Why is a complaint over being treated badly by people that likely have shades of Madonna/whore complex re-framed as carousel guilt?

TRPACC · 2014-02-04T16:48:19+00:00

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1wz4e6/a_severe_case_of_carousel_guilt/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna%E2%80%93whore_complex There seems to...

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure I understnad your question so let me know if I'm off base.

I think you're conflating two different things. If you're a woman that likes having sex and can a attract a lot of men, you'll probably be popular amongst the guys but you'll be a less attractive candidate for a long term relationship. If you're more conservative, you'll probably be someone that guys assume wants a long term relationship, and be treated accordingly.

This is something about TBP I don't get: do you really assess casual sexual partners, the same way you would judge a long term romantic partner? Most people I know would say these are not the same thing. I'm not sure that's a Madonna/Whore complex but an honest expression of what they're attratcted to.

I'm not sure if this is remotely what you're asking though.

[–]TRPACC 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TRPACC 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

From what I've observed, the disdain is over some key points:

Lack of responsibility or situational awareness. Some women act completely surprised when they are older, had countless partners, and then find out a lot of men don't want them for long-term commitment. Some men will be fine with it, and obviously more men are being encouraged to become that way.
Dishonesty. A lot of people promote the idea that "the past is the past; it's no one's business". That's fine, but they should expect that a lot of guys actually care about that. A lot of women, not just ones online giving advice, are fine lying or feeling indignant about being asked their "partner count" and feel justified in lying. But… Who cares if the guy seems like he's being superficial? That is not a justification for outright lies. The same goes for age. "Never ask a woman her age." These are all sensitive topics, but it's still a push towards dishonesty. It's not something we like seeing from men either, so it shouldn't be so easily tolerated the other way around.

[–]TRPACC 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheigeJust a man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AbracadanielleBlue Pill Woman11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

This is something about TBP I don't get: do you really assess casual sexual partners, the same way you would judge a long term romantic partner? Most people I know would say these are not the same thing. I'm not sure that's a Madonna/Whore complex but an honest expression of what they're attratcted to.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you should look for and expect the same things from a ONS that you would in a LTR. No one is saying that you should think about marriage with your ONS. What I have a problem with is the concept that women can only be one or the other. She's either a Madonna (marriage-worthy, pure, wholesome) or a Whore (slut, awful, damaged), always and forever. But according to TRP, men can be both and everything in between. Men can screw around young and settle down when they're ready, because "men are different and allowed to". According to men, of course.

I don't think TBP is arguing against the fact that plenty of men dislike the idea of a woman with a high partner count. That fact has been outlined pretty explicitly in this sub and TRP. I'm personally trying to dig into the why of the matter, because I don't believe it's a hard-wired biological fact. I believe that our society is responsible for the mindset, and that if young men simply aren't exposed to the idea, they're able to break out of the Madonna/Whore mindset. I believe this because I know plenty of men who don't care about partner count and I'm friends with a woman whose partner count is in triple digits and is in the most happy, domestically sweet marriage I've ever seen.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

I a few thoughts on your response:

What's wrong with it being one or the other? If you could be one or the other, which would you choose? If you could sleep with 100s of men but in doing so you were less likely to get married, would you really not sleep with all those guys? I don't get it. Why does it matter if you're one or the other?

I believe that our society is responsible for the mindset, and that if young men simply aren't exposed to the idea, they're able to break out of the Madonna/Whore mindset.

I see, it's the PATRIARCHY!! Aren't you just arguing men should want the "whore?" Your examples, from what I can tell, aren't a different paradigm, just shaming for not accepting a particular model you approve of. Which brings me to other point: actions have consequences. Some people want virgins, others want partners with lots of experience, so what?

And let's be clear about this is Freudian, pseudo psychology. The Madonna/whore complex is not real.

[–]AbracadanielleBlue Pill Woman8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]AbracadanielleBlue Pill Woman8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]AbracadanielleBlue Pill Woman9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AbracadanielleBlue Pill Woman6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You think everyone is either a Madonna or a Whore? Really? They're either perfect and pure or they're slutty trash, one or the other? The world is not that black and white, most things are on a spectrum. Any given person might perceive someone in a black or white way, especially during a short-term interaction, but that doesn't mean it's all that person actually is. My fiance clearly thinks I'm LTR material. But I've slept with about 10 people through my life and that's too high a partner count for some people, that's Whore territory. Some people. But I'm engaged to someone who doesn't think that way. And I've been in other relationships that could have ended in marriage in some other offshoot timeline. I also don't base my self-worth on the fact that some people out there think I'm undatable. Why should I care? I'm certainly not interested in them. You say that I don't know myself, and think that to know yourself you have to put yourself in one of two very rigid categories. Honestly, I think that the more you know yourself, the less rigid a definition you can fit into. Everyone is many things.

But if you insist the world really is black and white, which are you? Are you only good for marriage or are you only good for sex?

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Abracadanielle3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Abracadanielle3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Abracadanielle2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AbracadanielleBlue Pill Woman4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AbracadanielleBlue Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

that's not something TRP can understand or empathize with.

The issue isn't that TRPers can't empathize with women in that situation. The issue is that we've trained ourselves not too. Women have used empathy like a weapon against men and we've been forced to find ways to deactivate our empathy when dealing with them.

Women who have more sex than TRP deems appropriate never deserves any love or happiness again.

As, stated above, we train ourselves to turn off our empathy. That requires the cultivation of a sense of violation, that a wrong has been committed. Establishing standards regarding sexual behavior helps us do this.

For most TRPers this is not a fully conscious process. I am aware of it because of the time I've spent study the neurological origins of empathy and morality. (I'm trying to find the studies I was reading on this last year, but I'm at work and don't have much time to sift through Google results.)

Oh TRP, I hope you are never old, never frail, never infirm, never fail, never fall, never in need of anything, because your world is a Hamurabian world.

Read up on "male disposability" or "male expendability". Part of TRP theory is an understanding that when men cease to be useful to society, society abandons them. Women treat men as expendable and disposable, so self-interest obligates us to treat them in the same way.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

The issue is that we've trained ourselves not too.

Why would you want to do that? That's like saying you (the communal you, not you personally) want to be more sociopathic. The key to avoid bad people hurting you is to figure out the actual person you're dealing with, not dumping on some anonymous soul who is obviously struggling with issues of esteem, her new-found love who treats her well and her ambivalence about being worth it.

Read up on "male disposability" or "male expendability".

Funny thing is, I agree with you here, and I suspect, a lot of other egalitarian-minded women. I actually made a post about it in response to a Red Pill Woman person and then just ended up trashing the whole thing.

So, this year we had a big wind storm that blew a piece of siding off the side of the house. My beloved took out the ladder, I stood at the bottom and anchored it while he climbed up to nail the thing back in place. The question is: why is it always the default that the man does this? He doesn't want to do it, I could do it equally well, it's something that has to be done, like cleaning the bathroom, but somehow that task falls to me and the mending of the siding falls to him. The answer: it's more dangerous.

If there was a little railing I can run up and nail the sucker in, I would. But it involves climbing a ladder and a person could fall down and crack his skull and die, so he does it. I've observed the outside tasks in the neighborhood, the common thread is not strength, although that's part of it. It's really like the shit job and the dangerous job. It doesn't mean I think of men as disposable. The fact is societal pressure has made this the default, to the detriment of men. The solution is not to harbor a seething resentment against women about something else unrelated, such as sex.

TRP is socially conservative and talks about feminine and masculine a lot. TRP likes gender roles and wishes we live in a society more like the 50s. Either TRP hasn't thought it through, but you guys are complaining about, and fostering the same societal norm that made you guys disposable in the first place.

I would totally put investment money into a design of a strong, lightweight, portable, topple-safe ladder for women, BTW.

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Why would you want to do that?

Self defense. Men are instinctively inclined to feel empathic and protective towards women. Those instincts are then reinforced by society with narratives about how men should embody chivalry and how wonderful and nurturing women are.

This leaves men vulnerable to exploitation at the hands of society in general and women in particular. Protecting our own interests requires that we turn our empathy off. Feminism and modern society have made men and women competitors instead of partners.

Learning to turn off our compassionate feelings for you is the only way to protect ourselves from being used.

He doesn't want to do it

It's sad how you seem to fail to appreciate your husband. Yes he does want to take the more dangerous job. Of course he does, he loves you and wants to protect you. It's depressing that you can't see the nobility in him.

Men fantasize about fighting monsters to rescue damsels in distress. We want to be your protectors, your heroes. We step into the line of fire gladly, proudly even.

That's what we have to switch off, or the modern women of the world will use us up and throw us away without a second thought.

TRP is socially conservative and talks about feminine and masculine a lot. TRP likes gender roles and wishes we live in a society more like the 50s. Either TRP hasn't thought it through, but you guys are complaining about, and fostering the same societal norm that made you guys disposable in the first place.

No, TRP isn't conservative. It just realizes that the social norms conservatives defend didn't take form by accident. TRP rests on a foundation of evolutionary psychology. Social norms didn't make men expendable, biology did that.

The social norms of by gone days gave us respect and security in exchange for our willingness to place the interests of our families and societies above our own. Marriage, prior to the age of easy divorce, offered a social contract in which a man would be protected from exploitation by the woman he loved, so long as he provided for his family.

Some TRPers would like to go back to that era, others, like myself, recognize that's impossible. Either way we all have to deal with the reality of the world today. Feminism has made it impossible for men to safely partner with women anymore.

We're on opposite side of a fight neither of us really wanted, but which none of us know how to end. We're opponents now. Competitors. Dare I say it... enemies. You seek to use us without regard for our well-being, and now we're learning to treat you the same.

You don't like it? Well neither do we, but we're men and real men don't just walk away from a fight.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

OK then, sociopath away. Don't be surprised when society shuns you, though.

It's sad how you seem to fail to appreciate your husband.

I don't know how you got that. I love and appreciate my husband more than you understand. More so than the RPW woman who said her mister prefers to clean the gutter and tinker with the car and she doesn't want to get her hands dirty. Let me guess, because it fits your narrative that women don't appreciate their husbands?

This enemies thing is your perception though, of your doing. Most men don't regard women as enemies, and most women, including myself, love and support the men in their lives. TRP would consider my husband "alpha" (God I hate that word to associate it with him), he rides a fast bike, shoots skeet, has a basement full of scary sharp tools. He's tall and handsome (of course :) ), funny, smart, and he is a genius with directions, put that boy anywhere and he can find his way. He's also respectful and kind to women, to me; we have a very egalitarian relationship. We also find this kind of relationship among our married friends. I think your bias makes you think the world is more like TRP, when I think the world is mostly not like TRP, and thinks of TRP as an anomaly.

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

OK then, sociopath away. Don't be surprised when society shuns you, though.

LOL, modern society loves sociopaths. Women lust after their bad boy aura. Men envy their drive and sense of independence. The business world practically worships their ruthlessness.

We're living in a golden age for sociopaths.

It's sad how you seem to fail to appreciate your husband.

I don't know how you got that.

I got the impression for your comment that you thought your husband didn't really want to take risks on your behalf. That he only did so because it was a social norm. If I was mistaken, please let me know.

Most men don't regard women as enemies

Most men are living in a dream world. That's why TRP uses a matrix metaphor for it's ideology.

most women, including myself, love and support the men in their lives

Then why do so many marriages end in divorce? Why are most divorces filed by women? Why are women more likely to end a relationship, in general, than men?

we have a very egalitarian relationship

Except you've already acknowledged that he does the riskier jobs around the house. That doesn't sound very egalitarian.

[–]AbracadanielleBlue Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then why do so many marriages end in divorce? Why are most divorces filed by women? Why are women more likely to end a relationship, in general, than men?

Many marriages end in divorce because divorce is legal, and no longer carries the negative social stigma it once did. Divorce is no longer the damning act it once was.

As for why more women file for divorce, this is an ongoing PPD discussion. For one, another user, I don't recall who, pointed out that the statistic about more women filing for divorce is very literal, and only references that women are taking that one step in the divorce process more than men. It doesn't delve into why the relationships are ending. If more women are unhappy in their marriages, couldn't one argue that more men are making their partners unhappy? That women are choosing to leave these situations because, for one of the first times in history, they can?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ha ha, did you read that study that compared the modern CEO to psychos? Unless your aim is to be a CEO, I think you'd find your psychopathic tendencies wasted. You know where you'd find a lot of psychopaths? Prison. Generally, society culls psychopaths except for corner cases, society couldn't exist if it actually promoted psychopathic tendencies in every avenue. I don't know if you're being facetious when you say men envy psychopaths. Men may envy the psychopath's success, but most are too empathic to adopt psychopathic behavior. That's usually called a conscience.

Most men are living in a dream world.

OK, if you think so. Let me blow your mind with a theory, because TRP is notoriously bad at getting movies. Neo never left the Matrix. Here's Agent Smith:

"Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from."

So the system designed another part of The Matrix, for people like Neo to "wake up" to, and continue to act as batteries, while thinking they are no longer batteries. Going with your theory, we are all still in The Matrix, but you guys are miserable and eating gruel, and I am the woman in the red dress.

Anyhow, that's not the point of the movie. I'm just messing with ya, see your bro Sigma for outlandish movie theories. The point is, you can never philosophically know if you really exist, or the world outside you exist, people other than you exist. What you consider "truth" is really just heuristics.

re: tasks

What I meant to say was mending the siding, as well as cleaning the bathroom, are thankless tasks nobody wants to do. I don't want to clean the bathroom. If it comes to tasks that have to be done I'd rather bake. He doesn't want to fix siding, he'd rather make something. Life involves chores, it just falls that way that I do more of this and he does more of the other thing, mostly due to preferences, but the way we form preferences is influenced by societal expectation. You could never have a man let his wife climb a ladder and fix stuff, he would never live that down with his friends and neighbors. Society would tag him as "that loser who let his wife wear the toolbelt". The sooner it becomes a norm that women can do traditional men stuff, the sooner men are liberated from expectations of other men.

Then why do so many marriages end in divorce?

If you take the most incriminating statistics, at least half the number of marriages succeed. We've also established that we can't know who is at fault for a failed marriage from who does the filing. I don't know how often I've had to make this assertion: He drinks and hits her. She says if you drink or hit me again I'm leaving you. He continues to drink and hit her. She files papers. Who is at fault?

Except you've already acknowledged that he does the riskier jobs

This is true. But the risky job is about 1% of total, not everything involves risk of injury or death. Can you think of any other chore involving risk of injury or death? I also do more work, measured by time spent on chores that contribute to both of our well-being. This seems to be the trade-off that men and women have generally made, women continue to do more of the domestic chores, while men do less but more dangerous chores.

[–]SigmaMuRP0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I haven't seen this movie, but in real life Belfort was convicted and went to jail. He swindled people on penny stocks, he's not a Wolf of Wall Street, that's the self-aggrandizing title of his own book. I can't think of a clearer example of society shunning psychopaths than codifying the shunning into law.

So, since I'm here, I'll write the review for Say Anything, which I've watched over the weekend. Just as I suspected, there was not a single iota about "be a nice guy and get the girl" from the movie. You read that all on your own.

Let's talk first about the characters. Diane, besides being a smart and pretty girl, is actually a lonely dweeb. She's went through 4 years of high school and nobody knew her. The only person who gets her joke is her Dad. She had no best friend, no friend that I could see. People who signed her yearbook and came up to her at the party all said, wow, so nice to finally meet you. This, after 4 years in school! She spent all those years closed off and hiding behind her braininess and her ambition, which she developed out of sympathy for her Dad. She's a nice girl.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is not the HB9 hot sexy slut TRP sets out to bang. One common thing I found at TRP's typical confessional "I treated her like a princess but I found her blowing this other guy in the bathroom" story is that they went for the hot chicks and women who traded on looks. If TRP went after girls like Diane Court, they'd end up with fewer of these confessionals.

Lloyd is really not a loser nice guy either, despite the stammering and the tendency to just shoot from the mouth. Lloyd goes to parties where people hand him their keys to keep them from driving drunk. You don't establish this cred and this trust overnight. Lloyd goes to a lot of parties, and he's well-liked by his peers. If you think you're a Lloyd Dobler, ask yourself, do I have social cred with my peers?

15 minutes into the movie, Lloyd works up the guts to ask Diane out. She says yes, because he makes her laugh. That. Is. All. He. Did. No Nice Guy^TM, no trying to drive her home, carry her books, wheedle his way into her pants under the misdirection of being a friend. One more cue Diane is a socially maladjusted loner: she over-dressed for the party. Lloyd saw this but doesn't make her feel bad about it.

They go to the party, Lloyd drives a drunk guy home, further establishing how Diane sees him. From then on it's his game to lose.

Diane is torn between the IRS investigation of her father, her father's plans for her, the scholarship and this newly found attraction for Lloyd. In one scene she says she just wants to be friends because too much is happening in her life. Lloyd said, OK fine. In the next scene (he's teaching her how to drive) she's kissing him and later they had sex in the car. I think the Red Pill answer to girls who says they just want to be friends is to spin another plate and employ dread game nuclear level.

Diane broke up with Lloyd, for reasons mentioned previously. She loves her Dad, who is her best friend, and it's his disapproval of Lloyd that drives her decision. It had absolutely nothing to do with her attraction to Lloyd, or what he did or didn't do. Not until her father is discovered to be embezzling from the old folks that her idolized image of him is shattered. What is she sacrificing her relationship with Lloyd for, when her father is discovered to be a fraud. That's why she went back to Lloyd.

So, this "be a nice guy" business, I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Lloyd Dobler was a good guy, with social standing, a sense of humor, and he took a risk to ask a lonely dweeby girl out, and she said yes, because nobody has ever asked her. It's not so much a RomCom as a coming of age story.

If you want a Red Pill movie to rage against, I suggest Almost Famous. Penny Lane is the ultimate cock carousel rider, she's a band groupie and fucks the band. The "Nice Guy" is young, naive, always in the shadow of the rock star "Alpha". The nice guy actually saves Penny from death and still didn't earn her love. Philip Seymour Hoffman had a great scene in it.

"That's because we're uncool. And while women will always be a problem for guys like us, most of the great art in the world is about that very same problem. Good-looking people don't have any spine. Their art never lasts. They get the girls, but we're smarter. [...] The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone else when we're uncool."

That's not what the movie was about, though, unless you insist on seeing it that way. Most of Cameron Crowe's movies have an honesty that's appealing, it's about our deepest longing to have our love (or respect) returned when we were in our blunder-years and the object of desire always seems so out of reach. After witnessing cruelty and heartbreak, the main character grows up, but somehow hangs on to his humanity. We like stories like that, because we want that for ourselves.

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Diane is not remotely a dweeb. She may be socially isolated, but she has loads of social status because she's pretty, intelligent, and not an asshole. Everyone was excited to meet her at the party. A real dweeb would be ignored at best. It's also incredibly rare for a girl that attractive, smart, and friendly to have no friends. Seriously? She has no peer social circle? I went to high school with a girl whose strict Chinese parents forbade her to be out with friends after 8 pm. She did well enough to go to Princeton now and still had an active circle of friends in high school.

The entire point of the "sob story" thing on TRP is that many girls like Diane, in real life, appear to be "nice girls" but end up blowing other dudes in bathrooms. Some women you can tell will pull this shit at the drop of a hat, but even the "safe, nice" ones could do this without warning.

Lloyd does have the guts to ask Diane out, I'll give you that. But why does Diane agree to go out with him? She doesn't even know who he is or what he looks like. It seems like she's agreeing to go out with him because he "made her laugh", but this seems really contrived given what he actually did is to stutter and persist after she turned him down initially until she agreed. Sure, maybe that will make some girls laugh and agree to go out, but it's not likely.

Lloyd getting the "keymaster" position is not a good thing - it's a burden. Lloyd himself clearly didn't want it but gets pressured into taking it without standing up for himself. Furthermore, he barely talks to her at the party, and yet she somehow is still with him at the end of the night, even though she had planned to leave much earlier. Seriously, does Lloyd not have any competition whatsoever? No one chatted Diane up while he was wandering around? No one else could give her a ride home? This just doesn't happen in real life.

Diane is a character with practically no basis in reality, and in real life Lloyd's behavior would be more likely to result in failure instead of success.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I want to quickly drop in to answer you; we'll have to disagree on whether being the keykeeper is a good or bad thing for Lloyd.

I can only judge a film maker on what he created. I think Cameron Crowe intended to portray Diane as a lonely dweeb. If you and I find the portrait incomplete, then our criticism aimed at Crowe is that he failed to fully realize his character. I can only comment on the film he's made, I can't make a hybrid criticism of his constructed character and how it violated real life, and offer up criticism on his film. Did that make sense? I can't comment on a film he didn't make. The fact that you know a Princeton alum and her life is not like Diane's is another matter entirely.

Let us pull back a little bit. When we started, I asked you if you think that movies such as Say Anything "lied" to men about what would get the girl. You and other men who have seen the movie thought being like Lloyd was what it took to get the girl, and that didn't happen in real life.

After our discussion, you are now skeptical of Lloyd's success. Your words:

Diane is a character with practically no basis in reality, and in real life Lloyd's behavior would be more likely to result in failure instead of success.

Why were you not skeptical of this in the beginning? There's an element of fantasy to every movie. On the one hand you say men have been lied to by movies like Say Anything. On the other hand you say the movie offers ridiculous impractical advise that would lead to failure. Which is it?

I'll offer up this: you saw what you wanted to believe. You wanted to believe the "Nice Guy^TM " who acted like what you thought Lloyd Dobler acted like got the girl. It was easier to blame Cameron Crowe, and all external influences for your perception of the world. Had you been more skeptical of the movie, saw its unrealistic imperfection, you would not have come to the conclusion that you did, namely, movies told you to be a nice guy to get the girl. You would have watched the movie, had a little fun and snorted that it didn't match up to reality, for all the reasons you've listed.

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's an element of fantasy to every movie.

It's more than a mere element here, but that's not obvious without the real-world experience that backs up that knowledge.

On the one hand you say men have been lied to by movies like Say Anything. On the other hand you say the movie offers ridiculous impractical advise that would lead to failure. Which is it?

That's not a contradiction. It's only clear that it's bad advice after someone tries it and fails with it, repeatedly. But sometimes it segues into a girl taking advantage of the guy and keeping him in a perpetual state of mixed messages, in which case he would think he was on the right path but doing something subtly wrong instead of being on the complete wrong track.

Had you been more skeptical of the movie, saw its unrealistic imperfection, you would not have come to the conclusion that you did

It would be easier to be skeptical if it were the only source of this flawed understanding, but it comes from plenty of other places. Again, it's not obvious that it's wrong without a solid chunk of relationship experience under one's belt.

[–]SigmaMuRP5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]AbracadanielleBlue Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMuRP2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]AbracadanielleBlue Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMuRP4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]AbracadanielleBlue Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMuRP2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]SigmaMuRP2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMu2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMu2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMu1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMu1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMu0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vidht1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMuRP0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AbracadanielleBlue Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (84 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (83 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (82 children) | Copy Link

[–]AbracadanielleBlue Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (80 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]runswithelves2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]runswithelves2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]runswithelves-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think that's a distinction you cannot make.

Explain.

Unless you've invented some technology that allows us the unique experience of knowing what it's like to be somebody else, the idea that you see their actions and assume their inner monologue is usually called "projecting." You would never act that way, so in your mind they must think poorly of her. This is a distinction that you cannot actually make.

So you don't think the person you're having sex with deserves to be treated like a human?

You've run this one into a circle, my friend. We have not established that she wasn't being treated as a human. The very phrase "treated like a human" is an appeal to emotion with no concrete meaning. What you mean to say is treated the way you would treat her, which isn't to say you have defined the golden standard of how humans are to be treated, but instead suggests that you think very highly of yourself.

I don't even know what you're saying here. You're shifting the conversation and calling me a Christian Fundamentalist who doesn't think people should enjoy sex because...?

Because it sounds to me like you disapprove of what two consenting adults do when it doesn't fit your view of proper behavior. There's a group of people who agree with that: fundamentalist christians. They make other people's business their business.

[–]runswithelves2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Unless you've invented some technology that allows us the unique experience of knowing what it's like to be somebody else, the idea that you see their actions and assume their inner monologue is usually called "projecting." You would never act that way, so in your mind they must think poorly of her. This is a distinction that you cannot actually make.

First, let's define projection. A defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world. For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude. From the linked OP:

"The first man I ever had sex with never asked me how I'd like it best. He'd tell me to suck his cock, until I choked and couldn't carry on, and then he'd fuck me until he came, and then he'd get dressed and he'd leave. Once, in front of me, he fucked my roommate, and then me, half-heartedly at her behest. Afterwards he kissed her goodbye. Later, I begged him not to sleep with my virginal best friend, so he stopped fucking me and tried to fuck her instead."

"I have crept home through pre-dawn blackness after screwing a guy who gave me MDMA and then came on my face. At uni, I missed class because I was on the other side of the city with two middle-aged French men, fucking them on a campbed, until one kicked me out because his wife was coming home. I've been fucked up the ass by a guy who lived on his friend's sofa, whilst the friend played XBox through the open door. I have got down on my fucking knees in the fucking street and sucked cock and stumbled home with cum on my dress. I did not learn the names of any of these men."

"The last guy I had sex with, before you, was a month ago. My best friend. We were drunk. It was a mistake. Halfway through, he said - this means nothing to me. My heart didn't break - I'm not in love with him - but it chipped, a little, again. He wouldn't kiss me. When he finished he rolled off me and went to sleep, leaving me lying beside him, staring at the ceiling, in my best brand-new party dress with no underwear on, and he wouldn't look me in the eye in the morning."

"There's this other guy. And he's sexy, and older, and he started off friendly and funny and sweet - and then he learned that I was easy. Now he treats me badly and I hate that."

It's all right there, I'm not "assuming" anything. If you think that behaviour is acceptable then I really don't know what to say to you.

We have not established that she wasn't being treated as a human. The very phrase "treated like a human" is an appeal to emotion with no concrete meaning. What you mean to say is treated the way you would treat her, which isn't to say you have defined the golden standard of how humans are to be treated, but instead suggests that you think very highly of yourself.

Okay, let's be pedantic then. Do you not think the person you're having sex with does not deserve to be treated with respect? Or do you want to just pretend that I just think highly of myself?

Because it sounds to me like you disapprove of what two consenting adults do when it doesn't fit your view of proper behavior. There's a group of people who agree with that: fundamentalist christians. They make other people's business their business.

Ah, it seems like now you're the one who's projecting since my statement does not allude to anything remotely close to what you're inferring. How exactly am I making other people's business my business by having a discussion about a linked specific topic in a debate sub?

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]AbracadanielleBlue Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]chryseaBlue Pill Woman-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]chrysea0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinja1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chrysea1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinja1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chrysea1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinja1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chrysea1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinja1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

No it doesn't make sense because promiscuity hurts no one.

Except when it communicates a disease or leads to cheating/cuckolding. There's a reason why most men consider it instinctively repugnant in a long-term partner. That's evolution in action. Males who were OK with their mates cheating on them and were willing to raise another males offspring are less biologically successful than jealous males.

To the extent that promiscuity among women is linked to divorce it could just as well be mens problems dealing with past promiscuity or simply mens problems dealing with extroverted women (extroversion is linked to promiscuity) that causes the divorce.

Most divorces filed by women. And with no fault divorce the fact that she simply got bored with having only one male is an acceptable reason for her to end a marriage.

This is one of the worst parts of TRP propaganda when you just pull out a statistic (without even knowing what that statistic is) and claim it's a good reason to treat women like shit.

Yeah, because acting on evidence is so unreasonable. We should just trust our feelings, right?

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except when it communicates a disease or leads to cheating/cuckolding.

Promiscuity doesn't "communicate disease". Unsafe sex does. Promiscuity doesn't lead to "cheating". Dishonesty leads to cheating.

most men consider it instinctively repugnant in a long-term partner

No they don't.

That's evolution in action.

No it isn't. Its insecurity in action.

Most divorces filed by women. And with no fault divorce the fact that she simply got bored with having only one male is an acceptable reason for her to end a marriage.

Again you are jumping to conclusions because you want to believe. That most divorces are filed by women doesn't mean that women caused the divorce. "Simply got bored" isn't one of the top 10 reasons for divorce. You gotta stop making shit up. The most common reason for divorce is arguing.

Yeah, because acting on evidence is so unreasonable. We should just trust our feelings, right?

Wow. No the problem is that you are completely abusing the evidence because you want something to be true. There isn't a scientist on the planet who would agree with you that "Promiscuous people tend to have trouble maintaining committed relationships. That means you can't afford to become emotionally invested in them." It's a conclusion you have drawn not based on evidence, but based on emotion. You don't like promiscuous women, you see someone mention some statistic about promiscuity and divorce, you are filled with joy because you found something that you think justifies your prejudice. But in realty, you haven't read the study, you don't really know what correlation, significance et.c. means and you haven't made a critical thinking analysis on what the correlation actually means.

[–]TehGinjaNinja0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinja0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinja0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinja0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You make quite outrageous statements and you're going to have to back them up.

No, I'm not , because I'm not the one making "outrageous" statements. There is literally decades of research into sexual attraction showing that men are attracted to women primarily due to visual cues, while female attraction to men is more complex and includes psycho-social triggers like high status, material resources, and socially dominant behavior.

This is common knowledge to anyone who's studied the psychology of sexual attraction. You're the one making outrageous claims here.

You're assertion, that "humans have been monogamous for as long as we know", is blatant nonsense. Both the modern world, and the historical record, are filled with examples of cultures which treat polygyny (men taking multiple wives) as normative, and which expect, or even encourage, women to improve their social station by taking a higher status husband.

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinja-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]runswithelves-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinja0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinja0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]runswithelves3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]runswithelves2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinja1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinja1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, most men are focused on "attracting sexually attractive" women. TRP is focused on teaching men about the realities of the sexual market place.

One of those realities is that a girl who will sleep with you the night you meet her, is also likely to cheat on you. So, TRP teaches you that you shouldn't fall in love with her unless you want to get hurt. TRP also teachs that your should respect the instinct many men seem to have, to withdraw affection, attention, and support after you've had your fill of such a woman.

women are debased by their having casual sex, is what madonna/whore complex is about.

Again, you're misrepresenting the Madonna-whore complex. MWC is a pathology in which a man is only sexually attracted to loose women, and is not sexually attracted to his committed romantic partner. Being repelled by behavior which indicates a higher risk for disease and infidelity is not pathological.

[–]TRPACC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]runswithelves1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TRPACC 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinja1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMuRP1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburt2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pillburt2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

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

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

There seems to be this constant undercurrent of thinking that says women that like sex are to be punished for liking sex

Liking sex is not the problem. Being promiscuous, however, does rule a girl out as LTR material. The "cock carousel" is a metaphor for promiscuity, not a healthy enjoyment of sex with a partner who has committed to you.

Simultaneously the type of girl you find in church groups and so on is pedestalized, but not pursued.

Not sure where you're getting that from. The debate in TRP concerning "good girls", a.k.a. "unicorns", is not whether they should be pursued, it's whether they really exist.

There is also a side debate over whether LTRs and marriage are even worthwhile in the current social climate. However, that has less to do with the women themselves, than with the broader social context.

Would red pillers agree that madonna / whore complex is strong in many of the followers?

No, because the madonna-whore complex is a specific disorder. It consists of an inability to feel sexual attraction for a women when in a committed relationship with her. There is nothing in TRP which encourages that. If anything TRP mocks men who don't have enough sex with their wives as "beta chumps".

The position common to many TRP commentators, that it's OK to pursue and use promiscuous women for sex but not relationships, is not a manifestation of the madonna-whore complex. It is simply sexual opportunism, mixed with caution regarding one's feelings and resources.

[–]TRPACC 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

No, because the madonna-whore complex is a specific disorder. It consists of an inability to feel sexual attraction for a women when in a committed relationship with her.

I know its not consciously encouraging that.

It has the hallmarks of it though.

Wanting to have sex with sexy women, but at the same time seeing women that have sex as tainted and degraded and not fit for relationships.

The flipside of that is only churchy, non sexual types are acceptable and pedestalized as unicorns, but not pursued and them having hot sex then makes them degraded and tainted.

If the conservative ones were being lusted after in RP, there would be evidence of it. Yet there is no advice about pursuing conservative girls at church groups and the like, the focus is always on tainted and degraded whores.

The boner focus is on "sluts", there is no boner focus on conservative women.

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

The main focus is on picking up the women

You're focusing on a subset of TRP which is concerned solely with getting laid. Getting laid is not the point of TRP. The point of TRP is understanding human sexual behavior so that you can get what you want out of interactions with the other gender.

If what you want is to get laid, then persue promiscuous women, they're easy. If you want an LTR, then try to find a "good girl".

then there is hating on the women considered tainted and degraded

Yes, and as I've explained, that's healthy for many men. That hate will help them avoid being used and hurt by a promiscuous woman who is unsuitable for an LTR.

there is the "thank feminism for all these tainted and degraded women" to have sex with

Only fromt he guys who want easy lays. The ones who want LTRs are happy wiht feminism at all.

little to nothing about going to church groups and so on to find the pure and pedestalized women.

First, that's because TRP holds, no woman should be put on a pedestal.

Second, that's because many TRPers believe no woman is truly pure; i.e. even a good girl is opportunistic and hypergamic at heart.

Third, that's because many TRPers are as tired of white knighting traditional conservatives as they are of obnoxious feminists. Church isn't appealing for many of us, so why look for women there?

All of that being said there is a component of TRP dedicated to building and maintining LTRs with quality women. In fact Athol Kay, whose blog is about maintaining a Red Pill marriage, is one of the most influential TRP writers active today.

Remember /r/TheRedPill is not the only place on the internet discussing TRP theory and practice. Far from it. Many bloggers in the "manosphere" self-identify as Red Pill and contribute to the growing discussion around TRP.

[–]TRPACC 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinja0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TehGinjaNinja-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Would be fine if you guys aren't hypocritical about it. Correct me if I'm wrong but TRP believes promiscuous behavior devalues a person's mating potential only if she's a woman. Men are free to whore around as much as they like, because of the "gatekeeper of sex" business. News flash: the selective people get to gatekeep everything, the sex, and the relationship. Since they are able to select, TRP would call them high sexual market value or whatever, they can effectively bounce (deny entry to) the lower value people. This goes for men and women. David Beckham is effectively a gatekeeper of sex when paired with, me, for example. Also, the reverse isn't true, men aren't really gatekeeping relationship, evidenced by the number of TRP men willing to trade relationship for sex and not even getting that, (gleaned from various posting of men spurned by evil women etc etc etc.)

[–]TehGinjaNinjaRed Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Correct me if I'm wrong but TRP believes promiscuous behavior devalues a person's mating potential only if she's a woman.

That's largely true, but that's biology not hypocrisy. There is a biologically driven sexual dichotomy between men and women. Generally speaking, promiscuity is unattractive in a relationship partner because of the higher probability that they will be unfaithful.

Infidelity in women is a huge problem, biologically speaking, for men. If a man is providing an unfaithful women resources, it means his resources may end up going to support another man's child.

Infidelity in men, on the other hand, is less dangerous to women. A woman can be certain that the child she is raising is her own.

Women only have to be concerned about the man withdrawing his support in favor of another women. This is why a common female tactic, when confronted with infidelity from her mate is to "stand by her man" and seek to strengthen the relationship.

Interestingly, promiscuity in a man can even be attractive to women. Other women's attraction to him acts as signal to a woman that he is a high quality mate.

the selective people get to gatekeep everything, the sex, and the relationship. Since they are able to select, TRP would call them high sexual market value or whatever, they can effectively bounce (deny entry to) the lower value people.

That's very true, but it doesn't refute the biological realities I've discussed above. You're right that the "Gate keepers of relationships vs. Gate keepers of sex" model is overly simplistic. But it does hold in the majority of cases when you are talking about men and women with near equal SMV.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]TRPACC 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Why is a complaint over being treated badly by people that likely have shades of Madonna/whore complex re-framed as carousel guilt?
Author	TRPACC
Upvotes	4
Comments	188
Date	February 4, 2014 4:48 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1wzw7c/why_is_a_complaint_over_being_treated_badly_by/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/why-is-a-complaint-over-being-treated-badly-by.286260 https://theredarchive.com/post/286260

Comments