~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You seem to think the "mind" is some abstract blob of energy, it's not. It's just our brains affected by hormones, shaped by all of our experiences and framed by biology.
If you took out two brains, male and female, and put it into so called gender less robots one would still be male and the other female.
This has buttfuck nothing to do with TRP, and you could have asked this dumb question without saying you hate TRP when it has nothing to do with anything. It's just trolling and you're goi to get banned.
[–]Faustoast0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't believe it to be an abstract blob of energy at all. A better way of putting the question would be, in your ideas of gender, what is shaped by experience and what is shaped directly by biology. I fully believe that biology is the vessel for experience, I'm merely trying to ensure the topic doesn't enter the realm of hard biology, and instead concern itself with philosophy with a biological leaning.
As for mentioning the hating TRP, I merely thought that it was somewhat relevant. Certainly honest. I wouldn't say I'm trolling, although I do expect a 50/50 chance of a ban.
[–]RedCurtis 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Many complex sexual behaviors are dictated by sexually dimorphic brain regions (look up "sexually dimorphic nucleus"). If you oppose TRP, I suppose you'd posit that social influence trumps biological instincts. I'd argue that since no amount of social conditioning can change one's sexual orientation, it's unlikely that deeply ingrained mate preferences (i.e. AF/BB) are purely the result of social conditioning. So, to your question - most TRP "biotruths" are actually biological, although some might be further corroborated by the current social climate.
And since we're on TRP, a relevant anecdote: When I took a course on neuroanatomy (cognitive psych major), feminists in my class wanted the lecturer fired when he talked about the SDN and its role in controlling sexual preferences in humans. No valid counterargument, unless "advances in feminist biology" count.
[–]Faustoast0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link
While I'm afraid my education in such matters is the black market equivalent, I don't exactly propose social influence trumps biological instincts. I propose that while biological instinct is still certainly alive and well, the brain is far too much a convoluted creature to claim that things such as TRP biotruths are nearly as much a factor in society and the pursuit of happiness as TRP claims, because such is the decadent nature of our evolutionary process.
But, thank you. I'm 70% sure you're the first person to grasp the question I was trying to ask first try. Not sure if that's my fault or the other posters or both in equal measure.
Also, I don't mean to offend anybody exactly, but you guys do realise just how arrogant the claim to 100% true rationality sounds, especially in combination with the constant anecdotes and calling people trolls?
[–]stevredpill1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Just a comment - I think what bothers people about your post is not the questions you are asking, but the way in which you have asked.
You ask a question that could relate to red pill in some way, but you don't exactly specify what you are getting at. You simply just pose a seemingly innocent almost rhetorical question that we are supposed to interpret and infer as an argument against the views here. It's almost as if you are baiting us to give you a response where we are more likely to have "holes" in our argument for you to then go ahead and shoot down. This is why people may call you a troll. It seems as if you are trying to illicit a response instead of constructively debating. If you really wanted to debate, you would give your own logical argument first and put that out there for us to read, digest and discuss with you.
Instead, I am safely assuming that you are waiting for us to give our thoughts on the matter and then you can go about shooting our arguments down.
But that's besides the point. I personally don't see how this is relevant. TRP is simply about making sense of this world where so many of us have struggled in gaining the attraction of women. It's very practical in nature and very "bro-sciency", not theoretical, IMHO. Discussing TRP in the framework of a question like "Where do you draw the line between biology and pyschology?" is not what this sub is about.
Quite simply many people on this sub believe that women are a certain way. Many other men in this sub validate those beliefs with stories and their interpretation/analysis of past events.
I think if you really want to have a discussion, you should state in your post where YOU draw the line between biology and psychology, explain why this is relevant to and goes against TRP, and then open it up for comments from us.
[–]Faustoast0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, I definitely could've gone about it in a far better way. I didn't really set out to debate though. I basically just wanted to find out if people lean one way or another in terms of nature versus nurture. Although of course, the obvious tendency is pretty heavily towards nature. Just wanted to get into the specifics of it though. I'd rather not have a full, proper discussion about it because this is the internet and this relates to gender and that is a bad mix for a discussion in my opinion.
Sorry for any vagueness in my expression, I am reasonably hung over.
[–]TFCNU0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Our brains are part of our bodies. They're affected by hormones, by our genetic coding. If you are typical of our critics, you have to accept that gender is biologically determined. Trans- people don't choose to be trans nor do they become trans because of their upbringing, right? Then how can we say that for the vast majority of the population that is cis-gendered that our gender identity is somehow the opposite? That it is built by "the patriarchy" or society or our parents? We are hardwired to want certain things in life and our biologically determined gender plays a huge role in that. You don't have to accept that. You don't have to accept that the earth revolves around the sun. However, as the astronomers who upheld that belief found out, the more data you have, the harder and harder it becomes to make your hypothesis work. Come on back when you're ready to change hypotheses.
[–]Faustoast-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
While I am ready to change my hypotheses, I'm afraid you have at least in part misinterpreted them, which is probably my fault. Of course there is functional hard-wiring in our biology. But there's still plenty that, while represented in biology, are far more convoluted. For example, there's always the selfish gene. But perpetuating the selfish gene through the game, through high income? That isn't hard-wired, those are social constructs.
[–]TFCNU1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Generally speaking society reinforces biology. Social movements that try to work against human nature will eventually fail. That's one of the big problems with Marxism; it doesn't allow for humanity's competitive nature. Today the social expectations for men doom them to failure. Women tell men they want an emotionally available, selfless partner but they reject the men who live up to this standard. They reject this because biology tells us that a man who will not stand up for himself, who will not be selfish, will not be able to provide/protect when push comes to shove. Women are biologically hardwired to favour selfish men. So, yes, TRP advocates giving women what their biology dictates they want: a guy who stands up for himself.
For men raised in the last couple generations, this requires that they recalibrate and become more selfish. They need to overcome their social conditioning. That's not "perpetuating" selfishness or at least that's not the goal in and of itself. It's just saying to guys that if they want to achieve their relationship goals, they need to get in touch with their biology.
People talk a lot about Machiavelli here and I think it's an appropriate comparison. His seminal work, "The Prince," is not a guide on how to be evil in spite of the negative connotations we ascribe to "Machiavellian". Far from it. It's about how a ruler can use human nature to his advantage in order to make life better for his people. Likewise, TRP doesn't seek to make women miserable. It just proposes that to make them happy, men should be willing to give women what they actually want and not what society has taught them to think they should want.
[–]Faustoast-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
Ooooh boy I'm going to stop myself from commenting here because you mentioned the doomed nature of Marxism and nothing I say in reply could be on-topic or completely rational after that I'm afraid.
[–]stevredpill0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Lol you're funny. Instead of responding to or rebutting anything he said, you point out that he went "off topic" about Marxism, when in reality, he's just using that as an example of why society reinforces biology, which was a direct response to your comment that "That isn't hardwired, those are social constructs."
I never said there was anything wrong with the comment, and I certainly didn't say it was off-topic. I just get too emotionally involved in anything involving our modern view of communism.
[–]redpillanon10 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It's clear that you have no idea what the "selfish gene" refers to. The selfish gene isn't a particular gene or set of genes; it refers to the concept of the gene being the unit of selection in evolution.
[–]Faustoast-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I didn't mean it quite what it sounds like, I was basically referring to the genes that process has given rise to. It was definitely a mistake looking back to make such a stupidly literal reference.
[–]BrunoOh0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
You seem to confuse this reddit with /r/science or /r/philosophy.
[–]Faustoast-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm not curious about the answer to the question exactly, I'm curious as to how your answers fit in with other red pill views.
[–]MorpheusGodOfDreams0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I should start this off by saying, I am blatantly against basically everything you folks represent. That said, I'm curious to know the answer to something.
Stage 1: Denial.
Where do you draw the line between biology and psychology? I guess what I'm asking is, if you put the mind of a man and a woman into two separate genderless robot bodies, what do you think changes? How much of the behaviours you guys perceive as being dominant or necessary because of the facts of gender, or because of social factors and upraising?
Psychology (thought and behavior) is just applied biology. It is how an organism's biology interacts with its environment. Neurons are operated through electrical and chemical impulses, not some magical otherworldly properties.
Human brains in Robot bodies makes no sense because so much of our psychology is dependent on fulfilling our biological needs. Robots would not be hungry, or get erections, or go through ovulation. In other words, the premise is so ridiculous that it is impossible to use it to come to any conclusions.
If you like I could systematically use everything in the glossary of shaming tactics while I'm here.
This would not provide you with anything valuable, just as your first sentence did not add anything (aside from stroking your own ego) and should not have been included.
TRP is just the application of Bio 101, and is an understanding of the natural world. One who rejects this is likely to overemphasize "nurture," including the belief that every child is a special snowflake, and disregard "nature," the understanding that we all operate in basically the same ways to achieve our needs subject to our constraints (which include which sex chromosome daddy gave you).
[–]Faustoast-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I thought I may as well have been honest about the hate thing. I thought perhaps it would give people an idea of how I'd potentially react if somebody, say, said I was in denial for disagreeing with a variety of the fundamentals of this subreddit while still posting this thread. The shaming tactics thing was just my idea of a joke I'm afraid.
As for the rest, I'm not disputing the status of psychology as applied biology. I'm afraid I can be rather terrible at expressing myself sometimes. A better way to put the question would be, if you were to instantaneously remove the "[va]gina tingles" (as somebody so eloquently put it in this thread) and what I may as well call the testicle sparkles as factors in psychology/applied biology, what immediate changes are there? All differences fading over time, if not generations, was a given.
Your answer to the question so far seems to be, everything indicative of gender and gender roles as defined by TRP. That's fine, I asked a question, I got an answer. I didn't actually state my opinion in the original post. Or at the very least I accidentally stated an opinion that wasn't mine.
I will say, though, that it is as foolish as it is to disregard nurture as it is to disregard nature.
If you like we could stroke our egos at each other some more.
[–]MorpheusGodOfDreams0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
gave me a chuckle.
I agree with you on the dangers of disregarding nurture. However, one of our posts on the side bar is "gender studies is nonsense." I suggest you take a look at how Scandinavia has tried its hardest to ignore nature, and suggest that men and women are fundamentally the same aside from our genitals.
If you were to remove the natural female desire for a powerful male (gina tingles) as well as the male lust/ desire to protect weak women, the sexes would have no reason to interact with one another aside from forced situations, and we would have to come up with another mating strategy to survive as a species.
We would not become the same over time. Men still produce over double the amount of testosterone as women, and still find women generally useless when it comes to reliable help or support in almost any situation. Therefore we would become more pronounced in our maleness and out male interests, just as women would become more polarized. Women still have all the great technologies that men made for them, but this effort would completely stop (consider the female reaction to anti-rape nail polish from MIT). Women would not compete with other women over men, but instead become more catty and bitchy towards one another without any male anchor to hold them in place, still dressing slutty to make other women feel bad. They would try to compete with men in the job market, and fail miserably. Without women to distract them, men would be just as happy watching porn and playing video games, making a minimal wage to support their cheap activities. Women would go insane, unable to afford the increasing costs of basic needs like the newest handbags, instead turning to more malicious gossip and pill-popping to keep depression and suicide at bay. Universities would be 95% female, with a few guys around as sperm donors, making all "research" more female, without any viable metrics or statistics. All religions would fall apart, especially Islam because the millions of horny single Arab men would just shrug their shoulders and move on. Or they would nuke each other.
In other words, the moment you remove lust humanity falls apart because the sexes no longer care about one another. Every effect that we see today respective to each gender would just magnify until there is war (men would obviously win because we are more hierarchical and less dependent on so called "consensus"). You can imagine what happens afterwards.
[–]1Gowain-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
There is no line between biology and psychology. The body affects the mind with hormonal urges, the mind affects the body with thoughts that have been molded by societal influences. If the mind is stripped of hormonal influence, what is left is rationality, the thinking tracks of societal culture and assigned roles of the culture, which would probably go away over time leaving rationality. Male/femaleness would lose all meaning.
Yes, I realise experience shapes biology, and biology determines experience. I am attempting to establish, apparently quite poorly, the line between the two when it comes to red pill views. If you take away hormones relating to gender, to what extent is experience still relevant in terms of the associations bound to gender? Over time, of course, gender would lose all meaning. But in the short term, would women still have the 'submissiveness' talked about here? Would they feel the need to tend to their robot man? And so on.
[–]1Gowain0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I would think not. Women are at the mercy of their biology the same as men. One of the first things to go would be gina tingles that cause women to be submissive.
[–]xtc99-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Social factors are because of biology, they don't exist separately to it.
[–]Faustoast0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
Well now, that's oversimplifying it a tad don't you think? Biology is the medium for social factors, yes. But there's plenty of things that can be done to someone, for example, to convince them that they are worthless, that have very little to do with biological imperatives. I don't believe in souls or anything like that, but I still wouldn't call that biology, in the same way I wouldn't call biology chemistry, or call chemistry physics.
[–]xtc99-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
No, it's as simple as that.
[–]Faustoast0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Okay, we're playing this game are we? My turn!
No, it isn't as simple as that.
[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 11 years ago | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Faustoast0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
My one request is that if I am to be banned, then someone should at least piss on this guys car for me.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Faustoast0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RedCurtis 2 points2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Faustoast0 points1 point2 points [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]stevredpill1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Faustoast0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TFCNU0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Faustoast-1 points0 points1 point (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]TFCNU1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Faustoast-1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]stevredpill0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Faustoast0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]redpillanon10 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Faustoast-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BrunoOh0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Faustoast-3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MorpheusGodOfDreams0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Faustoast-1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]MorpheusGodOfDreams0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]1Gowain-1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Faustoast-1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]1Gowain0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xtc99-1 points0 points1 point (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Faustoast0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]xtc99-1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Faustoast0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points | Copy Link
[–]Faustoast0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link