Why does RedPill only emphasize certain self-improvements for one gender, when they are generally good human traits?

reginaldtato · 2014-02-02T19:02:21+00:00

Why isn't some/most/all advice degendered? Is it that men should have confidence, or humans should have confidence? Why leave one gender out when stating...

[–]Spartacus321 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]reginaldtato 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikado122 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]reginaldtato 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikado12-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Canned_Wine1992 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikado12-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Canned_Wine1991 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]giantcatbear99 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]reginaldtato 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]reginaldtato 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]reginaldtato 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]reginaldtato -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]reginaldtato -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]6482620 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]reginaldtato0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]6482620 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]reginaldtato0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]reginaldtato -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]reginaldtato 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

FYI the guy you are replying too here has NO idea what he is talking about. He is an idiot who is getting the core concepts of RP wrong.

Check out r/redpillwomen if you would like to see how Red Pill theory is applied to women.

BOTH sexes are supposed to focus on self improvement. Men are supposed to be improving themselves to attract women, women improve themselves to attract men. The things men want and the things women want are different, so therefore different advice. Its really all the same though. Take care of your body, get nice hobbies, etc.

Its focused and gender specific though because men dont USUALLY like body builder women, and women USUALLY dont want men whose hobbies are knitting. Do not focus on the fact that outliers exist. We know they do, but trying to be an outlier makes your life harder. RP is focused on trying to succeed in a world where this advice is not readily availible. No man will admit that he would love his future wife to cook. So girls looking to get married one day believe that men dont even care about that. But they usually do! Or if they dont on the surface, would you really dislike if your future wife cooked your meals for you? So, one thing you can do to stand out and attract actually GOOD men is learn how to cook. That might be a dated concept, but its a nice thing to do and if you dont mind doing it, why not do it? Its not killing women to cook dinner. It makes men happy. Its the TRUTH that it makes men happy to have dinner cooked for them regardless of if its PC or not.

Same with TRP: Men realized that the TRUTH is women will sleep with you if you act like an asshole. Is that a "nice thing we should tell our kids about" ? No. But its the Truth. It works every day. Go to a college party and tell me you dont see women falling over themselves.

Red Pill is not inherently misogynistic. Many misogynists are attracted to it because of its reputation, but all red pill is, is accepting the TRUTH about human interactions and desires. Some men use that knowledge to get laid, others use it to improve their marriage, some men use it to try to beat down women, women use it to attract wonderful boyfriends, to keep their sex lives alive after 10 years of marriage, to do many many kinds of things.

[–]PaulRivers100 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

FYI the guy you are replying too here has NO idea what he is talking about. He is an idiot who is getting the core concepts of RP wrong.

As a regular red pill reader, I agree as well. The only place where TRP doesn't want women to self-improve is in their ability to unequally or unfairly extract things from men - not improving her ability to keep you around while lying to you about screwing other guys, or getting you to pay for dinners for her when she's not really interested in actually dating you, stuff like that.

Otherwise it's just a matter that The Red Pill focusses on men, and things men can do to improve. You wouldn't commend that a man wear a pushup bra and shave his legs to attract women, and likewise there are things that are recommended that men do that wouldn't be useful advice for women.

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]Canned_Wine1996 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not sure if troll or not, considering your Stephen Colbert homage.

Stephen Colbert's segment is "A Formidable Opponent".

Are you actually saying women are too empowered and you need to knock them down a peg so men are more attractive to them?

I suppose, kind of, but not really. That's kind of like saying 1+1=2 because the symbol "1" plus the other symbol "1", makes the symbol "2", instead of understanding the mathematical values of "1" and "2".

I'm saying there is an imbalance of social value between men and women. Women are not interested in men socially weaker than themselves, so this presents a problem for men. Men's culture/"Man'O'Spheres" such as TRP (and to an extent, the seduction community) seek to rebalance the disparity. Whether or not it's at the expense of women doesn't really matter because women have too much power as it is, and the actions that men would typically employ to self improve in such a manner are typically viewed as attractive by women anyways, even thought they are at the expense of women, whether they admit it or not, because attraction is not a choice.

That is the antithesis of confident, attractive behavior in a person, feeling intimidated by the success of others and feeling a need to belittle them

Confidence is not relevant to pretty much anything, and most people don't understand how confidence works, or applies to human economies/attraction.

Secondly, your point is more or less not logically coherent. Being intimidated of other people's success being the antithesis of confident behavior is secondary to the natural inclindation of people to associate only with those of equal or greater social value to themselves. Ie. No one gives a shit how confident you are if you suck anyways. A confident loser is still a loser.

[–]palish1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]palish0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

The reason isn't automatically "attraction."

Yes it is. The answer to just about everything is attraction.

For example, the prospective couple would almost certainly share nothing in common due to their dramatically different lifestyle choices, and hence not fall in love.

Sharing things in common is not required whatsoever to form romantic connections. People with diametrically opposing interests get together all the time, and attracting women has nothing to do with "oh, you like....flying kites? Cool...I like flying kites...". Attraction is not a choice; it's a set of triggers. Actuate the triggers, and you create attraction.

The fitness model would never want the 300lbs couch potato because there is a radical disparity in socio-sexual value(SMV) and interpersonal value(s).

I'm curious, since you're marked a "Red Pill Man", do you speak for the majority of Red Pill people? In particular, do most of them believe this following quote?

Yes. You'd be hard pressed to find a TRP man whom disagrees IMO, but I'll put it this way: If you are a TRP man, and you've contemplated and debated enough people whom oppose your world view to craft it in such a way that it's logically consistent, what I've said is, at least, in my opinion, an apt expression of TRP philosophy.

It's kind of a moot question (no offence) because woman can already set the price of sex to whatever they want, but I'm playing devil's advocate....

[–]palish-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

The fitness model would never want the 300lbs couch potato because there is a radical disparity in socio-sexual value(SMV) and interpersonal value(s).

You've used a lot of impressive words, but you'll find simpler language to be more effective (and, incidentally, more persuasive). Dressing up your arguments with flowery language may trick most people, but anyone who spends some time thinking about your arguments and pulling them apart will realize that your sentence is simply a roundabout way of saying "they share nothing in common."

An obvious counterexample to your claims: If what you say were true, then no fat men would ever marry attractive women. This is far from reality.

In the sciences, one must always look for counterexamples and account for them. How do you account for the fact that what you say can't happen, does happen, and fairly frequently? (A coworker of mine who was well over 300lbs recently married someone who was under 150. I don't exactly know how they managed the logistics of their ... pairing ... but it was quite interesting.)

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

You've used a lot of impressive words, but you'll find simpler language to be more effective (and, incidentally, more persuasive).

Only if you don't know what they mean...You can ask me to ues less complicated language...I'm not going to use it as attack ammo, lol.

Dressing up your arguments with flowery language may trick most people, but anyone who spends some time thinking about your arguments and pulling them apart will realize that your sentence is simply a roundabout way of saying "they share nothing in common."

It's not, nor was that the meaning of my snippet...which is precisely why I used "flowery, dressed up" language...

An obvious counterexample to your claims: If what you say were true, then no fat men would ever marry attractive women. This is far from reality.

So, you're now attempting to create a fallacy argument in which you're claiming "because one person accomplished X, all people can accomplish X".

False for several of reasons, most important in this context being that one 300lbs man randomally managing to get a very attractive sexual partner neither means it's a plausible expectation for most men, natural, nor a likely occurance.

Someone eventually wins the lottery, that doesn't mean all people can expect to win the lottery...nor does that one person winning mean everyone should even bother trying to win. There are more productive things to be doing given the radically oscure chance of winning.

In the sciences, one must always look for counterexamples and account for them. How do you account for the fact that what you say can't happen,

I didn't say it can't happen, I said it pretty generally will not happen because the circumstances of their respective SMV's do not give rise for attraction.

does happen,

Extremely rare.

and fairly frequently?

It's not frequent whatsoever. The only sphere's in which physically valuable women voluntarily choose significantly physically less valuable men is amongst the right and/or famous, where the male's success very much makes up for or supassing his physical appearance.

(A coworker of mine who was well over 300lbs recently married someone who was under 150. I don't exactly know how they managed the logistics of their ... pairing ... but it was quite interesting.)

I don't know your coworkers circumstances, personally. Second, being 150lbs vs his 300lbs isn't the point. Physical value is the point. Your 300lbs friend may have quite a lot of abstract value. We also can't rule out the possibility that his mate is simply an extremely virtuous woman, which is hyper rare, and your work friend simply lucked out. Good for him.

[–]palish1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContender0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Quite an interesting tactic: tell your opponent he doesn't understand the meaning of your argument without actually correcting him by explaining what your argument actually meant.

If you were genuinely interested in a fruitful conversation, you'd have asked. This isn't my first rodeo; I can tell the smug ones looking for an excuse to be indignant from the ones interested in genuinely challenging each other's world views.

or to point out the fact that you've gone from presenting your argument as a certain, sure-footed scientific truth to a mere philosophical characterization of "it happens to most people most of the time, so therefore I know what I'm talking about." A little amusing, actually.

If you think, or thought TRP was ever meant to be presented as a scientific truth, you don't understand TRP, you don't understand what is being presented by it's ideology, and you don't have real grounds to be discussing it in a subreddit like this if you don't actually know what it is, and you most certainly don't have any place condescending to those who do.

Fix that, and perhaps, at some point in the future, we can have a real conversation.

[–]palish1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, I understand that you'd like to give up in this debate. And while I may be giving you a hard time, it's because there are so many people in the world who are so quick to characterize the entire world in terms of things familiar to them and in a way that meshes with their own limited worldview. But it would seem to me that the most important thing here is the truth. Either your view is the correct one, or it's mistaken. And since you've refused to point out exactly where and why I'm mistaken, it seems to me that you're not interested in seriously and critically examining your own views. That's okay, it's quite a human thing to do... but you should probably not expect to convince many others of the merits of your ideology, then.

EDIT: Also, one thing that should make you stop and think is that what you've just done here has many of the same hallmarks as a religion. First, a set of statements of fact about the world which turn out not to actually be facts. Then a reference to terms without a willingness to explain the meaning behind those terms. Finally, an appeal to an ideology which you ultimately refuse to scrutinize.

[–]AFormidableContender1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, I understand that you'd like to give up in this debate.

Has nothing to do with my desires; I can debate this topic till the cows come home.

And since you've refused to point out exactly where and why I'm mistaken, it seems to me that you're not interested in seriously and critically examining your own views.

I never refused anything. You never asked. You proposed a counter argument to my OP, I responded in kind, you responded by telling me you believed my verbiage was distracting and instead of asking me to either clarify or define my talking points, began to condescend and berate me on the basis of your straw-men and non-sequitors...

That's okay, it's quite a human thing to do... but you should probably not expect to convince many others of the merits of your ideology, then. EDIT: Also, one thing that should make you stop and think is that what you've just done here has many of the same hallmarks as a religion. First, a set of statements of fact about the world which turn out not to actually be facts. Then a reference to terms without a willingness to explain the meaning behind those terms. Finally, an appeal to an ideology which you ultimately refuse to scrutinize.

El.

Oh.

El.

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContender1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]palish1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContender2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]fiat_lux_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]palish1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]palish0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I talked about this elsewhere as a response to reginaldtato's recent thread. It's about the packaging. Humans are not motivated by pure logic, and this has been known even to the ancient Greeks. Today, in leadership/communication academic & corporate courses, you will still get it nailed into your head that logos is the weakest of the three modes of persuasion, often overwhelmed by pathos and ethos.

If you remove the human element, then there's no logical need for drill sergeants and boot camp instructors to be insulting or loud, as the instructions they give are logical and "there are all kinds of reasons why they work". There's no logical reason why the placebo effect works. There's no logical reason why a lot of methods work better than others.

Human psychology is a complicated matter though, and some people just react better to certain styles presentation and work better with certain mindsets.

[–]palish0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A ton of them do. There may be nuanced differences, but the underlying logic for a lot of them are solid. As an example, I wrote a post of my own in trp, "you'll never be worth more than what you fully invest in".

The advice could apply to anyone, and is useful outside the dating context. Even Bill Gates was not worth more than Microsoft when he was fully invested in that company. If the company went down, it would drag fully-invested people down with it. Same with relationships. If you're fully invested and the relationship sinks, you're left with nothing and it'll be hard to recover. Sounds like common sense really, but emotions can cloud logic, so sometimes that logic needs to be presented better.

However, you just have to know your audience and speak in a way that connects to them. Thus, insert language like, "don't put pussy on a pedestal". It's insulting to many, but that wasn't the goal. The goal was to just give some helpful advice to people that might need it (even if it sounds like common sense). And sometimes you can't afford to care about people who actively search for reasons to be offended on the internet.

[–]palish0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The thing is, I'm searching for the truth. You don't have to tiptoe around my own feelings. It just seems like a crazy thing to believe simultaneously that (a) these techniques work on both genders, but (b) the improvement of one gender will negate the effectiveness of these techniques.

Isn't it true that if the techniques are effective on both genders, then there's no reason to bash women?

My current theory is that the shock value of talking down to women is one of the primary ways TRP gets new subscribers. People visit the subreddit and are shocked that there is an apparently-flourishing culture of men who make it a point to go out of their way to degrade women as much as possible, and that their techniques apparently work. Therefore, disheartened with the ways that society has let them down, they subscribe to this new theory, and find that their techniques really do work, and begin being abrasive to women (just like their "forefathers") ... when in reality, bashing women is completely beside the point. It's just a hook to intrigue people. But they either never figure that out or genuinely believe that women are genetically inferior, and so we get the sort of baseless theorycrafting of /u/AFormidableContender.

Is this making much sense? (If it's mistaken, please point out where and why. It's the shortest path to the truth.)

EDIT: And thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

[–]fiat_lux_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Isn't it true that if the techniques are effective on both genders, then there's no reason to bash women?

I wouldn't say all of the techniques are effective on both genders. A core tenet of trp is that men and women are different, after all.

I personally don't know, as I am not a woman, so my knowledge of their perspective is limited to the honesty of my closest female friends as well as relationship manuals written from the female perspective, which is also limited (tbh, they are very boring; so I don't go beyond superficial curiousity diving through them).

Men and women are attracted to different things though, so the "techniques" need to be taken very broadly. For example, men don't use makeup often, but they have other deceptive practices that might seem analogous.

But they either never figure that out or genuinely believe that women are genetically inferior

The base line of thought is just that they are different and physically weaker. I don't dive too deep into the other discussions of inferiority as they aren't important enough to me or even the people who engage in them.

Your hypothesis is plausible. Here is my own:

There's a fundamental difference in values between rpers and much of bp society. Bp societies, especially populist ones, have a "shaming culture" built on a foundation of virtue ethics. I.e. placing high importance on the judgment of moral character.

Rpers for the most part (hell, conservatives in general) seem to care much less of that. It's possibly related to their more rigid faiths/beliefs. I empathize for two major reasons:

I've never felt that my own beliefs were a matter of choice. I don't choose what makes sense and what doesn't. My personal integrity doesn't allow me to pick and choose whatever is convenient. For issues outside logic/science, like the supernatural or metaphysical values (e.g. the existence of absolute standards, or "God") it's impossible to convince me one way or the other. For some others, picking and choosing beliefs might be a simple matter, but that is obviously not the case for a lot of us.
I've been suicidal/depressed in the past. For people who haven't experienced that, they might not empathize with evil thoughts like, "I hate everybody for all this pressure and making me feel like shit. I just want the world to blow up." Deontological ethics, in contrast to virtue ethics on the outset, is forgiving of that, as explicitly demonstrated by the third proposition regarding duty. The example being a miserable person faced with "adversity and hopeless grief" (4:398) but acts in accordance to his duty to preserve his life as well as preventing his misery from spreading to others. The focus is on the act. Even bluepillers can understand/sympathize this discrepancy between inner evil and outward behaviour, as demonstrated in this linked post.

That to me explains why IF they have any sense of ethics at all, it's focused more towards moral action rather than moral character. (Note: I'm not saying they are moral people. A ton of people just don't give a shit about anything.)

There's an overall animosity over there towards shame culture and apathy towards virtue ethics. So that to me explains a lot of why people just don't care about the harsh language, so long as the acts themselves are generally harmless. Generally, blatantly harmful/illegal actions (e.g. beating women) that get proposed are heavily downvoted and criticized.

[–]palish0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Some thoughts.

I wish you'd posted a more detailed article than http://lcap.psych.ucla.edu/pdfs/amodio_natureneuroscience07.pdf ... Is that just an overview? They don't present any related work or their methods, so it's hard to get an understanding of whether their results are at all valid.
Isn't it true that if you don't choose your own beliefs, then you're doing a disservice to yourself, since your beliefs were decided for you by others? I.e. you let yourself be controlled by others (and even embrace the idea).
It can't be true that animosity towards current cultural trends automatically excludes a certain group of people. Any human can be a part of any culture. White people can act stereotypically black; vice-versa; men can act stereotypically female; etc. From studying history, we know it's true that one of the most effective ways for a new culture to rise in popularity is to use a certain group of people as a scapegoat. Hatred towards others is one of the most basic and unifying forces of humanity. I propose that TRP's scapegoat is, in a word, "women." The hatred towards the culture they've built is the unifying basic force driving TRP's popularity. Is this mistaken?

The crux for me is unwravelling the mystery of "Why is TRP so deeply anti-women, when their techniques typically are effective on both genders?" I believe the answer is because "TRP needed a scapegoat in order for its culture to gain momentum."

(I'd like to reiterate that I have no bias one way or the other. I'm searching for truth, nothing more. So feel free to be open.)

[–]fiat_lux_0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Some responses.

More details can be found at their website as well as the article's own sources. It's not necessarily just between liberals and conservatives, but touches on the age old fox vs hedgehog dichotomy.
Just because you don't pick and choose your beliefs, doesn't necessarily mean they were decided for you by others. It can mean the exact opposite, e.g. you're not changing your beliefs just to please others; you need honest reasons to change them. I've actually not met many people who share my exact same set of beliefs. E.g. My parents are atheist, but I am not.
That wasn't the point. The point was that certain people, especially those opposed to a "shame culture" based on judgments of moral character (rather than moral action), are just not going to care as much about tone-policing or shaming people for what they say on an internet forum. It doesn't automatically exclude women, but it does automatically exclude bp society which they perceive as being taken over by a shame culture. This outright rejection of that often encourages them to push the envelope with hyperbole. (Yes, part of the reason for reason for that, as you claimed earlier, just to get more views and karma. I agree with that hypothesis. I'm just saying in addition there's little holding them back from doing that.)

[–]mr_kat -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PaulRivers100 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PaulRivers100 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContender1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ok, so a few things.

Firstly, I think we have a miscommunication. Women desire three things in a mate: physical success (good looks), social success (self explanitory...a leader amongst men, lots other high quality friends, etc), and economic success (a good, validating job, high salary). A man does not need all 3, but typically at least 2, and his attractivenss is proportional to how much of each he has.

Charles Manson is a sociopath murderer with a niche cult following which he is obviously the head of; he's their deity, so automatically he has the highest, and most immense social proof and status, so for that reason I'd say you're example is faulty because it is a specific, unreplicable microcosm; men can't use "be a sociopath murderer" as a sexual strategy, and if you're not the deity of a satanic cult or whatever, being purely a sociopath isn't going to cause anyone to think you have any value. You still need to bring something to the table.

TRP and Seduction don't say any particular thing other than you require value in proportion to the value of the women you're trying to score, with the exception of looks, as looks always matters.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Furyk_KaredeFree pills! I'll take 16.-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a dumb question. The Red Pill is a male discussion forum, focused on male improvement and successful male sexual strategies. It's not a general self-help site for everyone.

Yeah, learning good social skills helps everyone, regardless of gender, and at a huge variety of tasks, not just attracting sexual partners. So?

It's like people believe there's this unspoken rule that any time somebody says anything, such as: "Men should X," he is required to say, "Oh yeah, and women, children, and space aliens should X, too."

And any time someone says, "Women are X," he is required to say, "Oh, and men are X sometimes, too. And not all women, just some women."

And any time someone says, "Doing X will help you attract women," he is also required to say, "and help you get a better job, stay healthier, and feel better about yourself."

Not every statement is required to include a thorough recounting of every possible application and use of that statement. That would just be stupid and make every subreddit an unfocused pile of shit.

The Red Pill is a male-centered discussion form about sexual strategy.

[–]IIHotelYorbatreats objects like women-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sh1vRed Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments