A husband wanting to experience this act of submission everyday isn't an "alpha?" Would a man wanting sex everyday not be an "alpha?"

Now notice this, this is really telling too:

As I've said before, I've been in RP-esque relationships, and I actually tried something like this with my ex. One night, he was having an exceptionally bad day. Super pissed off and kept venting about work. I was trying to cheer him up to no avail. I flat out asked him, "do you want a blowjob?" and he looked at me with disgust.

What fucking secure human being wants a partner like this? Wouldn't this get so fucking annoying so quickly?

Whoever wrote this has a cartoonish sex doll understanding of relationships and it's not only sad and pathetic, but destructive that anyone take her - likely "his" come to think of it -- advice seriously.

This sort of power exchange is a "cartoonish sex doll understanding of relationships" "sad and pathetic" and "destructive."

Once again, we see the act reduced to "just sex." If it's not "just sex."

I'm sorry you simplify relationships too much but a simple blowjob isn't going to solve much of anything.

Someone seems to get at least the "out of the bedroom" part, but the sex part turns her off

She kinda had me up until the blow job. I mean, I'll be the first to admit that sometimes if my guy has had a bad day at work, he just wants to be comforted when he gets home. But that does not automatically mean he's in the mood. Men aren't sex robots.

I could get down with some submissive 50's housewife roleplaying but if I walked in to this situation not knowing what I was in for I would probably break out laughing.

Notice that this normal seeming relationship is being reduced to a "kink" and "roleplaying." This completely unremarkable act of submission, the kind that happens in normal relationships all the time, is not something "kinky" that has to do with the "BDSM scene."

Now this one is really interesting:

I will suck dick when I damn well feel like it. I will get you a beer if I am already up getting myself one.

Consider that she is discussing how she would treat her significant other. She wouldn't even get you a drink unless she's getting one herself. Notice the absolute revulsion at any act of submission, anything that could be interpreted as "service" to a husband gets this sort of hostile reaction? "Make your own damn sandwich!"

Then a seemingly normally adjusted person says, wait a minute, this isn't so bad:

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/21n8tl/rpw_when_he_gets_home_sit_him_down_hand_him_a/

...

Right here, in plain language, you have a group of TBP showing disgust for a D/s style interaction that is not "just sex" - with the quick acknowledgment that if it was "kinky" or "just sex" it would be ok. Which is the common refrain of feminists - very much into BDSM - with such a hangup about their own submissiveness they have to give all these excuses, "I don't submit outside of the bedroom ever, I won't even get him a beer!"

Just imagine someone saying: "it's just sex. I'm only gay in the bedroom. I totally the opposite of gay out of the bedroom!"

If TBP was doing a "Satire" of a BDSM sub, what would the response be from the feminists and liberals?

"What kind of insecure jerk would tie up his girlfriend? What he gets off on rape?"

"A woman who likes spanking is sick, she is just reduced to a child."

Or perhaps, most famously, this quote from a feminist during the Sex Wars: women into same-sex D/s were engaging in "a lesbian copy of a faggot imitation of patriarchal backlash against feminism." (Robin Morgan.)

**It's clear that TBP's objections to RPW have to do with their own hangups about submission that is not "just sex." Their hangups about submission compel them to stalk RPW, comb through details about their relationships, and quickly distance themselves from any submissiveness other than "just sex," and how disgusted they were.

Again, to use the analogy, imagine a fundie group going through gay websites and loudly proclaiming how grossed out they were and they would never do such things. Ted Haggard, anyone? It's not just TBP either, there are dozens of feminist and "parody" websites that troll traditional women's blogs and do this same thing - read narratives about these women's relationships and start clucking about how awful and abused they are, what "doormats" they are, and how "inferior" they are.

What is transparently obvious though is that these poor women are just sub-shaming themselves.

[–]steakmeout1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

There's nothing "normal" about that RPW post. It's an attempt to engage in programming - both the female reader as a submissive and the male partner as if he's goddam Pavlov's Dog. It literally talks about putting him into "home mode".

There is nothing natural about that at all.

Have you not engaged in non programmatic interpersonal relations? Can you not discern the natural from the forced when it comes to interpersonal relations?

I wonder if you would benefit from leaving the books alone and trying things for yourself, particularly ignoring any "strategies" you've read and learned.

You don't seem to understand how relations work outside of tiering strategies. Not everything in life is a point of potential combat.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

It's comments like this that make me wonder if feminists tend to be the autistic types themselves, unable to read body language or understand normal human reactions.

It also makes me seriously wonder if feminists have ever experienced romantic love before. Considering that they read all this manosphere literature, and project the male characters to be some sort of psychopathic robot.

For you to interpret that narrative - a wife comforting her husband when he got home after work - and some sort of "forced" or "programmtic" interaction is so far out of left field, I'm unsure what to think.

My mom used to ask my dad to open the pickle jar for her. Of course, she could open it herself. She was programming my dad to do this, which triggered my father's protective instinct and he'd give her a kiss and all.

For you to see these normal, human, romantic interactions as "programming" "Pavlov's dog" and "programmatic" says far more about you than it does about the people you're attacking.

You see the natural male and female dynamic - which tends to be a dominant/submissive, or as in dancing, leading and following - through the eyes of BDSM.

Which is exactly what feminism wanted.

You see, everyone was engaging in the socially reinforced gender roles long before feminism, or the "BDSM community" came along. I realize that you feminist want to "smash gender roles" and the like, but most people seem perfectly comfortable in their own skin.

I wonder if you would benefit from leaving the books alone and trying things for yourself, particularly ignoring any "strategies" you've read and learned.

You don't seem to understand how relations work outside of tiering strategies. Not everything in life is a point of potential combat.

This says so much more about you than it does about me.

[–]steakmeout1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It really only says something about you. You are lost in the fiction of self help dogma. Oh well.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It really only says something about you. You are lost in the fiction of self help dogma. Oh well.

You're 0 for 3 now.

[–]steakmeout1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You keep making statements that aren't backed by evidence. You're so lost.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You do realize that Cosmo is full of such things, right? Are you suggesting Cosmo magazine is promoting women "programming" men?

Wait, you're a male feminist, right? Don't answer that.

[–]steakmeout1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Cosmo is a magazine which is constantly derided by feminists and non feminists alike for being shallow and filled with irrational and nonsensical "advice". You don't need look far for evidence of that.

Anyone rational can recognize irrational and nonsensical advice. Remember, it was you who made the comparison to Cosmo. Not I.

You're problem is you see everything that isn't you as a nail and yourself as the hammer. Really, if anyone's perspective is in need of reordering, it's yours. You're lost in the narrative of your own selection bias.

[–]suscitareMGTOW Red Pill Man-1 points0 points  (34 children) | Copy Link

You make a very apt and adroit observation; what you say does indeed ring true.

[–]jacks1000[S] 5 points6 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

Their tactics become more clear when they start attacking red pill women. The language that they use to describe red pill women - "doormats" and the like - is like sub-shaming 101. They call these women worthless, say they have low self esteem, that they are abused, brainwashed by the patriarchy, that they shouldn't really like those things.

But if a woman were to say, "I'm only submissive in the bedroom" they are ok with that, because it's "just sex."

One you see how TBP sub-shames, you can see how they "dom shame." TRP men are "abusive" and "rapists." This is just the flip side.

It's why many feminists are quick to point out they are "switches" - they feel that's equal. I saw the same dynamic when a feminist was leading a group of women in a discussion about 50 Shades of Grey. The feminist complained that these women's sexuality was "turning back the clock 50 years" and one of the women - completely unconvincingly - timidly said, "oh it would be sexier if she spanked him." But of course erotica with submissive men does not sell like hotcakes. The very feminist "BDSM community" is quick to point out there are submissive men and even a few dommes, but they are outliers, the minority.

The whole split between second wave and third wave feminism was over BDSM. They called it "the sex wars" or "the porn wars." It's quite fascinating reading. The new feminist consensus was: D/s is ok, but only as a "kink" and only in the bedroom. A woman submitting to her man in any other capacity is exploitation and abuse.

Then, just read how TBP reacts to Red Pill women who refuse to "keep it in the bedroom."

So, you have this very funny situation where feminists think that having a dom a woman just met tying her up and flogging her at a sex club is liberating, but a happily married submissive wife is being "oppressed."

It's actually rather comical.

[–]Bonig4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

feminists think that having a dom a woman just met tying her up and flogging her at a sex club is liberating, but a happily married submissive wife is being "oppressed."

This is not feminism vs. BDSM.

TBP isn't feminism and more importantly, RPW aren't a bunch of femsubbies.

[–]jacks1000[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is not feminism vs. BDSM.

That's right, it's not. But I wasn't talking about "BDSM." Nevertheless, feminism's long and troubled history with BDSM - and D/s - is quite relevant to the anti-feminism of TRP and at least some of the members of TBP.

The BDSM "community" is grudgingly accepted by feminists who use it to draw a boundary on when and where it's acceptable for a woman to submit.

Hence, the sex clubs are fine, but Taken in Hand is "abuse."

[–]nerak33Purple Pill Man0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It may be unfair to generalize TBP as feminism.

It may even be unfair to generalize feminism as what most feminists do.

But most feminists do what jacks1000 is saying TBP does. The common sense around feminists (AFAIK) is that being kinky in your bedroom is ok, but not in other parts of your house or outdoors. Kind of remembers me a particular mindset about gays: "I have nothing against them, as far as they keep it to their bedrooms".

[–]Bonig2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you and /u/jacks1000 think his critizism of feminism is valid and worth a debate, you guys should consider x-posting to /r/feminism or a related subreddit.

I am not critisizing TRP in terms of feminism or for the purpose of feminism. Also I think 24/7 D/s relationships are valid concepts, i just don't think that TRP lifestyle and 24/7 D/s relationships (in the style of BDSM) have much in common.

[–]jacks1000[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you, TheBluePill, for giving me such a clear illustration of your sexual hangups and an illustration of everything I've been saying in this thread!

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/21n8tl/rpw_when_he_gets_home_sit_him_down_hand_him_a/

Remember, TheBluePill purports to be a "satire" - but no one is making jokes, this is essentially saying "eewww" and character assassination of some people discussing an utterly normal, uncontroversial interaction between a couple where the woman is submissive - that is not "just sex."

Sit him down someplace comfy when he comes in. Give him a beer or whatever he likes to drink. Put your head down on his thigh by his knee and tell him how much you appreciate all that he does and how much it means to you. And keep your head there, showing that he has a little bit of power at least somewhere in life. For however long is comfortable, maybe 5 minutes or more, just to switch him into home mode. And give him a slow blowjob.

This is an act of D/s and power exchange that is not "just sex" - it's essentially foreplay. If even includes a submissive physical position. If an act is "just sex," an act of purely sexual submission, you'd have two responses: some would say, "not for me but whatever you do in the bedroom" and the others would say, "I like to submit in the bedroom but other than sex I never submit."

Now notice TheBluePill responses:

God damn it, if the sole purpose of women isn't to prove to an insecure man that there's somebody even more worthless than him, then what the hell is it?

Remember what we're talking about here, a wife comforting her husband after a bad day. This act of simple love, that likely most healthy couples do, is described as devaluing women and reducing women to tool of men. Also, the man is, for whatever reason, "insecure." Precisely because it's an act of submission that is not "just sex."

The whole pose is so childlike... it's reinforcing their view of women as children.

A submissive pose is childlike ... that's a really interesting interpretation. We're talking about a wife putting her head on her man's lap. Utterly normal.

What kind of man is so insecure that he needs to hear this from his wife every fucking day? I don't know what I would call that man but it certainly wouldn't be "alpha."

This is an odd comment. A husband wanting to experience this act of submission everyday isn't an "alpha?" Would a man wanting sex everyday not be an "alpha?"

Now notice this, this is really telling too:

As I've said before, I've been in RP-esque relationships, and I actually tried something like this with my ex. One night, he was having an exceptionally bad day. Super pissed off and kept venting about work. I was trying to cheer him up to no avail. I flat out asked him, "do you want a blowjob?" and he looked at me with disgust.

What fucking secure human being wants a partner like this? Wouldn't this get so fucking annoying so quickly?

Whoever wrote this has a cartoonish sex doll understanding of relationships and it's not only sad and pathetic, but destructive that anyone take her - likely "his" come to think of it -- advice seriously.

This sort of power exchange is a "cartoonish sex doll understanding of relationships" "sad and pathetic" and "destructive."

Once again, we see the act reduced to "just sex." If it's not "just sex."

I'm sorry you simplify relationships too much but a simple blowjob isn't going to solve much of anything.

Someone seems to get at least the "out of the bedroom" part, but the sex part turns her off

She kinda had me up until the blow job. I mean, I'll be the first to admit that sometimes if my guy has had a bad day at work, he just wants to be comforted when he gets home. But that does not automatically mean he's in the mood. Men aren't sex robots.

I could get down with some submissive 50's housewife roleplaying but if I walked in to this situation not knowing what I was in for I would probably break out laughing.

Notice that this normal seeming relationship is being reduced to a "kink" and "roleplaying." This completely unremarkable act of submission, the kind that happens in normal relationships all the time, is not something "kinky" that has to do with the "BDSM scene."

Now this one is really interesting:

I will suck dick when I damn well feel like it. I will get you a beer if I am already up getting myself one.

Consider that she is discussing how she would treat her significant other. She wouldn't even get you a drink unless she's getting one herself. Notice the absolute revulsion at any act of submission, anything that could be interpreted as "service" to a husband gets this sort of hostile reaction? "Make your own damn sandwich!"

Then a seemingly normally adjusted person says, wait a minute, this isn't so bad:

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/21n8tl/rpw_when_he_gets_home_sit_him_down_hand_him_a/

...

Right here, in plain language, you have a group of TBP showing disgust for a D/s style interaction that is not "just sex" - with the quick acknowledgment that if it was "kinky" or "just sex" it would be ok. Which is the common refrain of feminists - very much into BDSM - with such a hangup about their own submissiveness they have to give all these excuses, "I don't submit outside of the bedroom ever, I won't even get him a beer!"

Just imagine someone saying: "it's just sex. I'm only gay in the bedroom. I totally the opposite of gay out of the bedroom!"

If TBP was doing a "Satire" of a BDSM sub, what would the response be from the feminists and liberals?

"What kind of insecure jerk would tie up his girlfriend? What he gets off on rape?"

"A woman who likes spanking is sick, she is just reduced to a child."

Or perhaps, most famously, this quote from a feminist during the Sex Wars: women into same-sex D/s were engaging in "a lesbian copy of a faggot imitation of patriarchal backlash against feminism." (Robin Morgan.)

**It's clear that TBP's objections to RPW have to do with their own hangups about submission that is not "just sex." Their hangups about submission compel them to stalk RPW, comb through details about their relationships, and quickly distance themselves from any submissiveness other than "just sex," and how disgusted they were.

Again, to use the analogy, imagine a fundie group going through gay websites and loudly proclaiming how grossed out they were and they would never do such things. Ted Haggard, anyone? It's not just TBP either, there are dozens of feminist and "parody" websites that troll traditional women's blogs and do this same thing - read narratives about these women's relationships and start clucking about how awful and abused they are, what "doormats" they are, and how "inferior" they are.

What is transparently obvious though is that these poor women are just sub-shaming themselves.

[–]misserzulie0 points1 point  (23 children) | Copy Link

So how about when TBP calls out an actual real life rapist or abuser? Are they just "Dom-shaming" then? Given that all relationships with a power imbalance are BDSM, natch?

And btw, have you actually read 50 Shades of Grey?

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (22 children) | Copy Link

So how about when TBP calls out an actual real life rapist or abuser? Are they just "Dom-shaming" then?

No, I would guess they were "rapist-shaming" him. I'm sure I have never argued against rapist-shaming.

And btw, have you actually read 50 Shades of Grey?

No, I heard it's awful.

[–]misserzulie0 points1 point  (21 children) | Copy Link

So it's ok for TBP to continue to call out abusive behaviour? Great, I'm glad we agree. Because I thought you were claiming that absolutely all relationships where there is a power imbalance are D/s in the BDSM sense, no matter how abusive or exploitative? Evidently I misunderstood.

50 Shades of Grey is awful, and clearly depicts an abusive relationship. I can understand why some feminists have a problem with it being a massive bestseller. Personally, I don't think most women who read it took it all that seriously. It was just throwaway, slightly taboo erotica.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (20 children) | Copy Link

So it's ok for TBP to continue to call out abusive behaviour?

It's a good thing to call out abusive behavior. However, feminists define almost anything as "abuse" - remember, even flirting with the waitress (dread game) is "emotional abuse."

So it goes typically something like this:

TRP: Don't ask, just lean in and hiss her!

TBP: He's sexually harassing her!

TRP: Don't be timid, throw her on the bed.

TBP: RAPE!

TRP: We got wasted and went to her place.

TBP: RAPE!

TPR: If my girlfriend does this or that, I'm dumping her.

TBP: Controlling!

TRP: I reward my girlfriend with a spanking and chocolate when she has been properly obedient.

TBP: He's training her!

TRP: She wears this collar as a symbol of my ownership.

TBP: You think she's inferior, less than human, and treat her like a dog!

I even remember one blue pill woman writing out this long fantasy about a red pill man mechanically fucking some girl who was sobbing.

There are legitimate criticism of TRP, but all this projection stuff is nonsense.

[–]misserzulie0 points1 point  (19 children) | Copy Link

All those are potentially perfectly reasonable interpretations of those actions as abusive behaviour (depending on the specific circumstances in each case) and they would not only be made by TBPers or feminists. You disagree, I can see that. Well it takes all sorts to make a world, so not sure what point you're actually trying to make.

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (18 children) | Copy Link

All those are potentially perfectly reasonable interpretations of those actions as abusive behaviour (depending on the specific circumstances in each case) and they would not only be made by TBPers or feminists.

No, I do agree with that. Taken in the abstract, stripped of context, depending on the circumstances, those situations could be potentially abusive.

But in the context of reddit guys posting "field reports" about girls they know, it's really highly unlikely there is any abuse going on. Except in the imaginations of certain types of people who always interpret male sexuality as abusive and always think women are passive victims.

If a guy is thinking, "lean in and kiss her" chances are the gal is thinking, "I hope he leans in and kisses me."

I realize that lots of feminists believe most heterosexual sex is at the least "rapey" especially when you are imagining the guy as a sexistmisogynistneckbeard or whatever the term of art is.

[–]misserzulie0 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy Link

Whatever TBP thinks, do you really not think any of the behaviour described by TRPers, when taken at face value, is abusive in any way? What would make you think something was abusive?

[–]jacks1000[S] 0 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

do you really not think any of the behaviour described by TRPers, when taken at face value, is abusive in any way?

Most of what I have read? No. So that "PUA" book that got banned said something like, "grab her hand and put in on your crotch" - in the context of, a man and a woman went home, made out, sat down on the bed, made out some more, then he took her hand and put it on his crotch.

The book was banned and article after article came out saying this book was advocating going around to random women in bars, grabbing their hands, and forcing them on your crotch. It was a purposeful and gross misrepresentation of the advice given, which was essentially, "lead the interaction."

I want a ruling on this one, feminists. If a woman I'm flirting with at a bar leans in and kisses me on the lips, without getting my enthusiastic verbal consent, is she a rapist, an abuser, or merely creepy?

If any attorneys think I could get some money out of suing her, contact me.

[–]suscitareMGTOW Red Pill Man0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

They call these women worthless, say they have low self esteem, that they are abused, brainwashed by the patriarchy, that they shouldn't really like those things.

And in this manner feminists seek to erase masculine/feminine dynamic and thus drive a wedge between working/middle class men and women. I claim feminism is a psy-op perpetrated by the ruling elites to alienate men and women from each other thereby make us all more easier to manipulate and exploit. Feminists are harming their own social class from which they issued.

[–]jacks1000[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There is certainly a class aspect to it. Second wave feminism was funded by elite economic interests, and the feminist movement today is in the midst of a civil war over race and class - see #solidarityisforwhitewomen and various recent debates.

Wealthy white career women may be able to "have it all" and can afford nannies. Working class women can't. So by devaluing the roles of husbands and wives, you have the hookup culture. Then, they complain that men like in TRP are "misogynists" that only seek women for sex. They removed the incentive for men to get married, thus undermining family forming in the working classes.

How much of it was purposeful, who know, but the economic interests were clearly aligned with demonizing wives and mothers and pressuring women into wage work.

Betty Friedman's second wave feminists were, in fact, bored housewives doing nothing and creating no value. So, feminists assume that all women sat around watching soaps and creating no value, and any value they created in their homes, for their families, didn't count, because it wasn't wage work.

I've seen feminists do this personally. I've seen them telling submissive women to keep it "just sex" and to not "submit" outside of the bedroom. It's kind of amazing.

Of course, a wealthy white woman going to a high protocol club is liberation. A working class Christian spanking his wife is abuse. What they object to is that the dominance and submission in a traditional marriage isn't "just" a kink - it's not "just" sex.

Often, it's love. Women who love their husbands will put his needs ahead of her own, and her family's needs ahead of her own. This is exactly what the feminists describe as "an abusive relationship." A traditional marriage. Because it's "not equal."

[–]suscitareMGTOW Red Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Right on.

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

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter