TRP and Manipulation | PurplePillDebate

[–]rp132 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (125 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (109 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (108 children) | Copy Link

[–]rp132 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (98 children) | Copy Link

BP is "nice guy" behavior: "If you are just really nice and treat people with respect they'll find you attractive" no they won't. Treating people nice hoping to get something out of it isn't nice. It's manipulative.

Trying to "talk to someone about your problems. Come to an understanding" involves sitting someone down, trying to offer them things and verbally negotiate desire. Sometimes with implied threats. This is manipulation.

Basically, expecting anyone to do anything with a covert expectation or by following social convention or trying to verbally negotiate terms or try to guilt anyone into doing anything or feeling anything is manipulation.

You know what's not manipulative? Don't demand anything or expect anything. Become physically attractive (fit) and emotionally attractive (not needy/abundant/independant/self-reliant). Give to people the time and energy and respect that you want to give them and don't expect anything in return. Spend your energy on people who earn it, and drop people who expect to take your life for free.

If no one wants what you are selling, don't pressure them, just improve the product or the packaging and try again with someone else.

Not manipulative.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (97 children) | Copy Link

BP is "nice guy" behavior: "If you are just really nice and treat people with respect they'll find you attractive" no they won't.

There appears to be two different definitions of BP going around here. One is the behavior of pre-RP terps, and the other is the perception of feminist views held by terps.

I'm a feminist, so this is my point of view: you're right, being a "nice guy" doesn't entitle you to jack shit. No girl is going to hook herself to your arm because you're "nice"; basic courtesy is as big an accomplishment as getting out of bed in the morning.

Treating people nice hoping to get something out of it isn't nice. It's manipulative.

No, it's not particularly manipulative. It's selfish, for sure.. but to manipulate someone is to skillfully control them. If being "nice" was an effective form of manipulation, you'd be getting what you want and you wouldn't need the red pill.

Trying to "talk to someone about your problems. Come to an understanding" involves sitting someone down, trying to offer them things and verbally negotiate desire. Sometimes with implied threats. This is manipulation.

You're not trying to "negotiate desire"; you're trying to meet at a middle ground. It's absolutely childish to believe that you can get everything you want, and when there's two people involved (such as in a relationship), you need to work out how both of you can get the most out of each other.

If your expectation is to always, unilaterally get what you want, you're probably better off single. Your girlfriend is not an accessory, you're in a relationship with her. It's a mutual understanding.

You know what's not manipulative? Don't demand anything or expect anything. Become physically attractive (fit) and emotionally attractive (not needy/abundant/independant/self-reliant). Give to people the time and energy and respect that you want to give them and don't expect anything in return. Spend your energy on people who earn it, and drop people who expect to take your life for free.

This would be wonderful if it were the things /r/theredpill regularly advocated, but they're not. You have negging, you have dread game, and predatory pick-up techniques... a whole lot of the sub seems to be devoted to belittling and controlling women. You guys only bring up self-improvement when confronted with the miriad of ways you try to manipulate women into fulfilling your selfish desire for a fuck-thing or wife-servant.

If no one wants what you are selling, don't pressure them, just improve the product or the packaging and try again with someone else.

And yet you bitch and moan when women leave you, because "loyalty and honor are male virtues". Pfff.

Not manipulative.

Yes manipulative.

[–]Archwinger[🍰] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don’t demand anything or expect anything. Become physically attractive and emotionally attractive. Give to people the time and energy and respect that you want to give them and don’t expect anything in return. Spend your energy on people who earn it, and drop people who expect to take your life for free.

This is exactly what the Red Pill advocates, summarized very nicely. If you add “from women” or “to women” to most of the above sentences, you’ll recognize it. I’ll elaborate in highly exaggerated anti-woman terms so that you’ll recognize all of that as basic Red Pill 101:

“Don’t demand anything or expect anything” - Don’t expect sex or romance, or for that matter anything valuable, from any woman, even your girlfriend or wife. Don’t talk about it, don’t ask for it, don’t try to negotiate her into wanting you or liking you more with stupid-ass communication. Communication will just turn her off. You can’t change a woman’s nature. Communication is for losers. Keep your damn mouth shut or you’ll dry up her vagina. Your mouth is for agreeing and amplifying, and putting in various places on her body. Not talking about your thoughts and feelings.

“Become physically attractive and emotionally attractive” – You can’t change women. Change yourself instead. Lift heavy shit, eat healthy, and get an awesome body. Groom and dress well. Practice social skills (a.k.a. “game”). Talk to a lot of women and get used to doing it, until rejection is no big deal and you really don’t care about outcomes any more. Talk to them like you would anyone else who you don’t want to fuck, with the same tone, banter, and standards (a.k.a. “negging”). Girls fuck guys who don’t give a fuck. Guys who care about girls are sexless losers.

“Give to people the time and energy and respect that you want to give them and don’t expect anything in return” – Do what you want. You don’t have any obligation to do shit for anybody, especially women, and if you do happen to do shit for women, they probably won’t do anything for you. So do what you want or what betters your life, and if girls happen to want to follow along suckle on that energy you’re expending, good for them. But don’t expect it.

“Spend your energy on people who earn it, and drop people who expect to take your life for free” – Don’t waste your time doing shit for women or loser men unless you’re getting something of equal value out of it. If somebody isn’t giving you something you want, drop them. Go silent. Stonewall. Agree and amplify. Laugh at them. Whatever. Go spend your energy elsewhere, with valuable people instead. Maybe if crap women see you leaving them behind and having a blast with other people, they’ll get their heads out of their asses for fear of losing you (a.k.a. “dread game”).

[–]rp132 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (95 children) | Copy Link

There appears to be two different definitions of BP going around here. One is the behavior of pre-RP terps, and the other is the perception of feminist views held by terps.

Good point. Pre-RP terps is what I try to focus on. Straw-man definitions of feminism bore me.

I'm a feminist,

Check my flair.

If being "nice" was an effective form of manipulation, you'd be getting what you want and you wouldn't need the red pill.

My point is that it is about intent. Doing things for someone supposedly just to be nice but with the intent of getting something in return is manipulative. You're attempting to gain political capital and then cash it in for affection. Or guilt.

you need to work out how both of you can get the most out of each other.

This phrase completely disgusts me. How can you say the phrase "We need to sit down and work out how the both of us can get the most out of each other" with a straight face while ALSO claiming to not be the transactional and manipulative one?

Relationships aren't trade negotiations with contracts and exchanges and transactions of guilt and affection and sex and time....relationships are voluntary gifts of shared experience.

You can't and ABSOLUTELY should not try to negotiate someone into "getting more out of them" that's manipulative as fuck. Simply be amazing and hope they see it and improve your life. Improve their life too if you desire. If they fail to improve your life then smile and move on. Surround yourself with positive people don't try to legislate negative ones into action. THATS manipulative.

If your expectation is to always, unilaterally get what you want, you're probably better off single. Your girlfriend is not an accessory, you're in a relationship with her.

We completely agree. This is why TRP advocates not being in LTRs.

Say it with me: if you aren't getting enough of what you want out of a relationship naturally, then you should not attempt to force it, demand it, or expect it, you should either try to bring more to the table yourself or politely exit

It's a mutual understanding.

Sort-of. The mutual understanding is that if you don't love me enough to improve my overall quality of life, I will find someone who will. I expect you will do the same. That's the ONLY understanding that isn't coercive or manipulative.

This would be wonderful if it were the things /r/theredpill regularly advocated, but they're not.

You have negging,

Also called treating them like people when they fuck up instead of following the sexist objectification script

You have dread game

Also called making yourself happy and valuable and not being ashamed of it.

predatory pick-up techniques...

Also called "talking to women and allowing them to consent to sleep with you". Side note, TRP hates the PUA community generally...but that doesn't matter. I don't know specifically what techniques you are referring to, but it always struck me as INCREDIBLY sexist to remove women's agency when making choices of who they would like to spend time with. If I go to a bar, smile at a sober woman, say some cheesy line, and she thinks I'm cute laughs and kisses me...the ONLY POSSIBLE JUSTIFICATION that you could use to accuse me of hurting her is to say that she's too dumb and vulnerable to make her own informed decisions as an adult about who she wants to kiss. Fuck you and your sexist shit man.

If pick-up was truely predatory it wouldn't be about lines or confidence or dressing well or having social proof or working out, it would be about roofie chemistry and effective knot-tying and how to avoid dark areas with cameras. Since women DO have agency and are, you know, people, not children, you can't claim I'm victimizing one of them with a racy joke.

And yet you bitch and moan when women leave you, because "loyalty and honor are male virtues". Pfff.

I don't bitch and moan about it. I don't know anyone who does. The point of it is that if someone doesn't want to be with you they shouldn't be and they can go ahead and leave. I also don't think I said "loyalty and honor are male virtues". To the extent that Terpers say it, usually they mean that loyalty and honor are reserved for anyone who shows them to you, which generally means friends not lovers not business partners.

[–]RedPillDadRustled Jimmies0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (93 children) | Copy Link

My point is that it is about intent.

We're talking about manipulation, not the intent to manipulate. You can have the intent to drink coffee, but that's not going to put a cup to your lips unless you act on that desire.

In any case, it seems to me like the intent didn't change; just the methods. "Nice guys" and terps are both despicable; the only difference is that terps are more dangerous.

This phrase completely disgusts me. How can you say the phrase "We need to sit down and work out how the both of us can get the most out of each other" with a straight face while ALSO claiming to not be the transactional and manipulative one?

To work something out with someone is democratic and cooperative. Not manipulative.
You're right, I don't relate to friends or lovers transactionally... but way I structure my relationships is radically non-normative, and I need to come back to normative terms in order to have a common language with most people.

Relationships aren't trade negotiations with contracts and exchanges and transactions of guilt and affection and sex and time....relationships are voluntary gifts of shared experience.

That actually is exactly what I feel. There's no disagreement from me here.

Also called treating them like people when they fuck up instead of following the sexist objectification script

You have the right to tell people they've fucked up, IF THEY FUCKED UP. This isn't fucking Minority Report; you don't approach women you don't know with imagined crimes to accuse them of.

Also called making yourself happy and valuable and not being ashamed of it.

Dread is by definition "great fear and anxiety". You can insist that it's about self-improvement all you want, but the very name betrays malicious intentions... which, based on my experiences with terps, rings true. You don't get to disavow crimes with which you've been caught red-handed.

And like I said before, you guys are all about the "self-improvement" when someone brings up how manipulative and abusive you guys are.

Also called "talking to women and allowing them to consent to sleep with you".

Specifically, I was talking about seeking out emotionally vulnerable women to take advantage of. I guess this makes sense, no woman in her right mind would sleep with most of you.

Since women DO have agency and are, you know, people, not children, you can't claim I'm victimizing one of them with a racy joke.

TIL having agency means you can't be victimized. Good to know!

I don't bitch and moan about it. I don't know anyone who does. The point of it is that if someone doesn't want to be with you they shouldn't be and they can go ahead and leave. I also don't think I said "loyalty and honor are male virtues".

I'm talking about views that are commonly spouted in /r/theredpill, not about you specifically. I was using "you" as a metonym.

To the extent that Terpers say it, usually they mean that loyalty and honor are reserved for anyone who shows them to you, which generally means friends not lovers not business partners.

Which, within the narrative of TRP, means just women.

[–]rp132 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (92 children) | Copy Link

To work something out with someone is democratic and cooperative. Not manipulative.

Working something out implies striking some kind of bargain. "You give me this, I'll give you this" It's transactional language that implies that you are going to verbally negotiate the terms of the relationship. This also rings with "To get the most out of each-other". It's really manipulative.

You have the right to tell people they've fucked up, IF THEY FUCKED UP. This isn't fucking Minority Report; you don't approach women you don't know with imagined crimes to accuse them of.

I totally agree with this. I neg women who flake on me, who give me shit tests, who look me up and down and say "Nope, not good enough" to my face or call me names. I neg women who act like they are better than me by default or demand that I buy them drinks or say things like "You aren't hot enough for me to sleep with you tonight" (I never bring up sex they always do...hmm...).

I don't just randomly neg strangers, I treat people with respect until they treat me with disrespect, and even then I do it playfully and non-committally when the disrespect I was given was downright rude as shit.

It just so happens that time-to-disrespect is about 1.4 seconds with every single woman I've ever interacted with (except 2 I can think of, and they were awesome people) because that's a part of the patriarchal dating ritual to test masculine mettle. Since I pass the ritual, we have passionate crazy sex, despite me having whatever negative characteristics for they teased me to my face about 2 hours before.

Dread is by definition "great fear and anxiety". You can insist that it's about self-improvement all you want, but the very name betrays malicious intentions...

I think I understand your point, actually, but perhaps when judging the morality of an action you have to look past the name we use to sell it to what the action actually is. A salesman might internally refer to a strong selling point of a product, expressed in a snappy way, as a 'hook', but there's no literal hook, no literal curved pieces of metal stabbing someone and forcing them to come in and buy the product. It's not even figurative coercsion to 'hook' a customer: It's just telling them about the positives of the product in a way that sticks. "Hooking clients" sounds skeezy, but it's not.

In a similar way, "dread game" boils down to the fact that if you take time to make yourself attractive, then its likely that someone will find you attractive. If they notice how attractive you are then it is likely they will realize 'hey, I've got this good thing here that's worth something' and act like it's worth something. If they don't come to their senses, doesn't matter, you still got hotter, because it's not about them it's about you.

I seriously don't understand how you can possibly buy it when a woman says that she's getting breast implants "for herself" and think that going out to clubs looking nice is 'empowering" while simultaneously saying that a guy who gets pecs "for himself" and goes out to a business meeting in las vegas is being abusive. Seems wildly inconsistent to me.

Specifically, I was talking about seeking out emotionally vulnerable women to take advantage of. I guess this makes sense, no woman in her right mind would sleep with most of you.

More sexist crap. Because if a woman chooses to have casual sex with a guy who is funny, casual, low-pressure, independent, and not needy, it's clearly because she's 'damaged' in some way because no woman would willingly consent to casual sex. Fuck your sex-negative sexist bullshit man.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (84 children) | Copy Link

Working something out implies striking some kind of bargain. "You give me this, I'll give you this"

It is transactional, but it's also cooperative and mutually beneficial provided both parties' interests are being kept in mind.

It's transactional language that implies that you are going to verbally negotiate the terms of the relationship.

As opposed of the RP way where the man is the sole authority in determining the terms of the relationship, right? I'm not talking about you specifically, but this is what RP boils down to the vast majority of the time.

This also rings with "To get the most out of each-other". It's really manipulative.

Not at all. You are in a relationship with someone else, and... for the purposes of relating to that person, you need to be able to hold a dialog with them. The idea of a relationship is that you're a part of a team, and you need to be able to play as a team.

You will never be able to cohabitate with someone if you're unable to have a discussion with someone on how to do so, even more so if you're romantically engaged with them.

In any case, this rings extremely childish to me. Respecting each other's boundaries is more important than indulging in your desire... if your desires are infringing on someone else's bodily integrity, that's a good reason to revisit your wants and examine if they are reasonable or not.

And yes, desire can be worked out. Given a good reason, you should have the capacity to determine whether you should want things or not-- healthy people do, at least. For example, you don't have to have sex with someone if it means raping them no matter how badly you want it.

who give me shit tests

Problem is that to a terp, everything is a shit test. You guys live in a constant state of paranoia. It's pretty pathetic: like the guy who thought his wife putting a picture of him in her office desk was getting shit-tested. Fucking ridiculous.

who look me up and down and say "Nope, not good enough" to my face or call me names.

Or you can get over it? Two wrongs don't make a right; sounds to me like you're choosing to fester in your own negativity.

I'm gonna stop here. I have other things to do.

[–]rp132 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (83 children) | Copy Link

As opposed of the RP way where the man is the sole authority in determining the terms of the relationship, right? I'm not talking about you specifically, but this is what RP boils down to the vast majority of the time.

No, the RP way is that each partner individually sets their own boundaries and simply acts on them. If a partner is demanded to perform outside their boundary they make it clear why and refuse politely.

The idea of a relationship is that you're a part of a team, and you need to be able to play as a team.

I actually agree with this, except too often "be a team player" is used to mean "beg for your boundaries to not be crossed" or "Because we're a team you are obligated to sacrifice for it". How about instead of a team with sacrifice, its two individuals who voluntarily work for themselves and each-other. Cooperative Anarchy not Democratic Socialism.

In any case, this rings extremely childish to me. Respecting each other's boundaries is more important than indulging in your desire... if your desires are infringing on someone else's bodily integrity, that's a good reason to revisit your wants and examine if they are reasonable or not.

I totally agree with this.

For example, you don't have to have sex with someone if it means raping them no matter how badly you want it.

I also totally agree with this. However, I also don't have to be in a monogamous relationship with someone who does not find me attractive enough to want to fuck me.

It's pretty pathetic: like the guy who thought his wife putting a picture of him in her office desk was getting shit-tested. Fucking ridiculous.

I don't know anything about that. What I will say is that stuff like "Oh I'm just gonna not call him to see if he wants me bad enough" is a shit test, and yes, I see that all the time. I've heard that verbatim from my female friends.

Or you can get over it? Two wrongs don't make a right; sounds to me like you're choosing to fester in your own negativity.

I agree. I think you misunderstand, I don't mean the context of a sputtering angry insultfest, that's not the basis for a healthy relationship. I mean "Aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper?" "Whatever princess".

Derisively implying that she's coddled IS NEGGING. They aren't spitting in each-others faces they are treating each-other like sarcastic jibbing people.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, the RP way is that each partner individually sets their own boundaries and simply acts on them. If a partner is demanded to perform outside their boundary they make it clear why and refuse politely.

All I can say is that's not the RP I know. Maybe you have some other variant of it, but it's decidedly not what I've observed.

I actually agree with this, except too often "be a team player" is used to mean "beg for your boundaries to not be crossed" or "Because we're a team you are obligated to sacrifice for it".

Are you kidding? Nobody should have to "beg" you to respect their boundaries... you should just do it. Whether you're in a relationship or not, that's basic respect.

And yes, being part of a team does mean having to give things up for it. When you choose something, you always lose out on something else.

I also totally agree with this. However, I also don't have to be in a monogamous relationship with someone who does not find me attractive enough to want to fuck me.

If you got with someone in the first place, I doubt the issue is "desire to fuck you" unless you've really let yourself go. If the sex goes to shit, that's typically a symptom of other, bigger problems. In my opinion, RP pseudoscience makes you into a complete asshole; if the bedroom going dead is a frequent problem, try considering that RP is doing more bad than good.

I don't know anything about that.

200+ upvotes on /r/theredpill's front page at one point.

What I will say is that stuff like "Oh I'm just gonna not call him to see if he wants me bad enough" is a shit test

You've got it wrong; she was the one trying to get through to him. HE was the one cutting off communication; in other words, the man was doing the shit test.

and yes, I see that all the time. I've heard that verbatim from my female friends.

Of course people do it, and it's a shitty thing to do. That doesn't mean you should too. Personally, I don't do that shit and I have zero tolerance for those who do.

I think you misunderstand, I don't mean the context of a sputtering angry insultfest, that's not the basis for a healthy relationship. I mean "Aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper?" "Whatever princess".

And that's supposed to be better? It's still fucking childish. If somebody insults you just go with it: "yeah! It makes me better for fighting ewoks! The reason the stormtroopers lost was because they didn't have enough short guys!" Now that's fucking attractive if you ask me.

Derisively implying that she's coddled IS NEGGING. They aren't spitting in each-others faces they are treating each-other like sarcastic jibbing people.

Sounds like everyone involved is an asshole, if you ask me. Try hanging out with better people.

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you kidding? Nobody should have to "beg" you to respect their boundaries... you should just do it. Whether you're in a relationship or not, that's basic respect.

I agree. Read what I said again. I was saying that I don't agree with "being a team player" if allegiance to the union is used as leverage to guilt you into accepting when your boundaries are crossed. I wasn't saying to beg people to cross their boundaries that's crap...I was saying "There's no 'I' in 'team'" can be used to manipulate my consent and that's bullshit.

And yes, being part of a team does mean having to give things up for it. When you choose something, you always lose out on something else.

Maybe, but my point is to take responsibility for what you give up and if it's not acceptable to you to simply walk. As an example, suppose my partner refused to get a job because lazy, even though there are no kids and they are just as educated and able as I am, and made me pay for everything and work overtime to cover their expenditures.

The only 'discussion' we need to have is that I don't consent to this kind of relationship, it crosses my boundaries. If they try to guilt me with "Oh you don't LOVE me. We're a TEAAAM. We SUPPORT each-other" then I would reject that argument. I'm under no obligation to consent to being in a relationship where I carry all the weight if I choose not to be.

After our 'discussion' where I say "I'm sorry, I can't do this, do you want to work on it?" If they say no, I say "Ok, I'm sorry then. This is a hard boundary for me. I wish you the best of luck"

It violates consent to argue that I am compelled by guilt to accept terms of a relationship that violate my boundaries. If I make it clear what needs to change and it doesn't, I remove my consent to be a part of that relationship.

"yeah! It makes me better for fighting ewoks! The reason the stormtroopers lost was because they didn't have enough short guys!" Now that's fucking attractive if you ask me.

Sure, this is also called "Agree and Amplify"

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I agree. Read what I said again. I was saying that I don't agree with "being a team player" if allegiance to the union is used as leverage to guilt you into accepting when your boundaries are crossed.

I know, but my point is that is not an appropriate standard by which to measure relationships. If your notion of a typical relationship is one in which partners beg for basic respect, you're gonna draw skewed conclusions.

I was saying "There's no 'I' in 'team'" can be used to manipulate my consent and that's bullshit.

If anyone puts you in the position where you're doing things against your consent you should definitely leave.

With that in mind, it's also extremely unhealthy to be so adversarial. You have the "me first" mentality of a spoiled child; if you're in a relationship with someone, you should have the capacity to cooperate with them.

Maybe, but my point is to take responsibility for what you give up and if it's not acceptable to you to simply walk. As an example, suppose my partner refused to get a job because lazy, even though there are no kids and they are just as educated and able as I am, and made me pay for everything and work overtime to cover their expenditures.

I'm not defending those kinds of people, so I don't know why you found this example appropriate. If you've got a leech, pluck it.

Notice how I constantly said "cooperation"; if someone is sucking your blood out, they're not cooperating with you. This example is completely unsuitable for this discussion.

Sure, this is also called "Agree and Amplify"

Whatever you want to call it, it's a much better response than getting up in arms about things.

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not defending those kinds of people,If you've got a leech, pluck it.

That's basically what I've been advocating. My point this whole time has been about the scenario where I'm not happy in a relationship because my partner has been behaving in a way that I don't consent to a relationship with that kind of person. For example, no sex, or no job, or constant whining, or lying, or cheating, or begging me to do x, do y, do z, or shaming or jealously or manipulative behavior.

You have been advocating "Well you should be able to sit down and negotiate with them, you're in a relationship, making compromises is important." And I basically, agree that you should be able to talk, except for the fact that there's no compromise necessary. If I don't consent to being in a relationship with a partner who does what my partner is doing, then that's it, no more discussion needed. No negotiation needed. I don't consent, so either the behavior changes or I "pluck the leech" as you so rightly described it.

My point is that I am under absolutely no obligation to make sacrifices or compromises or negotiate for my boundaries. None. If you are in a relationship with me and you cross my boundaries in a way that violates my consent, I express that you did it, give you the opportunity to fix it, and if you don't I remove my consent to be in a relationship with you.

Any "obligation" to submit in a relationship is abusive and I refuse to accept any such obligation in my relationships, because I believe in healthy adults and consent before I believe that people owe each other sacrifice.

Whatever you want to call it, it's a much better response than getting up in arms about things.

I agree. I don't think anyone would argue that "fucking cunt!" is what you should say if someone playfully gives you shit. If someone playfully gives you shit you give it right back. That's negging.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not seeing what makes you particularly "Red Pill".

Here's /u/Archwinger, an 'endorsed contributer' who frequently gets upvoted to the top of the front page, telling you that my gender-neutral-on-purpose summary of how an ideal relationship works is exactly what TRP advocates http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2lzemi/trp_and_manipulation/cm0spkg

My definition for dread game comes directly from your link, which is the first result on google for the phrase "dread game" it's not mine or even that different, it's just translated into feminist lingo.

I mean, many times during this conversation thread before you understood what I was getting at you called me a disgusting manipulative scumbag for advocating RP positions.

I'm pretty standard TRP.

My actual position is that, actually, TRP theory is exactly the same as a branch of academic 2nd wave (or even 4th wave) feminism. It has the same goals of how to survive harmful gender roles, advocates depedestalization, consent and sex-positivity and female agency. It is unrecognizable to most feminists as such because it uses masculine linguistics and focuses on the male experience, and derives its social analysis from adam smith rather than marx, and unfortunately isn't introspective enough to recognize that it IS feminism... instead making feminism into a boogeyman.

The main difference between me and the average redpiller is that I don't believe in or care about a biological basis for gender norm differences, I don't believe that women are evil or intrinsically inferior (I think they are usually responding rationally to their incentives, it's just that the patriarchy and gender roles create incentives that male socialization causes us to find distasteful or incredible). I also have enough of a knowledge (and belief in) standard feminist literature that I know how to bridge the linguistic gap between them, which most terpers don't have any awareness of.

TRP teaches more than self-improvement, it's the necessary step to helping counter-act the harmful effects of the patriarchy on sexual dynamics and teaching men how to defend themselves from social exploitation in a culture that forces gender roles on them and recognize their own value in the same way that traditional 2nd wave feminist literature trains women to defend themselves and recognize their value in the same patriarchal society.

I have some more thoughts here if you are curious

http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2la9lm/im_3_months_into_trp_and_this_is_what_ive_learned/clt2hin

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My definition for dread game comes directly from your lin.

My link that explicitly says the purpose of dread game is to foster insecurity and anxiety. Something you seem to ignore every time.

I mean, many times during this conversation thread before you understood what I was getting at you called me a disgusting manipulative scumbag for advocating RP positions.

Yes, but that's because I have reasons to dislike terps. I don't respect them; I'm not doing it as a ploy to date you.

My actual position is that, actually, TRP theory is exactly the same as a branch of academic 2nd wave (or even 4th wave) feminism.

Hah! Good one. 4th wave feminism isn't even a thing.

It has the same goals of how to survive harmful gender roles

Feminism didn't seek to "survive harmful gender roles"; it sought to broaden, maybe even undo them. By contrast, TRP seems to narrow gender roles into an extremely toxic interpretation of masculinity where you have to be a complete douchebag in order to win women. That's fucked up; it shouldn't have to be that way at all... you're only exacerbating the problem.

advocates depedestalization

It's laughable to say that TRP advocates depedestalization when it's central purpose is to get men laid.

consent

"I do not consider 'no' to be a refusal for sex, nor pushing past that to be rape". ~ Meglomaniac, a terp.

and sex-positivity

Except female sex-positivity, because a higher partner count lowers a woman's SMV. Right?

and female agency.

By advocating marital rape? I don't follow.

t is unrecognizable to most feminists as such because it uses masculine linguistics and focuses on the male experience, and derives its social analysis from adam smith rather than marx, and unfortunately isn't introspective enough to recognize that it IS feminism... instead making feminism into a boogeyman.

Except it also advocates toxic masculinity, which would aporetically also make it the opposite of feminism.

The main difference between me and the average redpiller is that I don't believe in or care about a biological basis for gender norm differences, I don't believe that women are evil or intrinsically inferior.

And this is the distinction I was pointing out earlier.

I also have enough of a knowledge (and belief in) standard feminist literature that I know how to bridge the linguistic gap between them

Let me correct what I said: you seem "a little bit feminist". I don't get the impression that you know all that much; you just have enough understanding of it to not be a complete idiot.

TRP teaches more than self-improvement, it's the necessary step to helping counter-act the harmful effects of the patriarchy

Be endorsing a narrow-minded, restrictive brand of masculinity as "the only way" to, as you put it, "survive gender roles"? You give it too much credit.

traditional 2nd wave feminist literature trains women to defend themselves and recognize their value in the same patriarchal society.

Are you kidding? 2nd-wave feminism was all about gaining the rights that men already had. It wasn't about how to "game" or neg people; that's absurd. In any case, socially speaking, you're still better off being a man than a woman... I don't understand where this egg-headed notion that "women have it better" comes from.

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, but that's because I have reasons to dislike terps. I don't respect them; I'm not doing it as a ploy to date you.

????

(or even 4th wave) feminism.
Hah! Good one. 4th wave feminism isn't even a thing.

I'm aware of that btw, my point was that its possibly its one potential branch of the multiple new branches of feminism that are rejecting 3rd wave feminism. There's not one 4th wave feminism but there are a number of smaller branches of feminism that all consider themselves an evolution from rejecting 3rd wave. I was saying that either TRP is a variant of a pre-3rd wave feminism or one of those branches.

Feminism didn't seek to "survive harmful gender roles"; it sought to broaden, maybe even undo them. By contrast, TRP seems to narrow gender roles into an extremely toxic interpretation of masculinity where you have to be a complete douchebag in order to win women. That's fucked up; it shouldn't have to be that way at all... you're only exacerbating the problem.

No, not necessarily. Did you read my argument in those links I gave you? If not, you should. My argument is that you can respond to the patriarchy in multiple ways: One way is to say "This is awful and we need to enact large-scale social change" and that's great. However, you can also give individual advice that doesn't advocate any change, such as "Because of rape culture, if you are a woman you may have to deal with unwanted advances from men, the best way to do handle it is to totally ignore them" or "Because men have entrenched gender roled expectations for attraction, if you would like a particular man to be attracted to you you may wish to do X Y or Z". These things acknowledge that the patriarchy exists, but since social revolution for gender equality is unlikely to occur in the near future they give practical tips for responses to it.

That's not an 'unfeminist' idea. Similarly, TRP argues that there are ALSO expectations and scripts under the patriarchy for men to follow, and that men suffer social consequences with regards to respect, with regards to abusive relationships, and with regards to having healthy relationships where their needs are prioritized, when they fail to be aware of or follow those scripts that the patriarchy places on them.

Thus, TRP says "You may not be aware of the expectations placed on you, and thus not understand why you are experiencing the consequences of the patriarchy here. We aim to show you the gender expectations placed on you (thus, the "red pill"). We know you do not enjoy the sort of world created by the patriarchy (the "bitterness"). You may feel trapped and alone by knowing you have to follow the scripts. Sorry. We know it's hard. However, since you don't individually have the power to change society, here's how to obey those implied scripts"

It's laughable to say that TRP advocates depedestalization when it's central purpose is to get men laid.

There are two answers to that. One is that it's pretty trivial to disprove that "getting men laid" is the only reason TRP exists. There are posts all the time about TRP theory applied to careers, applied to friendships, applied to relationships with parents, etc. I strongly disagree with this statement. People talk all the time about how TRP is supposed to get you to stop caring so much about getting laid and start caring about living your life. (Get hobbies, have a career, be happy)

The second answer is that any rational feminist critique would focus on the issues a marginalized society faces with regards to power, and one of the primary ways that men are disempowered in society is with regards to the way they interact with the opposite sex, and dating, and marriage, and the expectations placed on them for society about those things. If you don't see it or don't agree, fine, I don't care, but I assert that if there is a primary way that a group doesn't feel like they have the power to consent or a primary human need a group doesn't feel like they achieve or have agency over then it's completely rational to focus social justice on that need.

It's a little like calling the early suffragist movement "It's bullshit, it's all about political power, because it's all about voting" Well, sure....voting is one thing that none of them seem to be able to do, that all of them feel disenfranchised about, that all of them agree they want. Why WOULDN'T they initially talk about it?

"I do not consider 'no' to be a refusal for sex, nor pushing past that to be rape". ~ Meglomaniac, a terp.

It depends 'how' it's pushed past. I've had LOTS of women do this with me sexually. Rape culture encourages women to follow this 'chastity' script in order to not take responsibility for sex. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4hNaFkbZYU

What's interesting is that look closer at what 'push past it' means in a context of TRP. Firstly, non-verbal consent is absolutely a thing, but verbal no means verbal no. However, the main "LMR-bust" techinque is called a "Freezeout" otherwise known as respecting consent and not pushing This "techinque" of "pushing past lmr" involves *not pushing her or being upset or urgent, just being like "Ok, thats cool, whatever, I'm tired" . HOW HORRIBLE AND RAPEY RIGHT? If someone asks you to stop, they stop, and if they don't continue guess they didn't want to have sex with you, huh. EVIL RAPIST!

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1weox4/if_you_say_stop_ill_stop_tool_for_lmr_and_a_good/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2l5087/fr_im_not_fucking_you_tonight/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2fcetq/fr_told_my_date_to_gtfo_cause_she_was_being_a/

That first one is actually my favorite because it's pretty much the definition of being given/demanding explicit verbal consent before continuing. She tries to have sex with him while saying "no" (despite giving obvious non-verbal consent) and he REFUSES until she explicitly and verbally begs him . Nice.

By advocating marital rape? I don't follow.

Never seen marital rape advocated. EVER. I've seen 1) Don't get married 2) If you are married and she doesn't want to have sex with you, work out or focus on other things instead of pushing her. 3) Dont' try to guilt your wife into sex 4) If your wife and you aren't having sex and she doesn't respect you, consider getting a divorce. NEVER seen marital rape being endorsed by an endorsed contributor or on the sidebar. Never.

Except it also advocates toxic masculinity, which would aporetically also make it the opposite of feminism.

No, because 1) it only advocates some aspects of "toxic" masculinity, others it rejects. 2) Some feminists say that all "masculinity" is toxic, they aren't feminists by definition, because they argue that certain character traits are gendered and/or they argue that 50% of the population is evil based on their gender. 3) if the patriarchy itself requires what you call "toxic masculinity" in order to have healthy consensual respectful relationships with women on equal footing, then even though it intrinsically supports the patriarchy to obey those norms, obedience to the patriarchy for survival is not an endorsement of it.

And this is the distinction I was pointing out earlier.

Yep, and I don't actually believe that either belief is a part of TRP canon. A biological basis for gender norms doesn't actually matter. All that matters is that gender norms exist and how to respond to them. I also think that if you look at the "stages" of TRP, you'll see that all the advance posters talk about how bitterness is normal at first but that you need to let it go and learn to respect women.

I don't get the impression that you know all that much; you just have enough understanding of it to not be a complete idiot.

Lol, before I was feminist not RP, now I'm RP not feminist. Which is it ;)

Be endorsing a narrow-minded, restrictive brand of masculinity as "the only way" to, as you put it, "survive gender roles"? You give it too much credit.

Maybe

In any case, socially speaking, you're still better off being a man than a woman... I don't understand where this egg-headed notion that "women have it better" comes from.

I didn't claim that women have it better. You may be right that you're better off being a man than a woman. I thought the whole point of intersectionality was that we don't sit around playing oppression olympics? Feminism isn't about "Who has it worse" feminism is about acknowledging and responding to the patriarchy and the malevolent and benevolent sexism intrinsic to the gender roles that it's existence places on us. To that extent, there are ABSOLUTELY ways in which gender roles affect male agency. Whether or not there are more of them for men than women seems irrelevant.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminist theory is a form of social critique. If you're training people on how to take advantage of a broken system, you're not bringing that system into critique. Feminism seeks to RESOLVE social issues, not cater to them.
The only people I've seen rejecting 3rd-wave feminism are white, wealthy women and members of the manosphere. I don't know where you get this idea that 3rd-wave feminism is crumbling apart, because it's actually picking up.
It advocates toxic masculinity because it insists that there is only one way of being a man. It doesn't really matter if it picks and chooses certain things, because it's a hiererchizing movement. You can redefine masculinity all you want, but so long as it makes some men superior ("alpha") and some men inferior ("beta/omega") it will be toxic.
Men are not disempowered. I can think of a few corner cases in which men are at a slight disadvantage, but none of them are sex, dating, or marriage.

TRP and MRM are conservative movements. They don't see to equalize society; they want to go back to a previous point in time in which men had a much more potent hegemony.

I thought the whole point of intersectionality was that we don't sit around playing oppression olympics?

Even if we were, men wouldn't be allowed to compete given that they're not oppressed.

Feminism isn't about "Who has it worse" feminism is about acknowledging and responding to the patriarchy and the malevolent and benevolent sexism intrinsic to the gender roles that it's existence places on us.

Except, apparently, when it tells people to cater to the patriarchy so women can "get what they want". According to you, feminism does this too?

To that extent, there are ABSOLUTELY ways in which gender roles affect male agency.

Of course there are, but TRP isn't seeking to undo any of them. TRP doesn't give anyone a choice on anything... it tells men that you have to fit the narrow definition of masculinity it calls "alpha".

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminist theory is a form of social critique. If you're training people on how to take advantage of a broken system, you're not bringing that system into critique. Feminism seeks to RESOLVE social issues, not cater to them.

Ok, so no more advice on feminist dating is allowed. No more discussion of how to avoid bigots in online forums. No more advice on how to deal with catcallers on the street, or advice on how to respond to people who criticize your gender, no more discussions on what to do if someone attacks you physically.

Any discussion of how to individually defend yourself/work within a gendered society is just supporting the patriarchy and is unfeminist.

I don't think I agree.

The only people I've seen rejecting 3rd-wave feminism are white, wealthy women and members of the manosphere. I don't know where you get this idea that 3rd-wave feminism is crumbling apart, because it's actually picking up.

I wasn't claiming 3rd-wave feminism is falling apart, obviously it's not. I was arguing that feminism is a wide umbrella and that there are other kinds of feminism that are developing that reject it. It's an evolving social critique. Non 3rd waves aren't the majority, they aren't even necessarily growing, but my argument is that they exist.

It's like how anarchy is split into ancaps and anarcho-socialists and other groups. There are more ansocialists than ancaps but doesn't mean that they aren't both anarchists. I could claim that the open-source movement is a type of anarchism because it's anarcho-capitalist without necessarily implying that ansocialists are falling apart.

It advocates toxic masculinity because it insists that there is only one way of being a man. It doesn't really matter if it picks and chooses certain things, because it's a hiererchizing movement. You can redefine masculinity all you want, but so long as it makes some men superior ("alpha") and some men inferior ("beta/omega") it will be toxic.

I don't agree that it defines superior vs inferior. MTGOW for example are often considered incredibly 'beta', but that's considered respectable because it's at least not allowing yourself to be abused.

TRP says "The patriarchy requires you to follow these gender roles if you want straight women to find you attractive and most people to treat you with respect. Do with that information what you will"

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1u6m3m/the_basics_explained_and_our_direction_for_2014/

"In short, it is purely information. What each person decides to do with this information is up to them. Remember, sexual strategy is amoral. You decide what you want to do and how you want to go about doing it.... For our purposes this is broken down into three main groups: MGTOW, Plate spinning, and Girlfriend game"

The point is that you can choose to do what you want but you should know that certain choices are more likely to lead to certain outcomes because we live in a gendered society with expectations.

Men are not disempowered. I can think of a few corner cases in which men are at a slight disadvantage, but none of them are sex, dating, or marriage.

I mean, ok. Like I said, I don't really care about your opinion on this. It's not my job to demonstrate it to you. If you don't see how or why men feel frustrated or disempowered then that's fine, but without using the "P-word" (Privilege) I'd ask you to respectfully consider that just because you don't share the same vantage point or experiences that allows you to perceive disempowerment doesn't mean that those feelings are invalid when held by someone else.

Even if we were, men wouldn't be allowed to compete given that they're not oppressed.

Blah blah blah. "Men don't have any gender expectations or issues because by definition men don't have gender expectations or issues" That's some bullshit and you know it. I've heard it before and I don't care to play semantic games. I don't believe in any definition of words that have perfectly valid meanings unless the subject of the verb has a particular set of genetics.

Except, apparently, when it tells people to cater to the patriarchy so women can "get what they want". According to you, feminism does.

Telling people how to operate within the patriarchy is one form of a response to it. It's not the only response to it and its not the response traditional feminism usually takes, but it is a valid response and it is a feminist response.

Of course there are, but TRP isn't seeking to undo any of them. TRP doesn't give anyone a choice on anything... it tells men that you have to fit the narrow definition of masculinity it calls "alpha".

Wrong. See the quote I gave above. It tells men that the patriarchy tells you that you have to fit the narrow form of masculinity called alpha, if you want to have sex/power If you choose not to do what the patriarchy tells you, that's fine but you may have to accept the consequences.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No more discussion of how to avoid bigots in online forums. No more advice on how to deal with catcallers on the street, or advice on how to respond to people who criticize your gender, no more discussions on what to do if someone attacks you physically.

Are you implying that being SEXUALLY ASSAULTED is somehow comparable to not getting laid?

Any discussion of how to individually defend yourself/work within a gendered society is just supporting the patriarchy and is unfeminist.

Getting laid because the patriarchy tells you that "men have to get laid" is NOT defending yourself. You're bending a knee to the patriarchy, not standing against it.

I don't agree that it defines superior vs inferior.

Alpha, beta, omega. Those are extremely charged, hierarchical terms.

MTGOW for example are often considered incredibly 'beta', but that's considered respectable because it's at least not allowing yourself to be abused.

Ah, so he's beta BUT he's respectable. Notice how you still hierarchized it? It's sort of like... oh, he's gay BUT he acts straight so he's OK.

TRP says "The patriarchy requires you to follow these gender roles if you want straight women to find you attractive and most people to treat you with respect. Do with that information what you will"

Exactly, so it caters to the patriarchy. You're not resolving the issue, you're exacerbating the problem.

Remember, sexual strategy is amoral.

No it isn't, especially when you're using it to date-rape people. It isn't amoral just because you declare it to be.

The point is that you can choose to do what you want but you should know that certain choices are more likely to lead to certain outcomes because we live in a gendered society with expectations.

Because getting what you want is more important than making things right.

I mean, ok. Like I said, I don't really care about your opinion on this. It's not my job to demonstrate it to you.

Yes it is, because this is explicitly a debate forum.

If you don't see how or why men feel frustrated or disempowered then that's fine, but without using the "P-word" (Privilege) I'd ask you to respectfully consider that just because you don't share the same vantage point or experiences that allows you to perceive disempowerment doesn't mean that those feelings are invalid when held by someone else.

AS A MAN, I don't see how MEN are disempowered. I'n fact, I am typically feeling EMPOWERED by my gender... because I know that people respond better to me just because of my gender.

Men don't have any gender expectations or issues because by definition men don't have gender expectations or issues"

Expectations and issues are not oppression. Everybody has issues and everybody is subject to expectations, but you are only oppressed in relationship to someone else. You can't be oppressed without an oppressor... and men (as a category) don't have an oppressor.

That's some bullshit and you know it.

Yes, your strawman attack is a bunch of bullshit. I agree.

I've heard it before and I don't care to play semantic games. I don't believe in any definition of words that have perfectly valid meanings unless the subject of the verb has a particular set of genetics.

That's pretty damn irrelevant.

Telling people how to operate within the patriarchy is one form of a response to it.

I agree entirely. It's a perfectly immoral response to the patriarchy.

It's not the only response to it and its not the response traditional feminism usually takes, but it is a valid response and it is a feminist response.

No, feminism seeks to equalize. It is not even close to feminism.

Wrong. See the quote I gave above. It tells men that the patriarchy tells you that you have to fit the narrow form of masculinity called alpha, if you want to have sex/power

In other words, you have no choice but to be alpha because it's the only way to get sex/power... which is what any typical person would want. Pretty twisted.

If you choose not to do what the patriarchy tells you, that's fine but you may have to accept the consequences.

No, you do not have to accept the consequences. That's absolute bullshit... society CAN change and it does. Gay people are earning the right to marry, women gained the right to vote, slavery was abolished.

You do not have to, by any means, accept an unjust system. To do so just because it caters to your particular needs-- in other words, because it privileges you, is cowardice.

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you implying that being SEXUALLY ASSAULTED is somehow comparable to not getting laid?

No, I'm implying that your assertion that feminism cannot give advice on how to individually respond to gender roles is bullshit.

Ah, so he's beta BUT he's respectable. Notice how you still hierarchized it? It's sort of like... oh, he's gay BUT he acts straight so he's OK.

I hierarchized it because you did. If you said "You think all gay people are stupid" and I said "No, I don't...Dan Savage is gay but I think he's smart" then the 'but' conjunction is not an acceptance of the hierarchy but an explicit rejection of it. Whatever though, wordplay is so boring.

Exactly, so it caters to the patriarchy. You're not resolving the issue, you're exacerbating the problem.

Again, didn't claim to resolve the issue. I claimed that it helps people cope. Advising women to ignore catcallers doesn't resolve anything, but it helps them cope.

No it isn't, especially when you're using it to date-rape people. It isn't amoral just because you declare it to be.

Lol, like I said in the other post, 'date-rape' is roofies and back-alleyways, not cartoonish masculinity, aloofness, and boundaries.

perfectly valid meanings unless the subject of the verb has a particular set of genetics.

"Men can't experience sexism because the definition of sexism says it can't happen to men" "White people can't experience disadvantage in any culture or context because the definition of disadvantage precludes white people" (What about poor white people in majority black schools who get bullied for being in a local minority?) "Nope that's just them experiencing the benefits of being white, not disadvantage"

All that stuff is stupid. Intersectionality means that all people experience gender and race norms differently and that all of them experience advantage and disadvantage in different contexts. We don't get to say that everyone is fucked by the patriarchy except white men. Everyone is fucked by the patriarchy PERIOD.

In other words, you have no choice but to be alpha because it's the only way to get sex/power... which is what any typical person would want. Pretty twisted.

Yep, the patriarchy is pretty twisted. I would love it if my partners' internalized expectations of gender roles within a relationship didn't lead them to be less attracted to me when I'm actually vulnerable, but c'est la vie.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Of course it can, it just wouldn't give TRP advice.

I agree with that, but that's because traditional feminism basically doesn't focus on the male experience at all. That's fine.

The whole point of this line of reasoning is this: I made the claim that TRP is a variant of feminism.

You claimed it couldn't be because it doesn't aim to reform the patriarchy.

I claimed that aiming to reform the patriarchy isn't a necessary condition of feminism, merely acknowledgement of the patriarchy. I argued that TRP acknowledges the patriarchy (implicitly, without using that name) but then gives advice to men on how to work within it's constraints.

You argued that advice on how to work within the constraints is not feminist, but actually anti-feminist, because it doesn't explicitly aim for social change,

So I countered that there is lots of pro-feminist advice that does give advice about how to individually respond to gender roles.

That's the history here.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except female sex-positivity, because a higher partner count lowers a woman's SMV. Right?

TRP loves sluts. ;) More accurately, we love women who are willing and accepting of their sexuality. There's a big difference between saying that someone is intrinisically worth LESS for being promiscuous (we LOVE promiscuous...how else do you think that all this casual sex TRPers want to have is even possible?).

It's sex positive to say that sex is OK and that sleeping with people is OK and that people should feel free to fuck each other. It's not sex negative to say that people who choose to do so are demonstrating what is important in their life.

Sex-positive culture is about being OK with sexuality and believing that people should be free to have or not have whatever sex they want. Which they are, and which TRP supports. TRP just also points out that someone who makes hedonistic life choices doesn't generally correlate well with marriage material. They don't say it, but the implication is, as well, that they don't make good husbands either because of their values, and that they don't/shouldn't want to get married.

TRPers love women with high partner counts, we just don't want to marry them. Would you? If you were a woman would you marry some playboy guy who owns a seedy bar who looks like a rugged denzel washington and has tons of women? You might think he's hot or get drunk and have a ONS with him but if he gave you a ring and told you you were his one and only you'd laugh in his face. I mean how naive does he think you are?

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Being willing/eager to use people is not the same as respecting them or valuing them.

So if someone has casual sex with me or I want to have casual sex with them I'm devaluing them and using them? And I'm the sex-negative one who is slut shaming? Bullshit man, bullshit.

Sex Market Value means Value on the Sex Market, not value as a person. Nikoli Tesla had incredible value as a human being. John Nash had incredible value as a human being. Not really that much SMV. Still deserve intense respect though. I am really good friends with a LOT of women who have very low SMV or R(elationship)MV to me. I still treat them very very very well. Because, you know, people.

XMV is about how much people desire what you are selling on the X market, its not about whether or not you are a good person or judgable. If you have low RMV, then I'm not going to offer a relationship to you. if you have low SMV, I'm not going to want to fuck you. If you have low I(ntelligence)MV then I'm not going to ask you for your help on my math homework.

A person who demonstrates hedonistic behavior and a tendency to avoid personal connections is by definition not the kind of person who you would want to depend on for a personal connection-based intimate relationship where level-headedness and loyalty are required. It decreases their RMV, not their SMV, not their overall value as a human being. That doesn't mean they are worthless or deserve disdain because someone's overall deserving of respect is not based at all on their SMV, or RMV, or any other MV.

You see this a lot: on TRP, men aren't advised to not have sex with women who have a high partner count, they are strongly encouraged! They are just advised to not get into committed depended relationships with them. Every thread I found doing a quick search on this a woman who has a lot of past partners from random drunk hookups is told "Hey, you can keep seeing her but don't commit". Seems reasonable to me. If my female friend asked me her opinion about whether or not to fuck some hot guy with a ton of prison tats who works at the pool hall, I'd be like 'go for it girl, have fun'. If she asked me whether or not I think he'd make a good husband I'd be like "NOOOOOOO".

Watch carefully for this and try not to let your biases about sex==personal value as humans lead you to be quick to judge RPers. For a RPer, it sounds like saying "don't marry her she's had a lot of partners" is sex-negative slut shaming, but it's NOT unless they say "She's a bad person and deserves suffering because she's had a lot of partners, and isn't worth fucking." Usually that's not what they say.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So if someone has casual sex with me or I want to have casual sex with them I'm devaluing them and using them?

That's not the issue at all. Don't strawman.

Sex Market Value means Value on the Sex Market, not value as a person.

And a human being's price at a slave auction was their value as a slave, not as a person.

Nikoli Tesla had incredible value as a human being. John Nash had incredible value as a human being. Not really that much SMV. Still deserve intense respect though.

Ah, I see... so they were able to compensate for their low SMV by providing scientific value. Notice how you're still providing an axis of human worth?

Even then, RPers talk about the RMV as well as SMV.

Great, let's economize human lives even more!

It's that old paradigm of "women generally can get sex but have a harder time finding commitment, men generally can get commitment but have a hard time getting sex".

Ah, yes... that old sexist paradigm that is based entirely on the worthless assumptions made by butthurt men.

They are different markets with different requirements and different Supply/Demand curves.

I have a pretty huge issue with economizing human lives; I don't particularly care for the context here.

A person who demonstrates hedonistic behavior and a tendency to avoid personal connections is by definition not the kind of person who you would want to depend on for a personal connection-based intimate relationship where level-headedness and loyalty are required.

No... you don't get to define other people. Definitions belong to the definers, not to the defined.

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So you might want to re-read my edit, because I think I made some revisions before I read your comment. For example, I removed the stuff about the male/female commitment/sex curve mostly because I didn't like the gendered language and couldn't back it up with any evidence, and I made some clarification about the market value stuff.

I made that revision BEFORE I saw your response, so I hope you read it.

I wasn't straw-manning. We were talking about whether or not someone would want to have casual sex, and you said

Being willing/eager to use people is not the same as respecting them or valuing them.

Unless I misunderstood what you meant here, you were saying that if someone has casual sex with someone else they are using them. I'm not trying to be obtuse, if you'd be willing to explain what you meant by using them that has nothing to do with sex, then I'm willing to reconsider my interpretation, but I'm honestly trying here and I don't' see what else you could have meant.

Ah, I see... so they were able to compensate for their low SMV by providing scientific value. Notice how you're still providing an axis of human worth?

It's not a statement of objective value of human worth. Services have a value. And potential to provide those services indicates the subjective value of the people involved with respect to those services.

Would you hire a car mechanic to teach you quantum mechanics? Probably not. Would you hire me to fix your plumbing when I know nothing of plumbing? no probably not.

I have low P(lumbing)MV, because I cannot offer anything you want with regards to plumbing. You should hire a plumber. A car mechanic has low Q(uantumPhysics)MV, because he can't fucking teach you anything you want about quantum physics. You should hire a professor.

A person you are not attracted to has low SMV (to you), because you do not want to have sex with them.

Notice how NONE of these XMVs say ANYTHING of interest about value as a person, or even OBJECTIVE value in the category of interest. Someone with low SMV to you might have high SMV to me.

What I'm expressing is that if I REALLY want to sell my plumbing services to you in exchange for money or food, then I'm going to have to find a way to increase my P(lumbing)MV, or you would be stupid to accept my offer.

I have a pretty huge issue with economizing human lives; I don't particularly care for the context here.

If you really REALLY believed this, go outside, then hire a homeless man to teach your children math. If no human has any meaningful value differences with regards to skills or services potential, then you should clearly have absolutely no problem with the value of the tutoring he will provide, because all humans provide all services of equal value to everyone.

Since you won't, then please understand that yes, some people are perceived to be better at some things than others, and yes, this has an impact on whether or not people give them opportunities to do those things, and yes, this includes sex.

No... you don't get to define other people. Definitions belong to the definers, not to the defined.

You're right. I don't get to define someone as objectively worthless. Absolutely I do not. However, I DO get to choose whether or not I am willing to consent to being in a relationship/sex/plumbing with them. My willingness to consent to those things is ABSOLUTELY going to be affected by what kind of a job I think they are going to do at those things.

Someone who flunked out of plumbing school is probably going to be bad at plumbing, so I won't consent to letting them fix my toilet. Someone I'm not attracted to physically probably won't bring me any kind of satisfaction during sex, so I'm probably not going to consent to sex with them. Someone who has a history of cheating or not making good connections or making hedonistic or selfish relationship choices is probably not going to be that loyal or selfless of a relationship partner, so I'm probably not going to consent to being a relationship with them.

All three cases are not a statement of value about them as people, its a statement of my eagerness to consent to those situations given my knowledge about them.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Unless I misunderstood what you meant here, you were saying that if someone has casual sex with someone else they are using them.

No, that's not what I meant at all. My issue comes with calling and categorizing people as sluts and seeing them as LITERALLY having no value beyond being fuck-thing because "they have a high SMV but a low RMV".

It's not a statement of objective value of human worth. Services have a value. And potential to provide those services indicates the subjective value of the people involved with respect to those services.

You're not at McDonalds; sex isn't a service.

The rest of your post is so fucking stupid and cruel I don't have the heart to address it. I just can't.

It's too bad, I had slightly higher hopes for you than the rest of TRP. Then you went and took a shit all over that.

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just because someone is not my particular taste doesn't mean he/she isn't someone else's-- I don't assign anyone an SMV

I agree with you! I NEVER said that such things are objective. The idea of objective market value is absurd. I even EXPLICITLY said this in the post. You said you don't want to read it but I encourage you to.

I said this:

Notice how NONE of these XMVs say ANYTHING of interest about value as a person, or even OBJECTIVE value in the category of interest. Someone with low SMV to you might have high SMV to me.

That's the whole point. It's not about assigning an SMV to anyone, its not about objective value as a human being. It's not about any objective value judgement whatsoever. SMV is the earth-shattering revelation that some people are more attractive than others. STOP THE PRESSES THATS SUPER CRUEL.

Sorry, but it's true.

No, I would never sleep with a terp.

So a terp has a lower SMV to you than a non-terp. That's fine. That's not true for everyone but its true to you and you are allowed to have those preferences. This very statement PROVES everything I said in that post that you said was super cruel: merely, that some people are more fuckable than others to me, some people are more plumbingable then others to me, and some people are more relationship material than others to me.

It's not a statement of judgement about them, it's a statement about my liklihood of consent to them.

The only way we can make SMV objective is to observe trends in aggregate over populations...which of course doesn't always work, but it does allow us to reasonably say 'earth-shattering truths' like 'people of either gender who are in shape are more likely to be desired for casual sex by either gender'

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That doesn't mean the concept is benign.

It doesn't matter if it's benign or not. Sure, I'd love a world where SMV doesn't exist and everyone fucks everyone because sex is awesome and fun and messy.

However, that's not the real world. You know this because you don't want to fuck some people and you do want to fuck others. Therefore those people you don't want to fuck have low SMV to you.

Your behavior, by not fucking everyone you have the opportunity to, by being selective about your consent to sex, implicitly supports the continued existence of SMV as a social construct.

There's nothing useful to gain by pretending it doesn't exist, when it clearly does, even in people who don't WANT it to exist, like you and me. Particularly, if I want people to want to fuck me, my first step is to assess WHY no-one wants to fuck me, and try to fix those things. This isn't abusive or horrible, it's a part of assuming responsibility for your sexuality and dropping an entitlement complex.

Neckbeards who sit around bitching about why nobody wants them because they deserve to be loved is crap and entitled and sexist and objectifying. Women aren't slaves to exist to service random neckbeards who 'deserve it' for existing: Women are people who want to sleep with people who are attractive. If you want someone to consent to sleep with you, become more attractive.

It's not reducing someone to economics.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I said it was a market. I said it had all the structures of an economy. You said that calling it that was distasteful because relationships don't reduce to cash. I agree with you about that, which is why I said it doesn't involve cash.

It DOES involve consent and free-agency and desire. Absolutely.

You say that there's no supply and demand curve for human relationships and that viewing it as a market is distasteful to you. If so, then I'm sorry, but the fact that you choose who you have sex with, accepting some people and rejecting others, implies that there absolutely is a supply/demand curve for your sexuality.

At the very least the market for Ballsabo's sexuality has a maximum supply of how many partners you are willing to have at one time over the course of your lifetime, and other people in the universe who find you desirable have a demand on that supply. The curve exists at the place where you choose to sleep with some of them and not others.

The only way such a curve would not exist is if either nobody wants you or you asleep with everyone.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I said it was a market.

No, I asked you why you called it a market if it didn't determine people's value, and you gave me this definition. Unfortunately, a market already has a definition and it is the system by which the value/price of objects is determined.

I said it had all the structures of an economy.

"It's not reducing someone to an economy"

You said that calling it that was distasteful because relationships don't reduce to cash.

No, I never said this. I explicitly pointed out that markets have the ability to exist with or without money.

the fact that you choose who you have sex with, accepting some people and rejecting others, implies that there absolutely is a supply/demand curve for your sexuality.

Prove it.

At the very least the market for Ballsabo's sexuality has a maximum supply of how many partners you are willing to have at one time over the course of your lifetime

Wow! You don't even understand the definition of supply.

The curve exists at the place where you choose to sleep with some of them and not others.

Prove it.

The only way such a curve would not exist is if either nobody wants you or you asleep with everyone.

You keep making claims about the curve existing, but I have yet to see the curve.

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

shrug

No, I asked you why you called it a market if it didn't determine people's value,

My value as a plumber doesn't determine my value as a human. My value as a sexual person doesn't determine my value as a human.

Still useful to know that I probably shouldn't quit my job and become a plumber. Still useful to know that I probably shouldn't get discouraged that lexi belle doesn't really find me hot. I can estimate my SMV in someone else's eyes and it's useful, but a low smv doesn't imply that I'm literally worthless.

Unfortunately, a market already has a definition and it is the system by which the value/price of objects is determined.

My definition and that definition are the same. That definition is a little bit vague, because it just says "any system'. We could determine value by commandment from god and that wouldn't be a free market. It's a specific system by which the subjective value of services are determined by whether or not people consent to exchanging them.

It's not reducing someone to an economy.

I should have clarified this. It's not reducing someone to ONLY an economy. It's not about saying humans are worthless if they aren't fuckable to me. It's about admitting that some humans are less fuckable to me than others, and I'm less fuckable to other humans than others.

No, I never said this. I explicitly pointed out that markets have the ability to exist with or without money.

Fair enough. What is distasteful about it then? I find nothing intrinsically dehumanizing about the recognition that some people are more desirable to me than other people.

Wow! You don't even understand the definition of supply.

You can't fuck everyone in the universe. There is a limited amount of time you have to be alive at the very least which puts a strict upper bound of n=<time alive>/<average time to completion of a sex act>. In reality the bound is probably much lower because you probably choose to only have a few partners and don't spend every waking moment of your life having sex.

Limited supply because n is a finite positive integer.

Prove it

I mean, I don't know what to say to this. It's the intellectual equivalent of "no u"

Look man, if people want X, then there is a demand for X. If the only way they can get X is if you consent to providing X, AND there is a limited quantity of X, then there is a supply for X.

If more people want X than you can provide X for, then there are choices to be made about who gets X. This is a supply/demand problem.

You probably use some criteria to determine who will get X. Your criteria determines who will get X and who will not. Regardless of what that criteria IS, the fact that some get it and some do not, according to some criteria, means that there is a market for X and the criteria is the price for X.

I don't really know what else to say man. I don't know how else I can "prove it"

I mean, try it yourself. Suppose I disagree with you that there is a market for plumbing services.

You assert "Well, I mean, there's a limited number of plumbers and a limited amount of time, and some of them are better than others, so there's a supply/demand curve for the value of plumbing services because some plumbers get chosen by homeowners and some don't"

And I say "Prove it"

What would you say?

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not even gonna address the other bullshit.

I mean, I don't know what to say to this. It's the intellectual equivalent of "no u"

And being unable to provide proof when asked for it is the intellectual equivalent of... nothing, because it's not intellectual.

You shouldn't accept things without evidence, man... even if they speak to your sexist assumptions.

Look man, if people want X, then there is a demand for X. If the only way you can get X is if you consent to providing X, AND there is a limited quantity of X, then there is a supply for X.

So reductionist, lol.

I don't really know what else to say man. I don't know how else I can "prove it"

Just show me a legitimate peer-reviewed study in which these views are corroborated.

What would you say?

I would say that you're making a false equivalence between plumbing services and sex.

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not even gonna address the other bullshit.

What bullshit? The part you skipped over is where I say your value as a sex object doesn't define your value as a person. Is that bullshit to you? If so I'm surprised.

And being unable to provide proof when asked for it is the intellectual equivalent of... nothing, because it's not intellectual.

Asking for proof of stuff that's obvious definitionally instead of rebutting it or trying to pick it apart is just confrontational not actually useful.

It's like if I said "People in the united states generally exchange labor for cash. This is called a labor market". "PROVE IT". Or how about "If you put your car up for sale then there will be some people you sell it to and some you will not" PROVE IT. "Some cats eat birds, some do not" PROVE IT. It's pointless to "prove" things like this, I don't even know what kind of proof you are asking for or that you would accept.

If you don't accept that you would not fuck everyone is evidence that some people are more fuckable then others to you then I don't know how I could possibly prove it. There's nothing left to prove. Some people are more fuckable to you than others are. You've already admitted this. There's nothing left to debate. I don't know what we are debating.

That's what SMV is, and it exists. My proof is that your assesment of some people's value as a sex object is less than your assessement of other people's value as a sex object, which we know because you only fuck some people and not others.

That's not the same as their overall value as humans. I hope we agree on that.

So reductionist, lol.

I mean, is that a bad thing? Reductionism usually elucidates because it helps people remove unnecessary details. You claimed a market for X doesn't exist when we have an X with a supply, demand, and a price. Got a problem with my definition?

You shouldn't accept things without evidence, man... even if they speak to your sexist assumptions.

Nothing sexist about it. Everything I've said so far applies across gender, across sexual orientation, even across relationship styles and needs. Be specific: What about the idea that you don't wish to have sex with everyone you meet is a part of a sexist assumption?

I would say that you're making a false equivalence between plumbing services and sex.

I'm not saying they are the same in terms of how they work or how important they are or how they are viewed. I'm just using one market to show how impossible it is to fulfill a request to "prove" a market.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I mean, it just shows some numbers about how many people identify that they are plumbers and how much money they make. That doesn't actually prove anything about market forces at all.

The equivalent for the 'sex market' is harder, of course, but still wouldn't prove anything about market forces. I'll do it anyway. The 'number of plumbers' statistic you gave me would be the 'number of sexually active adults'. Since we already agree they don't normally exchange cash, but implied 'value' in terms of sex that they consentually have with each-other, then the 'amount of income in billions' statistic would be given as the total number of sex acts between two partners.

both of those statistics can be computed from http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/graph.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:USpop2010.svg

However, obviously, that won't "prove" anything to you about whether or not people make informed choices about their partners based on some criteria. I just don't know how I can "prove" that. It seems self-evident, honestly.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I mean, it just shows some numbers about how many people identify that they are plumbers and how much money they make. That doesn't actually prove anything about market forces at all.

Yep. In other words, they're providing services for which they are receiving some kind of currency in exchange. It's a transaction that recurs often enough for a large enough number of people to make it into a professions-- ergo, there is a market for plumbers.

The 'number of plumbers' statistic you gave me would be the 'number of sexually active adults'.

Meaning practically everyone over 18? Too broad a a term. If you're going to discuss a market you need to be able to point towards specifics.

Since we already agree they don't normally exchange cash, but implied 'value' in terms of sex

Ok, you need to qualify exactly what that means. This means that you need to look at market trends to identify exactly what kinds of transactions are being made. Create a large sample and quantify people's value in the market you're supposing.

Personally, I would say that attraction is far more nuanced than the value of a car or truck. Markets are by nature deterministic, and although different people might evaluate the value of a car differently, enough data is available for manufacturers to determine a car's MSRP.

In other words, you now have the inhuman task of determining people's MSRP equivalent. As with cars, that's not the final price, but it is a general guideline at what each individual can expect to receive for... transacting themselves.

then the 'amount of income in billions' statistic would be given as the total number of sex acts between two partners.

Because people are prostitutes, right? Hahahaha

However, obviously, that won't "prove" anything to you about whether or not people make informed choices about their partners based on some criteria.

Exactly, which means that people's consent for sex is based on forces beyond market trends. Which means you can't economize it. People's sexual decisions are driven by far more complex than those determining the price of a car.

I just don't know how I can "prove" that.

You can't, because it's not a market.

It seems self-evident, honestly.

There's no such thing as self-evident in science. You are making a very grandiose claim that you can't back up-- this is a good sign that you are only basing it on groundless suppositions.

If you can't prove something, you revise your hypothesis. "Self-evident" doesn't fly.

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Lol.

We already agreed it's not a market for cash. I said it wasn't. I said if that was your definition of a market than it wasn't. As a result, there's been no claim made about money.

True or false: People make choices about who to sleep with and who not to based on some criteria?

That's the ONLY point. If yes, then the nature of that critera forms the definition of the market. If you mostly fail to meet that criteria for most people, you have low negotiating power on the market because your options of who you can sleep with are more restricted. If you mostly succeed in meeting that criteria for most people, then you have high market value because more people want to sleep with you.

The 'market' for a single person only comes down to whether or not some people are more attractive than others to that person. You already agree that said market exists for you.

The "global market" on average is the aggregate sum of those individual markets...whether not some people are more attractive on average to most people...which is absolutely true from observation, and I proved it with those graphs from OKC

There's no such thing as self-evident in science. You are making a very grandiose claim that you can't back up-- this is a good sign that you are only basing it on groundless suppositions.

My claim is not grandiose "Some people are more attractive to others to you, (which you agreed to)" and "some people are more attractive to the average person" which to me is about as debatable as "Some people are bad at math", but I STILL provided evidence for.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Personally, I would say that attraction is far more nuanced than the value of a car or truck.

BTW, I agree. I don't think anyone said that attraction isn't subjective. Of course it is. It's complicated as fuck and different for everyone. I've already agreed with you many many many times that someone you might find unattractive I might find very attractive.

Markets are by nature deterministic,

I strongly strongly disagree with this.

and although different people might evaluate the value of a car differently, enough data is available for manufacturers to determine a car's MSRP.

I DO agree with this. It's the basis for aggregate SMV estimates vs individual SMV estimates. Individual SMV is almost impossible to predict because attraction is so subjective. However, there's obviously reliable data (OKC data gives some) about certain traits that almost everyone finds attractive, such as fitness, or intelligence.

Exactly, which means that people's consent for sex is based on forces beyond market trends.

Uh, no. Again, not talking about cash. I think you are misunderstanding. It seems like you are getting cause/effect mixed up. I'm arguing that people's varying consent for sex IS the market forces. Obviously you can't accurately predict exactly if a specific person will like another specific person, because it's so subjective, but there mere presence of a person consenting to sex with some people and not with others implies a difference for that person exists wrt considering someone as a potental sexual partner. That difference IS the market.

Which means you can't economize it.

You can't economize it to a price, no. I've said that over and over and over again. However, the definition of market is people making choices based on criteria for who they do and do not want to interact with.

People's sexual decisions are driven by far more complex than those determining the price of a car.

Uh, yeah, I know.

You can't, because it's not a market.

What is it then? Like, what criteria do you use? I don't understand how you can say 'it's not a market'.

Lets say I'm brad pitt, and I randomly approach women on the street and ask them for sex. Most will say no, but some will say yes, because I'm fucking brad pitt.

Now lets say I repeat the experiment, but I smear poop ALL OVER MY FACE. I predict that fewer women will accept my request for sex than with poop NOT on my face. This is because most sane people have a criteria of "Does not have poop on his face" as a criteria for determining sexual partners.

Because the action of smearing poop on my face has dramatically decreased the number of partners who are interested in 'doing business' with me, my 'value' on the 'market' has gone 'down' as a result of smearing poop on my face, because fewer people are interested in me.

Thus we can claim easily that smearing poop on your face, everything else being equal, hurts your ability to be found attractive by the majority of partners. For most partners, your individual market value with that partner would go down (of course, it would go way up for poop fetishists because value is subjective).

In red pill terms, I would say that although smearing poop on your face might attract an infinitely small minority, overall it would greatly decrease your attractiveness to most people, and thus would lower your overall SMV.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How about these which provide supply/demand charts aggregated over large populations vs certain critera

People send, in aggregate, more/less messages expressing interest (implying they would like a sexual and/or romantic relationship) based on different criteria such as

beauty

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/your_looks_and_inbox/Male-Messaging-Curve.png

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/your_looks_and_inbox/Female-Messaging-Curve.png

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/your_looks_and_inbox/Message-Multiple.png

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/your_looks_and_inbox/Replies-Attractiveness-Female-Sender.png

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/your_looks_and_inbox/Replies-Attractiveness-Male-Sender.png

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/your_looks_and_inbox/Attractiveness-Reply-Rate.png

Age

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/older_lover/Desirability.png

Facial expression

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/four_myths/women_smiling.png

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/four_myths/men_smiling2.png

Percieved lifestyle choices

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/four_myths/male_photo_contexts2.png

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/four_myths/conversations.png

Nudity and Abs

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/four_myths/clothes.png

Religion

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/how_to_get_replies_2/god-chart.png

Like, seriously, If you don't believe that different people get different amounts of aggregate interest by being hotter than other people then I don't even know what kind of world you live in.

If I can't show you actual curves from real data that shows that some people are more attractive than others then I guess we're done.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I mean, how do you define a market?

Like I said, the definition of a market that I have been using is that some people bring more 'to the table' to particular partners than others. Partners who are perceived to bring more to the table by more people on average are chosen more often and by more people. They then have the freedom to be more selective about their partners from that set and choose partners who also bring 'more to the table' to them than average. Thus, people who are more attractive can generally attract more and more attractive partners while people who are less attractive struggle.

The 'shopping around' of investigating the partners who select you as bringing enough to the table and choosing from them the ones who you would like to select as bringing enough to the table is exactly a market-decision for an individual, and in aggregate the sum of all agents trying to find the partner that fulfills them the most who will also consent to be with them forms a market.

I don't know what definition of market you are using. If your definition of market requires explicit pricing then it's not a market, "prices" are never calculated explicitly by anyone. If your definition of a market requires objective value then it's not a market, value is subjective depending on what people want in a partner.

It's a market in the sense that if you don't subjectively bring more to the table than your competition in your customer's eyes then your 'customers' will choose your competition over you (and they should). If your 'customers' don't offer enough to you for your time then you should find other customers (and you should).

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]rp132 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rp1321 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacks10003 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

. Manipulation is BP. Express your needs. If they aren't met drop them. No manipulation required.

When TBP complains about "manipulation" is is sheer psychological projection. In fact, accusations of "manipulation" are often a form of manipulation themselves, just as complaining about "abuse" can be a type of emotional abuse itself.

TBP approved = "if you don't fuck me I'm divorcing you."

TBP's version of "emotional abuse" = "hey, that waitress is hot!"

Progressives invent imaginary "sins" or "crimes" with definitions so expansive (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.) that they can describe virtual all human behavior.

Just consider the progressive concept of "hetero-normativity."

To be frank, TRP tends to lean progressive to liberal to "libertarian" (just another form of it) thus wind up chasing their tails when progressives accuse them of various thought-crimes or another.

TBP don't have any moral standing to accuse others of Thought Crimes. As Taylor Swift might say, you just need to "shake it off."

[–]DocileBanalBovine 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

In fact, accusations of "manipulation" are often a form of manipulation themselves, just as complaining about "abuse" can be a type of emotional abuse itself.

What you're doing is called victim blaming, and it's a sign that you have abusive tendencies yourself. You clearly don't have a good grasp of what constitutes abuse.

TBP approved = "if you don't fuck me I'm divorcing you."

Everyone is entitled to leave relationships if they are unhappy. It doesn't matter how heartbroken you are, if your presence is harmful someone else (which TRP tactics often accomplish) it's for their own health and well being that they should depart.

Possessiveness is another sign of an abusive relationship, by the way. No one owns anyone; anyone can leave if they want to. Slavery was abolished in 1865.

TBP's version of "emotional abuse" = "hey, that waitress is hot!"

You're deleting the context here. Dread game's purpose is to make women feel belittled so that they are more receptive to your romantic advances. This is emotional manipulation through and through; another sign that you have abusive tendencies.

Progressives invent imaginary "sins" or "crimes" with definitions so expansive (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.) that they can describe virtual all human behavior.

No, discrimination does not describe all human behavior... it just describes all of your behavior. This is because you're an asshole, and likely abusive.

Just consider the progressive concept of "hetero-normativity."

Considered. Please explain.

To be frank, TRP tends to lean progressive to liberal to "libertarian" (just another form of it) thus wind up chasing their tails when progressives accuse them of various thought-crimes or another.

Emotional abuse is not a thought crime (nor is physical abuse, needless to say). You are bringing real harm to real people.

If you were "thinking" of manipulating your girlfriend/wife but not acting on it, you'd be right. But negging and dread game refer to real acts-- not thoughts. Diminishing the damage you're causing does not make it disappear.

[–]rp132 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Negging isn't abuse, it's just depedestalization. You can't simultaneously treat women like you treat everyone else and refrain from negging them if you normally 'neg' everyone else (which most healthy and friendly male relationships are based on)

Dread game is literally just "Become attractive". I don't see how me lifting weights or smiling at strangers should be something that is harmful to others unless we live in a slave society where my body is forfeit. If it so happens that me getting a haircut and looking good turns heads, thats not my problem. If seeing me turning heads reminds my partner that I'm a head-turner, again, not my problem. Who are you to tell me how I can dress/act/appear in public? How is that any better than radical muslims saying that married women who bare their face in public are exposing their beauty and being cheaters?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Negging isn't abuse, it's just depedestalization.

Hahahaha, are you kidding? You have a whole sub dedicated to getting the pussy. 90% of the posts on the red pill are about whether people have succeeded in getting laid or not, or how to get laid more, or how to get a submissive wife, or some variation of that.

If your intentions were to take pussy off the pedestal, you guys all failed miserably. Your lives still revolve around the pussy.

You can't simultaneously treat women like you treat everyone else and refrain from negging them if you normally 'neg' everyone else (which most healthy and friendly male relationships are based on)

Healthy relationships are not based on negging. Here's a fucking WikiHow article, which are typically used to show people how to tie their shoes or walk while chewing gum, describing the most basic requirements for a healthy relationship. You can even see here, in as rudimentary an article as this, that relationships are based on mutual respect and encouragement. Negging is not respect.

Dread game is literally just "Become attractive".

No, it's not. The purpose of dread game is to reduce your partner's self-image down so that they'll be willing to date scum as low as yourself. You're not making yourself "more attractive"; you're making your prospective partner feel less attractive.

Here's a manosphere article literally saying that the purpose of dread game is to foster anxiety in your partner. That's disgustingly low.

I don't see how me lifting weights or smiling at strangers should be something that is harmful to others unless we live in a slave society where my body is forfeit.

I don't even understand where the hell you're coming from this. This makes so little sense I can't even find a point of entrance from which to address it from.

Being expected to treat people with respect by not belittling them is not "being a slave to society". That's fucking absurd.

Who are you to tell me how I can dress/act/appear in public?

Oh, trust me... if your "techniques" weren't bringing emotional damage to people I wouldn't give a fucking shit. You can kill yourself if you really want and I wouldn't care less; the problem is you're toying with someone else-- you have a victim. The problem isn't that you've got a knife; it's that you've stabbed someone with it.

[–]rp132 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Hahahaha, are you kidding? You have a whole sub dedicated to getting the pussy. 90% of the posts on the red pill are about whether people have succeeded in getting laid or not, or how to get laid more, or how to get a submissive wife, or some variation of that.

I agree with that. It's unfortunate to me but I agree. The main reason for that is that it's usually the only way to bring thirsty men to the light. If you are obsessive about booze, then you've gotta kick your habit first.

However, depedestalization of vagina isn't what I mean. I mean depedestalization of women as superior human beings. Thirsty men think that women are like goddesses and always treat them like they are perfect and protect them like they are perfect little delicate flowers. They reduce them to nothing but theoretical providers of sex who deserve worship and can do no wrong.

Depedestalization says "Treat women like people" as in "Treat women like they are just as flawed, dangerous, humorous, self-motivated, potentially wonderful but possibly flawed" people, because that's what they are. If you want men to treat women like people with moral failings and moral successes, like peers instead of fleshlights or queens, like competitors instead of trophies, then you have to accept the good with the bad.

My friends rib me, josh me, challenge me, call me stupid, tell me my ideas suck and that I should reform them before speaking them again. Not one of them has ever called me handsome, they tell me my shooting stance sucks, my lack of punctuality is unacceptable. They tease me about my flaws and tell me how to fix them, knowing that they like me anyway. They bet me I can't drink me as fast as them. When I treat them like I'm better than them, they knock me down a peg. THATS NEGGING.

The reason why women find it so sexy is that suddenly they are being treated like a human being instead of being treated like a fleshlight with angel wings.

Here's a fucking WikiHow article,

Because I learn about human social interaction and what works with human friendships and respect based on WikiHow Seriously? Theres a wikihow on how to dress like a ghost.

No, it's not. The purpose of dread game is to reduce your partner's self-image down so that they'll be willing to date scum as low as yourself. You're not making yourself "more attractive"; you're making your prospective partner feel less attractive.

I have no idea where you are getting this from, when literally dread game is about fostering DREAD by passively making yourself look better. I don't know where you think dread game is about belittling people. What do you think it is?

Here's a direct quote from the article you linked to en

Overt flirtations are a blunt means of stoking this anxiety, but often all it takes is a nuanced shift in a predictable routine to trigger that imagination. The idea isn’t to instill* terror from fear of loss, but rather to *demonstrate higher value; particularly when a woman’s attention is straying into comfortable, routine familiarity and she begins seeking indignation from other sources.

Sometimes all that’s necessary to provoke that imagination is to get to the gym, dress better, get a raise, travel for work, change your routine, adopt a Game mentality, hang out with a new (or old) friend, be cocky & funny with her – risk to offend her sensibilities.

Emphasis mine. Dread game involves no belittlement whatsoever man. It's literally saying "I choose to be hot. Now that I'm hot, you can see that I'm hot, other people can see that I'm hot". The reason why it works is that when other people notice that you are hot it reminds her how hot you are. Also that you are now hot.

Being expected to treat people with respect by not belittling them is not "being a slave to society". That's fucking absurd.

If you tell me that it's abusive to dress better in public, abusive to work out, abusive to care about my appearance generally, then you are absolutely no better than the islamic pro-hijab guys. They are so terrified of competition from other men that they seek to control women's bodies, fashion, and behavior, and think a woman who shows her ankles in public is emasculating her husband.

the problem is you're toying with someone else-- you have a victim. The problem isn't that you've got a knife; it's that you've stabbed someone with it.

Yeah. Every time I work out or smile at strangers or have a conversation with someone who isn't my wife I'm LITERALLY stabbing her because I'm victimizing her. Give me a break.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rp132 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]rp132 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rp132 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I remember in particular one example of a man practicing dread game on his wife for god-knows what reason, let me see if I can remember a few things he did:

That's not dread game. I don't know what that is but it's basically ending the relationship (and in the case of cutting of financially/taking away car its something like blackmail/violence). It's passive aggressive as fuck.

Dread game is explained EXACTLY in the link YOU gave me defining dread game. I'll link it here again.

http://therationalmale.com/2012/03/27/dread-games/

Although I’ve suggested casually returning flirtations with other women as a means to amplifying desire and illustrating social proof, this is hardly the only, or best, means of fostering competition anxiety. Overt flirtations are a blunt means of stoking this anxiety, but often all it takes is a nuanced shift in a predictable routine to trigger that imagination. The idea isn’t to instill terror from fear of loss, but rather to demonstrate higher value; ...

Sometimes all that’s necessary to provoke that imagination is to get to the gym, dress better, get a raise, travel for work,

THE IDEA ISN'T TO INSTILL FEAR, BUT TO FOSTER COMPETITION ANXIETY, BY BEING MORE ATTRACTIVE.

That's what it is. Hurting people is not dread game. Being attractive and not being ashamed of being attractive is dread game. Being valuable and busy and interesting and self-actualized is dread game.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger[🍰] 27 points28 points29 points 11 years ago (96 children) | Copy Link

Unlike a lot of The Red Pill apologists, I’m willing to own it: The Red Pill teaches psychological manipulation. That’s the whole point. Where I diverge from TRP’s detractors is that I don’t think psychological manipulation is a bad thing. In many cases, it’s a necessary box of tools just to get by in this world, day to day. These are skills most people have and use regularly, but a lot of the more socially awkward guys out there who are drawn to TRP never picked them up naturally. And when you put those manipulative tactics in writing and make a system out of it, they sound pretty damn evil.

When I read some of the Red Pill’s evil tactics, they’re all really familiar to me. They almost come naturally. Not because I’ve done them before, but because I’ve been on the receiving end of them. Half of the Red Pill’s evil tactics are standard operating procedure for many women in relationships.

I want a good job that pays good money. I will arrange my resume in a manner that, while not overtly dishonest, emphasizes what I believe will get me an interview. At the interview, I will dress better than I usually dress, groom better than I usually groom, speak more professionally than I normally speak, do research on the company and on my interviewer specifically, and have a far better and more professional conversation than I could normally have without such preparation, that emphasizes my strengths and conceals my weaknesses. I will talk with my interviewer about personal shit that doesn’t interest me just to make a good impression. Because I want that job. When I walk out, that interviewer will think I’m a badass. If I had been completely honest and not engaged in any psychological manipulation, someone else who did would get the job. Because that’s how the professional world works.

I met one of my male neighbors for the first time a few months ago. He lives two houses down from me, so it would be a lot more convenient if he liked me. I’m not interested in rebuilding cars, but he has two he’s rebuilding in his garage while his real cars are parked out on the street every day. So we talked about cars. I pretended I was interested to manipulate him into liking me more. Not evilly. I just don’t want my neighbor thinking I’m some weird, standoffish dork, so I had a normal conversation that I wasn’t really into. This weekend, he’s having me over for beers. We’re going to watch some college football game I think. I don’t like college football either. But I do like the two clients he’s going to refer to me who will be there. So I’m going to figure out what team they like, wear a fucking jersey, and be prepared to talk passably about sports.

I want my wife to fuck my brains out and stop being a disrespectful and emasculating bitch toward me me in front of our daughter. So I tell my wife that the shit she just did isn’t going to fly and walk off before she can respond with some pissant justification for why she feels what she did was okay. I have lunch with a pretty female coworker, go out for beers with some guys from the gym a few nights, play poker with some guys from the neighborhood, log a few extra hours at the gym, get ahead at work, and ignore my wife except as needed to care for our child. She cracks in two days, breaks down and apologizes for being a bitch, we have sex like rabbits for a month, and she bites back her constant criticisms. The next month, she remembers that she doesn’t respect me, and we repeat this process. It’s not exactly a healthy relationship, but I married her about five years before I decided I like having a backbone and not being shit on. If I get divorced, I lose my daughter.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacks10003 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacks10004 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacks100010 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacks10009 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No, you weren't under that impression, but it's very telling that open discussion of cultural Marxism gets under your skin quite a bit.

I was under that impression because it's an insane conspiracy theory. I've only heard people use it when they make fun of conspiracy theorists, and they added "Marxism" to it because Americans seem terrified of anything vaguely related to communism.

TheBluePill actually quotes Adorno himself - the freaking Godfather of cultural Marxism.

1) who gives a shit who they quote?

2) No he's not given that cultural Marxism isn't a real thing. It's like the boogeyman or the term "political correctness", they don't actually refer to anything real but they are rhetorical devices that indicate that you should be scared of something.

I know, you'd rather be called "progressive" but cultural Marxists are not "progressive" in the American sense (Teddy Roosevelt, etc.)

It's not an issue of what I liked to be called, it's more just that "cultural Marxism" is an insane conspiracy theorist term and, up until now, I was under the impression that it was a joke.

I honestly can't believe that something thinks it's real and a serious term.

[–]stubing5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jacks10001 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What the hell, are you on about this "Jewish conspiracy" again?

What are you talking about? The Jewish conspiracy isn't the same as a cultural Marxist conspiracy - they're two different things. I brought it up as a comparison (even though many explanations of cultural Marxism are based on evil Jews controlling the world).

Uhhh...

The point being that if I quote Hitler it doesn't make me a Nazi.

Of course it is.

In the same way that a secret Jewish conspiracy is a real thing, yes, but I mean it's not real in the sense that it doesn't refer to any actual concept in the real world.

No, you weren't under that impression.

I was, that's why I said I was. It's insane to think people actually use the term seriously!

Adorno is famous, cultural Marxism has been written about - pro and con - numerous times all over academia.

Adorno is famous, he's made some great contributions to the world. No serious academic views him as a "cultural Marxist" though because it's not a real thing. If you search Scholar for "Adorno" and "cultural Marxism" you only get a couple of hundred hits, the majority of which aren't even journal articles!

It is very telling, though, that you get real sensitive about it, and even associate it with "Jewish conspiracies." Fascinating.

"Sensitive"? Sure, if you think finding it hilarious to meet a conspiracy theorist in the wild is someone being "sensitive"! I'm laughing my ass off here, I can't believe this is real.

It's like when people say the term "lol" instead of actually laughing in real life unironically. You've heard stories about them but assumed it was all fake.

That's why I assumed you were a blue piller making fun of red pillers. It seemed way too insane to think that people actually used the term "cultural Marxist" unironically. But sorry, I can see that you're a bit sensitive about it so I'll let you drop it.

[–]jacks10003 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I was discussing an intellectual trend. You started blathering on about Jewish conspiracies and the like.

"Cultural Marxism" isn't an intellectual trend, it's a conspiracy theory. That's the point.

Claiming you are surprised or amused is not particularly convincing. You are obvious quite familiar with the intellectual trend and quite defensive about it.

I'm familiar with the term because people joke about it on all the "bad" subs, like /r/badsocialscience when people parody conspiracy theorists and insane right wingers they use nonsense terms like "cultural Marxism".

I'm familiar with the term, that's not being debated. The point is that I never believed that people used it seriously, as evidenced by the fact that I was convinced you were a blue piller taking the piss and I tried to give you a heads up about the rules against circlejerking!

That's common among people who subscribe to that trend.

I hear that big noses and being money hungry are also common among evil Jewish overlords that are plotting to take down society. The point being that you can say anything is "common" to a fictitious group.

[–][deleted] 4 points4 points4 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

if there's some conflict of interest between someone who is "privileged" and someone who ostensibly lacks privilege, the latter is somehow right by default, and even if he or she isn't, something outrageous must have happened to force him or her into the position of the bad guy.

Firstly, I'm not sure why you put scarequotes around a scientific concept. You aren't denying the existence of privilege, right?

Secondly, I won't go so far as to say nobody has ever held the view you describe because I'm sure there is some insane homeless lady on some shitty street corner who might have said something similar during a cocaine binge or something, but what you're describing is not common at all.

You seem to be trying to present a strawman of what 'check your privilege' means but you'd be extremely hard pressed to find someone who thinks it means "the privileged person is always wrong". Usually it means that the person is wrong about a specific topic and the only way they can understand why they're wrong is to try to see it from another person's perspective (i.e. 'check their privilege').

The important difference is that the privileged person isn't wrong by default, just usually in the discussions you're talking about they tend to be wrong as a matter of fact.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Firstly, I'm not sure why you put scarequotes around a scientific concept. You aren't denying the existence of privilege, right?

I am denying that everyone who is labeled as privileged over someone else actually has to be.

Secondly, I won't go so far as to say nobody has ever held the view you describe because I'm sure there is some insane homeless lady on some shitty street corner who might have said something similar during a cocaine binge or something, but what you're describing is not common at all.

You seem to be trying to present a strawman of what 'check your privilege' means but you'd be extremely hard pressed to find someone who thinks it means "the privileged person is always wrong". Usually it means that the person is wrong about a specific topic and the only way they can understand why they're wrong is to try to see it from another person's perspective (i.e. 'check their privilege').

So you want to say you're either in denial, lying, or not half as knowledgable about SJWs of all decades and nationalities as you think you are. Fine, saves us a lot of time.

[–]mrsamsa-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I am denying that everyone who is labeled as privileged over someone else actually has to be.

...Sure, I guess. It's a hard thing to mistake though, as you're usually either white or not, or male or not.

So you want to say you're either in denial, lying, or not half as knowledgable about SJWs of all decades and nationalities as you think you are. Fine, saves us

Ah, that must be the only logical conclusion given that I knew enough to identify specifically the strawman you were referring to, explaining the concept to you, and describing exactly how and why it's used in conversations.

But given all of those many examples you just posted that contradict my position (I mean, quote after quote after quote of evidence to support your claim!), then how could I possibly continue to believe I'm right?

Well argued, sir.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It's a hard thing to mistake though, as you're usually either white or not, or male or not.

...is it really?

First: The whole "lack of privilege"-hierarchy doesn't sit well with me. Is an affluent minority person more or less privileged than a poor white person? Is a white woman less privileged than an Asian man? Is a wealthy white woman still less privileged than a middle class white man? Where are you on the privilege-hierarchy if you're a Black Muslim handicapped lesbian, but also a billionare - are you more or less privileged than the WASP Joe Everyman? Does a Swede born in 1990 who probably has never benefited from the fruits patriarchy abundantly bestowed upon his more fortunate male ancestors still have to constantly check his privilege when dealing with Swedish women because of some hereditary guilt that has been accumulated over millenia of patriarchy? And if that hereditary guilt exists, why is it only inherited patrilineary (i.e. only men can inherit it from their forefathers, but women can't)?

Or, for our cases at hand: Am I allowed to value the opinions of /u/GridRexx (black + female) over those of the bluepill women (mostly white + female) in here; which would be very convenient because she is a lot more laid-back (and also more lucid) about most issues?

Second: Is a man automatically privileged and a woman non-privileged? Because I could easily create a bunch of scenarios where the lack of female privilege in some regards is the downside of privileges women enjoy over men in others.

Ah, that must be the only logical conclusion given that I knew enough to identify specifically the strawman you were referring to, explaining the concept to you, and describing exactly how and why it's used in conversations.

Strawmanning? You were the one ridiculing the idea that the whole SJW shtick of administering privilege (or lack thereof) to groups of people could be anything else than justified, logical and balanced by playing the old no true scotsman-game ("only lunatic drug-addicts abuse the whole privilege-game, real SJWs wouldn't do such a thing"). Which would be awesome if you were right, but unfortunately you aren't.

what exactly makes an "underprivileged" person competent by default and more worthy of being listened to than someone lower on the LoP-hierarchy? It's not as if underprivileged persons can't embellish their ordeals or abuse their LoP-privilege to silence opposing viewpoints.
the ridiculous hierarchy mentioned above
the concept of "privilege" as a debating tool is often used by its adherents to enforce a communcation code of political correctness
SJWs doing flat-out retarded stuff based on their privilege-concept; f.ex. crimes from underprivileged have to be hushed up because this could promote racism (or whatever); or are justified because being the situation underprivileged people live in "made them do it"
SJWs "adopting" underpriviliged persons in order to turn them to their cause, but discard them when it doesn't work out (one of my favorite political authors relayed a story in one of his book about his early time in Germany when left-wing activists sucked up to him on the basis of him being a foreigner - which he admitted being flattered by - but discarded him once it became clear that he was more interested in thinking for himself instead of adopting their ready-made opinions. Pretty much the same phenomenon - people not interested in their ideological struggles - was also what drove the extreme left away from the working class in Germany and into solidarity with third world-movements)
and finally: what exactly makes you think that the desire to feel righteous and superior to other privileged people doesn't play a considerable role in SJW's (who have a privileged background and try to compensate for that) overzealous attempts to police other people's behavior?

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[Part 1/2]:

...is it really?

Pretty much, yep.

First: The whole "lack of privilege"-hierarchy doesn't sit well with me. Is an affluent minority person more or less privileged than a poor white person? Is a white woman less privileged than an Asian man? Is a wealthy white woman still less privileged than a middle class white man? Where are you on the privilege-hierarchy if you're a Black Muslim handicapped lesbian, but also a billionare - are you more or less privileged than the WASP Joe Everyman? Does a Swede born in 1990 who probably has never benefited from the fruits patriarchy abundantly bestowed upon his more fortunate male ancestors still have to constantly check his privilege when dealing with Swedish women because of some hereditary guilt that has been accumulated over millenia of patriarchy? And if that hereditary guilt exists, why is it only inherited patrilineary (i.e. only men can inherit it from their forefathers, but women can't)?

Nice! What you're asking here are the exact same questions the feminists asked of themselves when they developed third wave feminism. The thing you're angling towards is called "intersectionality", which is basically the recognition that it makes no sense to view privilege on a single axis and instead privilege applies across multiple social groups and it can manifest itself differently in specific individuals.

The only problems I'd point out are:

1) you seem to be viewing privilege as a thing you "win" at. It makes no sense to compare these people and say they are 'more' or 'less' privileged as that's generally what is commonly referred to as "oppression olympics" - the useless attempt to rank privileges. Instead privilege is just the recognition that you are either treated a certain way in society or you aren't.

2) following on from that last point, you seem to be suggesting that people sometimes don't benefit from their privilege. It's just not a realistic suggestion in the world today - if you're white then you are just simply far more likely to receive a callback from job interviews, more likely to get the job, and more likely to get a higher offer. You're less likely to be pulled over by the cops, less likely to be dealt with aggressively, and less likely to be constantly followed around stores to make sure you aren't stealing, etc etc.

They are general trends across social groups but they are so prevalent that it doesn't really make sense to talk about an individual not benefiting from their privilege. I don't know what you mean about men being born after 1990 not benefiting from privilege though - what does the year have to do with it? It's not like society isn't still patriarchal.

3) why should someone feel guilty about being privileged? There is no guilt involved.

Or, for our cases at hand: Am I allowed to value the opinions of /u/GridRexx (black + female) over those of the bluepill women (mostly white + female) in here; which would be very convenient because she is a lot more laid-back (and also more lucid) about most issues?

It's not a game, you don't "win" by being oppressed across more axes. People are privileged, or oppressed, by specific characteristics and so belonging to that group makes you better to identify with that group, it's not that being black and female makes you more qualified to talk about women's issues than a white woman.

The whole meaning behind 'check your privilege' is that you are talking to someone about experiences that they are better qualified to talk about. It doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, it doesn't mean that they're necessarily right, but it does mean that you're probably missing a whole chunk of data that is relevant to the discussion and so you should probably take the time to hear what they have to say.

For example, say a white guy and a black guy are talking about store security and the black guy says, "Man I hate those guys. They always follow me around and won't leave me to shop in peace". The white guy might reply with something like, "Ah, they're not that bad, they rarely ever follow people around! You're probably just acting shady or you just have a bit of a victim complex going on".

The problem in that situation is that race, and how people treat different races, plays a massive role in determining the correct attitude towards this issue. Since the white guy is speaking from his experiences, and his experiences don't involve being black, it makes it near-impossible for him to be able to judge whether the black guy's descriptions are accurate. More problematically is if he tries to use his own experiences to tell the black guy what he was actually experiencing, like when he suggests that he's making it up or acting shady to deserve it.

Does that make sense?

Second: Is a man automatically privileged and a woman non-privileged? Because I could easily create a bunch of scenarios where the lack of female privilege in some regards is the downside of privileges women enjoy over men in others.

Yes, when it comes to gender privilege only men can have it and women cannot. This is because privilege is a societal thing which is determined by our norms, laws, and attitudes, and they are undeniably shaped by the patriarchal society we live in.

But to be clear, that does not mean that women don't benefit in some ways from a patriarchal society (in the same way that men don't always benefit from it). So let's assume that women win custody battles more than men - the main reason that mothers and fathers are treated differently here is because of traditional gender norms. Women are viewed as caring, gentle, and nurturing, and men are viewed as emotionally detached, uncaring, aggressive, and sexual deviants. Who the hell is going to award a child to the latter group?!

The issue here though is what is termed "benevolent sexism", it's basically a way of discriminating against women in a way that confers an advantage in some way but it comes from some very shitty and harmful prior assumptions. In other words, yes, it's cool for mothers that they win more custody cases but it comes at the cost of not being viewed as capable of holding managerial or CEO roles, not being able to effectively contribute to the army, of "acting like a man" and being "bossy" if they try to negotiate higher pay, of being less of a woman if they don't want to have kids, etc etc.

And, as I mention, there are kickbacks to men benefiting from privilege in the sense that they are expected to go into the army because they're "aggressive" and strong (which is where the draft comes from), that they are considered weak and unmanly if they cry, that they are a "pussy" if they like to talk about their emotions, that they're a "fag" if they want to become a nurse or school teacher, etc.

The concept of privilege doesn't mean "if you have it then your life is awesome". It's a recognition of the fact that, in general, you get access to many things as part of your default life that most other people either don't get, or can only get after a lot of hard work.

I find the easiest way to understand privilege is to think about someone in a wheelchair. Able-bodied people are privileged because they don't have to worry about a building not having wheelchair access. This isn't a conspiracy against these people, they aren't intentionally being kicked to the curb, architects across the world aren't trying to be dicks to them, and able-bodied people shouldn't feel guilty that they've benefited from being part of the status-quo. It's just the way it is, but it does mean that when I go to a building I know I can access it (and all floors) with no problem - that's "privilege". It's something I get that people in wheelchairs don't.

Strawmanning? You were the one ridiculing the idea that the whole SJW shtick of administering privilege (or lack thereof) to groups of people could be anything else than justified, logical and balanced

Huh? By emphasising the "you" there it makes it seem like the problem is that I've committed a strawman, but you don't point it out. Yes, of course it's ridiculous to think what you were claiming and it was a clear strawman.

by playing the old no true scotsman-game ("only lunatic drug-addicts abuse the whole privilege-game, real SJWs wouldn't do such a thing"). Which would be awesome if you were right, but unfortunately you aren't.

I don't think you understand what my point was, nor what a "No True Scotsman" is.

Firstly, my point was that I was accepting that some of these people might exist. They aren't the majority or the norm though.

Secondly, by accepting that they might exist I am explicitly rejecting the No True Scotsman. Importantly, if I did reject them on some other grounds (e.g. their principles are at odds with actual feminist thought) then that wouldn't be a No True Scotsman if I said that they weren't real feminists.

For it to be a No True Scotsman you'd need to demonstrate that the person accepted the principles I said that they didn't and I was only retroactively trying to remove them from the group to prove my point, rather than removing them from the group for not being part of the group. In other words, if I say that George isn't a True Scotsman then you might try to argue that I'm committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy - but if George is Nigerian and has never been to Scotland, then there's no fallacy.

This is the problem with people learning fallacy names but not taking the time to figure out what they actually mean. You can't just yell it out, you have to explain exactly how and why you think it applies. If you did that in this case then you would have realised that it didn't apply.

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[Part 2/2]:

what exactly makes an "underprivileged" person competent by default and more worthy of being listened to than someone lower on the LoP-hierarchy? It's not as if underprivileged persons can't embellish their ordeals or abuse their LoP-privilege to silence opposing viewpoints.

Nobody is claiming that they are automatically right. The claim is that people without privilege are better at understanding the experiences of people without privilege. Specifically, a woman is better at understanding how the world treats women.

There is no claim that they can't be wrong. The claim is simply that if you aren't a woman, and you're commenting on an issue that is determined largely by how society treats women, then you would be intentionally ignoring huge amounts of data by not listening to them.

the ridiculous hierarchy mentioned above

Intersectionality FTW!

the concept of "privilege" as a debating tool is often used by its adherents to enforce a communcation code of political correctness

So you say, but you haven't demonstrated it. Usually when people say this I find that they've misunderstood what 'check your privilege' means, and I think this is absolutely true in your case. So now that you know that it doesn't mean that you are automatically wrong or that they are automatically right, and it doesn't mean they are suddenly able to speak on all the experiences of unprivileged people, and it doesn't mean you should feel guilty, etc, go back to some of the discussions where you think it was used to "shut down discussion" and you'll see a vastly different situation.

The whole point of 'check your privilege' is that it makes discussion possible. If you're having a discussion with a black guy about how stores treat him then no discussion is possible until you 'check your priivlege' - i.e. listen to his experiences and understand that your position is heavily influenced by your own experience as a white guy. Once you take that evidence and factors into account, you'll have a better grasp of the situation and will be able to discuss it in a more meaningful way. You can still disagree with him - the guy might be a conspiracy theorist and people are following him around because he wears a massive tin foil hat on his head, but you'll have better tools to argue against him if you stop to realise that your experiences aren't the experiences of everyone else first.

SJWs doing flat-out retarded stuff based on their privilege-concept; f.ex. crimes from underprivileged have to be hushed up because this could promote racism (or whatever); or are justified because being the situation underprivileged people live in "made them do it"

I've never seen the first situation and the latter seems to be a misunderstanding of how human behavior works. That is, the latter is just necessarily scientifically true in the sense that it explains their behavior. People's behavior is determined heavily by their environment and so if you stick people in an unprivileged situation then you will necessarily generate harmful and unlawful behaviors. Cause and effect.

The part you are misunderstanding is that this isn't a claim that the behavior is justified but rather it is understandable. The reason why it's important to understand what factors have produced this problem behavior is that it leaves us better equipped to fix it. So yeah, sure, we can just say "Dude broke the law, put him in jail" but if we know that this type of crime is heavily influenced by financial status, and this guy is poor, then we can say, "Dude broke the law, put him in jail, and then let's help him find a job when he gets out, teach him how to manage his money, and help him avoid falling into the same situation he was before".

The position is sometimes referred to as being a "bleeding heart liberal" but, to me, the position is basically just a position of not wanting more crime in my society.

SJWs "adopting" underpriviliged persons in order to turn them to their cause, but discard them when it doesn't work out (one of my favorite political authors relayed a story in one of his book about his early time in Germany when left-wing activists sucked up to him on the basis of him being a foreigner - which he admitted being flattered by - but discarded him once it became clear that he was more interested in thinking for himself instead of adopting their ready-made opinions. Pretty much the same phenomenon - people not interested in their ideological struggles - was also what drove the extreme left away from the working class in Germany and into solidarity with third world-movements)

I don't understand how this applies but it might be because I have no idea what you're talking about.

and finally: what exactly makes you think that the desire to feel righteous and superior to other privileged people doesn't play a considerable role in SJW's (who have a privileged background and try to compensate for that) overzealous attempts to police other people's behavior?

I'm not a mind reader so I don't know any more than you do, but I've just never seen any evidence for it. Usually I have these discussions with people like you and they talk about those "SJWs" being all "righteous" and "telling them how to behave", and when I ask for examples they either can't give me any, or (like with you) they'll give me some and their own examples contradict them as a result of them simply not understanding the concepts involved.

Like when people reject the concept of privilege because they don't like the "hierarchy" or being forced to "feel guilt", when of course none of those are involved in the concept of privilege and are generally explicitly rejected by the concept.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacks100011 points12 points13 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

These are skills most people have and use regularly, but a lot of the more socially awkward guys out there who are drawn to TRP never picked them up naturally.

Remember, TBP claims they are "parody" and exist solely to "make fun" of red pillers - who they to perceive to be socially awkward young men. So, at best, Blue Pillers are cyber-bullies.

Half of the Red Pill’s evil tactics are standard operating procedure for many women in relationships.

Most of "the red pill" is just a male version of what is published in Cosmo magazine monthly. But feminists/progressives are not going to complain about women, because according to cultural Marxism, "women" are the "oppressed class" and men are the "oppressing class."

"Psychological manipulation" is something that everyone does every single day. Being polite and saying "thank you" is a form of "psychological manipulation" - so what?

My question remains, why do red pillers care about the bizarre accusations of blue pillers - blue pillers, which tend to be hard core leftist cranks and internet trolls, sort of the middle aged female version of 4chan.

[–]TheThingsIThink 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mitreddit-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag-7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger[🍰] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Blame/Responsibility can be put on anyone to some degree or another. He was technically responsible for his situation by failing to change himself in a way that was satisfactory to his wife -- putting aside his wife's evolving expectations for a second.

Based on the info I've been given and gleaned, there are many "causes" for the current situation.

They married under limited info. My aunt didn't know her future expectations from the marriage. She just married a nice, easy-going guy.
The environment that made their marriage work before went away. Before, everyone was dirt poor (bp principles tend to work better in purely egalitarian environments IME). After rapid local economic development, lots of other people in their social circles rode the tide while he stayed where he was.
My aunt felt that the most effective way to get him motivated was to criticize and emasculate him in front of their daughter.
The likelihood of my uncle satisfying his wife's elevated demands, based on my knowledge of their environment, was extremely low in the first place. Add on top of that the fact that I don't think he's a naturally ambitious man. Based on past convos with him, he's way too proud of his wife. He didn't have any plan of escape from her attacks. No retreat.

Had I known all of this before hand, I could have seen suicide as a real possibility.

I do think a lot of sjw/bp leaning redditors can be unreasonable, but based on what I know of the situation, he'd be a sympathetic person even to the most ruthless of them.

[–]steelpuppy1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

He didn't seem depressed to begin with. No one from my mother's side of the family thought he was (though I suppose you can make the argument that anyone who chooses to gut himself must have some problems, and you could also argue that such problems are always genetic to some degree -- that's certainly a topic to discuss).

The most obvious problem though, as I explained to exit_sandman later in the thread is that he just wasn't an ambitious person. It worked out for him in the past and was fine for her as well. Things change. In this case, rapid local economic development. Everyone there used to be dirt poor, but things changed. Other people in their social circles rode the tide, while he stayed where he was. Thus, his lack of ambition, which was never a problem before, slowly became a problem. She might not have known that about herself when they hooked up.

So she might not be a "toxic partner" in general, but clearly this relationship wasn't right for her in their current environment.

(I don't put much stock in "emasculating" or whatever, but I take your description to mean that she was verbally abusive.)

That's a political thing to say, but I'd say the word is entirely appropriate. I did mean it as a synonym for "demoralize" and "belittle" and mainly used the term because Archwinger did. I was relating to his own situation.

Even if we were to go into the politics of the word, and why feminists tend to put less stock in it, the male role/identity was actually relevant in this situation. For one, his wife was capable of being ambitious herself instead of shaming him into changing himself to become more ambitious on her behalf, given what I know of their environment/situation.

I hope he wasn't too influenced by the inaccurate meme that getting whole or partial custody of his daughter would have been impossible as a man, or that he would have been ruined financially if he left.

I'm not sure why you'd bring up custody or call it an inaccurate meme. You don't know the laws (I didn't mention the state or even the country, and I don't intend to), and even if you did know them in detail, we don't know the de facto implementation for that place. Even I am not familiar. (Remember that conversation we had about "de facto" vs "de jure"? Would it be fair for me to claim that inequality is an inaccurate meme because we mostly have de jure equality?)

He's not wealthy enough to be "ruined financially". If he fell, it wouldn't have been that far. And it's not like he would have starved. My immediate family have supported the extended family, including him, before on numerous occasions. Even now I'm down several thousand dollars and growing in medical costs for this ordeal. It's not about the financial ruin itself, it's the shame of being dependent on others (in this case, it ended up being a nephew -- like rubbing salt into the wounds). That's why I was asked not to bring this up with him (not that I would have anyway).

Archwinger's situation seems superficially related. His wife is getting on his nerves. He's stick it out for his daughter because he believes that it's better for her.

But beyond that, what sticks out to me is:

the damned timing of his post and how it coincided with this recent event in my own life (not that it's actually a huge or unique event for me - just so apropos).
Archwinger didn't go an gut himself. Some bpers might think he's an asshole or try to shame him, but at least he seems sure of what he's doing and has an outlet. He isn't spreading his misery outside the home. He actually seems to be putting effort into getting people like his neighbours to like him, rather than lashing out at others. So there's at the very least there seems to be a "containment" of the problem (in contrast to my uncles' and many other people's situation, where there's fallout everywhere).
No one necessarily has to be the bad guy and still things can turn to shit. In my uncle's situation, his blood family thinks his wife is being a bitch and are catfighting, and maybe she is, but really I just think "shit happens". It's not like she suddenly changed for no reason, and I doubt that she hid her insecurities from everyone deliberately. She might not even have fully understood herself until her environment changed enough to draw that competitive side of her out. Things changed (much of it outside their control) and she lost attraction to and respect for him.
People are just put into difficult situations and such situations can elicit decisions that are unpleasant to the rest of us... Whether that be once in a while using underhanded tactics or just plain avoidance for relief... or going to extremes like violence or attempted suicide.

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I don't have to have clairvoyant insight into her future to state the well documented fact that people who grow up observing a parent behave in controlling or abusive ways towards the other one, tend to grow up in the belief that that's just what relationships look like, and tend to have a harder time selecting non-abusive partners, or leaving/enforcing boundaries in the face of abuse. None of this is revolutionary information.

So why aren't you calling the mother out? From Arch's description she is the one doing all the abusing. His only "fault" is that he doesn't tolerate it and yet you still accuse him of being abusive and controlling.

In this case since the child is a girl, it may be especially damaging for her future ideas of what men are 'supposed' to be like that her father is modeling that controlling behavior and total lack of respect/valuing towards the woman is normal in a relationship.

You mean her mother. Her dad simply doesn't take mom's shit. Looks to me like a more probable outcome is the girl getting the "I take no abusive bullshit" attitude for relationships. Sounds healthy to me.

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

No, I mean her father, and it doesn't look like that to me. It doesn't look like a single adult in that house is modeling actual healthy enforcement of personal boundaries. Her father is controlling and disrespectful/dismissive towards her mother, and her her mother sticks around with a person who treats her like that, in addition to possibly adding to overt hostility in the environment. If she* is* trying to enforce boundaries, they clearly aren't being respected by her husband, so again, that kind of modeling will be very unhealthy.

disrespectful and emasculating bitch

It's very hard to say she's verbally abusive from this description. The use of the word "emasculating" really inspires doubts to that effect, considering I've often seen RPers describe perfectly reasonable attempts at communicating concerns as 'shit tests' or 'disrespect,' since they're starting from the position that a woman should treat them as superior and anything else is wrong. She may just be a normal person who thinks she has equal value to him.

The most I can confidently say from his story is that both of them suck at communicating, don't actually even like the other one all that much, and would probably be happier maintaining separate households.

[–]steelpuppy2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I mean her father, and it doesn't look like that to me. It doesn't look like a single adult in that house is modeling actual healthy enforcement of personal boundaries.

Amazing that you still excuse the mother's behavior. Then you concede that perhaps mommy isn't all that blameless.

Her father is controlling and disrespectful/dismissive towards her mother, and her her mother sticks around with a person who treats her like that, in addition to possibly adding to overt hostility in the environment. If she is trying to enforce boundaries, they clearly aren't being respected by her husband, so again, that kind of modeling will be very unhealthy.

And we are back to the father being disrespectful/controlling. God forbid the women is at fault here.

It's very hard to say she's verbally abusive from this description.

Not to the person being at the end of that stick.

The use of the word "emasculating" really inspires doubts to that effect, considering I've often seen RPers describe perfectly reasonable attempts at communicating concerns as 'shit tests' or 'disrespect,' since they're starting from the position that a woman should treat them as superior and anything else is wrong. She may just be a normal person who thinks she has equal value to him.

That is because you haven't read anything else from Arch. It's pretty amazing that the moment women is potentially the one being a horrible person you resort to victim blaming.

The most I can confidently say from his story is that both of them suck at communicating, don't actually even like the other one all that much, and would probably be happier maintaining separate households.

Except Arch would lose his daughter in all likelihood. That threat-point.

[–]Cactuar_Tamer0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And we are back to the father being disrespectful/controlling.

Based on his own description of his own actions, which is all the information I have, yes. I might view things differently with more and different information.

God forbid the women is at fault here.

She's responsible for her actions, and as described in the comment it's difficult to tell what exactly those are. He is responsible for his actions, which, as described, are seemingly bad.

That is because you haven't read anything else from Arch.

That's right. I'm just responding to this one comment, and the information contained within. Sorry I haven't taken the time to buff up on the story of his life.

Except Arch would lose his daughter in all likelihood. That threat-point.

I suppose the context that supports why he would likely lose her is in those other posts that exist somewhere and which I haven't read?

[–]steelpuppy2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_Tamer0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_Tamer0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheThingsIThink 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

He's making the claim that women are being favored in court. I'd like to see proof of such statements. This is a debate sub, we aren't required to take people at their word especially when they present no evidence.

He's making a widely held belief. If his wrong correct him.

Oh please, if all you're interested in is making emotional accusations without proof kindly get back up on your high horse and ride out of here. If you're actually interested in whether or not women are being favored in court, I'd think you'd also be interested in the following questions:

Aaaaa, somebody doesn't like being BP'd. I called you unemphatic because you jumped straight to materialistic instead of the humane part of the divorce equation: time with your child is more precious.

What percentage of divorcees end up receiving alimony on average? And what is the average award amount? Do you know?

Who cares. The point was that the OP's perception is how expensive divorces are and how men don't get at least equal custody. Yet you focus only on the materialistic alimony angle since you managed to dig up some stats on that so you need to shove them down everyone's throats.

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Edit: what better way to know you struck a nerve (and that you're right) than when people downvote but can't say shit :D

He's making a widely held belief. If his wrong correct him.

Nah, you don't get out of this by saying it's a "belief". This is still a debate sub, people come here to have their beliefs debated/challenged. If thats not what he wants he could've stayed in TRP echo chamber, but he came to PPD so yeah we're gonna ask him to back up his claims or concede the point.

Edit: I mean seriously, if I made the statement "red pillers are all a bunch of rapists" on PPD would you expect no one challenge me because it's my "belief", that no one would call me out and ask for proof? That's what this sub is for man.

I called you I empathetic because you jumped straight to materialistic instead of the humane part of the divorce question

First off he barely mentioned the kid once. Second, I've heard it all before: RPer claims women are favored in court, poor men, women are evil divorce raping harpies, etc, I ask for a shred of evidence supporting that view aaaaand suddenly there is not a peep from them.

And it's kinda an important topic to get your facts straight on, isn't it? And look, exactly what I said would happen happened, not a peep outta that guy. And not a shred of evidence in support of his claim from you either.

who cares?

About the truth? Obviously not you guys.

Yet you focus only on the materialistic alimony angle since you managed to dig up some stats on that so you need to shove them down everyone's throats.

Lol I didn't even post any stats yet. And yeah, asking some objective questions about how many divorcees actually receive alimony will tell us how prevalent it is, and the average award will tell us if it's really as expensive as RPers claim. Sorry for bringing some objectivity into your pity party on a debate sub.

[–]steelpuppy1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nah, you don't get out of this by saying it's a "belief". This is still a debate sub, people come here to have their beliefs debated/challenged. If thats not what he wants he could've stayed in TRP echo chamber, but he came to PPD so yeah we're gonna ask him to back up his claims or concede the point.

Ok let's do this.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-246.pdf

The majority of custodial parents (81.7 percent) were mothers, and 18.3 percent were fathers, proportions that were not statistically different from those in 1994.

Lol I didn't even post any stats yet. And yeah, asking some objective questions about how many divorcees actually receive alimony will tell us how prevalent it is, and the average award will tell us if it's really as expensive as RPers claim. Sorry for bringing some objectivity into your pity party on a debate sub.

I'm pretty sure you posted those stats in another thread and you consider them favoring your side. That's why you jumped on alimony instead of child custody (way less favorable to you).

Lol I didn't even post any stats yet. And yeah, asking some objective questions about how many divorcees actually receive alimony will tell us how prevalent it is, and the average award will tell us if it's really as expensive as RPers claim. Sorry for bringing some objectivity into your pity party on a debate sub.

Amazing that you still focus on the material side of things. I bet that plenty of dads would be happier paying alimony and child support if they got to see their kid more. Instead they get to pay and get little to nothing in return.

[–]cuittler2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

From your link

About 62.3 percent of the $37.9 billion in child sup- port due in 2011 was reported as received, averag- ing $3,770 per year per custodial parent who was due support.

3,770/12 = $314 per month

According to Wikipedia

$94,100 {5228 avg x 18yrs} is the total basic cost of raising a child from birth in 2013 to age 18.

5,228/12 = $435 per month

So the average child support payment in the US doesn't even cover the minimum cost of raising a child, how are "lazy ass women" supposed to be living the life on an amount that barely covers the cost of food, where is all the money that's supposed to be huge incentive for women to "divorce rape" their husbands? Where is the favoring?

Btw, if your quote about more women gaining custody was supposed to be an example of favoritism think again

Men’s rights activists complain that despite the legal changes, mother preference still lingers, and studies have shown that through the 1980s sole mother custody still prevailed. But more recently judges have been catching up to the law. According to one of the most thorough surveys of child custody outcomes, which looked at Wisconsin between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of divorce cases in which the mother got sole custody dropped from 60.4 to 45.7 percent while the percentage of equal shared custody cases, in just that decade, doubled from 15.8 to 30.5. And a recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers shows a rapid increase in mothers paying child support.

Berkeley law professor Mary Ann Mason tracked the changing priorities of divorce courts over three decades. The biggest recent change, she writes, is the courts’ preference for the “friendly parent,” meaning the one who can get along with the other parent. Mothers who get in the way of a father’s involvement can in fact be penalized by the courts. In their book, Cahn and Carbone tell the story of the Renauds, a divorcing Vermont couple whose case was resolved in 2004. Before the divorce, the couple shared child care. The mother took Fridays off to be with the children, and the father took them to and from day care and was an involved dad. The marriage ended when the father told the mother that he was having an affair with a colleague. In another era, the mother would have gotten sole custody of the children and alimony, but not much child support. Now, “the mother’s ability to retain custody depends on her willingness to support the father’s involvement,” Cahn and Carbone write. In this case, the mother accused the father of abuse and neglect. When the investigators could not confirm the charges, the court awarded the father 50 percent custody and made the mother’s custody contingent on her working to repair the relationship with the father.

The real inequality in family courts these days is not based on gender, but on income. Wealthy men have successfully fought against proposed reforms that would have forced them to pay more child support. With elite, college educated men, “it’s outrageous how little they can end up paying in child support in some cases,” says Ellman, the Arizona State professor. But poor men are in a different predicament. Welfare reform in the 1990s included an effort to track down fathers who weren’t paying child support. As the economy sank, those fathers fell behind on their payments and often wound up in jail or permanent debt, as Elaine Sorensen of the Urban Institute has documented.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/05/men_s_rights_recognized_the_pro_father_evolution_of_divorce_and_paternity.html

The sad thing is there are some actual issues with child support : parents going thru financial hardship are punished and the pitifully small child support payments themselves, you'd think this would be at the forefront of men's concerns but it's not, instead it's all "lazy ass women are divorce raping my bank account to live rich off me!!!"

Edit: and yeah, I focus "on the material side of things" cause I know the complaints about women being favored and living it up off child support and alimony are a bunch of bullshit.

Btw, if you're interested in the state of alimony and why more women receive primary custody...

In the area of alimony, the Committee found that very few women receive alimony awards, while even fewer women receive awards that are adequate. While many alimony awards undervalue the contributions of the homemaker to the family, they also overvalue the earning potential of homemakers who have long been out of the labor market. Further, only a minority of the alimony awards ordered ever get collected. This has a grave impact on those most dependent on alimony, particularly older homemakers who no longer receive child support and who have decreased earning potential because of years spent on childrearing. These women must rely on their own resources to bring contempt action in cases of nonpayment, and they receive little help from the courts.

We began our investigation of child custody aware of a common perception that there is a bias in favor of women in these decisions. Our research contradicted this perception. Although mothers more frequently get primary physical custody of children following divorce, this practice does not reflect bias but rather the agreement of the parties and the fact that, in most families, mothers have been the primary [*748] caretakers of children. Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time. Reports indicate, however, that in some cases perceptions of gender bias may discourage fathers from seeking custody and stereotypes about fathers may sometimes affect case outcomes. In general, our evidence suggests that the courts hold higher standards for mothers than fathers in custody determinations.

http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm

[–]steelpuppy1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

3,770/12 = $314 per month According to Wikipedia $94,100 {5228 avg x 18yrs} is the total basic cost of raising a child from birth in 2013 to age 18. 5,228/12 = $435 per month

So what you are really saying is that average mom only pays 27% of the average costs of raising an average child while still getting at least 50% of the custody in 76.2% of the cases. So much fairness.

So the average child support payment in the US doesn't even cover the minimum cost of raising a child, how are "lazy ass women" supposed to be living the life on an amount that barely covers the cost of food, where is all the money that's supposed to be huge incentive for women to "divorce rape" their husbands? Where is the favoring?

Child support is for the children silly. You need to factor in at least half of marital assets + potential alimony (men in 97% of cases) + child support (72% of cost of raising an average child paid by the father) + anything the government gives the mom/child + anything that mom earns from her job. Not to mention the most important part that you keep ignoring. Women still get kids most of the time. Unless you are going to bashing all dads as being deadbeats that don't want to be involved with their kids. Want to rethink that whole "poor lil women" angle?

And a recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers shows a rapid increase in mothers paying child support.

Don't forget increased cases of alimony being paid by the wife. Guess what happened? They started changing alimony laws so that poor lil women don't have to be fleeced so hard. Apparently before it was ok when it was almost all men.

With elite, college educated men, “it’s outrageous how little they can end up paying in child support in some cases,” says Ellman, the Arizona State professor.

Isn't that depended on some shit about previous standard of living? Those this factor in alimony and marital assets?

As the economy sank, those fathers fell behind on their payments and often wound up in jail or permanent debt

I'm pretty sure MRAs talk about his all the time.

Edit: and yeah, I focus "on the material side of things" cause I know the complaints about women being favored and living it up off child support and alimony are a bunch of bullshit.

That wasn't my angle. You started talking about "divorce rape". My angle was you ignoring father-child relationship which can only meaningfully happen if the father can get face time with his child on a consistent basis. Something that still heavily favors women.

Good trends though, if they are correct.

[–]cuittler2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So what you are really saying is that average mom only pays 27% of the average costs of raising an average child while still getting at least 50% of the custody in 76.2% of the cases. So much fairness.

Men usually make more on average, which is why when they pay child support they usually pay more than women do. This whole thing began from the presumption that "lazy ass women" had huge incentive to divorce rape men and live off them, don't change goalposts now because this pretty definitively shows that to be untrue.

Child support is for the children silly.

No shit. So how are "lazy ass women" supposed to be living off it?

You need to factor in at least half the marital assets + potential alimony (men in 97% of cases)

Are you saying that 97% of men pay alimony? And again, what is the average alimony award? I'd like to see your information on that.

Women still get kids most of the time.

I can see how you came to believe all this, you obviously don't pay much attention:

"Statistics showing that women gain custody of their children 90% of the time reflect the fact that over the past 50 years, fathers rarely asked for custody. A study of Utah custody decisions between 1970-1993 shows that only 13% of fathers requested custody (Mason and Quirk 1997: 217).

When fathers do contest custody, studies show they win anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of the time. Maccoby and Mnookin studied 930 divorce cases in California in the 1980's and found that only 14 of these ended up before a judge. But of those cases, fathers won custody 50% of the time (Maccoby & Mnookin 1992).

Weitzman and Dixon found that in Los Angeles County alone in the 1970's, fathers gained custody 63% of the time (Weitzman and Dixon 1986).

A study by the Massachusetts State Supreme Court Taskforce on Gender found that fathers who contest custody in Massachusetts win sole or joint physical custody more than 70% of the time (Jacobs, 1997:11).

Another study in Minneapolis found fathers winning custody in 45% of the contested cases (Polikoff, 1993:11)."

they started changing alimony laws so poor lil women don't get fleeced so hard.

[citation needed]

Isn't that dependent on some shit about previous standard of living?

"Wealthy men have successfully fought against proposed reforms that would have forced them to pay more child support."

My angle was you ignoring father-child relationship

where did I do that?

which can only meaningfully happen if the father can get face time with his child on a consistent basis. Something that still heavily favors women.

Again, look at the stats showing how often fathers receive custody when they pursue it. Many men sign away custody uncontested either because they don't want it or because of the perception of gender bias, but when they actually pursue it they have an excellent chance of obtaining custody.

[–]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

I'm not justifying his behaviour. Frankly, I don't know the actual actions he's describing. From my limited understanding, what he's been doing is ignoring her criticisms and emasculation of him, going to the gym, playing poker. It's technically manipulation, but mainly in the sense that he understands what he's doing and the possible impact of his actions. It's relatively passive compared to her active hostility.

I'm actually somewhat confused as to how certain you seem about the situation. All I've said is that it seems likely the wife would just continue the behaviour. I don't know if it's going to be "fuck amazing" for anyone. He certainly believes that he is a better parent for her and the decision for him to just up and leave is obviously going to be more difficult for him than it would be for you to just propose online.

Also, I messed up my writing there, by "she" I referred to his daughter.

Well that makes things clearer.

I don't know about his daughter, but I have a cousin in a similar situation, and by the way she was bawling after her father gutted himself, I'd say she'd have been happier if the alternative was that her father just ignored her mother's constant criticisms and emasculation.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I'm actually somewhat confused as to how certain you seem about the situation.

That's something that baffles me as well about quite a bunch of the bluepillers* here - you give them a rundown of a situation to illustrate why you hold redpill views or why being aware of redpill ideas might have merit or even be necessary, and they - regardless of context - fill in the gaps (or create new gaps they can fill) by pulling untenable speculations out of their asses in order to refute your point only so they can defend their "redpillers are Satan and always wrong"-position.

*to be fair, it's usually male-identified bluepillers who pull that off; and they also tend to demonize the men involved in that scenario to justify the behavior of the women. If female bluepiller start speculating (which they seem to do a lot less), it's more a whitewashing of the women involved.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's especially bizarre to read stuff like, "you probably should lose your daughter".

The level of "manipulation" he's describing in terms of actionable content is just avoidance. He tells the wife that he's not going to accept being emasculated in front of their daughter, and then leaves. Doesn't hit her. Doesn't scream back. But since he has the arbitrary rp label and understands that his actions might be more productive than getting into an argument that leads to no where, it's technically manipulation and he should lose his daughter. Never mind the mention that the wife's behaviour (insulting the other parent in front of their daughter) is questionable to say the least. No, we're somehow certain who the bad guy is.

I can guarantee you that if Archwinger used a weaker tone, gave a hint of innocence/naivety, didn't have the rp label/baggage, most bpers and even subs like /r/relationships and similar subs would be flooding him with sympathy.

Just replace and reorganize a lot of his text to suggest that he's vulnerable/weak and needs to be taken care of like a boy would:

"I want to her to fuck my brains out" with "I want to be loved"
"stop being a disrespectful and emasculating bitch toward me me in front of our daughter" with "I wish she'd stop being so abusive!"
"ignore my wife" with "give her space to think" or something even weaker like "retreat because I don't know what to do about her!"

"Why is my wife doing this to me in front of our daughter? I told her that this is hurting me, and I've tried to give her space to think about it. That seems to work, but only temporarily. She then stops loving me again. <snipped/>"

BOOM, he'd get instant sympathy from most redditors. It's all about tone.

It's frustrating to think about. The balance between being respected and sympathized with. It's something that bpers don't seem to empathize with because they have very different ideas of what "respect" means and in general they don't value it as much as sympathy. ... When or if my uncle recovers, he may be pitied but he'll have even less respect. It's such an unpleasant and difficult matter to think about.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What you are characterizing as 'tone' is more substantial than that. The perspectives you've offered here are not equivalents.

"giving someone space" implies a level of mutuality and respect in the actual situation that is not present in "ignoring someone." In giving someone space, you disengage because they need/want time alone, and it is implied that once they desire your company again, they can have it you are not dismissing them. In contrast, "Ignoring someone" implies dismissiveness, and that that person's want/need for your company is being disregarded by you.

"stop being disrespectful and emasculating" rings, especially in the context of a sub who's members have a tendency to microanalyze normal interactions for hints of 'shit tests' and to characterize a lack of total obsequiousness as 'disrespect,' as a dubious/ambiguous statement. Without knowing more it's hard to say whether she isn't just a normal person making normal criticisms. "stop being verbally abusive" is clearer. I'd still want to know details before I accepted it, but at least the intimidate impression doesn't suggest that the speaker's ego might be the actual problem.

I shouldn't really have to type an explanation as to why wanting to be fucked and wanting to be loved are not the same thing, but I will point out that the context of RPer's tendency to describe women as good for nothing but sex is may be amplifying the effect even further in this last case.

Those two things are saying different things

It's not tone or semantics, you'd get different reactions because you'd be describing very different things.

As to the last, BPers value respect as much or more as sympathy, we just think it's something everyone deserves a basic level of, not only men. I would say I personally have less empathy for RP concepts of being disrespected because I have often seen being respected and being obeyed conflated.

[–]fiat_lux_2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're right. It's more than just tone. It's context (which is why I brought up "the rp label").

"stop being disrespectful and emasculating" rings, especially in the context of a sub who's members have a tendency to microanalyze normal interactions for hints of 'shit tests' and to characterize a lack of total obsequiousness as 'disrespect,' as a dubious/ambiguous statement.

It's less ambiguous when we're talking about "constant criticisms".

"stop being verbally abusive" is clearer.

It's also weaker, like I said. It acknowledges that power is in her hands. I don't know the exact reason why he chose to avoid that, but I acknowledge that he has his reasons.

Sometimes, direct communication reveals a lot more than just what you want it to. Refer to my story about my black friend who uses a scripted interaction. The exact thing he wants to communicate are awkward, and not easy to just "say".

I shouldn't really have to type an explanation as to why wanting to be fucked and wanting to be loved are not the same thing

Of course they are different. But men on average are more likely to see a correlation between the two. We're just the more physical gender.

As to the last, BPers value respect as much or more as sympathy, we just think it's something everyone deserves a basic level of, not only men.

Like I said, bpers have very different ideas of what "respect" means.

Even standard dictionaries and wiki acknowledge two main but distinct definitions. One involves a feeling of esteem or deference for some quality or authority of the person being respected (rp usage). The other is some form of conduct in accord with a specific ethic (bp usage).

That is why rpers say, "respect is earned".

And bpers say, "everyone deserves respect".

I personally don't use "respect" the bp way, and rarely have except when convenient. It's meaningless to me. It's functionally no different to me than being polite or being "nice".

[–]Cactuar_Tamer0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think it's pretty obvious what kind of "respect" I'm talking about here. I mentioned that when or if my uncle recovers, he'll have even less respect. What do you think that means?

That I want to treat him worse than I would a stranger? That I'll be a total asshole to him? No. It's mainly less trust and deference for his ability to take care of himself. It's logically justifiable and I don't think I could control even if I wanted to.

I know exactly what you're talking about and it just sounds like a composite function conflating what are two distinct concepts to me. Above a threshold, respect is earned the rp way, but below that we reach a "baseline level". We change the function to a constant setting the baseline level as the absolute minimum. This baseline bp usage of the word is not functionally dependent on the individual. It's just a constant.

What is this "baseline respect" anyway and is it in any way tied to the individual? Does it have any similarity to the above-baseline level that is earned?

If you use that particular definition, I can't stop you but you should understand that we do not think alike on this matter and our definitions do in fact conflict.

[–]steelpuppy2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I've seen dozens of examples in which TRP reads a 'BP success story', followed by countless of RPers who suddenly know everything about the relationship and how it will end.

Hah! Well, can't argue with that; though you arguably would have to define what "success" means. The problem with "BP success stories" is that they're usually accounted for through the RP lens:

highschool sweetheart soulmate romance with happy ending? RP: Highfive, you put a ring on her early! (just don't do something stupid or you'll regret that you married)
30 year old nerd has his happy ending after all when he marries a georgeous woman his age, while he wasn't so much as looked at by comparably gorgeous women ten years earlier? RP: Dude...

On the other hand, these RP cautionary tales IMHO tend to be a lot less ambiguous.

Archwinger doesn't put up with the open and repeated emotional abuse from his wife and gives her the silent treatment instead, until she gives in? BP (to Archwinger): You abusive asshole!
accomplished 30 year old guy gets in contact with materialistic girl who rejected him years earlier but suddenly feels remorse over her decision? BP: Maybe she has genuinely changed! (I'm not making this up)
guy who grew up in a feminist-influenced environment finds out that women aren't as he was told they are after years of trying to figure things out? BP: The fact that he repeatedly dropped the ball for so long means that he must have been a depressed aspie! His feminist-minded sister who was big about gender equality dated jerks and rednecks? BP: Must have been because her father was a narcissist and she was drawn to the same guys (I'm not making this up - and I wish I was, because in that story it was explicitly said that the brother was a people's person and that both of them grew up without a father)
an explanation had a story quoted about your typical providers who marry materialistic women and spend the rest of their sorry lives under their thumbs and experience constant emotional abuse? BP: They married her for sex and because of that deserved being used! (I'm not making this up)
the most important and influental figure of a nation's feminism who had left her mark on the mainstream there wrote some really retarded shit? BP: Can't be, she must have been a radical fringe figure! (I'm not making this up)

Sorry, but at times the denial is really strong.

[–]steelpuppy2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sansa_Culotte_-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

He speaks truth. He's deliciously diabolical, but in a reformed way. He's giving me the Despicable Me villain turned caretaker of children.

He is the only RPer I endorse. And maybe a few of you here when you've had your coffee and nice pills.

So, you want to be slapped back to your senses? Cough up the red pill. She is a better red piller than you will ever be.

That made me chuckle a great deal.

Here's the thing. Everyone manipulates. All communication is manipulation. All flirtation is manipulation. TRP and the crazy bishes they want to date all dabble in the dark arts of manipulation, which can be sexy in the short-term, but usually leads to emotional trauma and baggage for decades.

It's like in all of those witch movies, the witches who practice black magic all have this "heavy toll to pay." There's always a significant price to cough over when you take the shortcut.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moooooooof 5 points5 points5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]runswithelves0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Moooooooof1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]witzzzer 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacks1000-5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Can you start the conversation by offering an opinion? Or is the opinion exactly the one expressed by the comment?

If it's the latter, then I agree to the extent that LTRs based on overt deception are generally impractical. I've said close to the same thing on asktrp before (a series of anecdotes about women who tried to deceive me in various ways that failed followed by a reminder that of how difficult it is to keep up a long-term facade in the face of intellectual peers or superiors), so I can't exactly disagree with that comment strongly.

That being said, I have to point out that better pro-rp stories by more compelling throwaways have been written, and they had been called out.

Relevant: The commenter you're referencing and the circlejerker accompanying her seemed to miss the clue: "Seriously....the answer telling OP to shit in a box with the doll, jizz on it, and send it to her got more upvotes and a positive reception from OP than your post did. Lmao."

Let's look at that comment they are talking about:

Cool story, bro. Why not write it as a green text and post it to /b/?

Sell the doll, buy two hookers with the money, take photos while you fuck them up their asses, shit in a box, stick the photos in, jizz on them, put a thank you card in it. Send it to her.

That was the comment that had more upvotes. Basically, people are not-so-subtly calling bullshit on the story. If I didn't see rpers also calling out pro-rp stories, I'd suspect bias, but in this case, I'd say they are just suspicious individuals in general. I find such suspicion quite justified considering the socially aberrant material they deal with.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What do RPers of PPD think of this comment and the post it's replying to?

For all we know, even that could be bullshit, because few people have that level of self-awareness.

I know, because I used to do it, to both men and women. I did it because it put me in a position of power, and it let me get what I wanted from them. There's one thing you might be right about: your ex may have borderline personality disorder. You know how I know? Because I have BPD and the heightened emotional awareness it gives me is what allowed me to manipulate others, in the exact same way she manipulated you.

As I left high school and entered college, I encountered people who were more emotionally intelligent than me, who I couldn't manipulate. They just thought I was an asshole, and they were right. It left me hollow inside. Depressed, cynical, unhappy with myself and my life. I eventually tried to take my own life, which is what led to me getting the help that I needed in the form of dialectical behavior therapy. And there, I learned what I was doing was wrong, and hurtful not just to the people I cared about, but intensely damaging to my own psychological well being.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Despite what TRPs want you to think, you can't build a healthy, happy relationship on a foundation of psychological manipulation.

I changed my mind. I actually strongly disagree with this statement. Now, if we put aside our collective moralizing for a second, what we have here is just an extension of the "just world fallacy". Supposing we give this story credibility, why don't we give credibility to the infamous confession made by another redditor (one of the top-voted posts of all time).

He used his house-sitting responsibility to peek into his neighbour's daughter's diary many years ago. He used what he learned to get into her good graces, and that girl is now his wife. That's how the story goes. Is that it? Bad guy wins? Not necessarily, and he's not necessarily "a bad guy". Sometimes things just are the way they are. Someone who used a bit of manipulation in the past ended up succeeding in some way. Maybe he relied on other more honest methods later.

Now for something more mundane. Scripted social interactions in general.

I have a black friend who has what I considered an incredibly cringy, scripted way of making himself comfortable around upper-middle class white people he just met. The conversation goes from normal icebreakers like residency/location/commute naturally to chit-chat about a place like Oakland. And then when given sufficient leeway to talk about it, he'd say the same lines about how he steers clear of the area. Because the gangs there scare him and would likely kick his ass. All true, all honest, but the point of the script was basically to offer a point of possible commiseration, shared fears, etc. Something for the group to empathize with and realize that, "This guy is just like us," and distance himself from "those kinds of black people."

The first time he used it around me, I thought it seemed natural. It was just a natural state of progression for the conversation. The other people were interactive and asking questions or saying things that led him to talk about this. It was only during subsequent executions of the script that I found it remotely awkward (I clued him in but he trusted me enough).

It's technically manipulative. He's not being forthright with his intentions. He's not using direct and obvious communication. He's using a subtle way to communicate the idea that, "Hey bros, I'm one of you!"

As cringy as that may sound to you, it appears to work for him. People laugh, and even visibly relax and laugh it off with him. This and various other scripted interactions actually ingratiate him to certain groups that he perceives might have discriminatory thoughts towards him. How else is he supposed to directly communicate these things? Talk about it upfront?

"Do not worry about me. I may be black, but I'm very white washed, nerdy, and a typical white collar worker."

Just read that and think of how much cringier that is. How awful direct communication can sound. He may be completely sincere, but that kind of communication will get people questioning him. "Wtf! Does he think I'm a racist!?" / "What the hell. That's such a weird thing to actually say." / "He must be very insecure."

A lot of communication is just like that. Indirect, and low level manipulation.

Even supposing someone suspected what he was doing (I had a faint suspicion even the first time, when it seemed the most natural), what are they going to do? Call him out on it when he has plausible deniability and when he's just trying to do something harmless like ingratiating people or finding common ground? Would I not be an asshole for raining on his parade for something almost harmless?

This guy has built healthy, happy relationships this way (granted, I'm talking about professional and platonic ones, but still).

That being said, I suppose it's arguable what the commenter meant by "foundation of manipulation". Possible he/she means an ongoing abuse of it, to which I do agree that it's impractical and more obviously "wrong" in from an ethical perspective.

[–]adrixshadowIndigo Pill(aka dark and evil occult pill)4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I'm in agreement with the commenter.

So you don't think it's real. Ok, neither of us have any way of proving otherwise so that ends all discussion. Just gonna point out tho that this argument comes up every time one side doesn't like a field report or askrelationships post, and I don't find it very compelling unless there are some clear signs it's fraudulent.

There are also a number of posters who took them seriously and got upvoted:

"She can't read your mind, dude, cut it with the magical thinking. Obviously she's intelligent, Machiavellian, perceptive, and is familiar with and does not appreciate game. She probably felt insulted when she called you out and you failed to tone it down. I don't know if toning it down would have been the right call or not. Maybe you could have kept her longer. Maybe it's for the best that it didn't last any longer. So laugh it off, find something funny to do with the blowup doll, and move on." +20

"What the fuck????? This is like some SAW level shit. Avoid her at all costs please. Next thing you know you'll wake up in a warehouse having to solve puzzles to find your way out alive." +14

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]witzzzer 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Omg I got quoted! Not knowing what /b/ is I think I'm the idiot in that particular case, not having got the joke....not to mention the fact that the vote levels changed afterwards...but whatever :P

You also missed the "cool story, bro" meme, but that's not really important at this point.

I don't think you're an idiot, but you were clearly circle jerking. Completely understandable. You got excited over the story and the harsh/"truthy" lecture given by someone who was clearly anti-trp, and responded.

Nothing sinister about it. Just one of many examples of how simple and common it is for us to caricaturize our presumed opponents. Aside from you, GridReXX made the assumption that the referenced commenter was an rper despite what you pointed out (his/her very first sentence). This was due to her understanding that rpers will usually down vote opposing views. (That has not been my experience, and I've gotten away with posting a shit-ton of bp/beta stuff and even apologetics for feminism.)

The point remains that OP got trped by that girl, hard, and all the trp comments in that thread eviscerating her for being a psycho manipulating bitch are full of sweet, sweet irony.

Well yes, if that did happen, then I actually agree mostly with what was said. It's impractical in the long run to be deceitful to people, especially if you plan on surrounding yourself with intellectual peers. I've written the same in the past. I think most people would actually agree here. Even the top rp response (before the referenced post was likely brigaded to the top) gives this woman credit. For example, alpha_n3rd didn't "eviscerate her for being a psycho manipulating bitch", he wrote that:

Obviously she's intelligent, Machiavellian, perceptive, and is familiar with and does not appreciate game. She probably felt insulted when she called you out and you failed to tone it down.

The two rpers who explicitly called her a "psycho" seemed to actually be praising her. lol

[–]TRPACC 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Will_Im_Not 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheThingsIThink 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Will_Im_Not 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

When husbands are in demand men are coy and women game When women are freed to be choosy and bestow sex, women are coy and men game. The mor ein demand the hottest women are, the coyer they are and the harder men game

Sure, I've seen this in action myself at co-ed camps that were mostly girls - all the guys were fawned over like precious jewels. ;)

A basic tenet of TRP is that game merely throws women's excellence at mindgames and manipulation back at them. My mom tried to instill the exact tenets of male game in me when i was a teen, which before the sexual revoltution was practiced by women more than men. Its all about which sex has the upper hand in the SMP and MMP

This reminds me a lot of how my mom talked to me as a kid. I'm sorry to say she is not exactly happy or satisfied with how those methods have shaped her life.

[–]homo_homini_lupus 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cascadecombo0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hobodick0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	TRP and Manipulation
Author	cuittler
Upvotes	5
Comments	256
Date	November 11, 2014 5:32 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2lzemi/trp_and_manipulation/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/trp-and-manipulation.284384 https://theredarchive.com/post/284384

Comments