EDIT: although the mods allowed this post to not be auto-deleted (I am on a new account), it seems my replies to your comments DO in fact get auto-deleted. But I have read all your comments and thank you for upvoting for the sake of freedom of speech!

EDIT2: update, the goal of attracting some attention seems to be gaining a little momentum because I just saw that the mods at TBP chose to perform the absolutely insignificant act of banning me (on a throwaway account, srsly who has the energy for that) from r/TBP. Thank you for upvoting and let's hope some of the people at TBP who visit here wonder why they as adults were simply "not allowed" to view this material.

EDIT3: for some reason I am now unbanned at TBP. I suppose they are following the thread.

In the spirit of solidarity against censorship, the free-speech-loving mods of r/TheRedPill have allowed me to publish here a copy of a post I made at r/TheBluePill which got censored by the mod cojoco because "It's shit" (exact quote). You may not agree with its content, but I hope all the BluePillers who read TRP for material will stumble across this. I reproduce my original post below without any change.

Discussion is of course welcomed.

Hello!

This is a long post explaining why I think r/TheRedPill exists and why it will probably stick around. Try to downvote only if you feel the discussion is not useful or the material is poor: I am not here to advocate why TRP** is good, merely what it is and why it is here.

I'm a fairly regular dude who a few months ago also could not help but take a look at a certain hated subreddit which was frequently mentioned in various comments in threads relating to sex/relationships. I noticed that I used 'women'/'females' interchangeably in the following text, sorry.

After reading much of r/TRP, its commentary, and r/TBP, I can say that TRP is really very similar to ”The Game”, ”seduction” and similar ”communities” with some important differences. In particular, it seems to give an even more dark, hopeless view of male-female relations. It is also more focused on theory, instead of just ”wear nice shoes and neg her”. It basically says that a lot of men are worthless to women, and that those at the bottom should accept this and do something else (this is pretty much MGTOW), whereas those in the middle should try to self-improve in various ways (of varying efficacy), and that those at the top are few (the ”80-20” rule). The men ”at the top” probably don't hang out on r/TRP, r/seduction or any self-improvement sites because they don't need to.

You are probably very tired of constantly reading about ”the sexual market place” but sadly, I feel the only way anyone can ever be made to understand what these guys talk about and why they feel marginalized (the raison d'etre of TRP) is to understand the sexual market place as they see it. Basically hot guys get hot girls, very hot guys get very hot girls etc. Simple enough, right? Most of us have heard it. However, on the TRP it is dominated by one key theoretical addition: the sexual market place is asymmetrical. Because of biology (a.k.a. Biotroofs), 90% of men have quite low value, the ”hot guy” in the previous sentence simply doesn't occur as often, whereas most females have some value.

It is postulated that women do best in mating only with very superior males – as their reproductive capacity is limited to perhaps 15 children but in practice historically it has been perhaps been 7 or so. Men have much, much fewer built-in needs to ”date up”, ”only take the best” etc., because they produce so much sperm that they can inseminate lots of lower, middle and upper-'class' women and produce LOTS of children. This is why the word ”strategy” or ”sexual strategy” enters the discussion on TRP so often: thinking of reproduction as a board game, one quickly sees (from the male's side) that males that adopt the strategy of liberally spreading their seed everywhere that they can will win the game faster than those who don't. Classic market theory: if there is a LOT of something, it is worth LITTLE. The downside is that male sex is worth little to women, the upside is that men can give it away liberally. The biological role/point of sex is sperm insemination and possible pregnancy, so men are just crazy about sex because their investment cost is zero, and the rewards can be huge. Since you have to feed the kids (even though you basically 'lock in' the female to give her last ounce of energy feeding these kids too), the investment is not quite fully zero and men therefore do have some form of sexual selection and prefer women who are physically attractive if they are looking for something more serious.

So where does this leave us? Well, interestingly, 99% of our written Western culture and history has centered around societies where, due to social, cultural and religious reasons, the number of women that could be secured by a male was limited to 1 (the word 'wife' designates this woman), thereby massively reducing the advantage offered by males whose genes predispose them for more extreme versions of the above ”strategy” (inseminating multiple women from several families, several villages etc.). Therefore, when we now AGAIN live in cave-like societies (in the sexual market sense: women and men can have as many partners as they want and no priest or family can tell them otherwise) where the ”strategy” works AGAIN, after having been dormant for thousands of years, it seems ”weird”, ”sick” and ”aberrant” that a few men can have sex with 100-200 women in his 20s, whereas some men get near zero sex. One problem in seeing that this is taking place, is that most men that women meet fall into one of two categories: 1) men that they lust for, date and/or have sex with and therefore belong to the top 10% or so, and 2) men who are not the top 10% and probably shut up about their lack of sex life, or exaggerate it or lie. Either way, many women don't realize just how little sex the bottom 50% of modern city-dwelling men are having. I am of course not exactly sure about the numbers because this phenomenon is so very new, but I would be surprised if the bottom 20% of men (in cities or at colleges) were getting much sex at all (in the US this would still be 30 million men). Back in college, I was fascinated that my heterogenous selection of sporty, funny, nerdy and intelligent friends had a few but really not very many sexual encounters. When they did, they were proud and everyone got to hear about it, ”'cause men getting laid is awesome right?”. Meanwhile, all girls of all ranges of hotness were dating a lot and having a lot of sex (if you asked them ,or they told you, or you were told, or you otherwise were informed/understood). Oppositely to men, they had many reasons to downplay this activity: they may in reality have had even more sexual encounters. How was this possible? Again, the 80-20 rule. Most girls were of the opinion: ”guys get sooo much pussy, they are really douchebags and don't call back, don't treat us right, they cheat when they can” etc. It takes a while to think about it, but think of 10 men and 10 women. 1 man has sex with 10 women, the other men have 0 women. In any statistical survey done by society, the result will be normal: ”the average male is having as much sex as the average female”, but all girls got laid and only 1 out of the ten men got laid. That leaves 9 very frustrated, angry and/or sad men, whereas it leaves each girl saying ”yeah that guy who fucked me has fucked 9 other girls, don't tell me men are having trouble getting laid. I talked to my 9 girlfriends and they said the same thing”. In reality, the numbers aren't THIS bad but I feel it helps illustrate the idea better with more exaggerated numbers.

If you do not accept that such an idea has anything to do with reality, I can understand if you think TRP is basically just pure lunacy and that the men are angry for other reasons and are there to hate on women in general, using feminism as a scapegoat etc (surely of course, some certain percentage of TRP will be due to this but I propose that at most 10% comes about via this way). But if you DO accept that the above idea explains reality relatively well, and that this is increasingly happening in our modern-day, de-regulated sexual market place, this begs the question: ”shouldn't there be lots of extremely horny, unsuccessful men who can't get laid, and get really frustrated, have no value, and who get to jealously watch how 5% of men essentially get everything of value”.

Yes. The answer is yes, and this has filtered into many kinds of solutions. The ”Seduction” community is one and basically says ”here is a toolkit that will get you laid, it works”. However, many feel that Seductions results are overstated, requires too much work, doesn't suit all personality types, is hopeless for total nerds, requires good looks, status etc. anyway, and that something is lacking. TRP basically adds to "seduction" by saying ”the toolkit is designed to make you temporarily be like and look like that which you cannot all be at the same time: the top 5%. Most will fail. Looks are very important too.”. The TRP also has a bit on how modern culture and society is lying to men about the above, but this is secondary in importance: first you should ask yourself whether you feel the above can be true before you can assess whether the upbringing of boys in today's society (in this particular regard) is good or bad (because this in turn depends on whether the above is true or not).

I see very few subreddits and topics that evoke more hatred, feelings and 'idea-nationalism' than TRP. TRP are definitely not all basement-dwelling neckbeard virgins who write up massively fictitious field reports about how they ”banged 10 SHBs last weekend”, and many of them are probably not bitter either, as if that were to make any difference as to the level of truth of the ideas offered at TRP. Also, TBP isn't a bunch of either raging, entitled feminazis or pussy-whipped white-knight beta-men who are in orbit around their gigantically fat and friendzoning feminist female friends. There are probably lots of normal people on both sides, and I myself view the whole thing mostly from an evolutionary biology and ”many sperms vs. few eggs” perspective. And from that perspective, I can definitely see that TRP offers insights, even though it may or may not offer 100 less important concepts, ideas or suggestions that I might find less interesting. I hope I have given you a slightly more middle-of-the-road view into how TRP is viewed on TRP, why it exists, and that as long as we live in big cities with large, de-regulated sexual markets we probably will see much more of this kind of theory appealing to men.

Honourable mentions for topics that get a lot of coverage in TRP but really aren't that important from a theoretical, scientific or polemic perspective: dread game and dark triadism (these seem to be more to do with psychological seduction/manipulation than actual theory about sexual strategy in humans), ”the wall” (women get uglier with age, and then want to get married in a hurry, pretty obvious IMHO), lifting (TRP wants to look good and be confident, I don't buy it that they are merely doing it 'for themselves'), hypergamy (same thing as 80-20 rule), ”frame” (manly stoicism and lack-of-reactivity is purported to be a trait viewed as sexy by women in men), divorce-rape (mostly a US issue, in my country this never happens due to prenups), hamstering (black on white, sexual strategy is ”ugly” as it basically means ”most guys aren't worth anything” so this leads to many situations where a female (who for cultural reasons usually must be seen as a softspoken peacemaker) may lie or self-rationalize some of her behaviours that are guided by her ”strategy”)

**Note that some people may not agree that the above analysis totally encompasses the heart of TRP, but I would say that understanding the TRPs idea of a sexual market place IS at least one of the most central ideas and driving factors behind their recruiting.