~ archived since 2018 ~

Playing by the new books

June 24, 2019
332 upvotes

RedPill godfather Rollo Tomassi put me on to the idea of old books and new books. The idea is this: as men we are indoctrinated to follow the "old books," or the old set of social "rules" that govern dating and sex.

The problem is that women (and society) are not playing by those rules. They are playing by the "new books" which is pretty much open hypergamy.

I've always believed that it's better to accept reality for what it is and conduct oneself accordingly, rather than demand that reality conform to your expectations. In that spirit, here is an outline of how to best utilize the new books to maximize your happiness.

  1. She can pay for herself. Women are fully emancipated and financially independent. There is no reason for you to pay for her drinks, her meals, her movie tickets, her airplane tickets, her hotel room, her student loans, etc. If she cannot afford to participate, she can come along next time. I know that I am preaching to the choir here, but taking a mindset of there is no reason to pay for a woman is the first upside of the new books.

  2. Naked self-interest is expected. The old books taught men to sacrifice themselves for their woman. In turn, they were assured that she would be selflessly giving of herself in return. Of course we know this is bullshit. So how do we benefit? Simple. Be selfish. Women are enjoying the new books because most men are still playing by the old ones. But they actually need us more than we need them. Start playing by the new books and start being as selfish as a bitch. Not just financially- be selfish with your time, your attention, your resources, and your affection. Never compromise your mission or sacrifice your happiness for a female, and NEVER put her interests above yours; IT WILL NOT BE RECIPROCATED.

  3. No strings attached. I actually like the new books. Open hypergamy means that you shouldnt feel guilty for a pump and dump. Women never feel obligated to sleep with a man just because he gave her his love and time and friendship. The upside is that you get to fuck whoever you want, and just because she gave you pussy doesnt mean you are obligated to give her any more of your time or love.

  4. Non-commitment is assumed; exclusivity must be earned. As a man, your freedom is paramount. One of the upsides of the new books is they empower us to maximize our freedom. Under the new books, non-commitment is always assumed. Even if we are fucking, we are not "in an exclusive relationship" until it has been spelled out or discussed. This means that under the new books, you can pretty much guarantee to fuck a chick before giving her ANY of your commitment. The corollary to this is that you must guard your commitment jealously. Avoid exclusive relationships altogether if you can; if not, make her work for your commitment.

  5. Change of heart is allowed. Under the new books, women are allowed to have a change of heart at any time and for any reason. It doesnt matter how long you've been together, how much work you've put into the relationship, or how much money you spent on the wedding. She can always change her mind. The upside of this is that it works both ways. Start thinking like a woman. Reserve the right to change your mind at any time. Feel free to walk away from a relationship the moment it is no longer serving your happiness. Girlfriend got fat? You met someone hotter? She doesnt suck you off everyday anymore? Just walk away. Again, the new books only seem like fun to women because most men arent playing by their rules. Most men stick around way too long out of some misplaced sense of duty. Accept the new books. The moment she stops increasing your happiness, drop her goofy ass.

  6. Marriage is for suckers. I know this is beating a dead horse, but marriage is a lose/lose and should be avoided like the plague. It has ZERO benefit to men. No upside whatsoever, and plenty of downside. The good thing is that under the new books, you can avoid marriage altogether. Society no longer requires marriage for social participation.

What would you add? Anyone have a different concept of what the new books are and what that means for men?

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/TheRedPill.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Playing by the new books
Author chazthundergut
Upvotes 332
Comments 145
Date June 24, 2019 6:15 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit /r/TheRedPill
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/playing-by-the-new-books.243518
https://theredarchive.com/post/243518
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/c4srkf/playing_by_the_new_books/
Comments

[–]BigApoints121 points122 points  (44 children) | Copy Link

Occassional TRP reader here. Rarely comment. Wanted to say thanks for a well thought out and written post I enjoyed.

I sometimes think the last part about marriage is quite frustrating. It's 100% true. I see so few happy married couples and it's a totally bad deal for a man. Once in a while I see an old married couple together though, 65+ old I mean, and I think I'd like to have that someday. It does seem completely impossible given modern laws and social norms though.

[–]wowmansohacked24 points25 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

Happily married and been practicing the red pill for 6 years. AMA.

[–]wildtimes38 points9 points  (31 children) | Copy Link

What is the most important rule you follow to keep it happy?

[–]wowmansohacked46 points47 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

I’ll give three since I don’t think one is enough.

  1. Hold yourself accountable for the success of your relationship. You decide how successful you want your marriage to be by operating within your own frame and refusing to step out of it.
  2. Maintain a dominant power dynamic inside of the bedroom. This will transfer to outside the bedroom.
  3. Establish clear boundaries and expectations. My wife understands I will fuck other women if she gets fat. She also understands that I will provide for and give her security if she maintains her health and feminine qualities. This is just a shallow example, but the principle behind it is fundamental in sexual strategy. Don’t create covert contracts and don’t cash checks you don’t have.

Those are the three I find useful in my day to day life.

[–]5Imperator_Red20 points21 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

All sound advice I’m sure, but none of it changes the fact that she can walk away and take your money and turn you into her literal slave anytime she wishes.

[–]wowmansohacked27 points28 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

Sure there is always that risk but that only happens because you fucked up somewhere. Women are not thoughtless actors. They don’t just do things to do them. If my wife ever leaves me I know it’s my fault. Hiding behind the “she can take half my shit” excuse to not be married is just a way to dodge accountability in my opinion. It is a valid concern as well, but I also think it is over used.

Also to clarify I don’t mean to imply women are rational actors. They are not.

[–]Endorsed Contributormonsieurhire27 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It can also happen even if you don't "fuck up."

Why?

Because people can secretly be crazy/evil while presenting a virtuous face, or, more commonly turn crazy/evil over time.

They can also change ideologies that reframe their entire lives as undesirable. For instance, they might start as a religious fundamentalist, then discover a feminist book-store, read the books in secret, then "discover" they are being enslaved by their husband.

[–]5Imperator_Red8 points9 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Yea every guy here that got divorce raped did something wrong. What exactly justifies such arrogance and hubris on your part, to think you’re doing so much better than the millions of men who have been fucked over?

And no it hasn’t happened to me so I have no personal investment in this debate.

[–]wowmansohacked17 points18 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

If you were to ask them I would bet they would say yes I did X wrong. No man is infallible. I can point to multiple failures on my part in my marriage. However, If you believe that women would just leave and divorce rape a man for no reason then I am not sure what to tell you.

What exactly justifies such arrogance and hubris on your part, to think you’re doing so much better than the millions of men who have been fucked over?

You’re grasping at straws here. In no way do I imply or believe I am better than any of those men. It isn’t a position I’m going to even try to defend because it just isn’t one I have ever taken.

Related to that point though, I trust the system so I think I have a shot at a long happy marriage. If it doesn’t workout that’s fine. My wife has been a partner to me and has helped me build my wealth. She isn’t a slothful banshee sucking off of my resources. Unlike many modern women, she’s an equal contributor to the cause. If she were to divorce me I would be angry but I would like to think I wouldn’t be resentful.

Many men have wives that are literal leaches. They suck away their time, energy, and money and grow resentful. Then they get divorce raped because as implied, she didn’t have claim to any of that shit. They are rightfully angry because when they get married these men believe they are entering a partnership. However they just get a big helping of bullshit, misery and provide for an overgrown child who’s only value is the sad act of once a month sex with the lights off.

[–]j_arbuckle20122 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

So, in summary, success begins by choosing wisely?

Hm. Whose responsibility is that, I wonder?

[–]wowmansohacked3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Hm. Whose responsibility is that, I wonder?

No idea! Definitely not the man's job!

Seriously though this thread has been full of men trying to avoid the universal truth that the success and failure or any relationship starts with the man.

[–]Endorsed Contributormonsieurhire22 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm not saying you're wrong, but there are A LOT of irrational people out there who DON'T act in their own self-interest, or what could rationally be construed as a self-interest. Addicts, the mentally ill, the brainwashed, the deluded, the list goes on and on. It might make perfect sense to stay in a marriage for a number of reasons, but the promise of "adventure" and "excitement" will lead people away from it all the time.

[–]wowmansohacked1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You may have missed my other post. I address the point of women not being rational actors.

[–]Endorsed Contributormonsieurhire20 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol, exactly. You see, it was that one time you cut yourself while shaving. She saw the small spot of blood, realized you were mortal, then took up with some meth-dealing bikers. All your fault. You ALWAYS must clean up the blood.

[–]Nicolas06310 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

At least they did some obvious stupid things like getting maried, getting a wife that is much poorer than themselve and not signing a contract to protect their assets and finally to not apply any cunning and strategy when dealing with the divorse procedure.

[–]wildtimes30 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

May I ask how long you have been married?

[–]wowmansohacked 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

Four years now together 5.

[–]Dakstradamus0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Youre still in the honeymoon phase unless you dated for multiple years before marriage. Years 6-9 is where the real marriage begins.

[–]wowmansohacked2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It’s a possibility sure. You’re right and I fully expect my marriage to change but I also trust the tools I have acquired here. Honeymoon or not, you either believe the red pill works or you don’t.

[–]SeasonedRP0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Wrong. What are you a tradcon?

[–]wowmansohacked1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No. Not a tradcon in the slightest.

[–]fitmindfitbody2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As the great and late Patrice O'Neal has said "It's always the mans fault." - Rule number 1!!

[–]Nicolas06310 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is also true for any man, the person who win a divorse is the most cunning even if women have a big advantage. Still there are ways to choose the contract details when you sign it.

But if you are married or even in LTR, you still believe that you can make it together and work toward that. Too many men just let themselve become spineless beta cuck and then say all that is bad in their life is their ex girlfriend/wife fault. Sure she did hurt them, but they did everything to ensure it would happen by become somebody nobody would want to live with.

[–]wildtimes35 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for the answer.

What was your selection criteria for your wife?

[–]wowmansohacked17 points18 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I had a few shallow requirements and a few moral ones.

I wanted a wife with big tits that were natural so that was a shallow one. Long dark hair. And around 5’7” inches. Too short was a no go for me since I am 6’3”.

I also wanted a wife that came from a home with two parents. No mommy or daddy issues outside of the norm. She had to be okay with traditional gender roles. Not want children (at the time, this has changed for both of us). Educated with a non liberal arts degree. Slightly high maintenance (edit: comes from upper middle class ) since I enjoy spending money and don’t want someone who either feels afraid to spend or gets wide eyed at a two comma account.

[–]wildtimes31 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Again, Thank You for your answer.

It is a good answer.

[–]Cods_gift_to_reddit12 points13 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Marriage has absolutely zero benefit for a man and can cause so much pain.

My father has been rather successful and has earnt a ton of money all by himself. My mother refers to their money as shared, and because they are married there's nothing my father can do about it.

My mum can treat him like shit if she wants to and he has to put up with it or give away half his resources and go through a messy late life divorce AND RP swallow... Not a good deal. RP swallow is harder the older you need to take it, unfortunately my dad has his balls clutched in a vice.

[–]Nicolas06310 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Let's be clear, by the old books and rules, the wife is also owning/benefiting of the thing the man make and the man benefit just the same. They decided to live together and accept the other for better or worse.

If you agree to a set of rules that say you share the money and that compensate for other lacking part of your personality and let you slip in a relation married or not where you think you give more than you get, you have a problem.

This isn't even marriage the problem there, it is the basic idea behind the relation you have with that person. I agree that marriage make the situation more difficult but so do babies, buying the house with both names on it and so on.

It has been thousand of years that people carefully select whom they will mary and consider what string are attached: the family, their fame, resources and business, what are the pro and cons.

Men or women that marry for tingle or sex only are bound to be disapointed.

[–]Cods_gift_to_reddit0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

So what benefits specifically are there for men in a marriage?

[–]Nicolas06310 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

In my country at least:

- the more wealthy typically has to pay for the less wealthy regardless of sex.

- in case your beloved dies, you inherit a significant share by default and pay low taxes on it while otherwise only children inherit and it require your partner to explicity say you would inherit. Even then that's 60% of taxes and limited to a small portion.

- again in case your beloved dies, you get a good share of their retirment pension while otherwise you get nothing.

- none can just leave. If one don't agree to divorse, the procedure is long and complex and it force both to make effort to make it work. As a consequence, married people stay more often together than standard LTR.

- You get tax benefits for all the duration of the mariage.

- Your partner get insurance, social security and all for free. So if your wife for example is working as employee and you work as independant, you benefit of her coverage without having to pay for it.

- You can get nationality, right to work there and all other related stuff due to being maried with a local.

You guys aklways assume that you are such losers that you wife can only be a poor sucker not making any money, but while it is less common, many men have benefited subtentially from being married to the right woman. A former president of the country seduced the woman of a very influencial family maried her and it is how he got started.

This isn't because losers get raped in marriage that it say anything of that contract. Losers get raped by every aspect of their life because they don't understand and don't care of it work and see it only when it's too late that they did bullshit.

As a side note all you guys against marriage want a traditional woman and basically the only way to get one is to marry her. A traditional quality woman will not commit to you if you don't marry. You may convince traditional low quality as best. Maybe there high risk in this case, but you have to understand what you want. Mariage is useless for plates and sex, sure. But you shall not marry for that reason, that would be stupid.

[–]Cods_gift_to_reddit0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Most of the benefits you list are financial and men just don't want a woman to provide for them financially. If a guy like myself is earning enough money to keep his desired lifestyle going, he has no reason to look for money from relationships. Even if the world was set up so that only women received money, and men were not allowed any I would choose to live homeless rather than gain access to money from a relationship with a woman. It's just not a source of money that comes into my sphere of view - work and investments provide money, I do it for myself and my own ambition. The men who look for women to provide financially can hardly call themselves men, they are more akin to leeches.

There are some potential benefits to marriage that I personally see as a man, and quite frankly I don't see the qualities in modern women that lead to these benefits.

  1. sexual loyalty - so that I have guaranteed parenthood and my emotions/self esteem aren't fucked with and abused.
  2. fun to be around / low drama - so that she adds positive noise to my life. I can concentrate on my life and build what I want to build with no negative distractions
  3. has their own female friends so that I'm not bothered by stupid gossip, and so that she can maintain good mental health. I don't care what Susan said to Mary about Tim's shoes that Gary overheard and told Barry about who is Tim's best mate and also happens to be David's 3rd cousin once removed. Spare me that shit please.
  4. A woman who is on my side - so that she is willing to work as a team to make the unit stronger. Not a woman who is going to drag me down just because I'm amazing.
  5. A woman who shows qualities that indicate she will be an intelligent and competent mother to my children.

Even with all of these benefits I don't desire marriage at all - because it is not enough benefits to outweigh the cons of marriage. My money is my money forever and no woman will ever have access to it. I will gladly spend money on a woman I am dating or in a relationship with, I just won't give her the opportunity to access/manage/take it herself.

The set up I would much prefer is a LTR with a 'celebration of love' that is never written into law. I am happy to stay with a woman forever if all the above criteria are met, but I'm not getting married as a way to do that.

[–]Nicolas06310 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The men who look for women to provide financially can hardly call themselves men, they are more akin to leeches.

The subject is more complex than it appear. Men complain that the marriage is costly and they want that each pay for himself.

But this work well only for people with similar lvl of income. If one make much less it means that the way of living of both will be restricted by his financial capacity.

If you admit you may sponsor him at times, then we are not so far from the current system and if that become perfectly acceptable, complaining loudly about that is not that consistent with taking care yourself of the provider role.

Ultimately, following your idea of how a man make money, it shall not even be an issue, the man is make sufficiently to pay for the wife if needed. In the end only men making not so much and not having choosen the right type of mariage contract will be impacted.

[–]rpbanker2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I see a lot of old married couples too, and the man invariably has his shoulders hunched up and acts like a bitch. Just because they're still married doesn't mean he's happy.

[–]BigApoints1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Should have been more clear. I've seen what appear to be happy old couples.

[–]geauxfishing50 points51 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I’ve had conversations with multiple people and I look crazy as could be when I say if she’s not sucking me off or going home with me she can pay for her shit. It’s crazy too because once you start living by the new rules it becomes easy to get an abundance of chances and or opportunities and realize the old rules are long overdue to change.

[–]Cods_gift_to_reddit23 points24 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You start to notice friends who are fucked playing by old rules.

[–]daveed12978 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The next step that will have people reeling is when you tell them she should still pay even if she is sucking you off or going home with you. No reason to have her feel like an object, the sexual act should be voluntary.

[–]curiouschipmunk101081 points82 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

The hardest part of the "new book" is that most men are still playing by the "old book".

In other word, you'll find yourself isolated and you must be okay with that.

Recently a colleague of mine got married, he's a recent MD married to a college fling. At the wedding, the general advice from both men and women? " Happy wife; happy life"

Get used to isolation, exploiting self-interest, and becoming self-sufficient.

[–]someonesopinion696927 points28 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

isn't that basically what TRP teaches? become a man capable of fending for yourself when shit hits the fan basically, everything else is a bonus

[–]rnsbrum34 points35 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No, it teaches you to see the world as it is, and not as you wish it could be.

[–]someonesopinion696912 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

ie smash the disney rose tinted glasses

[–]brontide 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

In other word, you'll find yourself isolated and you must be okay with that.

Old book/new book all men are fending for themselves, some men are deluded into believing the fantasy and may never understand the truth until it's far too late; MGYOW/TRP accept the fact and make the best of it.

[–]wowmansohacked0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a great point. You should never seek camaraderie from women, it isn’t what they are there for and they won’t give you what you need. It is a daily effort to keep myself socially entrenched and my SMV high. If a woman can isolate you she can tank your SMV. Women seek to do this subconsciously. If they can lower your SMV they can increase their level of security and your level of commitment.

[–]VaN__Darkholme1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's like WW1. Everyone was still praising the old way of war and traditions. Until the horse mounted units were literally shredded by the new way of warfare. I recommend Hardcore History's "Blueprint of Armageddon".

[–]wowmansohacked0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I totally agree here. Men play by the old book and get burned because they still believe that women are socially incentivized to be loyal partners who contribute to the relationship. This just no longer is the case anymore. There is a new playbook for dating and a new one for marriage.

[–]Nicolas06310 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

" Happy wife; happy life"

There more wisdom in that proverb than most think. This shall not be taken as you are slave to your wife but more than a marriage can only be successful if both are happy, and so if you are the husband, you need to wife to be happy. That's kind of obvious. And most stupid beta cuck forget that it apply to the wife too: "Happy husband, happy life".

[–]owtaa 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, agree. I think another big thing is that your value isn't derived from social class. It doesn't really matter who you are, you can fuck anyone. No one will stop you.

Under the new books, you can be whatever you want no matter who you were born. I think that's the really big win for men that a lot of people don't appreciate.

Women want to talk about female empowerment in the modern age, but men had it pretty bad in the "good old days" too. If you were poor your chances at any kind of happiness were very limited. Nowadays, if you wanna be rich, go for it. You wanna get in on the cool parties? It could happen. You wanna fuck a princess? Great, go for it.

We live in a truly unique time with amazing opportunities.

[–]aoaop 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

Sounds a little bit BS, sure you *can*, but 99% of those won't be able to even if they tried.

[–]owtaa 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

I mean sure there aren't that many princesses wandering around so it's an extreme example - but back in the day, if your wife was hot the king could just kidnap her consequence free. Things are a lot more equal now. Most people have access to most things they want if they are willing to put in the work in a smart way. Brad Pitt was a sandwich board guy before he became a famous actor.

[–]Nicolas06311 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They are not more equal. Since the begining of time some people managed to climb the social ladder. You do it mostly by better understanding the rules than most and apply them to you advantage.

From statistics the American dream is fake as US has less social mix and change than most other countries. The rules are a bit different, but the powerfull are still in control and still ensure that mostly them get all the benefits. They just ensure that it isn't too obvious.

[–]aoaop 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

If a saudi prince wanna take a dump on your wife he could still convince her with a lot of money.

[–]Nicolas06310 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

And he would not get condamned for that. And all the feminists in the world would be powerless.

[–]SeasonedRP25 points26 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

4 and 5 in particular should be stressed because they don't come naturally to many men. If she isn't begging for exclusivity, there's no reason for you to even consider it. And if she displeases you and you decide you like someone else better, go for it.

[–]EkMard10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Reminder: It works bad for women to bring up exclusivity. They don't know, but it is supposed to happen naturally due to her behaviour with the high-value man.

[–]wildtimes31 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Not being sarcastic.

Well said, but does this have to be said here?

If she decides this shit, you are not doing your job or she is wealthy.

RP dictates:

  1. You are awesome.

  2. She offers herself without words.

  3. You decide if you cohabitate / practice monogamy with her.

[–]EkMard0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

does this have to be said here?

Many people here don't know.

If she decides this shit, you are not doing your job or she is wealthy.

Didn't get you.

[–]wildtimes30 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

“Didn’t get”, as in you’re not understanding my point?

[–]wildtimes30 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Said differently:

If she decides (this shit) where exclusively begins, then you are (not doing your job) being dominated or you are letting her make these decisions because she is wealthy. If she is seriously wealthy you might not be able to do much besides agree, if you are cool with that.

[–]temerity1812 points13 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

To point 2. I would add: "NEVER put her interests above yours; IT WILL NOT BE RECIPROCATED" OR APPRECIATED.

[–]Greaterbird7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Just because you're out to dinner or on vacation doesn't mean she won't pick a fight over stupid shit in the middle of it.

Just because you bailed her out of a shitty situation doesn't mean she'll remember the favor 2 days later.

Give her rides to work because she can't drive? Guess who is her personal taxi now.

[–]frooschnate0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Highly depends on the type of girl. Not as cut and dry as you’re making it seem.

[–]someonesopinion696920 points21 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Marriage is for suckers

my friend got married last year to a college sweetheart, his response to marriage...no different to being in a relationship, i respect his want to get married but clearly there's no advantage

[–]trp_lurking21 points22 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

He’s wrong about it not being different... and he’ll find out why after his marriage inevitably dissolves.

[–]someonesopinion696918 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lmao, yeah divorce rape is a bit different from breaking up

[–]Granite_Pill21 points22 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Since becoming red pilled four years ago, one thing I've come to realize is most (good-looking) women are already red pilled in a way. They get so much attention from men and have so many options, their life is pretty much a buffet of cock. They have abundance mentality. They don't even have to try. All they have to do is make an instagram account, post some selfies, and BOOM, 500 messages from thirsty interested men to sort through for options.

Maybe it's just me, but I've never had to deal with plates asking or wanting to become a serious exclusive relationship. They just want to get fucked by an alpha regardless of circumstances. I would estimate roughly 70% of the women I've banged since becoming red pilled had a boyfriend or were married. I didn't ask for that, I didn't seek that out, I didn't plan it, that's just the way it happened.

And a lot of the plates I've had, I would never hear from them again unless I make the move to call them again. I've fucked chicks' brains out and had great times with them, but then life happens, I get busy, I'm interested, but she's just not convenient at the moment. A year and a half later, I call her up out of the blue and she's DTF no questions asked. What has she been doing for a year and a half? I don't know. Is she mad at me for not calling? I don't know. How come she never tried contacting me back? I don't know. I just hit this other girl up I haven't contacted in 8 months and she's still DTF and doesn't even want to go on a date or anything. Just wants sex.

Further more, as you said about not paying for shit with them... come to think of it, none of the chicks I messed around with ever expected me to pay for anything. They always want to split the bill. In fact, they pay for my shit. They buy me food, clothes, accessories, and gifts here and there. I don't buy them shit.

It just seems the hotter the woman, the more red pilled she is. I've even had women confess their raging hypergamy to me. One woman, I told her my life's dream-- to live a simple life on 100 acres of land, have a hot wife, a pack of dogs, have 5 kids. She laughed in my face and told me I don't make a enough money and good woman like that isn't going to waste their time with me. I had another woman tell me I am pretty much nothing more than a piece of meat.

I don't have social media so I approach them in real life. I think they feel like that's a breath of fresh air in the modern world. It takes balls to approach a hot woman. They notice things like that and remark on it. Even if I am rejected, sometimes the woman will tell me how she thought it was very bold of me to approach her like I did because hardly any men ever do that anymore. They slide into the DM's nowadays.

They will still do all the shit they do like try to lock you down if you spend too much time with them, but they're pretty much red pilled in a certain kind of way. A lot of women are surrounded by losers and betas all day long, even at home, so when an "alpha" enters their sphere of existence, they take notice and seize upon it immediately. Strike when the iron is hot! I work really hard for barely anything in this life. I am lucky to be decently attractive in the face and I work hard to stay in shape, but I am nothing but lowly swamp trash. I am barely not homeless and I often wonder if I'll ever have any success in the future because my life has been nothing but one catastrophe after another. But I still get laid. And I NEVER fuck anything less than a 7.

[–]3chazthundergut[S] 21 points22 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Here's a relevant comment I made to answer "are women redpilled?"

...

They are absolutely Redpilled.

  1. They ignore content of speech by nature. Their natural mode of communication is through behavior. Even when they aren't consciously aware of it, they constantly evaluate men and other women based on their behavior. We've got whole chapters trying to teach men to think and communicate in these terms. But women just get it.

  2. They understand intrinsically and viscerally that their greatest agency is their sex. Men need to be taught how to value their time and commitment, and how to build their SMV. Women are naturally HYPER-AWARE of their sexual weaponry, the source of their power, and the decline that is inevitably on the horizon.

  3. Women are natural masters of every aspect of game. They are black-belts in manipulating men and extracting attention, commitment, and resources from them.

  4. Dark triad? Women are jedi-level Machiavellian psychopaths. If you are weak, they will chew you up and spit you out with no remorse. It is her job to find the cracks in your armor, wedge herself inside those cracks, and fucking break you. By the way, I love women and love their nature. But they are like the ocean. Surfing is awesome, but you've gotta keep your head on straight because the ocean is an unforgiving bitch and if you don't pay attention you will be pulled under and drowned. Same with chicks. They can be every bit as sweet and loving and affectionate as they can be cruel and remorseless. It's up to you, as the man, to surf her waves without getting fucked up.

The one area where women are not redpilled is their lack of imagination and high level of solipsism. They don't understand men very well, despite being experts at manipulating them. They think we are simple, but we have the depth of the ocean and women are so clueless about this (although they find it ridiculously attractive). Women pretend to be mysterious and unknowable, but they are actually very simple creatures to understand, far simpler than men. The fact that they've been able to keep this con going for so long, and tricking generations of men into buying into this bullshit about the unknowable, feminine mystique is a perfect example of how absolutely redpilled women are.

[–]aoaop 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

But they are like the ocean. Surfing is awesome, but you've gotta keep your head on straight because the ocean is an unforgiving bitch and if you don't pay attention you will be pulled under and drowned. Same with chicks.

Cringe.

Nothing cool about a bitch who won't ever help you if something bad happens to you.

[–]3chazthundergut[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I dont ever trust a bitch. Ever. But you do you.

[–]wildtimes35 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You are dead on with most of this.

If you correctly funnel a plate to the plate position, they see it. If they have enough self respect they won’t try to pin you down even if they want to because they already know the answer.

[–]5Imperator_Red3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

told her my life's dream-- to live a simple life on 100 acres of land, have a hot wife, a pack of dogs, have 5 kids.

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about just moving out of the city to a log cabin or something. Unfortunately the city has two things that I need, jobs and pussy.

[–]Granite_Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Same here

[–]majani0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The premise of this post doesn't make sense. The red pill is the truth about the modern woman's behavior in intersexual dynamics. Women behaving as described in the red pill simply confirms that the red pill is true. The MAN is red pilled, the woman is behaving as expected.

PS: if you sort yourself out financially you will notice behavior shifts

[–]BumblingBeta-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I am lucky to be decently attractive in the face

And this is the key point in your entire post. Your looks get you these women. The women then assign alpha attributes to you, based on your good looks (i.e. the halo effect).

[–]Patreon ContributorMAureliusTRP6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

One of the best posts I've seen around here in a long time.

[–]teveza118 points9 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

#6 is another area that I disagree with the Red Pill orthodoxy.

If you have enough balls, you can inspire loyalty from your woman, get married, and have a half dozen kids.

A lot of men do it. But most modern men are way, way, way, way to soft to have a chance.

[–]Project_Zero_Betas17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As /u/whisper has said, all hypergamy means is that women are monogamous with whichever guy they find most desirable. I'm convinced a lot of posters here simply don't want to put in the work that requires being the most desirable male their girl could (realistically) want.

[–]3chazthundergut[S] 6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

If you have enough balls, you can inspire loyalty from your woman, NOT get married, and have half a dozen kids.

What does marriage do for me as a man? Besides involving the government in my relationship?

[–]2Old4More2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

When my wife dies, I get her retirement account and life insurance...which kinda speaks to #1. Not only has she paid for herself before, but she is now, and will after she's gone. I won't have to jump through any legal hoops with her family, either.

[–]Nicolas06311 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

+1 It seem that too many TRP men can't get their brain to understand that it goes both way and that if they marry a more wealthy or as wealty wife the situation change entirely.

Too many men are just beta cuck that want to go into transactional sex and can't get it that their woman ask for money (divorse rape included) and isn't too enthusiastic about their relation.

[–]1XtoDoubt0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

While I agree with this (and consequently plan on doing so) AFAIK you're not any better off being unmarried with kids than married with them. If the relationship falls apart you'll still pay.

[–]teveza110 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair point!

[–]destraht0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I plan on getting married in another country. Its one of the easiest ways to gain residency. I'll have my money in one country, passport from another, living in another. Realistically property is going to likely be in her country so I'll be partially on the hook for that. The thing is though that I'll be insulated from her wrath to a large degree. Women in developing countries don't dream of being cut off from income and security just to bunker down in an abandon fort with hungry kids to bang Chad on Friday night. That is a nightmare reality for them.

[–]Verstappen33630 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I see what you mean, it can challenge a man, which has its benefits. But, in my opinion, getting married is a completely unnecessary risk for a man, the negatives heavily outweigh the positives. It is certainly not a challenge I would sign up to.

[–]Nicolas06310 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just marry a more wealthy woman than yourself I know shitload of men that have done that and they do divorse rape their wife.

[–]Thefireman830 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If your frame is strong you can tell her that you won't marry her but want to have a family with her and shell stay with you

[–]acidaus3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

There are so many beta males around now that if you have a girl soul she will want to pay for you for shit

[–]3chazthundergut[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh yea for sure. Once you've been the alpha and seen how they act, you can have them do all kinds of shit for you.

I mean think of it- she is willing to suck my dick and swallow my nut. I'm sure she'll pay for sushi.

But for most men, they should start by internalizing the mindset of not paying for women. Before moving up to having the woman pay for them

[–]acidaus0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hear hear. No validation . No compliments

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil35 points36 points  (50 children) | Copy Link

Women don't have agency, they just mindlessly respond to external stimulus in this case the economy. So no women arnt playing by "new books"

What the Fraud-Father Cuckold Conference endorser Tomasso doesn't understand is economics. He wants to blame women for what is essentially an economic phenomenon.

Wages are down. Housing prices are sky high and rising. Quality of life is tanking and we are well overdo for a major economic recession. This is the exact inverse of the conditions that created the baby boom post WW2.

The environment aka the economy has a strong correlation to birthrates and family formation. Don't fall into the trap of scapegoating complex socioeconomic problems onto women, like a bitter out of touch alcoholic.

Ask yourself did women pick up a set of "new books" Post WW2 and become ideal housewives? Did the economic boom make women better and more moral? Or did women just respond to economic incentives and remain fundamentally women? Exactly. So what makes you think that the deciding factors are different recession as opposed to a boom?

[–]3chazthundergut[S] 13 points14 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You're a legend for a reason GLO but you're off the mark here.

  1. Women absolutely DO have agency. The whole "women have no agency" is just a ploy for women to abdicate even more responsibility for their lives. If you don't think women are PROACTIVE about game then you arent paying attention. Yes, women play the game, and they are playing by the "new books" not the old one.

  2. I hate that conference too, but Rollo gets a pass for life. He can endorse Scientology and he'd still be the fucking man. We can talk about him and his ideas without endorsing the conference.

  3. No, women didnt consciously decide to start playing by the new books. The "new books" is just hypergamy codified. They have ALWAYS been that way. The difference is, society used to force women (and men) to play by the "old books" ... women who embraced open hypergamy were socially ostricized, and men who didnt get married were barred from the social ladder. Nowadays open hypergamy has been embraced under the banner of female empowerment. But it actually isnt empowering at all- once men get wise to reality and start following the new rules themselves, it will be a disaster for women.

[–]wowmansohacked3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

  1. Women absolutely DO have agency. The whole “women have no agency” is just a ploy for women to abdicate even more responsibility for their lives. If you don’t think women are PROACTIVE about game then you arent paying attention. Yes, women play the game, and they are playing by the “new books” not the old one.

I think you’re on point here. There is a common mistake here to misconstrue women being non-rational actors as not hacing agency.

[–]wildtimes33 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

  1. Sorta. Everyone has agency. Women are more reactive than men. Yea they might save for retirement, but, for most of them, they are only looking a year out planning to use their SV for something.

  2. Agreed. Pass.

  3. I’m with GLO here. Books, new age, feminism, whatever... All we are seeing is their nature in response to current social and economic forces. They aren’t playing a book or bound to some old or new code. They won’t collaborate and plan like TRP does, because their hypergamous and solipsistic nature regards all other women as competition. The coming reckoning will be a disaster for society.

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Don't fall into the trap of scapegoating complex socioeconomic problems onto women, like a bitter out of touch alcoholic.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that a substrate must be an actor. The agar gel in a petri dish doesn't know a damn thing about bacteria, but it can still grow a hell of a lot of them.

Women are a substrate for social change because they are inherently submissive, and, if a man isn't leading them, they will all imitate each other. This causes social fads to spread through the female population with incredible alacrity and totality.

Changes in the economic landscape are ultimately driven by human behaviour, even as further human behaviour is driven by these changes.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorRStonePT4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I was thinking the same. People love to attribute everything to free will, when in reality, way too much of what we do is based on what the environment gives us to work with.

The old books involved risky penalties with sex, resource scarcity and labor based productivity

The new books involve 0 risk sex, resource abundance, and a detachment from labor and productivity.

these things are completely unheard of for the entirety of human history, and we still don't have full understanding of the repercussions, benefits, or consequences.

We have a few guys who A/B test life and report findings, and so far thats better than most. Women in general get to ride that wave because of their inherent value (to men)

we are burdened with the benefit of requiring deliberate actions to carve a path, or take our chances of being attractive enough to strike it lucky, for as long as we are able, and hopefully bounce back from whatever life throws at us when we aren't lucky

[–]destraht1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

We have a few guys who A/B test life and report findings, and so far thats better than most.

It seems to me that the elites spend fortunes studying the population and new trends all the while attempting to deny us even whimsical means of the same. The models and institutions are compromised and we're discouraged from sharing notes.

I found this channel a few years ago after someone responded to my rant on r conspiracy about the suspect modern dynamic between men and women. Currently r conspiracy is still wide open while this subreddit is quarantined.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorRStonePT0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

r conspiracy get news stories written about it that scare of advertisers and VC funding though

[–]destraht1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It may yet get banned but look which one already is.

My working model is that the media doesn't need to be profitable. It sure helps but if they can lose a little money controlling things that are a million times more lucrative then that is the rub. For example nobody wanted to buy USSR propaganda outside of the USSR. The US propaganda is much sexier though and so it can self-fund and sometimes even make money. If they are losing money (which is SOP for tech) then they can get new loans, investments, etc. Once in a while they can "sell" the company to have its debt wiped out and then funded more. Then it can be spun off again, resold a million times as necessary. As long as people use it then it has value with the System. People hamster this otherwise obvious reality away after hearing that usage data is so valuable. It only obfuscates the real arrangement. This sub and others were simply soft snubbed out once they were perceived to be detrimental (beyond a limited hangout reality escape) and the elections are just the rallying point to get it done. It was always in their hearts' desire and well within their capabilities.

[–]EkMard0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Can you provide some more modern examples that are relevant?

[–]destraht1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't provide that because its not something that I have written down over the last 12-13 years. I can only give you a hints of where to look.

The news used to be seen as a financial loser that companies were expected to participate in for public good or just becausea. Then 60 Minutes came along and turned the news into a potential huge money maker. So the public started seeing the MSM as first and foremost a for profit venture, its not except that in our system profit is heavily associated with viewership.

Now look at venture funding for the early darlings. There is a free market and various smart guys battle it out. However, once an organization begins emerging from the pack then CIA investment firms like In-Q-Tel step in and offer funding in one of the earlier rounds, hidden through a proxy or otherwise. At this point a glass ceiling or bad regulatory environment will never exist and as long as the engineers and businessmen do their thing well they can succeed. Its so much a part of the system that its comparable to the Chinese Party system of partnering with large businesses. Its only more abstract and indirect as all of the West is now.

To illustrate this look at the Russian VKontacte Facebook clone. The KGB had to take over VK in a very public manner when one of the main owners resisted the government getting involved to the next level. The US fascist system (merger of corporations and state) is much more sophisticated because they get involved early in the process. The Russians need to take over crudely after the fact, the Chinese don't give a shit about it and don't hide it.

So like in the Godfather "We're not communists here" the various government branches pay the companies for access. They get their special admin/spy interfaces. They are an investor and a client. In the end the "market" isn't going to let well used mind control and spy services fall by the wayside over little things like money. The money will just appear.

Facebook CIA Project:

[–]Senior ContributorMentORPHEUS13 points14 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Is this a language barrier issue where you misunderstand the idiom "new books," or are you so determined to continue a proxy war against Rollo that you just typed up stuff completely unresponsive to what OP actually wrote?

[–]modSlyGradient[M] 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think he thinks pseudo-intellectual babble is some sort of clever trolling.

[–]GayLubeOil 1 points [recovered]  (9 children) | Copy Link

I'm not seeing a refutation of economic determinism. What I am seeing is you chanting "new books, new books" like you're in some sort of cult and reducing a detailed socioeconomic argument into a personality contest.

So go ahead and refute my analysis.

[–]MentORPHEUS 1 points [recovered]  (8 children) | Copy Link

chanting "new books, new books"

One time isn't a chant, you ridiculous dude.

So go ahead and refute my analysis

Your analysis of the underlying economic drivers of behavior is fine of itself. It's the way you presented it as if it refutes or disqualifies what OP wrote, when it's really just another proxy jab at Rollo. Rather like critiquing the economic positions of Herman Melville in the amazon reviews of the movie Free Willy.

[–]GayLubeOil 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

Got it. So you are 100% fine with my economic analysis however your duckling-like attachment to Rollo precludes you from understanding that economic determinism is a refutation to his hardline biological essentialism.

Furthermore you don't like to be reminded of the fact that your idol sold tickets to a cuckold speach and is currently working on selling us out to the NYT.

Go ahead and write some refutations of my claims.

[–]MentORPHEUS 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

OP doesn't even take a position on whether the "new books" are due to biological or economic determinism. He wrote a concise piece on how things are with some musings on what men can do in response. You are posturing against positions and ideas of Rollo's that are not present nor implied by anything OP wrote.

In refutation of your claims

your duckling-like attachment to Rollo

your idol

Neither is true.

[–]GayLubeOil 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

By citing Rollo's New Books doctrine he takes the Biological Essentialist position. Citing a biological essentialist makes your argument biological essentialist. Here you are telling me that citing someone doesn't mean that their ideas are present or implied.???

This argument is ending the way all of our arguments end. You basically confuse yourself into not understanding that you are wrong.

[–]MentORPHEUS 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

By citing Rollo's New Books doctrine

Fair enough, he starts with a nod to Rollo and hypergamy, I can see why that gets your alarm bells ringing.

You basically confuse yourself

You're lazily attributing your misunderstanding of my methods to my alleged confusion.

What OP wrote stands on its own as a description of the current day state of things, whether the reason why it's that way is due to whatever percentage of economic and biological determinism among other factors.

I'd really prefer to see you develop economic determinism material to replace hypergamy, to provide a better example, to be a better citation for derivative works in the future manosphere; than to spend so much time attacking ideas and people you consider inferior.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

How about you use this as an incentive to read some nice books and we can pull a win win out of this?

[–]modSlyGradient[M] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're walking a fine line here GLO. Suggest you stop picking pointless fights.

[–]EkMard7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women don't have agency, they just mindlessly respond to external stimulus in this case the economy.

Yup. Upvote for this. And for this:

Don't fall into the trap of scapegoating complex socioeconomic problems onto women

[–]wildtimes34 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you, just digging a bit deeper if you’ll oblige.

Women don't have agency, they just mindlessly respond to external stimulus in this case the economy.

Nothing new I suppose.

What the Fraud-Father Cuckold Conference endorser Tomasso doesn't understand is economics. He wants to blame women for what is essentially an economic phenomenon.

Economic and social. Obviously intertwined.

Wages are down. Housing prices are sky high and rising. Quality of life is tanking and we are well overdo for a major economic recession. This is the exact inverse of the conditions that created the baby boom post WW2.

Correct.

The environment aka the economy has a strong correlation to birthrates and family formation. Don't fall into the trap of scapegoating complex socioeconomic problems onto women, like a bitter out of touch alcoholic.

But it’s easy...

Ask yourself did women pick up a set of "new books" Post WW2 and become ideal housewives? Did the economic boom make women better and more moral? Or did women just respond to economic incentives and remain fundamentally women? Exactly. So what makes you think that the deciding factors are different recession as opposed to a boom?

Regardless of cause, the social shame quotient regarding woman’s sexual behavior has drastically changed over this time period. I think it’s undeniable that the change in socially acceptable behavior norms has a lot to do with the current situation.

The social norm shift and the changing economic landscape are obviously highly correlated.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil11 points12 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Nobody has time to shame anyone because the speed of life aka the speed of economic exchange aka productivity has skyrocketed

Good luck trying to shame your slutty ass daughter while working 60 hour weeks. On the other hand go to a country with a lower GDP per capital and everyone has a lot of time to shame and gossip..

[–]Project_Zero_Betas4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

aka the speed of economic exchange aka productivity has skyrocketed

Isn't the "speed of economic exchange" essentially the velocity of money, which is quite different from measured changes in productivity, no?

[–]Imperator_Red 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

And how many hours did the common factory laborer in 1870 or the small farmer in 1750 work, you fucking troglodyte? God you suck so much.

[–]wowmansohacked0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that argument was way off.

Communication tools like social media allow for shaming like never before. There is a cultural shift via media subversion that has moved us away from shaming behavior. It’s absurd to even claim we are working more than we did 100 years ago.

[–]Suqat5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You don't understand Rollo's points. If you have read his books or his blog you would know this. It is an analogy to emphasize a point. Old books new books is a social convention to point out how, because of dissonance on account of society and women, society proclaims a certain way of acting to be correct, yet women act in a different way to said proclamation. He isn't pointing out any CAUSE with his analogy, only something that HAPPENS. He puts blame on the Sexual Revolution and Contraception, as well as men being beta chits if I remember correctly, which has a DIRECT correlation to how women act. Sure, the stimulus was not from women themselves, but they DID act on it, because their nature doesn't change, only the circumstances. Rollo doesn't deny this.

Secondly, quality of life is not declining by any metric. Don't know where you are getting that. I do think there will be a recession though. That is obvious to anyone who pays attention.

Thirdly, women not having agency is a bold claim. I think there is some truth to this, they are certainly lessened ability on their part to choosing rationally, but the same can be said for most, if not all, men as well. If the standard is so high no one has agency. For someone to have no agency is to have no rationality, which would make women nothing more than sensory systems which could produce guaranteed outcomes 100% of the time, which I think is questionable (Sarcasm.). Perhaps attraction is purely about conquest (IE: Warlord takes what he wants, regardless of her feelings. Her feelings change over time to love and empathize with said man. See War Brides); this is a philosophical question however, and I would need to think about it some more. The only person I know to have thought so was Otto, but some of his ideas on biology were screwy. I need to re-read parts of his works.

Finally, it would be prudent on your part to retain a bit of humility. It was the downfall of better men than you, and your ad hominem attacks are quite childish to everyone that moved on from the stupid drama 10 weeks ago.

[–]BurnoutRS4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The social conventions cant exist without a society to be placed within, which is structured and built upon an economy. Wherever you have people living, you have commerce, exchange, economy and society go hand in hand and drive one another.

Note how all the things you described having a direct correlation to how women act, are contingent on economic conditions. The sexual revolution and contraception meant that the risk of having sex for a woman decreased significantly, with more emphasis on sex for pleasure and less on sex as a reproductive function, women spend more on maintaining their attractiveness. When the value shifts from "who can fuck me good and bare good children/raise them" to simply "whos the fuckingest, suckingest whore this side of the Pecos" the women that suceed the most in slutting, through probability, get knocked up and are the least likely to be good moms

This makes for bastard sons, mommas boys, beta males abound. This next generation of beta males sees the sexualization of women and they take it to new levels of depravity in their betadom.

Of course, you state concurrently that quality of life is not declining and yet we are due for an economic recession. so clearly you arent capable of conceiving of the link between economic stability and quality of life. Yes quality of life is up, the amount of pixels displayed on screen while you stuff your face with amazon delivered cheetos is steadily climbing indeed.

[–]j_arbuckle20122 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There were never any old books. Or new books. Women have always acted in a way that maximizes their sexual strategy. Socioeconomic factors have driven them to do different things at different times. We can make educated guesses, but the fact of the matter is beyond a certain point historically, the mate selection process for any given society becomes unknowable. What remain true is the fact that women act to maximize sexual strategy, always.

What Rollo is doing is using a well-known NPC script to describe dissonance men have when it comes to expectations from women. That's all.

[–]GayLubeOil 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

Culture and by consequence social convenientions are a biproduct of the economy. The issue is that Rollo doesn't understand the root cause of things and uses a combination of alpha posturing and corprate speak to disguise his lack of knowledge.

In fact if you ever question Rollo about any of the holes in his arguments hell pivot dodge and eventually hide from you.

Here's a few questions to try out on his twitter:

Hey Rollo when you say that biological determinism is a valid argument for saying the genders are fundamentally different, doesn't that imply that the races are fundamentally different?

How can the red pill be not political if YouTube is censoring at the behest of the SPLC?

How is the Red Pill not an ideology if you dismiss your critics as "purple pill" and have dedicated your life to changing people's beliefs.

Rollo is a larpy Boomer. Go fuck with him on Twitter and you'll see his incompetence.

[–]modSlyGradient[M] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Go fuck with him on Twitter and you'll see his incompetence

Don't make suggestions like this. It violates the rules.

[–]Imperator_Red 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

Another mindless rambling comment from GLO

[–]GayLubeOil 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

Oy vey GLO is disrupting my world view! I must emote like an NPC to protect my matrix! No real refutations are needed here!

[–]Imperator_Red 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

Oh the new thing again. That was predictable. Fucking faggot.

Didn’t U/redpillschool just say to stop making everything a Jewish conspiracy the other day? Are the mods going to enforce they said is GLO a force unto himself, too powerful to be checked?

[–]RoadToZion1119 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

You are by far the biggest triggered NPC sjw-like faggot here and I don't even like GLO.

If anyone is misfortune enough to read your shameful pitiful comment history he can clearly realise that you are an NPC kid with Napoleon complex at the bottom of every interdimensional dominance hierarchy, you are more salty than the Queen of JSWs.

[–]DickZinnendorf 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree. Also, why aren't we allowed to criticize Jews? Jews are responsible for the degradation of civilization. All of our problems would be solved if we just kicked them out.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers002 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It’s both dude. The sex and the city third wave feminism propaganda has told them to put marriage and motherhood on the back burner. Economic factors are also important and don’t get brought up enough so thanks for pointing them out. But that doesn’t preclude the indoctrination of radical feminism.

[–]BurnoutRS0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

It is both, but one is contingent on the other. Without generations of economic growth moving us from being serfs plowing the fields to people roaming city streets, the conditions wherein sex and the city and third wave feminism could arise would never have occured.

micro or personal economics tells us that bitching about the state of things cant really happen until you've satisfied enough of your primary biological needs to even take time to assess the state of things and contemplate how they might be improved.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers000 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I may have misunderstood what GLO was saying. He seems to be arguing in two directions. Can’t tell if he’s saying problems are due to postwar boom economics or recent recession economics.

I agree w what you’re saying tho. Women’s liberation is a luxury afforded by material plenty. Both because the lower needs on Maslow’s hierarchy are met, but also because the margins of error we can get away with are greater for societal mistakes or maladaptive changes because unprecedented prosperity can buffer against it.

[–]BurnoutRS0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

There are no two directions. Postwar boom economics is an economic factor effecting culture the same way that recent recession economics are an issues that shapes the culture of our times.

"Unprecedented prosperity can buffer against it"

yes and when we all willingly enter the matrix pods, sorry, VR pleasure domes, the system will be able to run itself once all the men who designed and operate it die off.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers000 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Dude I know all economic situations affect things. No shit. I was saying I wasn’t sure which GLO was making a point about as creating women’s current behavior.

And yeah we’re fucked.

[–]xoxuv0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

He wants to blame women for what is essentially an economic phenomenon.

Then why the epiphany phase? Do women get rich just after men stop giving them attention?

[–]National_Capitalist2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

How would you have and raise children if you aren't married to the woman you want to have kids with? I can think of several ways but what would be the most effective?

[–]BurnoutRS2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

ejaculating in her vagina most likely

[–]wildtimes30 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Shit ain’t easy.

Vanilla version:

All assets in trusts. Own a suit or two, nothing more.

Economic and residential diversification.

In the US, Georgia is known for enforcing pre nuptial agreements as written.

[–]MafiosoMGTOW2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Great post, and honestly I think this sums up dating while being MGTOW at the same time. Just take care of yourself first and do whatever you want, no commitments, no living together. You'll get way more women that way as well. Marriage is dead IMO. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and Men are the gatekeepers of commitment. In the past, Marriage was when a virgin woman would marry into the mans family. The trade of having sex for having commitment happened at the same time for the man/women, with a strong family support and guidance. Everything about that is dead. The only thing I'm still trying to process is if you still want to have children in the future without getting child support raped.

[–]throw_this_far_awayy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm all for 5 and simultaneously not so much into 6. Some where in between we work till the day we don't.

[–]ElectricalWait 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

Why was your old thread removed? It was one of the best ever!

http://archive.is/3opLb

[–]3chazthundergut[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know if or why it was removed. Thanks though I appreciate it

[–]majani0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Caveat: I've noticed that Muslim areas and rural areas in poor regions still play by the old rules. Provider types are still adored there because women aren't yet financially liberated.

[–]2INNASKILLZ2K180 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

These always were the books...they were just buried beneath a lot of other bullshit books that most of us picked up without diffing deeper.

[–]red_matrix0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The “old books” still hold up well: you can’t negotiate attraction

Noting has changed:

Rule 1: Be attractive Rule 2: Don’t be unattractive

Plenty of women were chasing Ted Bundy when he was on trial, and later when he was in jail.

You can’t fight biology: Alpha Fucks, Beta Bux

[–]colzod0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

you can avoid marriage altogether. Society no longer requires marriage for social participation.

Excellent point that I haven't heard before. Thank you.

[–]1sezamus0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I saved this post, because I think this could become a sidebar material. In my opinion this a good mindset roadmap to tune oneself while encountering relations with women.

Godspeed!

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter