TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

What is the bare minimum a guy needs to have casual sex/a girlfriend in your part of the world?

Kerb_Poet

February 25, 2018
8 upvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate
Archived from /r/PurplePillDebate

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

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

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

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

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

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

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title What is the bare minimum a guy needs to have casual sex/a girlfriend in your part of the world?
Author

Kerb_Poet

Upvotes 8
Comments 188
Date February 25, 2018 2:19 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/804p4h/what_is_the_bare_minimum_a_guy_needs_to_have/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-is-the-bare-minimum-a-guy-needs-to-have.263465
https://theredarchive.com/post/263465
Top posts by Kerb_Poet

20% of unmarried 22-35 year old men and women are having 50-60% of the sex had by that age range.

43 upvotes
May 21, 2018
/r/PurplePillDebate

CMV-Men peaking in their early 30's is irrelevant given that the vast majority of quality women in their dating pool are now married, engaged, or in an LTR.

27 upvotes
December 20, 2017
/r/PurplePillDebate

CMV-Most single people are average looking

20 upvotes
May 5, 2017
/r/PurplePillDebate

What is the biggest drawback a man can have if he wants an active sex life?

18 upvotes
March 11, 2018
/r/PurplePillDebate

Between 1 in 8 and 1 in 6 26 year olds may be virgins, according to a British study. What does this say about the modern SMP?

18 upvotes
May 7, 2018
/r/PurplePillDebate

Q4 average and attractive people, what would you do if you woke up tomorrow as a 2/10?

11 upvotes
October 21, 2017
/r/PurplePillDebate

What are the best options for unattractive men?

7 upvotes
March 20, 2018
/r/PurplePillDebate

Do you think using escorts is overall better or worse for a guy's sex life

7 upvotes
May 21, 2017
/r/PurplePillDebate

Comments

[–]Ascimatorsmirks audibly18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

GF: be an average mildly outgoing guy.
Casual sex: nobody in my social groups brags about having it, but from what I can guess it's be outgoing, energetic and into party/arts scene.

[–]storffish6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

love art girls. smoke them out and they'll put out

[–]Dukes2166 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Went to some wack art club house party Saturday night because a close friend invited me, ended up talking to a girl who was a senior (I’m 19) told her I’d put my number in her phone and to text me if she wanted to smoke.

2 hours later she calls me and tells me she’s gonna pick me up, we take 4 gbs and bang. In and out in less than 2 hours. Easiest lay in awhile.

[–]dakruNeither15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

I think the most common barrier to getting a relationship for men isn't not being attractive enough, but rather an inability to make a move due to fear of rejection or general inexperience. Most generally normal men have a generally normal woman somewhere in his circle of friends or acquaintances who would date him. (It still makes sense to put effort into becoming more attractive, to increase the number and attractiveness of your options.)

Casual sex is a different story. If we're talking about being able to consistently have casual sex (rather than getting it every so often as a fluke) then noticeably above average looks, or average looks and noticeably above average charisma or social status.

[–]concacanca4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I'd agree on the passivity point. You miss 100% of shots you don't take after all.

Don't fool yourself into thinking looks don't matter almost as much though. As someone who's been probably a bit below average and grown into at least decent looks, the difference is palpable.

[–]dakruNeither4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

I agree that looks are important, I just think that fear of rejection (being unable to approach and make moves) is a more common limiting factor among the men who can't get girlfriends.

[–]concacanca3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I guess it's possible. The limiting factor in all this is cultivating leads to ask out in the first place though (asking women out indiscriminately is going to have a low success rate and be crippling to confidence). Looks, status and charisma are things that make that happen.

[–]the_calibre_cat5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The limiting factor in all this is cultivating leads to ask out in the first place though (asking women out indiscriminately is going to have a low success rate and be crippling to confidence).

This. You can't just go to a coffee shop and ask out the first hot, seemingly single girl you see. There has to be SOME context, otherwise you're on a one-way trip to "sir, I'm going to have to ask you to leave"-ville.

[–]mistercheeez-o____O-0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Overreacting to any curve balls she pitches your way, is a sure way to turn her off, no matter how attractive you all. Ladies hate a spaz lol.

[–]storffish1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

a lot of fear of rejection stems from a general discomfort in social situations too. if you're not a natural extrovert it's really tempting to just turn down that party invite where you don't really know anyone and you'll feel weird and just stay in for the night... but that guarantees that you won't meet anyone. girls, guy friends, guys with girlfriends who's friends would be interested, and on and on... the guy who forces himself out even though he feels weird is heads and shoulders ahead of the guys who stays on the couch

[–]KV-n1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Such introvert guy wouldnt even receive an invitation in the first place

[–]Maikowski2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

you are both right. Looks matter, especially if you do not have something else to show off. Though mere looks rarely are a deciding factor, unless you are hitting on teenage girls. I think charisma, being social is more valuable.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Having casual sex and having a GF are two different goals.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I would argue that a guy who can have casual sex definitely would be able to get a GF. If he's really into that GF is another matter.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Get a girlfriend maybe, keep her and have a happy healthy relationship is questionable.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Girlfriend: Having an ability to talk to women and having at least one trait that some woman somewhere is impressed by.

Casual Sex: The same as above plus having the luck of meeting a woman who doesn't have an issue with having casual sex.

[–]VAOTOMARNOCU 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

willingness to fuck women a couple points below their SMV and being outgoing/aggressive

[–]LewisCross 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Casual sex: Be better than average good looking. Have better than average game. Be willing to approach frequently. Even then, you will get casual sex only some of the time, unless he is very good looking or his game is tight, in which case he'll pull more often.

Girlfriend: Have a job. Be average looking. Have beginner competence in game.

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Depends. The minimum varies by race honestly (it's different if you're Asian looking for Asian girls in your college)

I would say: fun DGAF attitude, normal BMI at worst, not a midget, no acne/balding at 23/etc

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Skinny gf - be above a 6 in looks, have a job , be willing to go out and be social

Casual sex with same - similar, above a 7 in looks and know how to defeat the cockblock game from her fat friends

[–]the_calibre_cat4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

GF: be outgoing, approach women, don't be fat and have good hygiene, have money and some luck

Casual Sex: be outgoing, approach women, don't be fat and have good hygiene, have money and a lot of luck - be liberal, not conservative

[–]DarkLord0chinChin2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tall Chad

[–]reluctantly_red2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Interesting question. I'm on the west coast of the USA -- here's my take.

The following assumes a 1-9 looks scale normally distributed around a median of 5 (there are no 10s). Some pretty lame guys eventually get a GF but lets confine ourselves to guys that have a decent chance of having casual sex at least once every few months and/or finding a girlfriend within a year. Lets also assume that the guy is willing to drop down three points for casual sex (i.e. a guy who is a 7 is willing to have sex with a 4) but only two points for a girlfriend.

He's going to have to be at least average looking (i.e. at least a 5). He's going to have a visible means of support (i.e. a decent job) unless he's really young in which case being a full time student is OK. He needs his own place with his own room (your buddy's sofa won't cut it unless you're really good looking) -- a dorm room is OK if you're a student. He has to have a decent car unless he lives in San Francisco, Portland, or Seattle. Most women can't tell a cheap car from an expensive car so all that is really required is that the car be clean with no obvious defects. He has to be able to actually talk to his target audience -- so target a demographic or subgroup where an actual conversation is at least a possibility. Finally he has to have the balls to get off the sofa and get out there.

[–]AggressiveBetaRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Enough money to buy a crackwhore

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can only speak for myself, but I live in rural NY. Don't know anything about casual sex/ONS situations, but my partners are fun, confident in themselves, intelligent, have their own goals, are kind and empathetic towards others, egalitarian, and have good morals. Physically they are hygienic, slightly above average in looks (imo, obviously), have clear skin, nice natural scents, and good teeth.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Be in a band, or with the band (merch Guy, tour manager etc) or a well known promoter of shows. Tattoos a big plus. Correct musical taste (ok to have “guilty pleasures” on the DL, just don’t admit to them or make them known in any way).

[–]LooksMatterToWomen 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Girlfriend/Wife: Liberal physical attraction requirements. Typically, strict resources requirements.

Casual sex: VERY high physical attraction requirements. No resource requirements.

Genuine attraction: High physical requirements. Liberal resource requirements.

Many women value commitment/security more than attraction, which leads them into relationship with a guy they have little sexual attraction to, and that poses a serious problem. So many common issues can be traced back to settling, such as cheating, demanding/high-maintenance/testy/distant behavior, constant nagging, resentment, game playing, lack of affection, sexless relationships, etc. If she's not immediately physically attracted to the guy, that relationship WILL eventually turn volatile and prone to failure.

[–]Maikowski2 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

dick, hygiene and be talkative. That's it. I lacked two of those things.

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

GF: Talk to women around you and when the time feels right and energy is connecting right treat them to coffee or a drink or a show and go from there.

Casual Sex: be the outgoing suave guy in the group. You don’t even have to be the hottest guy. Just the guy who looks decently attractive but is excellent at nursing a spark when and if it appears.

But in both cases you need to be part of active social network of People or you yourself need to be outgoing.

Shy men who don’t have gregarious friend, preferably coed friend groups don’t have casual sex.

[–]TheVertex_ 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (146 children) | Copy Link

If you're in college and you're looking to hook up, this is determined exclusively by looks. Personality is irrelevant. Chad can go to a party, find a girl he likes, slap her ass and she'll bit sitting on his dick in at most an hour.

If you're looking for a relationship, then personality matters, but it doesn't matter in the way you think it matters, or in the way that women say it matters. Do not be a nice guy. Do not even try to be a good guy. Women might settle for the nice guys after riding the CC, but they do not desire the nice guy sexually, and this lack of sexual desire severely strains relationships. An attractive personality is not a virtuous personality, and if you want to get a serious girlfriend and you possess merely average looks, then you need to have an attractive personality. You need to be dominant, bold and cunning. Being an asshole is, generally, highly attractive, but not virtuous obviously. There is a reason high school bullies routinely got laid. Women have no moral inhibitions when it comes to dating. Hell, Ted Bundy got hundreds of love letters.

Financial stability helps, but money cannot make her love you. It can only make her love your money, and when that money is gone or you're dealing with financial hardship, the relationship crumbles. A woman's love for a betabux is conditional on financial support. Women can only unconditionally love Chad. That said, if you're looking for short-term flings, wealth is extremely helpful and can compensate for your other shortcomings.

All of this may be contrasted with what women are expected to bring. 5 years ago I would have said that the bare minimum for a woman is that she's not a landwhale, but today I cannot even say that. Gynocentrism dictates that women aren't expected to bring anything meaningful to the table, but are entitled to men from whom they can extract financial, emotional and temporal resources. This is the world we live in, so just make the best of it.

[–]Altrightsjwfusion 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

All of this may be contrasted with what women are expected to bring. 5 years ago I would have said that the bare minimum for a woman is that she's not a landwhale, but today I cannot even say that. Gynocentrism dictates that women aren't expected to bring anything meaningful to the table, but are entitled to men from whom they can extract financial, emotional and temporal resources. This is the world we live in, so just make the best of it.

Expected by who? The guys who will still have her even if she brings nothing to the table ?

[–]TheVertex_ 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

The guys who will still have her even if she brings nothing to the table ?

She brings nothing to the table except her looks. But her looks are a depreciating asset, and, moreover, they do not reflect an actual aptitude or accomplishment. Women can't actually do anything. The hole between their legs grants them everything they desire.

[–]Altrightsjwfusion 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

If she brings nothing to the table except for her looks, then you should probably reject her.

[–]TheVertex_ -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

That's all women, though. They bring nothing to the table except looks.

[–]Altrightsjwfusion 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok, I'll humor this. What would you define as something they could have brought to the table, which they don't?

[–]Ixodia 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have no words. You must have been raised by a pretty shitty mother.

[–]TheVertex_ -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

The point is true, though. Men don't need women in this world (except for reproduction). But women need men. They need men for everything. You are nothing without us.

[–]Ixodia5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My mother never 'needed' a man - she was an independent working woman who supported her disabled father, stay-at-home mother, and several siblings before she ever married my dad. I don't 'need' a man - I'm receiving an excellent education in a very practical field which will enable me to be relatively successful in life if I work hard enough at it. Same goes for many of my female cousins, who're all doctors, engineers, and in other STEM fields.

I like to think neither men nor women 'need' each other, but they're happiest when they get along and satisfy each other's 'wants.'

[–]kandyapplezslow down lil baby you going pacino1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Men are 10x more obsessed with women than vice versa, and young women in the west are outperforming men on almost every metric, so soon even your utility as a provider will be obsolete.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFM1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are outperforming men in the educational system. However, I think one of the reasons they're doing it, is that long university educations are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

[–]TheVertex_ 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

young women in the west are outperforming men on almost every metric

Which metric? Look at the tech companies. Look at the state of the art research that's done in any field (lesbian dance theory doesn't count). Look at who wins Nobel Prizes. Look at who succeeds in all intellectual endeavours (Chess is my favourite example. Chess professionals have a separate category called "woman grandmaster" for women who aren't strong enough to become actual grandmasters).

It's men. It's all men. Every brick is there because a man put it there. The source code of whatever web browser you're reading this on was written by a man. Men put other men on the fucking moon.

To repeat: women are holes. Nothing more.

Men are 10x more obsessed with women than vice versa

True, but that's just a man's sexual needs. A compulsive need to cum inside the slut's crevice. My point is that a woman has nothing else to offer the world.

[–]kandyapplezslow down lil baby you going pacino2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not talking about the collective of men, I'm talking about individual men. If anything the collective of men's talents and skills is what has rendered individual men virtually useless to girls. We don't need you for anything because of the hard work of men who are smarter than you, better than you, and more talented than you. Men have really shot themselves in the foot in that regard.

Like, you're really sitting here bragging about all the things that men who are better than you accomplished so that we as women can sit back, subsist, and reap the benefits while not needing a man for anything. Men certainly put men on the moon, but who have you put on the moon? No one.

[–]Altrightsjwfusion 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

The point is true, though. Men don't need women in this world (except for reproduction). But women need men. They need men for everything. You are nothing without us.

I'll ask again: What could they bring to the table, which they don't?

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

The ability to have an insightful discussion about a non-superficial topic. Conversational skills which extend beyond gossip and complaining. Better jobs (some women have good jobs, but this is never a requirement). The ability to do trivial household tasks (e.g., something like killing a spider, which some woman are scared of doing, as well as, of course, cooking and cleaning). Humour. Being exciting in bed (e.g., being open to anal). Cleaning up after herself. Not being an excessive financial burden ("buy me this, buy me that").

And a certain degree of modesty would be nice as well. If you're in a relationship, why do you feel the need to expose your body to the public? Why do grown ass women well out of high school feel the need to wear skirts and short-shorts? It's slutty. It's degenerate. I don't want other men looking at my woman.

[–]Altrightsjwfusion 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The ability to have an insightful discussion about a non-superficial topic.

So absolutely no women bring this to the table? Not even Angela Merkel, Elizabeth Warren, SciBabe, Christina Hoff Sommers or hell - Cassie Jay? Not even Lindsay Shepherd has nothing interesting to say?

Better jobs (some women have good jobs, but this is never a requirement).

Wait wait wait. You literally said

That's all women, though. They bring nothing to the table except looks.

But now you're saying some women have what you're looking for. So which one is it? This applies to all your points. Obviously you're not saying no woman every brings any of this to the table. So you have to admit that you're wrong in saying no women bring anything to the table except for their looks.

And bonus:

And a certain degree of modesty would be nice as well. If you're in a relationship, why do you feel the need to expose your body to the public? Why do grown ass women well out of high school feel the need to wear skirts and short-shorts? It's slutty. It's degenerate. I don't want other men looking at my woman.

There's lots of guys who agree with you there

[–]TheVertex_1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So absolutely no women bring this to the table? Not even Angela Merkel, Elizabeth Warren, SciBabe, Christina Hoff Sommers or hell - Cassie Jay? Not even Lindsay Shepherd has nothing interesting to say?

The exception always proves the rule. The point isn't that women are not absolutely incapable of insightful interaction. The point is that a ridiculously large proportion of them are not, and the proportion of them that are not dwarfs the proportion of men that are not.

Yes, I'm stereotyping. I will freely admit that. Frankly, I don't care, because in the dating world taking gambles (NAWALT mentality) is not worth it. Neither do I have a double standard here. If you want to stereotype men as, say, violent, go right ahead. But here's the thing: there is much more variance among men than there is among women. This is true in nearly every category. Physical strength. Height. Weight. Intelligence.

But now you're saying some women have what you're looking for. So which one is it? This applies to all your points. Obviously you're not saying no woman every brings any of this to the table. So you have to admit that you're wrong in saying no women bring anything to the table except for their looks.

Yes, some women have good jobs. However, women date men who are financially better off than they are. It is never in the financial interest of a man to get into a long term relationship with a woman, even a wealthy one. The man never leeches off the resources of the woman. It is the other way around. In other words, even if the woman has a good job, the man does not concretely benefit from this. Hence it is not exactly bringing anything to the table.

There's lots of guys who agree with you there

A mere call for modesty does not make me the equivalent of an Islamic fundamentalist. I'm not going to bother responding to something so asinine.

[–]Altrightsjwfusion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The exception always proves the rule. The point isn't that women are not absolutely incapable of insightful interaction. The point is that a ridiculously large proportion of them are not

And what do you base this on? Personal experience?

Yes, some women have good jobs. However, women date men who are financially better off than they are. It is never in the financial interest of a man to get into a long term relationship with a woman, even a wealthy one. The man never leeches off the resources of the woman. It is the other way around. In other words, even if the woman has a good job, the man does not concretely benefit from this. Hence it is not exactly bringing anything to the table.

Ok first off - if you allow a woman to leech of you, that's on you. Secondly - in a LTR, you do benefit from the other part having resources even if you can't leech off of them. You can buy much nicer things together - such as an apartment, a good vacation, a nice car etc.

And thirdly - it's really weird how you first claim no women have any capacity to interact with insight and then you claim the entire point of having an interesting/cool job is money.

If someone has a cool job, that is a testament to their intellect and interests. That means your interactions with them will be more meaningful.

A mere call for modesty does not make me the equivalent of an Islamic fundamentalist. I'm not going to bother responding to something so asinine.

Did not a wise man once say:

Yes, I'm stereotyping. I will freely admit that.

[–]TheVertex_1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And what do you base this on? Personal experience?

Basically, yes.

Ok first off - if you allow a woman to leech of you, that's on you

No, it's on society for suggesting that's to be the norm.

Secondly - in a LTR, you do benefit from the other part having resources even if you can't leech off of them.

Hypergamy. A man remains in the same financial class after getting in an LTR. A female doctor does not marry a male nurse, but male doctors might marry female nurses. You're picking at straws here. Any standard of living a man could obtain in a relationship, he could obtain outside of one. One also needs to factor in the risk of alimony and child support, as well as the potential lack of productivity an LTR can result in.

And thirdly - it's really weird how you first claim no women have any

No, you idiot. Here's what I said.

The point isn't that women are not absolutely incapable of insightful interaction. The point is that a ridiculously large proportion of them are not, and the proportion of them that are not dwarfs the proportion of men that are not.

I actually had the "ridiculously large proportion part" boldened for you. That's not all women.

If someone has a cool job, that is a testament to their intellect and interests

Yes, but a good job isn't a cool job, necessarily. We're talking about "good jobs" here, and "good job", in common parlance, refers to a job that pays well and isn't particularly labour intensive.

Many jobs are well-paying, but are drab and essentially cookie-cutter in nature. And the women in these jobs are never exceptional or outstanding. They are mediocre.

Yes, there are female doctors. Yes, there are female lawyers. Are there any truly groundbreaking or remarkable female doctors or lawyer? In general, no. Of course, there's exceptions, but what I'm looking at here is a very strong correlation between maleness and exceptional talent, not an absolute one.

Did not a wise man once say: Yes, I'm stereotyping. I will freely admit that.

Female modesty isn't something that Muslims exclusively call for by any stretch.

[–]Altrightsjwfusion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Basically, yes.

What's the common denominator in every interaction you've had with a woman?

No, it's on society for suggesting that's to be the norm.

In the 50s maybe. Right now women are encouraged to make their own money and be independent. You know this.

Hypergamy. A man remains in the same financial class after getting in an LTR. A female doctor does not marry a male nurse, but male doctors might marry female nurses.

It happens but yes, statistically it is rare that women marry down socioeconomically.

You're picking at straws here. Any standard of living a man could obtain in a relationship, he could obtain outside of one.

Right. So if you marry a woman that has a yearly income of 100k, and you have the same, somehow you can afford the same things that you could with only one income? Sharing things is cheaper than buying it on your own. A hotel room for two is not double the price of a hotel room for one. Again, this is something you obviously realize if you think about it.

I actually had the "ridiculously large proportion part" boldened for you. That's not all women.

Ok, I misquoted you then.

Yes, there are female doctors. Yes, there are female lawyers. Are there any truly groundbreaking or remarkable female doctors or lawyer? In general, no. Of course, there's exceptions, but what I'm looking at here is a very strong correlation between maleness and exceptional talent, not an absolute one.

Most exceptional people in any field are male, that's true. But how is this relevant to you, me, or anyone on this forum? None of us offer anything that would make us interesting to the female version of steve jobs. Are you really saying that unless she's truly exceptional, she has nothing to bring to the table? If you are, you have ridiculous standards.

Female modesty isn't something that Muslims exclusively call for by any stretch.

What other social groups actively enforce covering up their women - as you mentioned earlier?

[–]TheVertex_1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In the 50s maybe. Right now women are encouraged to make their own money and be independent. You know this.

I guess that's true, but they're not discouraged from leeching off a man either. Women truly have a choice here. If they don't want to work, they don't have to. A career is purely optional. For men, it is a necessity.

Right. So if you marry a woman that has a yearly income of 100k, and you have the same, somehow you can afford the same things that you could with only one income? Sharing things is cheaper than buying it on your own. A hotel room for two is not double the price of a hotel room for one. Again, this is something you obviously realize if you think about it.

Yes, but the corresponding risk increases as well. For instance, child support and alimony, as mentioned earlier. In addition, expenditures will increase. Women tend to shop more than men. She might have further demands as well. She'll want to use your money to pay off her student loans, for instance.

Overall, it is not ever financially savvy for a man to get into a relationship. This is obvious to most men who've been in relationships. In practice, they end up poorer than they would have been otherwise.

Most exceptional people in any field are male, that's true. But how is this relevant to you, me, or anyone on this forum? None of us offer anything that would make us interesting to the female version of steve jobs. Are you really saying that unless she's truly exceptional, she has nothing to bring to the table? If you are, you have ridiculous standards.

There are some teenagers that are extraordinarily brilliant, and smarter than the vast majority of adults. Yet we seem to take no offence to the statement: "teenagers are immature and typically cannot engage in insightful conversation", because we know that in practice it is a true statement. Replace "teenagers" with "women", and people seem to get upset.

What other social groups actively enforce covering up their women - as you mentioned earlier?

Covering up not in the sense of the burqa. The face is fine. Excessively showing off your body, on the other hand, has clear sexual intent. We do not need this in the workplace.

Traditionalist conservatives share this view. It is not unique to Islam. You can also make a secular case for it.

[–]Altrightsjwfusion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I guess that's true, but they're not discouraged from leeching off a man either. Women truly have a choice here. If they don't want to work, they don't have to. A career is purely optional. For men, it is a necessity.

Yep, they can choose to find a man to leech off. But a lot of women also choose not to. Which means - you can safely avoid women who want to leech off you.

Yes, but the corresponding risk increases as well. For instance, child support and alimony, as mentioned earlier. In addition, expenditures will increase. Women tend to shop more than men.

Don't marry then. Alimony laws are bizarre. If she demands to use your money for shopping, you can dump her.

She might have further demands as well. She'll want to use your money to pay off her student loans, for instance.

Dump her.

Overall, it is not ever financially savvy for a man to get into a relationship. This is obvious to most men who've been in relationships. In practice, they end up poorer than they would have been otherwise.

I don't know any men who fall into this category. I'm Norwegian though, so maybe our more egalitarian culture affects this.

But in any case - if you end up poor, it's because you choose to do so. You choose to spend money on her.

If I got into a relationship right now with a woman who moved in, here's how it would affect my economical situation:

  1. I'd gain additional income - she'd pay rent to live in my apartment (which I own). Additionally, we'd eventually buy something together. Living standards would rise.
  2. Travelling expenses would become lower - sharing makes everything cheaper.
  3. I'd save money on anything from netflix to food - everything becomes cheaper when you share.

There are some teenagers that are extraordinarily brilliant, and smarter than the vast majority of adults. Yet we seem to take no offence to the statement: "teenagers are immature and typically cannot engage in insightful conversation", because we know that in practice it is a true statement. Replace "teenagers" with "women", and people seem to get upset.

You're moving the goalposts. You said the vast majority of women(or something like that) have nothing significant to offer in a conversation, and used the example that there are few women at the top to prove this. The example of teenagers is irrelevant, because there are tons of women who do interesting things in their lives. Women outnumber men in fields such as medicine, psychology, law, and political science (IIRC). If you think none of those fields are interesting, maybe you're the boring one?

Covering up not in the sense of the burqa. The face is fine. Excessively showing off your body, on the other hand, has clear sexual intent. We do not need this in the workplace.

You didn't originally talk about the workplace though. You talked about "your girl" showing off her skin to other men.

Traditionalist white, male Christian conservatives share this view. It is not unique to Islam. You can also make a secular case for it.

Conservative religious types yes. I don't think there's a secular case for saying women shouldn't be allowed to dress revealingly in public if they want to.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck dude move out of wherever you are because there are plenty women that do all of those things. Haha. If you are not meeting them you need to go out more. Or further to a different city.

And a certain degree of modesty would be nice as well. If you're in a relationship, why do you feel the need to expose your body to the public? Why do grown ass women well out of high school feel the need to wear skirts and short-shorts? It's slutty. It's degenerate. I don't want other men looking at my woman.

aahhh one of those weird ones. Possessive and controlling.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (101 children) | Copy Link

An attractive personality is not a virtuous personality, and if you want to get a serious girlfriend and you possess merely average looks, then you need to have an attractive personality

this is a really important point. i cant understand how weird nerds and incels translate "good personality" into moral, upstanding, righteous teetotalling "nice guy"

[–]Ascimatorsmirks audibly10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I, for one, can't understand how lookist blackpillers translate "not a literal white knight" into "dark triad serial killer".

You can be attractive and not a violent psychotic thug who eats puppies for dinner.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ugh I know.

[–]TheVertex_ 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"Ugh" lmao such a Becky thing to say

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Did you think that was an insult? I used “Becky” in my flair lol.

[–]ffbtawPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ugh, that guy is so gross.

[–]TheVertex_ -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. You can be good-looking. In which case your personality is irrelevant. Otherwise, to some degree or another, you have to be evil. Women love sociopaths.

[–]TheVertex_ 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago* (92 children) | Copy Link

i cant understand how weird nerds and incels translate "good personality" into moral, upstanding, righteous teetotalling "nice guy"

It's because that is a good personality. A "good" personality inherently means a moral, upstanding, righteous one. Not necessarily teetotalling, but I mean abstinence from alcohol can't hurt.

But good ≠ attractive. In fact, in many cases, good = unattractive

Women tell these men: "You're a really nice guy, but you're just not my type. I'm sure you'll find someone". They're never quite explicitly told what their deficiency is, so the nice guy is left confused. He is scratching his head.

"I respect women, I follow the law, I have interesting hobbies, I pay for dates, and I even make the occasional witty joke which makes her laugh. What am I missing, and why doesn't she want me?"

Slowly, the confusion turns to bitterness, and the bitterness to resentment. They take black pill rather than the red pill.

One of the hardest pills to swallow is that abrogating your moral principles is a route to success in the dating world. That female sexual strategy is rooted in primal desires shaped by years of evolution. It is entirely amoral.

[–]dakruNeither8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

"Good" inherently means moral, upstanding, righteous.

It can also mean effective, skilled, desirable, or high quality. Think of a good swimmer, a good writer, a good musician, or even good looks.

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

In the context of a "good personality", this is not the case. The goodness of an individual's personality is inherently related to one's ethical values. One cannot argue that a serial killer has a good personality, for instance, regardless of how charming and charismatic he seems.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The goodness of an individual's personality is inherently related to one's ethical values.

Says who?

[–]TheVertex_ -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Says common sense. People would typically say that men like Gandhi or MLK had good personalities, whereas men like Hitler had shit personalities.

If you disagree, provide your own prospective definition of a "good personality".

[–]decoy88Black Male in London1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

So when people say "she looks good" they're saying "she looks virtuous"??

[–]TheVertex_ -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No, because the verb "looks" clearly implies that it is the woman's physical appearance being referred to. And using the adjective "virtuous" to describe a person's physical appearance is nonsensical.

Replace "looks" with "is" in your sentence. "She is good". This is essentially equivalent to "[she] is virtuous", except "virtuous" slightly more explicitly highlights the moral aspects of her character.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Hahahaha what bullshit. You need to learn more about english language and its use.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

He's either a really good troll or a really deluded incel.

[–]decoy881 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Like anyone can tell these days. People just wanna win arguments they don't care what its about or why.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Pretty much just described this whole subreddit tbh haha.

https://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

"Good" inherently means moral, upstanding, righteous. Not necessarily teetotalling, but I mean abstinence from alcohol can't hurt.

no, good doesnt always mean that. thats the weird relationship to english words a lot of spergs, nerds and foreigners have. good in this context doesnt mean "moral". does "good" taste in art? mean moral taste? does "that feels good" mean that feels virtuous?

"good" in the interpersonal relations context means "good for the purposes of social success" and "all the traits associated with social success"--being funny, outgoing, "cool", culturaly hip, occasionally aggressive, assertive etc

[–]TheVertex_ 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

thats the weird relationship to english words a lot of spergs, nerds and foreigners have

Why are you insulting people with Asperger's syndrome? Bullying mentally ill people is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. And why are you insulting nerds? What's wrong with being a nerd? Are you a bully? Are you in high school? You certainly don't seem like an adult.

"good" in the interpersonal relations context means "good for the purposes of social success" and "all the traits associated with social success"--being funny, outgoing, "cool", culturaly hip, occasionally aggressive, assertive etc

Okay, but then that's a serious ambiguity. When you talk about good art, it is clear from that context that it's not "moral" art. Art is not moral. However, when referring to personality, it's not as clear. For instance, one could make the case that Hitler was "good" in an interpersonal relations context given his remarkable charismatic and persuasive ability. However, the statement "Hitler was a good person" or "Hitler has a good personality" is obviously ridiculous to the ear, because when you're weighing whether or not someone (or their personality) is good, typically you take into consideration whether or not that person's behaviour is ethical.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

is english your first language?

the part your missing is theres an unspoken "for" or "if" after "good" in most contexts

hitler had a "good personality [for becoming a popular dictator]"

sometimes good means "the correct X to achieve Y"

"thats a 'good' socket wrench IF you want to build THIS kind of thing"

[–]TheVertex_ 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes. Is it yours? Your grammar is shit, and you wantonly use derogatory colloquialisms like "sperg" in a serious conversation. You seem to be projecting.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

so you have grown to adulthood without understanding the nuances of the word "good" in your own native language? i didnt mean it as an insult, i was genuinely asking, lots of users here are ESL

trying to bullshit me with emotional shamey shamey about sperg bullying is a fool's errand, i dont give a fuck

[–]TheVertex_ 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

so you have grown to adulthood without understanding the nuances of the word "good" in your own native language?

Sorry, your denseness is ridiculous. You're the one who doesn't know what "good" means. The thing with English is that often times, there's exceptions to the exceptions. Yes, you can good in non-moral contexts, but in reference to a person's personality, you really can't. You don't seem to understand that, and think you can use "good" in any way you like in whatever context you like, which simply is not the case.

I think this is just an extreme case of projection. Were you fucked up in the ass by your dad when you were a kid? Or are you a failed abortion? Hard to tell, really.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

good

ɡo͝od/Submit

adjective

1.

to be desired or approved of.

"we live at peace with each other, which is good"

synonyms: healthy, fine, sound, tip-top, hale and hearty, fit, .robust, sturdy, strong, vigorous More

2.

having the qualities required for a particular role.

"the schools here are good"

synonyms: fine, superior, quality; More

noun

1.

that which is morally right; righteousness.

"a mysterious balance of good and evil"

synonyms: virtue, righteousness, goodness, morality, integrity, rectitude; More

2.

benefit or advantage to someone or something.

"he convinces his father to use his genius for the good of mankind"

synonyms: benefit, advantage, profit, gain, interest, welfare, well-being; More

[–]RepresentativeData0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm a native english speaker, and I challenge you to go tell people Hitler had a good personality. Leave the "for" or "if" implied like you said.

I'm also from the camp that thought "good personality" meant "kind personality". I didn't necessarily think it meant moral, but I thought it meant witty, charming, and kind. I didn't know that assertiveness, aggressiveness, and dominance were implied in that. That's certainly not a spergy move on my part is it? I still understood that good was "good for relationships" but I never thought or was told that dominance was a positive personality trait.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

he obviously had a "good personality", he got millions of germans to agree, follow and make him their leader and then followed him to war. he was adored. "hitler" isnt some magic buzzword. why wouldnt germans have loved him?

[–]RepresentativeData0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, it's something I've realized that sometimes it's not about what you say, but the confidence with which you say it that convinces others.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

of course

[–]M23W0OH7FV2tex-Red Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Maybe you should be clearer in your diction? Try this:

I meant "good" in the sense of "suitable for"... [Hitler example, replacing good with suitable for]

Hope that helps you to learn to debate properly.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

yeh, the problem in this thread is me not being clear, not the lunatic who was only cognizant of one definition for the word good, went insane upon being argued with and had to have his nutbar comments removed

[–]M23W0OH7FV2tex-Red Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

There is never "the problem". Fault lies on all sides of a situation. Acknowledging that one can do better without resorting to calling people "lunatic" is a good start.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

did you see the lunatics removed comments? its apt

[–]M23W0OH7FV2t1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I only see your comments attacking others on this thread.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Asking someone if English is your first language is not an attack. I did not attack that person they attacked me in multiple remove comment because I reported their personal attack and they were crazy. That's what happened you're just budding into it

[–]M23W0OH7FV2t1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Asking someone if English is your first language is not an attack.

Actually, it may be, depending on how it is worded. But assuming you know that...

multiple remove comment

That's the thing -- I can't see removed comments, only the ones that are visible.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You can see that they were removed by the mod's

[–]M23W0OH7FV2t1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, I see that, I don't know why, nor do I know what they said. I only have your reaction to go by and mine would have been rather different.

[–]SkookumTreeWe are DONE with "cope"3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Chucking your moral compass out the window does not make you more attractive. Attractiveness and moral virtue are not very strongly correlated.

[–]RepresentativeData1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If your moral compass is stopping you from making moves in the first place, then tossing out your old one or getting a new one would certainly help. I think this is the case for some TRPers.

[–]SkookumTreeWe are DONE with "cope"0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

True, but being amoral and sociopathic isn't the magic bullet for attractiveness.

[–]Reed_49830 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A moral compass can be an attractive trait though - at least it is to me. I really liked this statement:

The problem with this belief is that it ignores the fact that morality has value in the transaction.

Hooking up with someone who displays a strong moral character means you have a dependable parent for your offspring. They are less likely to cheat on you, they are less likely to hurt you and they are more likely to do well by the children. They're also probably going to be more popular in the tribe. People like other people who are nice. It also implies they are generally healthy, happy and have an abundance of resources. You can only really afford to be nice when you aren't desperate.

[–]wekacuckstupid buggy bot2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Even while disagreeing that the word 'good' in this context even means 'moral'... which morals need to be abrogated? The only ones I can think of being problematic are puritan-style religious bullshit.

[–]TheVertex_ 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

Oh, that's simple. One such moral is telling the truth. Don't. You should lie to get laid.

Another moral is treating women with excessive respect and empathy. No, treat her like a firm parent would treat a disobedient child. Be assertive, but not over the top. Be cold. Do not show emotion. Do not be her emotional tampon; she has beta-orbiters for that. If she's into you, slap her ass. Then she'll want you more.

It is important to do these things within reason. It takes practice.

[–]madscientistlove 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh, that's simple. One such moral is telling the truth. Don't. You should lie to get laid.

Nah. Morals aren't sexually attractive, but they have value in and of themselves. I disagree that sexual strategy is amoral when applied to real life.

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

but they have value in and of themselves

No, they don't. If you treat a women ethically, you're mocked as a nice guy. It's pathetic and parasitic, and debases your masculinity.

Treat her like a whore, and she will be your whore. Don't worry about ethics.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

There are many men who are successful with women who "treat a woman ethically", depending upon what you mean by that. Most women aren't with raging assholes who treat them like shit.

[–]TheVertex_ 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Most women aren't with raging assholes who treat them like shit.

True, some are with betabuxes.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And plenty are with normal men they are attracted to who do not treat them like shit.

[–]TheVertex_1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, that's unlikely. There's certainly different degrees to which a Chad may treat his bitch like shit, but the bitch is still ultimately treated like shit. If you treat a woman well, her pussy gets as dry as the sahara. They love being abused.

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I disagree.

[–]madscientistlove1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Don't worry about ethics.

No. Some people actually value being moral, upstanding people of good character. I don't believe that getting laid through any means necessary is an acceptable goal.

[–]Altrightsjwfusion 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

It is important to do these things within reason. It takes practice.

Oh really? So this is working out for you?

Did you start lying, treating women like disobedient children, being cold, not showing emotion, slapping asses?

I bet you're getting laid like a rockstar now huh.

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

No. I'm fat. That's a problem independent of my personality, though.

[–]Altrightsjwfusion 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So don't you think that maybe, just maybe... Being fat is what causes you not to succeed with women? And not all that other ridiculous stuff?

There's one thing TRP and the Incel guys are right about, and it's the fact that looks are extremely important to women. Getting into shape, getting a cool haircut, fixing up your skin, teeth etc - it makes an extreme difference.

[–]TheVertex_ 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So don't you think that maybe, just maybe... Being fat is what causes you not to succeed with women? And not all that other ridiculous stuff?

Yes. Duh. I'm not talking about myself per se. This is a more general discussion.

it's the fact that looks are extremely important to women

Yes, of course. Personality matters most when you have average looks (I noted this in my original comment).

[–]Altrightsjwfusion 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Ok, this is pretty confusing. You're not having any success, and you're framing this as a "general discussion". Yet you say things like:

It is important to do these things within reason. It takes practice.

Which suggests that you have some sort of experience with it succeeding. Which you don't.

This is the biggest problem with PUA/TRP//whatever. Mental masturbation. Tons of guys sitting around, creating some sort of imaginary dreamland with imaginary rules - none of it rooted in any sort of established science on what attracts women.

The main purpose of this imaginary world is to create some sort of feeling of hope. When you create a world where you have some sort of control over the outcome, you're able to visualize how you can succeed if you only do action A or B. This tricks your brain into rewarding you even though you've achieved nothing.

[–]TheVertex_1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ok, this is pretty confusing. You're not having any success, and you're framing this as a "general discussion". Yet you say things like:

Sorry, you literally don't know me. The only thing you know about me is that I'm fat. Have I told you how old I am? Perhaps I'm 40 who used to game women in my twenties.

The main purpose of this imaginary world is to create some sort of feeling of hope. When you create a world where you have some sort of control over the outcome, you're able to visualize how you can succeed if you only do action A or B. This tricks your brain into rewarding you even though you've achieved nothing.

This is just a non-argument. TRP has been tried and tested by hundreds of guys. The subreddit has thousands of subscribers. Why do you think it's so popular in the first place? Why are there so many success story posts on the subreddit? What, are they all lying about their real life experiences? Are they all, in your mind, closeted neckbeards conjuring up a hypothetical universe to make themselves feel better?

If you want to delude yourself into thinking this is the case, you can go right ahead, but that would certainly preclude any dialogue.

[–]Altrightsjwfusion2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sorry, you literally don't know me. The only thing you know about me is that I'm fat. Have I told you how old I am? Perhaps I'm 40 who used to game women in my twenties.

I'm making some educated guesses. Sure, I might be wrong.. But you remember that scene from 40 year old virgin? Bags of sand?

This is just a non-argument. TRP, for that matter, has been tried and tested by thousands of guys. Why do you think it's so popular in the first place?

It's not really popular at all compared to how popular different PUA methods used to be. And TRP is basically watered down PUA bordering on incel/mgtow material. You'll find tons of subs on reddit filled with SJW nonsense, I'm pretty sure you won't argue that they have some sort of legitimacy because many people follow them.

Why are there so many success story posts on the subreddit?

If you're out of shape and dress like shit and have little luck with women and I tell you to get in shape, start dressing better and also you need to yell "Cucoo!" every time you get a boner, what do you think the reason you're getting laid is?

Are they all, in your mind, closeted neckbeards conjuring up a hypothetical universe to make themselves feel better?

Closeted neckbeards? Wouldn't say that. My guess is that lots of guys are early 20s guys who are frustrated with their results with women and get very excited at the possibility of becoming huge players. A good chunk of them will not apply anything at all, they will just write about it and talk to friends about it. Some will make a positive change in their life merely by focusing on self-improvement and not being doormats. Others will actually apply all of the advice they read and become very eccentric.

Then you have the last type of men, who often become the leaders of these types of communities. They over analyze everything and are somewhat charismatic and energetic. They will succeed with women from time to time, yet they will also write crazy long essays where they microanalyze some aspect of social interaction and how this fits into their TRP framework of the world. They write and talk as if they're huge players, but they're mostly just average guys getting lucky once in a while.

If you want to delude yourself into thinking this is the case, you can go right ahead, but that would preclude any dialogue.

I'm not into accusing anyone of lying. If someone says he's getting laid, great! I believe that. Getting laid isn't a huge feat. I will however, challenge the worldview that he holds even if he thinks TRP behavior is working for him.

[–]Ixodia 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, so by your own admission you're fat, and sexually unsuccessful. Perhaps an incel. And you have the nerve to come up with trite little pieces of advice for other men like

Another moral is treating women with excessive respect and empathy. No, treat her like a firm parent would treat a disobedient child. Be assertive, but not over the top. Be cold. Do not show emotion. Do not be her emotional tampon; she has beta-orbiters for that. If she's into you, slap her ass. Then she'll want you more.

Treat her like a whore, and she will be your whore. Don't worry about ethics.

as though they were God given truths, and not the nebulous little suppositions of a resentful and sexually frustrated individual?

[–]TheVertex_ 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is an ad hominem attack. You are attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. Just like astronomers can study Jupiter without visiting it, I could, in principle, study female hypergamy without dicking a new slut every night. That said, perhaps I’m an oveweight 60 year old who hasn’t fucked in 20 years, but I used to be a Chad in my youth. Can’t really tell, can you? Your prejudice is really showing.

[–]Ixodia1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If some uneducated bum who's never been to college suddenly came up to me and claimed that he's proved P = NP, would I be wrong to be skeptical? Sure, there's a slim possibility that maaaybe the man or woman is a genius who toiled away in academic obscurity, but how likely is this? There are grounds to doubt his/her credibility.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

being cold, not showing emotion

I mean to be fair I'm like this naturally and certain women seem oddly attracted to it for some reason.

[–]Altrightsjwfusion 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I mean to be fair I'm like this naturally and certain women seem oddly attracted to it for some reason.

You're being yourself. If some guy who is naturally warm and empathic tries to act like this, he'll just come off as off putting.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It depends on how he goes about it, if it's obvious he's putting on an act I agree, but people adapt to new personas all the time throughout their lives.

[–]Reed_49830 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And others are not. Others are more attracted to less cold men.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol replying to a 2 month old comment.

This was however already implied in my post: "certain women seem oddly attracted to it" - my claim was never that others were not attracted to something different.

[–]Reed_49830 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just wanted to add that I agree that it's a certain subset of women.

[–]wekacuckstupid buggy bot2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

One such moral is telling the truth. Don't. You should lie to get laid.

This is fairly hyperbolic, you're certainly not saying that literally everything needs to be a lie. What sort of lies should be used?

Another moral is treating women with excessive respect and empathy.

It's not moral to devalue yourself by placing women on pedestals. It's immoral to hold peers to higher standards than you hold yourself.

No, treat her like a firm parent would treat a disobedient child.

It is not immoral to have standards and use discipline.

Be assertive, but not over the top. Be cold. Do not show emotion.

I don't see the moral relevance to these. They concern your own behavior and any harm is self-inflicted. If a woman is unsatisfied with the amount you are sharing it's up to her to request more or seek a different relationship. Ideally people handle more and more of their own problems independently.

But you also shouldn't allow yourself to suffer unreasonably. Companionship is something many people seek from each other in relationships. If the source of misery is your partner you can have standards, establish boundaries and enforce them, or end the relationship. This is moral behavior.

Do not be her emotional tampon; she has beta-orbiters for that.

Being an 'emotional tampon' is not moral behavior. It devalues your self and your time. If you feel used you should have standards and enforce them.

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

This is fairly hyperbolic, you're certainly not saying that literally everything needs to be a lie. What sort of lies should be used?

You can lie about your wealth and status, for instance.

It's not moral to devalue yourself by placing women on pedestals. It's immoral to hold peers to higher standards than you hold yourself.

If you're a normal, upstanding citizen, how do you treat others? You treat them with a certain level of kindness. You say "please" and "thank you". If you're walking into a building and someone is behind you, you keep the door open for them. You interact with them cordially. You don't wrong them, you don't harass them, you remain honest with them.

These things are good. These things are moral. These things are hallmarks of what makes a person with effective interpersonal skills. But they do not get you laid. In fact, they might be detrimental.

That is the point I'm getting across.

I don't see the moral relevance to these. They concern your own behavior and any harm is self-inflicted. If a woman is unsatisfied with the amount you are sharing it's up to her to request more or seek a different relationship. Ideally people handle more and more of their own problems independently.

I wouldn't say it's morally relevant per se. My point is that the traits women look for in men (callousness, dominance, power) are generally associated with males who tend to be on the immoral side. This isn't always the case, of course.

But you also shouldn't allow yourself to suffer unreasonably. Companionship is something many people seek from each other in relationships. If the source of misery is your partner you can have standards, establish boundaries and enforce them, or end the relationship. This is moral behavior.

A lot of what you're saying is predicated on the assumption that women are to be treated as rational or intelligent agents within the context of a relationship. This is a premise I fundamentally disagree with.

Being an 'emotional tampon' is not moral behavior. It devalues your self and your time. If you feel used you should have standards and enforce them.

Again, empathy is a trait that most people would consider moral. It is not a trait that is suited for relationships. If she complains about her life problems and wants your help, a simple "shut the fuck up, you filthy slut, get on your fucking knees and suck my cock" is much more likely to get her cunt soaking wet than actually helping her with her problems. This is undeniable. They love being treated like sluts.

[–]Altrightsjwfusion 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's because that is a good personality. A "good" personality inherently means a moral, upstanding, righteous one. Not necessarily teetotalling, but I mean abstinence from alcohol can't hurt.

A "Good personality" in terms of women means you have a strong sense of self. You know who you are, and you don't pretend to be anyone else.

One of the hardest pills to swallow is that abrogating your moral principles is a route to success in the dating world. That female sexual strategy is rooted in primal desires shaped by years of evolution. It is entirely amoral.

Is this a hard pill to swallow? I think it's a pretty easy one. Basically it's just giving in to your juvenile emotional rationalizations which told you that all the guys who were getting something you weren't getting (laid) were actually secretly jerks. So now you have to be a jerk as well. Take that, women!

[–]TheVertex_ 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

A "Good personality" in terms of women means you have a strong sense of self

Nerds have a strong sense of themselves. They might like math. They might like physics. They're passionate about it, pursue graduate school, publish research papers. They've forged an identity for themselves. They have a true sense of self. But they don't get laid: "eww, creepy Asian nerd, get away from me".

Conversely, take your typical dope-peddling high school drop out. Does he have a strong sense of himself? Not really, no. He has no clue what the fuck he's doing with his life. But he's just exciting and fun to be around, and gives chicks the vagina tingles.

They're not just looking for a man with a strong sense of himself. They're looking for a certain kind of person with a certain set of traits.

Basically it's just giving in to your juvenile emotional rationalizations which told you that all the guys who were getting something you weren't getting (laid) were actually secretly jerks. So now you have to be a jerk as well. Take that, women!

I guess you're right. I guess it's just this natural sense of "cosmic justice" that we want to believe in (karma). The upright succeed, the evil fail. That's just not true, though.

[–]Altrightsjwfusion 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nerds have a strong sense of themselves. They might like math. They might like physics. They're passionate about it, pursue graduate school, publish research papers. They've forged an identity for themselves. They have a true sense of self. But they don't get laid: "eww, creepy Asian nerd, get away from me".

This isn't actually an argument. You just made up a hypothetical scenario that supports your ideas.

Conversely, take your typical dope-peddling high school drop out. Does he have a strong sense of himself? Not really, no. He has no clue what the fuck he's doing with his life. But he's just exciting and fun to be around, and gives chicks the vagina tingles.

Again, same thing.

I guess you're right. I guess it's just this natural sense of "cosmic justice" that we want to believe in (karma). The upright succeed, the evil fail. That's just not true, though.

The world isn't fair. But if you really think about it, you know deep inside that there's no "cheat code" to attracting women. You've known all your life what attracts them: Good looks, being good at stuff, being confident(sense of self).

If you're having huge struggles with women, it's because you've missed out on some type of social development that most guys don't miss out on. It's not because of some secret type of behavior that goes against everything everyone says. Either that or you're very physically unattractive, but if you are, you'd have known that since you were a kid.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Lol at talking about being a nerd as if it even matters in 2018.

Have you been to comic cons recently? They're full of hot girls in cosplay.

The top grossing movies every single year are based on comic books too.

Almost every guy I know owns one of the latest generation game consoles and plays frequently.

Even tabletop games are becoming an interest normies take up these days.

Being nerdy in and of itself is not a barrier anymore, being shy and awkward and lacking social skills is, but nerdy interests are not the reason anyone is having bad luck in dating.

[–]TheVertex_ 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The top grossing movies every single year are based on comic books too.

Marvel is mainstream. But nerds typically aren't focussed on Marvel comics anymore. Think anime instead.

Almost every guy I know owns one of the latest generation game consoles and plays frequently.

And women find that utterly unattractive. If they date a guy who plays video games, they date him in spite of that.

Lol at talking about being a nerd as if it even matters in 2018.

Everyone knows that kids in the math/chess club get far, far less pussy than the kids on the football team. Doesn't matter what year it is. Nerdiness is a turn off.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Simply being into anime or maths or whatever will not in and of itself make you unattractive. You're just using that as a scapegoat for your poor social skills and lack of physical attractiveness.

[–]Freethetreees2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

A moral personality is not a "good" personality. The most moral person in the world could also be super boring to talk to or just all around irritating. A "good personality" is generally understood to mean charismatic and interesting.

[–]TheVertex_ -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

The most moral person in the world could also be super boring to talk to or just all around irritating.

Boring does not imply a bad personality. Einstein was likely boring. Most of the greatest minds, for that matter, have likely been fairly boring people.

The antithesis of boringness, namely, excitement is something that young people look for. At a certain point, you grow out of that phase. At least people who mature effectively do. There's more to life than being exciting, cool and thrilling. You settle down eventually, but this does not imply that your personality decays.

I think the problem is that you're probably very young. You still think in high school terms. People in high school tend to implicitly think "Oh, look at that nerd reading books, he must have a shit personality. Oh, look at that football player slapping his girl's ass, he must have a great personality".

A "good personality" is generally understood to mean charismatic and interesting.

A sociopath meets those standards.

[–]Freethetreees2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

Boring does not imply a bad personality

Yes, it literally does. When has someone ever described a dull person as having a "great personality"? Have you ever heard the term "sparkling personality"?

Einstein was likely boring. Most of the greatest minds, for that matter, have likely been fairly boring people

Einstein had a great INTELLECT, but that's irrelevant when it comes to having a great PERSONALITY. Why do spergy men consistently misinterpret words or take them overly literally?

A sociopath meets those standards

Yeah, and people are drawn to them for that very reason, because they have a "good" intoxicating personality. Cult leaders, preachers, stand-up comics, and politicians by necessity also need to have a good personality, to win people over.

[–]TheVertex_ -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Yes, it literally does. When has someone ever described a dull person as having a "great personality"? Have you ever heard the term "sparkling personality"?

I think the Dalai Lama has a great personality.

Consider an individual who's, say, a scholar. He is not particularly exciting. He's boring. Mostly stays in his office and does work. But he's able to have very insightful discussions with others on various topics (politics, say). He's also amiable. Such a person would certainly be considered as having a good personality.

Einstein had a great INTELLECT, but that's irrelevant when it comes to having a great PERSONALITY. Why do spergy men consistently misinterpret words or take them overly literally?

Personality and intellect are certainly not mutually exclusive. Refer to what I wrote above.

Why do spergy men consistently misinterpret words or take them overly literally?

Ad hominem. You're bullying people with mental disabilities. You're a bully. Bully. Bully. Bully.

Yeah, and people are drawn to them for that very reason, because they have a "good" intoxicating personality. Cult leaders, preachers, stand-up comics, and politicians by necessity also need to have a good personality, to win people over.

A sociopath does not have a good personality, though. He is able to maintain a facade of having a good personality. He's a trickster. That's entirely different. If you genuinely think that serial killers and pedophiles have good personalities, perhaps you should consider seeing a therapist.

[–]Freethetreees2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I think the Dalai Lama has a great personality.

I do too, but not just because he is a saint and a philospher. If you see the way he talks to and connects with people of all backgrounds and beliefs, you'd understand why so many people listen to what he has to say.

But he's able to have very insightful discussions with others on various topics (politics, say). He's also amiable

The first part is what would give him a somewhat good personality, not being amiable.

You're bullying people with mental disabilities. You're a bully. Bully. Bully. Bully.

I have mental illness too, dude. And nah, real bullies use fists. I don't believe pointing fingers at people's stupid behaviors is legitimate bullying, just normal human social interaction that keeps the world from looking like 4chan.

He is able to maintain a facade of having a good personality

And the facade is of a charismatic interesting person. I'm glad you finally agree that those are the foundations of a good personality.

If you genuinely think that serial killers and pedophiles have good personalities

Pedophiles are usually socially stunted weirdos, not people with good personalities, irrespective of their disgusting desires.

[–]TheVertex_ -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I do too, but not just because he is a saint and a philospher. If you see the way he talks to and connects with people of all backgrounds and beliefs, you'd understand why so many people listen to what he has to say.

Okay but he's boring and a nice guy and therefore by your logic he has a shit personality. Wtf.

And the facade is of a charismatic interesting person

Many of them maintain the facade of a good person (in the sense that I defined the word). Ted Bundy, for instance, would have acted pretty reasonably towards people he was not going to kill.

I have mental illness too, dude. And nah, real bullies use fists. I don't believe pointing fingers at people's stupid behaviors is legitimate bullying, just normal human social interaction that keeps the world from looking like 4chan.

BULLY BULLY BULLY

Pedophiles are usually socially stunted weirdos, not people with good personalities, irrespective of their disgusting desires.

What about rapists like Bill Clinton? They're narcissists and sociopaths. That's not a good personality. We're done. You think sociopaths have a good personality, I'm not going to bother with you.

[–]Freethetreees2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Okay but he's boring and a nice guy

In what world is the Dalai Lama boring? He's one of the most interesting individuals alive right now. And he's also witty and humorous to boot. Have you ever seen him speak or are you just going off of what you've read about him? Also, a person can be nice without being boring.

Ted Bundy, for instance, would have acted pretty reasonably towards people he was not going to kill

That's not being "good", that's just being a regular person to blend in.

BULLY BULLY BULLY REEEEEE REEEEE REEEEE

ftfy

What about rapists like Bill Clinton?

He is charming and a good speaker, making his personality good. Still a rapist, still a bad person. A bad person can have a good personality, which you seem to find hard to understand, because you want to conflate "good" in any context with "morally good".

You think sociopaths have a good personality, I'm not going to bother with you

And you think nice boy points are all that should matter in the world. Sorry that stopped working outside daycare, honey.

[–]RepresentativeData1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And you think nice boy points are all that should matter in the world.

Well, that would be nice and make the world a better place if you were rewarded sexually for being a good person and sexually punished for being a bad person.

[–]Freethetreees2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

that would be nice and make the world a better place

No, it really wouldn't. The human race would stagnate or cease to exist in the first place. Sex is not meant to be a "reward" for goodness, it's a "reward" for biological/genetic fitness.

[–]RepresentativeData1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm assuming in this case that the entire world would shift to where goodness and biological fitness went hand in hand.

[–]Ascimatorsmirks audibly2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

amoral

Blackpillers often fail to comprehend the difference between amoral and immoral.

[–]TheVertex_ -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Sometimes it is immoral. A woman who sleeps with a criminal is immoral. An accomplice to crime. A supporter of it. However, it is not usually motivated by malevolence.

[–]Ascimatorsmirks audibly2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're making things up at this point.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A woman who sleeps with a criminal is immoral. An accomplice to crime.

This is not what that means. Accomplice to a crime is a very specific legal term. By your logic if I get a ride in a supercar that turns out to be owned by a guy who made his money selling drugs on the darknet I was part of his business lol.

[–]DarkLord0chinChin2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, translating "good personality" into abusive asshole douche certainly isn't weird, at all

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

I think it's something to do with the notion of objective/universal truth and where people source their notion of it. Like STEM is almost entirely built on "stuff that no one can disagree with" so the more of your own world that's populated by that stuff the easier it makes it to think (feel?) that "stuff I hear all the time in my culture" is just as universally true.

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Do not be a nice guy. Do not even try to be a good guy. Women might settle for the nice guys after riding the CC, but they do not desire the nice guy sexually, and this lack of sexual desire severely strains relationships. An attractive personality is not a virtuous personality, and if you want to get a serious girlfriend and you possess merely average looks, then you need to have an attractive personality. You need to be dominant, bold and cunning. Being an asshole is, generally, highly attractive, but not virtuous obviously.

TIL I'm not dating my boyfriend and fucking him 2-3 times a day when I get to be in the same city as him.

[–]TheVertex_ 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

?

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm pointing out there are women who do date nice men and desire them sexually.

[–]BearSaint 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In what possible way is being dominant, bold, and/or cunning incompatible with this useless generic term "nice"?

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do not be a nice guy.

Literally the first sentence of the block I quoted.

He's also not dominant or bold, so I'm not sure what you're trying to focus on.

[–]Maikowski2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

LDR?

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes 😢

[–]Maikowski2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I should be crazy in love to accept LDR, but even then just temporary..

[–]Ixodia 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

An attractive personality is not a virtuous personality

Yeah, no. 'Virtue' is necessary but not sufficient for attractiveness in LTRs - if you don't have it, you're not going to be a very good long term partner, but having it does not guarantee you're going to be any good for an LTR.

[–]TheVertex_ 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Women aren't looking for virtue. They're looking for a man.

There's a reason "men" like Gandhi wouldn't get laid in modern America, and it's not just because of their looks. Ethics are a turn off. Women love excitement. They love their bad boys.

[–]wekacuckstupid buggy bot4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

... what exactly do you think you know about Gandhi and women lol

[–]SkookumTreeWe are DONE with "cope"1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Martin Luther King Jr. got laid like tile. Gandhi? Well, if the number of groupies Nader had was any indication, he would not have any problems getting laid if he wanted.

[–]ffbtawPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

MLK also plagiarized his doctoral thesis and regularly cheated on his wife with prostitutes, not exactly the pinnacle of virtue.

He was very charismatic though.

[–]SkookumTreeWe are DONE with "cope"0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And what of Nader? He was the least corrupt political figure to come down the pike in a long time. And he had lots of groupies. Had he wanted, Nader could’ve gotten laid like tile.

[–]ffbtawPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know much about Nader to be honest.

[–]SecSlab 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

None of this shit works on me. You only like club girls.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Gynocentrism dictates that women aren't expected to bring anything meaningful to the table,

That's not gynocentrism. That would be men's low standards.

[–]VoidInvincibleFull Measure0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Man this is toxic thinking. Looks aren't everything. I know a guy who is better looking than I am, basically what most would call a Chad but my game is better than his because he never learned game. He is riding solely on his looks which is cool and all but game certainly helps too.

My point is that men care more about looks than women, and women care more about confidence. Your frame should always be "I am enough.". Women are attracted to men with a stronger frame than theirs.

[–]SoNotMarshall -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Best explanation for why being "nice" is bad for your dating life I've ever seen.

[–]LewisCross -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. When girls say "I want a guy with a good personality" she means "I want a guy who's dominant, bold, cunning, confident, will not put up with my bullshit or drama, who is good with the ladies, and who really doesn't care about my opinions or conversation."

[–]lazyanhedoniac2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Over 2 years at gym, impeccable job experience and exciting career prospects, social confirmation of multiple friends, no mental issues whatsoever if you have a sub-8 looks, minimum 5+ looks, over 5'9''.

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

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

[–]RadaNotaTaakaDaPillsOfficially a Wizard0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

My impression is that in either case, a guy needs to be:

Around average in physical attractiveness

Personable

[–]jerryskids_Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't listen to what everyone is saying here too much becausr for every comment I read I remembered an exception that showed that perspective is wrong.

[–]honeypuppy0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Considering that the vast majority of both and women manage to find partners, the answer is: "pretty much nothing, so long as you have minimal standards yourself and are willing to look".

Even assuming some standards, there are no real binary deal-breakers, basically everything exists on a continuum. For instance, being short or overweight doesn't help, but they're not total disqualifiers.

[–]PeskyPapayablue0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Considering that the vast majority of both and women manage to find partners

Yes but the vast majority of people have basic things like friends and aren't physically repulsive in appearance. There are absolutely bare minimums, they're just so far outside of the norm that they don't matter to most people. It's why wizardchan exists.

[–]honeypuppy1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Large percentages of people are obese and don't take care of their appearance in other ways. The typical online "incel" is better looking than vast swathes of people who managed to find partners.

Social skills, I'd be more inclined to agree.

[–]mrcs84usnFatty Fat Neck Beard0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A girlfriend: Some social competence A fling: At least marginally in shape (so basically just not fat), be outgoing and fun to be around, logistics.

[–]grindlegrundle 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A girlfriend: Female friends, basic hygiene, self esteem, a personality

Casual sex: Ability to go to parties, ability to flirt, basic hygiene

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can add the ability to effectively search a computer data base (i.e. dating sites). Being able to tease out women who will potentially reply from the masses is a skill.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it's too complicated to give a universal answer. every person is different.

one thing that complicates the issue is that there are not really "leagues" - the common blackpill/incel idea of finding a "looksmatch" is NOT how the real world works.

a guy who is 5/10 SMV may struggle with 7/10 or 8/10 girls. but if he tries to lower his standards, he won't be significantly more successful with 5/10 girls. and since girls tend to be so passive and expect the man to do the approaching and move everything forward, even if a 5/10 is interested in him, he won't know it unless he just happens to hit on her. since it's such a crapshoot, the mediocre guys tend to go for hotter girls.

also, having a girlfriend isn't always better than not having a girlfriend. there are a lot of beta guys who technically have girlfriends, but it's a shitty relationship with a shitty girl. and at the same time, the biggest players who are hooking up a lot are usually technically single.

[–]N0blesse0blige0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Slim/average, healthy, fit, somewhat younger relative to oneself, native/indigenous girl. Somewhat pretty (pretty is average here). No tattoos (may actually be hard). Interesting and kind/good hearted towards you (meaning you have a enough choice to find a girl like this who is compatible with yourself).

As girlfriend:

All or many of the following:

Taller than her when she’s wearing high heels, good looks, preferably zero overweight, well-adjusted, master’s degree or professional degree in recognized field. Helps to have travelled, stayed abroad, and have a good position in a large social circle. Outward display of political correctness. The right kind of hobbies: Skiing, sports, snow-board, challenging hiking/cross-country skiing in mountain areas.

Education-level can be offset by lots of money, doing masculine, well-paid work, and possibly doing recognized art/creative work/playing in a band.

Casual sex:

All or most of the following:

Very tall/quite tall (short men don’t even go out here as much anymore), very good looks, contextual or general high-status. Athletic/muscles/well-built. Alternatively very tall and slim. Well-dressed and well-groomed helps.

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

He needs a car, where I live.

[–]WhiskersNTreddish purp0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Casual sex: be sexually forward, fun, and enjoy rejection

Girlfriend: willing to accept the shame of committing to a woman who won’t bang you right away

[–]WhatIsThisAccountFor0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Casual sex? Frequent party scenes and the gym. Or be into some form of non-classical art like tattoos, fashion, etc.

Girlfriend? Just be social. You'll eventually find someone.

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bare minimum? - Surviving up until 30 years of age. At which point, enough men will either get imprisoned or die of alcoholism not to create any excess competition.

Eastern Europe.

[–]rpwthrowaway2016LD LTR0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

GF: I've seen anyone from obese guys to guys with anime girl shirts have girlfriends, so I'd say the minimum is having functional social skills, hygiene and not being disfigured.

Casual sex: It's still somewhat frowned upon here, so in order to get pass that, the guy would have to be decent looking and fun to be around.

[–]jonascf0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gf: average looks, non-repulsive and a little more than bland personality.

Casual sex: average looks, flirting skills.

[–]MisterJose0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bare minimum of what? I knew a guy who was a half-employed recovering drug addict who lived in a trailer park and got tons of pussy. There are guys just out of the county prison right now who are getting laid more than I am. Why would you think there was some threshold of any tangible positive quality?

Part of what people miss is that there are absurdly attractive women out there who think absolute shit of themselves, and likewise gravitate toward shitty relationships. How you see her is not necessarily how she sees herself. Also, once you get involved in the world of drug-addicts, people with behavioral issues, and general life fuck-ups, all bets are off. These are people who by definition make shitty decisions, and there are plenty of hot women among their ranks.

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

For both : extremely high social value, be rich, be extremely attractive. No, brain not needed, just the minimum.

[–]PrieneNon-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Minimum requirements for a guy to have casual sex:

Don't be fat, don't be 5 feet tall, and don't be too ugly.

Minimum requirement for a guy to get a girlfriend:

Have a pleasant personality, have any job, and treat the woman well(in association with the minimum physical requirements that I've just noted)

And the best part of all? Since you live in a Country belonging to the UE, you have thousands and thousands of foreign women and men for you to meet. And their standards for casual sex and relationships are just about the same.

It's really fucking hilarious to see attractive Scandinavian/German/Finnish women so much into you because to you, they are hot, but to the men they have in their Countries they are just average.

So you just charm them a little, speak to them with their exotic foreign accent, and they forget their men are 6 feet tall and you're just 5'7''.

If only the economy was better, Europe would be a paradise.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Canadian ex-pat living in China.

Caucasian, decent build, reasonably well-dressed, double or triple the local average income, speak conversational Chinese.

Only a minority of Chinese girls are into casual sex or having a foreign boyfriend, but given that there are well over 100 million 20-somethings running about the country it is not too hard to find some that are good to go.

[–]NightSkyPillusername checks out0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Girlfriend: Roll the dice. Other factors may increase probability, but there's no real minimum.

Casual Sex: Nobody is really open/honest about this, so I have to guess. Good hygiene, average social skills, plus one of the following: tall, white (if you're open to nonwhite women), or fit body

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

Be.... not dead?

Finding a partner for casual sex isn't that hard and finding a gf isn't hard at all.

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

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter