So I've been lurking TRP for some time now -- even before I was at the very least perusing PUA videos and, in a great many ways, I found the entire thing to be profoundly fascinating. (Perhaps I'm more interested in the psychology of it than the actual process). Nevertheless, there is other information which I've found has illuminated me immensely; "rape culture" and the indelible impact social media has had on our society. I'm, for all intents and purposes, your typical Beta -- however, I am by no stretch of the imagination an "orbiter" and I don't inundate women with validation or lend any legitimacy to "game-playing". In fact, at the first sign of "game-playing" I abandon ship, systematically and uniformly -- no exceptions. This has led me, beyond any cause I can trace, to identify as MGTOW; but with a caveat. It isn't so much a disgust/hatred of women (although many of them flaunt attributes and an overall deportment I've found to be disreputable and shameful) as it is a fundamental aversion -- I'm simply not attracted to most of them. They're insipid and dry and I want something more than just great sex -- I want someone who stimulates me intellectually and spiritually. I've had one girlfriend in my entire 20 years and I've hit a spot where I want to focus on myself and indulge my passions. When I go out, I don't try to "game" any women; I just have a good time with my friends. I've just stopped caring.

I'm here today, peeking over the other side of the fence, to be "converted" or to dry swallow TRP, so to speak. They say the definitive mark of intelligence is -- when presented with an argument which possesses both rigorous evidentiary standards and robust logic -- the capacity to change one's mind when the evidence is no longer congruent with their worldview. So that's why I'm here; to dispel my presuppositions of women and indeed, the world.

1st claim: As of late, I've been likening women to inordinate leeches. I once knew a guy (we'll call him "P") who would only come around my friend group when he needed something -- if we were smoking weed, he would literally come through the door, smoke some of our weed, and leave. If we had alcohol, his behavior would follow this paradigm, even still. Eventually, as we wised up to his schemes, we cut him loose. I've been confounded as to how anyone would look upon a woman and miscontrue her antics for anything different. I mean, have you ever heard of a LTR (let's say one of 15 years) being predicated upon such a prodigious lie as "her pussy was good." Since there is an overabundance of "good pussy" or "attractive" women it stands to reason that such a thing would be highly improbable. A man will ostensibly seek something deeper, something more meaningful. But this is a platitude we've heard ad nauseum "guys only care about sex." Is there anything sinister about that? Living in our society, as it presently stands, should any woman even reasonably care or lament such a reality? If their motivations for sleeping with a man is to ultimately be cuffed by this high-status man, then perhaps their frustration isn't baseless after all but very much justified. However, if their underlying goal is to one day find a man who is economically and emotionally fertile and is able to perhaps one day aid in nurturing a child, then what is the big fuss? These men should be in overabundance and alacritously willing to gratify their every desire. But how many LTR's have been founded upon a lie like "money, power or influence?" Not so many because these powerful, affluent men are not in overabundance -- they're represented, scarcely. So what has become the modus operandi of the 21st century, American woman? To find this "Christian Grey" fellow. Is this desire morally or logically defensible? Categorically and incontrovertibly no . . . it is not. In fact, under such a system, no child nurtured under these two parents (the woman and "Chad") will realize the formative years necessary to become a meritorious, productive member of our society. The formative years -- the years which are patently critical (defined by all preeminent academicians as the first 2 years of a child's life) -- would presumably end in the following scenario:

-"Chad" realizes he made an enormous mistake by "settling down" and wishes to prolong his sexual campaigns and conquests >
-The woman he's settled down with is vigorously opposed to this >
-"Chad" and the woman cite irreconcilable differences in their divorce papers and little "Chad Jr" grows up, having never established a functional relationship with his father, consequently becoming a degenerate.

And the cycle continues. As far as I'm concerned, this is not only inimical to all posterity but, on part of the woman, it is malicious, emphatically self-serving, and evil. But this is what they desire, no? This is the ideal scenario (to be cuffed by this high-status Christian Grey) albeit unrealistic. Twenty-first century, American women would, given their way, live in a world occupied only, by "Chads." This is because they've been given too much elbow room. And measures, which were incipiently taken by women on behalf of a prospective child, are now being taken to fulfill their own interests, fantasies and goals. In this way, they are nihilistic toward the future, in its entirety.

Returning to my anecdote, you may say the desire to find someone who won't use you is, in itself, unrealistic. You'd be absolutely right. We live in a world which caters to individuals pursuing their separate interests. There is no such thing as altruistic behavior, in its strictest definition. Every action you take that appears selfless is at its most basic level, a contribution to the species as a whole -- even if it may not appear that way. You're, on some level, increasing the chances that the beneficiary of this seemingly selfless gesture, will reach the point where they are able to survive and replicate their genetic lineage by means of procreation. You're aiding them in one of these spheres: survival or procreation, however trivial the gesture may seem and this, in turn, helps you because as a species we generally want to survive and we want others to survive; so it isn't truly selfless. So every friendship and intimate relationship abides by these principles -- this is nonpolemical. So I'm not going into these relationships or friendships expecting not to be used in some capacity but there are shades of grey. I don't want this to be one-sided or else they become a liability and toxic. When I go to these clubs or parties I don't see women, I see liabilities. And not even worthy liabilities -- liabilities which bring nothing to the table.

2nd claim: I should be able to work on myself, by myself and if I ever reach a point in my life where I am considered a "prize" by most women, I should be able to vet which I'm attracted to and divorce myself from all others. If I pursue my passions and I'm able to create and offer something meaningful to society then who's to say my life isn't fulfilled? And if my passions lead to my becoming financially independent I can travel the world and interact with a gallimaufry of different peoples of different backgrounds, and find a woman *I'm * attracted to. I'm sure no one would classify this as a fool's errand -- there must be some woman out there who is more than just a "fuck." Some woman out there who is intelligent, graceful, funny, and charming. In the event I were to meet such a person would I fool myself into believing she is with me because she likes me for who I am as a person? No. Would I even fool myself into believing she wouldn't cheat on me if she were to encounter the "more alpha" or more high-status Chad? No. But at least she would be worth it. I have no problem living with this troubling reality if the woman is actually worth it. But I'm not going to be with someone who I'm not attracted to. Most women (and men) are vapid and banal creatures but there exists, somewhere, those who are not. That's what I'm waiting for. Until then, being the ambitious person I am, I see nothing wrong with working on myself and augmenting my own power and net worth. I find money and glory to be far more enticing than most of the women I've encountered in college, clubs, et cetera.

Anyway, I'm done rambling. I want to open this up to discourse and I'm very eager to engage the person who will convert me. But I will leave this post with one last thought:

After scouring through this sub's posts, I noticed a thread that addressed social media's pernicious effects on the women of this generation (it was posted around 10 days ago). While reading through the comments I also noticed that many of the people who contribute regularly to this sub:

1.) Acknowledged and identified this epidemic to be a problem.

AND

2.) Recognized the gargantuan ramifications this would have on future generations (i.e. higher rates of suicide, demographic winters, et cetera) if this system were to persist.

If everyone recognizes the present attitudes of Western women as a problem why is everyone continuing to espouse TRP method/mentality/lifestyle (accepting things as they are and adapting), thereby allowing this system to thrive and play out indefinitely? Doesn't everyone recognize this as a product of Western feminism/social media? If most would disagree with the merits of Western feminism why are we choosing to participate in a system that was born out of Western feminism?