Does the SMP make men cold-hearted?

Throwaway198798 · 2017-07-07T03:49:20+00:00

Just looking at how, much of modern dating advice for men involves becoming cold and uncaring towards women. The men that don't do this, save for a lucky...

[–]Battle-Scars24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fdreal 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Battle-Scars5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Throwaway198798[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GroovyEFS 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgtownigga0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]GroovyEFS 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]GroovyEFS 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Are you asking about the effects of the drug or what they'll do for my life?

Opiates just make you feel really fucking good. Your house could be on fire but if you're on opiates you wouldn't care. You got a shitty job that stresses you out normally, but you go to work on opiates, you feel just as happy as you would if you were at home watching TV. It's like a cloud of warmth.

As for what they do for my life, well to be honest they're risky. Obviously opiates are addictive substances. You gotta be careful and moderate your use. I mostly use weaker ones and save strong ones as a treat. So if I have to deal with withdrawal it's only from those weak ones and will essentially add up to having a cold for less than a week.

But you can see the allure. Nothing can touch you, nothing bothers you, everything's happy. The stresses of everyday life cease to be a concern.

The main problems (aside from the additive potential) are the constipation and lowered libido. That's also why I've started doing opis more after breaking up with my last gf. I don't really have to care if I'm in the mood for sex right now. When I get another girl I'll have to use em less, but I've stopped many times before without much issue. I just miss them.

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Opiates just make you feel really fucking good. Your house could be on fire but if you're on opiates you wouldn't care. You got a shitty job that stresses you out normally, but you go to work on opiates, you feel just as happy as you would if you were at home watching TV. It's like a cloud of warmth...But you can see the allure. Nothing can touch you, nothing bothers you, everything's happy. The stresses of everyday life cease to be a concern.

Yeah, this was what I was wondering. Like, why take them at all, what benefit you derive from them. That does make sense.

Have you tried creating this feeling without the use of opiates? As you know, my brain is kinda fucked up, but I have a segment of personality who's job is to feel happiness and awe at the world, just like I have a segment who takes care of sadness, one that helps stay calm and diplomatic when conversations get emotional, one that contains my anger/thoughts of revenge, etc. Obviously this isn't normally how emotions work, but do you think you could do this too? I must say it's a relief when I'm stressed to just put them "in charge" and go through my day happy and wow'd by everything from the way the sun looks in the clouds to the fact a coworker brought bagels to work.

[–]GroovyEFS 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisaster1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GroovyEFS1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisaster1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GroovyEFS1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mgtownigga0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shipcake0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I'd say that the SMP makes loser men cold-hearted, but non-loser men keep their hearts in tact just fine.

The path to success in the SMP is really pretty damn simple: be attractive, don't be unattractive.

If a woman is sexually attracted to you, you can be the biggest asshole on the planet, all of her friends will tell her you're an asshole, and she'll defend you. She'll show up at your apartment at 2:AM with no panties on, with groceries, and spot you for rent when you're short this month, and you'll barely lift a finger to do anything for her, because you're fucking three other women just like her. And on the rare occasions when you deign to do something thoughtful for her, it will mean the world to her.

If a woman isn't sexually attracted to you, everything nice you do for her is awkward and creepy and she kind of wishes you'd quit it because she knows what you want and she doesn't want it. You're a great guy, and you'll find someone someday, but you're not right for her. Or anybody she knows. Or anybody you know.

However, just because a man is attractive and able to fuck women doesn't mean that he has to be an asshole. Most of the greatest guys you know are guys who can and do fuck women. They're fun, outgoing, thoughtful, and make the world a better place. Because they're attractive and have never struggled for sex or romance, they're well-adjusted, healthy people who interact in a positive way with the world around them.

Many great guys you know are unattractive. Just because they're not getting laid doesn't mean they're bad people. They're kind, thoughtful, generous, and if you can get past the fact that they're unattractive schmucks, they're okay dudes.

The men who are "cold-hearted" tend to be the ones who aren't getting laid and hate it, and the ones who used to not get laid and learned how. Loser men who used to be thoughtful, kind, generous people, but looked around and realized that attraction means more than what you're like inside.

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If a woman is sexually attracted to you, you can be the biggest asshole on the planet, all of her friends will tell her you're an asshole, and she'll defend you.

This works both ways, though. If you're female and a man is attracted to you, he'll go to the ends of the earth to get your attention. (Hence the restraining order.) Both genders are capable of going overboard in their enthusiasm, which is unwise. Best to start out slowly ... find someone who seems attractive, vet them carefully and gauge whether your feelings for them are reciprocated.

Also, you seem to think that there are blanket definitions of "attractive" and "unattractive." I don't think that's the case. Sure, there are some baseline things like personal grooming and an I.Q. above 80 (LOL) but we all know geeky nerds who have adoring girlfriends. It's not as formulaic as you imply.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scurvemuch 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkmoon092 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scurvemuch 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If you're dealt a 2 and a 7, the flop might turn up three 7s. It's not likely, but it can happen. Or the other people at the table with you might have shitty hands. Or you might play the hand, bluff a bit, and other people fold. Or you play the hand, and that last card turns out to be a 7, and you edge out another guy who had two 6s.

If you play hard and game the table, things might turn out okay. But you'll have to play ten times harder and with a lot less confidence and certainty than the guy with pocket aces. The hand you were dealt still sucks. There's a good chance that if you play it, you'll lose anyway. And if you fold, you still lose.

Not all hands in life are equal, and sometimes, no matter how hard you play, you'll lose anyway, even if you make all the right moves. But nobody gets to not play. You lose if you fold, or you lose if you play.

[–]Scurvemuch 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bunny_throwawayRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkmoon094 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Plenty of people have sex for tje sake of having sex without being emotional about it.

And I think that sex being commoditized as some form of "market" is a big part of the problem. It makes it more difficult for people to know how to "relationship" and to see others as fellow human beings when they are being seen primarily as sexual objects first. On the other hand, if people formed connections first before they had sex, they would treat each other as fellow people much more than just objects.

And there are hordes of "nice guys" who do in fact invest themselves into women becuase that's what they've been led to belive that thats whay women want, only to get royally screwed over.

Oneitis and nice guy behavior is a form of sexual entitlement. It's the same thing as female "relationship entitlement" when they have sex with a guy and then expect him to commit to a relationship. If men and women formed relationships organically rather than using sex or sexual entitlement as some kind of tool to get what they want emotionally, then the SMP would be much less cruel and cold-hearted, and more people would be with somebody who is actually emotionally compatible with themselves.

[–]darkmoon093 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And I think that sex being commoditized as some form of "market" is a big part of the problem. It makes it more difficult for people to know how to "relationship" and to see others as fellow human beings when they are being seen primarily as sexual objects first.

Thank the hookup culture for that. Women are the primary drivers of it since they're sexual gatekeepers so in reality the burden is mainly on them to do something about it. They won't though of course. The cock-carousel is too addicting a drug for them.

On the other hand, if people formed connections first before they had sex, they would treat each other as fellow people much more than just objects.

This still doesn't quite explain how some people are able to fuck around left and right without forming any emotional attachment and therefor emotional baggage. They seem to be doing just fine in the hookup culture and have no complaints. Perhaps other people should follow their example as it appears that being all emotional makes oneself vulnerable to getting stabbed in the heart.

Oneitis and nice guy behavior is a form of sexual entitlement.

You understand right that what you call "sexual entitlement" is often just them being themselves, right? they're not consciously thinking I'm going to be nice in hopes she grants me access to her poon, they're just genuinely nice people and don't have ulterior motives. Honestly this while "nice guy= sexually entitled" is a form of shamming tactic used to shut down the discussion that genuine nice guys are getting shit on for no reason other than they're not as attractive as the alpha chads.

It's the same thing as female "relationship entitlement" when they have sex with a guy and then expect him to commit to a relationship.

I'm not sure you can really comparre because one party gets at least half if what they want (women getting sex but not the commitment) while the other party doesn't get anything at all (guys who want to get laid and are willing to LTR a girl for one but still get rejected even when being honest about what they want). I thought most women (according the the ones here PPD at least) wanted LTRs, and won't give it up early without securing commitment first? if they're putting out before getting commitment from guy then they really can't blame anyone other than themselves for having poor judgment. Again, women are the sexual gatekeepers, not men.

If men and women formed relationships organically rather than using sex or sexual entitlement as some kind of tool to get what they want emotionally, then the SMP would be much less cruel and cold-hearted, and more people would be with somebody who is actually emotionally compatible with themselves.

Again welcome to modern hookup culture 101. Everything is about instant gratification. Forming relationships "organically" is something that's just not practiced as much these days. We must adapt accordingly.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Women are the primary drivers of it since they're sexual gatekeepers

This argument is ridiculous to me. It treats men like horny animals that have absolutely no control of their sex drive unless women curtail it. As a guy who refuses to engage in casual sex, I find it personally demeaning, and I'm proud to say that I've actually been able to turn down sex with women in the past who wanted to have it with me because I didn't feel a connection with them.

Perhaps other people should follow their example as it appears that being all emotional makes oneself vulnerable to getting stabbed in the heart.

I would argue that these people aren't really fine. Most guys sow their wild oats when they are young and then realize they want something meaningful and long lasting and settle down. Guys who after their youth continue to pursue casual sex at the expense of emotionally meaningful relationships are missing out on an important part of life.

You understand right that what you call "sexual entitlement" is often just them being themselves, right?

I'm referring here to overly persistent niceness and the seeming inability to not take a hint that a woman isn't into them. To me, this is a form of sexual entitlement, an attitude that treats a woman like a game in which, if I just keep trying hard enough, I'll "win" her and she will reward me. In my opinion, this isn't a way that human beings should be interacting with each other. A guy should be able to realize when a woman isn't into him and just move on and try again with someone else. Better yet, he should be getting to know the women he knows as friends first before wanting to pursue them sexually, although even a lot of women don't work like this, and in my opinion it's why so many relationships eventually fail, whether a few months into it or whether after years of marriage.

I'm not sure you can really comparre because one party gets at least half if what they want

Women don't want sex without commitment to the men who they really desire. It has no value at all to them. It's like the equivalent of a woman saying "I won't have sex with you, but I'll be friends with you" to a man.

if they're putting out before getting commitment from guy then they really can't blame anyone other than themselves for having poor judgment.

Well, I somewhat agree with you here. However, even most high value men expect sex early into dating these days. A woman having sex early into a relationship is a tactic to get as high value of a man as possible. If she waits too long, only a lower value man will be willing to wait for her to be "ready." Personally, I think both men and women should wait until they both feel an emotional connection with each other, but the attitude these days of today's younger generation seems to be more and more focused on immediate gratification, and a good relationship becomes more difficult to actually find because of this.

Again welcome to modern hookup culture 101. Everything is about instant gratification. Forming relationships "organically" is something that's just not practiced as much these days.

Right. I don't participate, and I think more people would find what they are looking for emotionally (at the expense of not being able to immediately satisfy their physical needs) if they were willing to wait until some kind of meaningful emotional bond was formed before they had sex. Sex, in my opinion, should ideally be an expression of the love between two people.

[–]darkmoon090 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

This argument is ridiculous to me. It treats men like horny animals that have absolutely no control of their sex drive

Men on average are more horny than women. I don't get why some people get so ruffled whenever this is mentioned. Men want to get laid more. Is that not accurate?

As a guy who refuses to engage in casual sex

You're an exception to the rule.

Guys who after thier youth continue to pursue casual sex at the expense of emotionally meaningful relationships are missing out on an important part of life.

That's a matter of personally perception. Some people don't find the married with kids lifestyle all that appealing. Less people are having kids these days.

I'm referring here to overly persistent niceness and the seeming inability to not take a hint that a woman isn't into them. To me, this is a form of sexual entitlement, an attitude that treats a woman like a game in which, if I just keep trying hard enough, I'll "win" her and she will reward me.

I get that. But understand that while this is what BPers commonly think of a 'nice guy' this is often not what RPers have in mind. When (more seasoned) RPers hear what you just described they think "well no shit", becuase what they're thinking is of guys who arent necessarily overly persistent and nice but who simply lack a dominant alpha male attitide and are thus discarded by a good lot of women.

Women don't want sex without commitment to the men who they really desire.

Women are also alware that these guys have loads of options and are willing to sacrifice exclusivity to get some action and validation from a top tier male. Women would rather be one of the King's many mistresses than be the wife of the devoted peasent. I've seen it in happen multiple times.

"I won't have sex with you, but I'll be friends with you" to a man

It's not quite on the same page becuase again women at least get sex out of it while men don't.

Well, I somewhat agree with you here. However, even most high value men expect sex early into dating these days. A woman having sex early into a relationship is a tactic to get as high value of a man as possible. If she waits too long, only a lower value man will be willing to wait for her to be "ready." Personally, I think both men and women should wait until they both feel an emotional connection with each other, but the attitude these days of today's younger generation seems to be more and more focused on immediate gratification, and a good relationship becomes more difficult to actually find because of this.

So basically the lesson here for guys is get better at seducing and escalating early on becuase women know thay there are low-value men out there and only these guys are willing to wait around like a hungry puppy which isn't sexually attractive. RP is there to help young men become more sexually attractive.

Right. I don't participate, and I think more people would find what they are looking for emotionally (at the expense of not being able to immediately satisfy their physical needs) if they were willing to wait until some kind of meaningful emotional bond was formed before they had sex. Sex, in my opinion, should ideally be an expression of the love between two people.

Dude, i don't have the desire or patience to wait around for the rest if society to stop being greedy, shallow, shitty human beings and start wanting meaningful connections. Right now it's a cluster fuck out there and if being a shitty, Machiavellian bastard is going to get me the results I'm looking for then so be it. Obviously being some morally "good" person isnt geting a lot of guys laid, is it? Otherwise there wouldn't be no RP and manosphere.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men on average are more horny than women. I don't get why some people get so ruffled whenever this is mentioned. Men want to get laid more. Is that not accurate?

Yes sure, but there are plenty of men who want this in the context of a loving relationship as an expression of feelings towards another person and not just having sex with a hot face and body. I've wanted sex more than any of the women who I've ever been in a relationship with, but that doesn't mean that I want sex outside a relationship with women who I barely know. When men say things like "it's women's permissiveness towards sex that is causing me to have a lot of casual sex," it speaks of a lack of agency. It's almost like men who say this are admitting that women have more decision making ability than men.

Women would rather be one of the King's many mistresses than be the wife of the devoted peasent. I've seen it in happen multiple times.

Frankly, I haven't actually seen this, although I've heard it happens among some women. I imagine it depends a lot upon what kind of crowd one hangs out with. Most of the women I've known have found steady partners who are in their league or slightly above and have been content with them (most of the break-ups I've seen were not due to "branch swinging"). I certainly don't think that it's an AWALT thing for all women want to be with the highest tier male possible even if it means "sharing" such a man with other women.

It's not quite on the same page becuase again women at least get sex out of it while men don't.

But women think that their friendship to a man who they don't have sex with has some kind of value to that man. I don't think many see how much of a high importance men put on sex. It's probably because a woman can get sex so easily, while a man can't. Because of this, a woman doesn't have much sympathy for a man who can't have sex easily, because it's the relationship that is so much more important to them rather than the sex.

So basically the lesson here for guys is get better at seducing and escalating early on becuase women know thay there are low-value men out there and only these guys are willing to wait around like a hungry puppy which isn't sexually attractive.

Well, that's the strategy if you want sex first. If what you want is a loving relationship with sex included in that relationship, I think slow escalation and seduction while you get to know each other as people and develop a friendship works a lot better. Women are almost always willing to wait for sex from my experience. It's the men who get impatient.

Right now it's a cluster fuck out there and if being a shitty, Machiavellian bastard is going to get me the results I'm looking for then so be it.

I just don't think this attitude is good when it comes to planning for one's long-term relationship future. People are always talking about how important it is to plan for one's retirement and major expenses in life such as buying a house. I don't know why more people don't take the same attitude when it comes to love and sex. The focus instead has become one of immediate gratification, going to a casino and expecting that big payout immediately. Long term planning and looking for the right investment in another person is much more important in my mind.

[–]rreliable6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago* (36 children) | Copy Link

A society whose men are sexually miserable will instantly be conquered by societies which don't allow their men to fall into misery.

Yes. Because men who are sexually deprived and have nothing else going for them will stop caring about whether their society survives or not. Men who are sexually deprived won't defend that society.

Being part of a society or "tribe" means you do things for the tribe; but the tribe also does things for you. One of the things a patriarchal "tribe" did was help all men get some pussy, usually in the form of hookers and wives. You help those guys get some pussy because when you keep most of the guys well fucked, that little sexual distraction is sated so the guys can go do the other things they need to do, like work, make shit, create shit, build shit, invent shit, fix shit, make money, and go to war so they can take other people's shit.

Well, we decided prostitution should be illegal; and most women don't want most of the men anymore. The tribe decided what the women want is more important than what the men need.

If a tribe won't help a guy get what he needs; why should that guy help the tribe?

And that's what will be our country's downfall.

[–]Wolfsouls 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wolfsouls 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wolfsouls 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

Happier, more invested mothers create happier, healthier children who eventually become more productive adults.

You still haven't answered my questions. Why do we need 100% of male production and participation in modern day society?

Also, as a man, you have no place telling women what their needs are. "Western society" may have existed for a long period of time, but that doesn't mean it's the epitome of societal success. If half of the population is oppressed and miserable from not having its base needs met, I would call that a failed society. If men want to continue to ignore women's biological needs, then women shouldn't be obligated to care about men's needs.

Is our society really being "destroyed", or is it just evolving? Sometimes we need to scrap old designs to bring in a new, better alternative.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wolfsouls 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wolfsouls2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolfsouls2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You've lived under the blanket of safety and freedom provided by good men and strong men for millennia.

It's funny how every single history book I've ever read said the exact opposite. Gee, I wonder who has more credibility: hundreds of historians, or one random guy on the internet with a heavy anti-woman bias?

Cite please for the claim that women were forced into pregnancies

Every rape to ever result in pregnancy was a forced pregnancy. Marital rape was acceptable for thousands of years, it only recently became a crime. Abortion is still a crime in many countries around the world, including western countries, like Ireland.

or killed if found to be using birth control

Look at all the witch hunts throughout history. Look at how many of them were "medicine women", who likely dispensed birth control to the women in their communities.

Women didn't get forced into marriage

Oh really? Yeah, I'm sure those 9 year old child-brides sold by their fathers had plenty of say in their "marriages". You're spouting revisionist history in a sad attempt to absolve men of thousands of years of crimes against women and girls.

probably old testament and hasn't been in practice for millennia, Probably Leviticus or Deuteronomy

"Only use the parts of the bible I approve of"! Sorry, either it's all the word of god, or it isn't. Regardless, the ideas and traditions outlined in the old testament survive to this day. And, the very existence of those passages disprove your "women were NEVER oppressed" meme.

if you didn't, you lived with family or you starved

If your family was especially large or poor, they'd disown you. What do you think happened to disowned women for millennia? Starving was one of the kindest fates they could expect.

[–]rainisthelife2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In the times we live in now, where feminism mostly prevails, it's very easy for a lot of men to forget the injustices that many women faced before women's rights activism began. I empathize with a lot of men that have been on the receiving end of the negative radical effects of feminism, but to claim that women in the past have always had freedom, bodily anatomy and ability to freely choose who to marry, frankly, is absurd.

And you're right, this is also seen in the bible, which a lot of people still claim as the be all and end all. Even the ones that don't necessarily share the faith, still draw a lot of their morality from it. The book shows many instances of women having to face these injustices and being treated as second class citizens and as properties of their husbands (even their rapists sometimes).

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

We tried letting women figure it out, they can't

For how many years? A few decades? At least give women a few hundred years. Men got to have the patriarchy for thousands of years.

You could give women 500 years and it wouldn't go anywhere. Feelings do not just stay still.

No one knows what women want. Especially not women

We want personal freedom, bodily autonomy, safety, and commitment from genetically fit men. It's not that hard.

Which can't happen. In a society, you give up freedom. Expecting the bottom 33% of men to just go sexless doesn't work, women will always declare instinctually that some men are not genetically fit. And if women are disproportionately going for the top men, they also have less reason to commit.

So many absurdities. And women want it all. They're not willing to decide between them.

And so, eternal war of the sexes.

[–]rainisthelife1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not a fleeting feeling. It's innate biological programming for a woman to want to copulate with the most high value man and make the highest genetically blessed offspring that she can. This lackluster disregard of women's wants/needs is what bred feminism in the first place. Men feel like their need to have sex is more important than a woman's need to be able to choose who she wants to have sex with. Who, in their right mind, wants to go back to a time when women had no bodily autonomy and were forced into marriages with men they weren't attracted to?

There have always been ugly women who never get married or get to have children because no one was attracted to them. Why does no one here ever talk about those? History (before feminism) has shown that society places the sexual needs of men over the autonomy needs of women and then you all complain when women have felt like they've had enough and feminism ensues. You can't have it both ways.

[–]Love8Death1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not a fleeting feeling. It's innate biological programming for a woman to want to copulate with the most high value man and make the highest genetically blessed offspring that she can. This lackluster disregard of women's wants/needs is what bred feminism in the first place. Men feel like their need to have sex is more important than a woman's need to be able to choose who she wants to have sex with. Who, in their right mind, wants to go back to a time when women had no bodily autonomy and were forced into marriages with men they weren't attracted to?

More like, men feel and know that for the sake of society women's sexuality must be controlled.

I completely agree that the spirit of feminism comes from female biology, nature.

There have always been ugly women who never get married or get to have children because no one was attracted to them. Why does no one here ever talk about those? History (before feminism) has shown that society places the sexual needs of men over the autonomy needs of women and then you all complain when women have felt like they've had enough and feminism ensues. You can't have it both ways.

You focus on the losers in society usually to figure out what to do?

The unattractive just have to try even harder to become attractive. Nothing different today, and men are lining up even for unattractive women too anyways.

Women don't understand why things were the way the way before. They guess it's because of male sexuality being valued more or male egos needing protection. It isn't.

Like, me personally, I grew up at first wanting to be a good person. Unfortunately, women above all else proved and showed me over and over that the good men are not most rewarded, just barely rewarded.

I think it stems from women being attracted to power, it makes the species stronger, but at the end of the day, those with the top power are usually not anywhere close to good.

Women don't care about good hard working men. Their definition of what a good worthy man is isn't based on merit and societal values, it's mostly animalistic and power driven.

[–]rainisthelife1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

More like, men feel and know that for the sake of society women's sexuality must be controlled.

Okay, so let me get this straight: Your alternative is to go back to a society/culture where women have no bodily autonomy and are forced into marriages with men that they're not attracted to? Is this the kind of society men want/are aiming for?

I completely agree that the spirit of feminism comes from female biology, nature.

Yes, it absolutely does. Because when women feel like they're wants/needs are continually being curtailed for that of men, they will always push back against it. No gender wants to be pushed aside for the other.

Women don't understand why things were the way the way before. They guess it's because of male sexuality being valued more or male egos needing protection. It isn't.

So, if it isn't, then what is it? You just stated that it isn't and offered no counter argument/explanation. Was female sexuality/preference not pushed aside and controlled, so that mostly only men could satisfy their biological programming? Because if so, then the conclusion would be that male sexuality was indeed more valued.

Women don't care about good hard working men. Their definition of what a good worthy man is isn't based on merit and societal values, it's mostly animalistic and power driven.

Is the male definition of what a good, worthy woman any different? Are men attracted to women because they are 'good'? Being good has nothing to do with sexual attraction. A man being good is a bonus after he has been deemed sexually attractive by the female he wants to be with, and vice versa with regards to women. No man has ever said that he wants to have sex with a woman because she's 'good'. That might make her LTR material, but its not what makes her sexually attractive.

[–]Love8Death1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is a little long, but you asked!

Okay, so let me get this straight: Your alternative is to go back to a society/culture where women have no bodily autonomy and are forced into marriages with men that they're not attracted to? Is this the kind of society men want/are aiming for?

I didn't put forth an alternative.

I'm an outsider. To both our modern society and to tradcon society.

At first, society created a structure based on scarcity, this made both sides sacrifice much in order to survive. Women didn't have sexual freedom. Men worked shitty dangerous jobs with little way to rise.

You see this still in poor countries. Women can't go work and do what they want, they have to take care of the kids and household, or else they can't have any. Men can't be lazy or focus on fun, they have to prioritize providing for their family.

Women didn't marry who they wanted based on attraction, they married who was good based on their family, merit, and status. How hot and fun he is doesn't matter if your kids can't eat and he can't hold a job.

Perhaps we agree so far?

With the abundance of a rich country, the game is different. The rules are different. What men and women need to do is different. Our needs themselves are different.

Feminism is one reaction to this.

I don't yet really know what a post-feminist society looks like.

I think the supremacy of either sex isn't going to win out in the long run, neither feminism nor masculinism. It causes too much ill will in the other. Causes too much distortion and undesired side effects from getting lost in their own sex's bias.

So, I don't have a solution. If I did, then humanity would be moving towards it I think.

Looking at the landscape, I see one strong thing happening atm. Religion is having a revival, laced with feminism. But it's all very transitory atm, there's no way really modern society is going to well accept the doctrine of middle eastern religion(Christianity or Islam) in the face of science. But they will try anyways.

Yes, it absolutely does. Because when women feel like they're wants/needs are continually being curtailed for that of men, they will always push back against it. No gender wants to be pushed aside for the other.

I wouldn't say women were pushed aside. That's not really fair or honest to say.

You can say that what women wanted and how they were treated didn't always align. But men had the well being of their women in their mind. It's still their daughters, wives, mothers, sisters.

Women wouldn't have put up with it for as long as they did if they were being neglected for the most part.

And to say modern society doesn't neglect women in different ways would be inaccurate too. We hardly recognize feminine achievement anymore for example.

Women don't understand why things were the way the way before. They guess it's because of male sexuality being valued more or male egos needing protection. It isn't.

So, if it isn't, then what is it? You just stated that it isn't and offered no counter argument/explanation. Was female sexuality/preference not pushed aside and controlled, so that mostly only men could satisfy their biological programming? Because if so, then the conclusion would be that male sexuality was indeed more valued.

Women having kids is satisfying their biological programming. Same for men too.

Most men weren't exactly having lots of sex for fun, especially if the dude wasn't viscerally attractive. Most of the world was religious in a way that demonized sex for fun if you remember.

Women's sexuality was controlled to promote stable families. Men's sexuality was controlled too, don't think it was just give free reign either.

Is the male definition of what a good, worthy woman any different? Are men attracted to women because they are 'good'? Being good has nothing to do with sexual attraction. A man being good is a bonus after he has been deemed sexually attractive by the female he wants to be with, and vice versa with regards to women. No man has ever said that he wants to have sex with a woman because she's 'good'. That might make her LTR material, but its not what makes her sexually attractive.

It's entirely different. You pretty much are explaining the exact problem. You put your sexual desire before the wellness of your family. It should be the other way around, good reliable father type man first, sexual attraction second.

The inequality is that for women, their beauty is their strongest signal of how well they will be a good mother. If she can take care of herself well enough to be attractive, she should be able to raise her kids to be healthy and attractive too. Her being of good character, smart, able to hold a job, is a perk.

There are very different standards for women and men as what makes them good for a future family is very different.

[–]rainisthelife1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't mind long replies. In fact, mine is pretty long too.*

Women wouldn't have put up with it for as long as they did if they were being neglected for the most part.

The only reason women put it off for so long is very obviously because on average, men possess greater physical strength than women. Coupled with the fact that wars, with lots of men dying off, were more prevalent in past times than it is now. With male scarcity and men physically being able to overpower women, most women were scared to challenge men, let alone challenge an entire society dominated by men. So no, I don’t agree that women stuck through living life as a second class citizens because they felt they were being treated fairly. It’s literarily because they had no choice. Look up the statistics of domestic violence pre-feminism. And not just from half-baked sources that the RP likes to shell out from nowhere. Look at actual credible resources about the rates of domestic violence in homes. Compare that to statistics of DV on women now. In fact, if you don’t feel like looking it up, just think about the regions in the world where domestic violence is most prevalent. These are all countries where feminism has not yet significantly seeped into. Where patriarchy is still very much alive, such as middle eastern countries, a lot of the African countries, some asian countries. Has it never occurred to you to put 2 and 2 together and consider the correlation between the rise of feminism and the decrease in domestic violence? Now I would agree with you if you stated that, in western countries, there are women committing acts of domestic violence too, sometimes as much as men. But this is usually what happens when one gender is given more importance than the other. The reason I can state these things is because I lived in one of those countries for a few years. An African country, to be precise. It’s one of the reasons I laugh whenever western women claim to be ‘oppressed’, but its also the reason I laugh whenever a man states that women had it ‘good’ before feminism. A lot of western women do not realize how lucky they have it, but then, a lot of western men that want to return to pre-feminism (RPers?) do not realize just how marginalized and sometimes horribly treated women really were. Like cattle, property of their husbands and things to be tossed aside and replaced once they lost their youth and beauty. I mean, look at a lot of religious books. Like the bible for instance. It literarily states that a woman that was raped could be (and probably usually was) forced to marry her rapist. And there are still many people today that claim to be ‘Christians’? Sure, the most repugnant parts of the bible are in the old testament, but I really don’t know how anyone can follow a god who thinks like that or approved of such nonsense.

Women's sexuality was controlled to promote stable families. Men's sexuality was controlled too, don't think it was just give free reign either.

When I state that female sexuality was controlled, I’m not talking about having sex just for fun. I’m talking about having sex with someone that you’re attracted to. Or at least having the opportunity to try to be with someone you’re actually attracted to and can truly enjoy sex with. But only men got this opportunity. In the past (admittedly a long time ago), a man would find a woman that he was attracted to, approach her father and then they would batter about her ‘brideprice’. Whether or not the woman wanted the man or was even remotely attracted to him, didn’t matter. And of course, no man would approach the father of a girl he wasn’t attracted to. So, the man’s attraction was set. No one cared about her attraction/sexuality. You could claim that for women, it was more important to be with a man that could provide for her and her children, but was it also not important that the man be with someone that was a good mother and could keep a good home? He gets a good mother, a good housekeeper and he also gets to have sex with someone that he’s attracted to. The woman gets a provider but then also a man that she’s at best, apathetic to, and at worst, disgusted by, each time he tries to touch her. That, is the definition of controlling female sexuality.

The inequality is that for women, their beauty is their strongest signal of how well they will be a good mother. If she can take care of herself well enough to be attractive, she should be able to raise her kids to be healthy and attractive too. Her being of good character, smart, able to hold a job, is a perk.

Are you serious? If you truly believe that a woman being attractive is a sign that she would be a good mother, then please let me introduce you to the army of deranged single attractive women that will probably mess up their kids’ lives. LOL! I’m very surprised that you would actually state that a woman being able to keep herself physically attractive means that she’ll be a good mother. I don’t mean to insult you, but this is very naive thinking. And if most men think like this, then no wonder attractive women keep taking advantage of them. But I suspect you don’t actually believe this yourself, you most likely just stated it in an effort to project only male sexuality and attraction as being very important for raising stable children and creating stable homes. If this was true, then there wouldn’t be as many dead bedrooms/shaky marriages right now with a lot of women denying their husbands sex because the women are not attracted to their provider husbands. Its amusing that men think that they can shoot far out of their league and then not anticipate duty sex or a dead bedroom years later. You can’t have it both ways.

You claim that women “put their sexual desire before the wellness of the family”, but isn’t this what a man who prioritizes having an attractive wife, and sees being of good character as just a ‘perk’, is also doing? By believing that sexual attraction is what determines whether a woman would make a good mother, isn’t he putting his sexual desire first before the wellness of his family? Its bad when women do it, but its okay when men do? Lol. Women decide what they find attractive in men and men decide what they find attractive in women. You can’t negotiate desire. Sorry.

Physical attractiveness is not a measure of good parenting. Just like in men, character is the strongest indicator of what kind of parent someone would be. It shows how someone values connections with other people and how they treat other people, so that you can see how well they’re most likely to treat their own children. And instinctively, men know this. That’s precisely why most men don’t wife up promiscuous women, even if they’re attractive. Everyone knows that a man can have sex with an ugly but good charactered woman and she can be a very good mother to their children. The only issue here is that men do not want to do that, so they complain when all the attractive women reject them and all they have left are unattractive (not necessarily fat) women. I’m not saying a man should be with someone he’s not attracted to, but in the past it was all fine and dandy when a woman had to marry someone that she wasn’t attracted to. As long as the man was attracted, everything was fine. Again, controlling ONLY female sexuality.

[–]LewisCross 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

if we don't need 100% of male production and participation in modern society, what are you going to do with the 70% or so of men who "arent' needed"?

I'm not telling women what their needs are. I'm declaring based on observation and experience and what women demonstrate, that women don't NEED to fuck whoever they want. They WANT to do that, but they don't NEED to. Men, by contrast, NEED sex.

Women can not care about men's needs, but that will result in more women dying. Because 30% of alpha men are not going to be able to defend themselves and 100% of women and 100% of children from 50% or so of disenfranchised men. That 30% of alpha men need most of those beta men to do most of the heavy lifting and the execution of orders and the grunt work. And a lot of those beta men aren't going to do it without at least a shot at some pussy. And large scale male disenfranchisement is exactly what destabilizes societies.

Want proof? I give you Iran, circa 1979. I give you current Iraq. Current Syria and Jordan. Most MIddle Eastern Muslim shitholes where most men can't get work or a job or money or one wife. The Islamic leadership knows this, and is using it to fan the flames of anti-Western thought. "It's the infidel Christian's and Jew's fault that we're so poor! It's the infidel Christian and Jew's faults that you can't get work or women!"

[–]Wolfsouls 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

what are you going to do with the 70% or so of men who "arent' needed"?

Not my problem. Maybe we could create something like modern day secular monasteries.

They WANT to do that, but they don't NEED to. Men, by contrast, NEED sex.

How can you prove that? I could just as easily switch that around and say that men don't NEED sex, they just want it.

because 30% of alpha men are not going to be able to defend themselves and 100% of women and 100% of children from 50% or so of disenfranchised men

With modern technologies? They absolutely can. We don't need cannon fodder anymore, warfare is no longer hand-to-hand combat - it's unmanned drones with bombs attached. Whoever has the superior technology wins, superior numbers do not guarantee victory.

That 30% of alpha men need most of those beta men to do most of the heavy lifting and the execution of orders and the grunt work

Women are perfectly capable of being in executive positions, but I agree with the grunt work and lifting part.

Most MIddle Eastern Muslim shitholes where most men can't get work or a job or money or one wife

That's a result of wide-spread polygamous marriages, and a shitty backwards culture/religion, not because of hypergamy. Women do not promote polygamy, men do.

[–]LewisCross 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

70% or so of idle men will be very, very much your problem. Your problem and that of other women. Because if some of those men decide to rape women, there's nothing that can stop them other than bigger stronger men. And bigger stronger men can't be everywhere, particularly when they're outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1. And some of those men might decide to kill women. That's the kind of thing that happens when you have a society full of men with nothing to lose.

And even if we went with your idea of "secular monasteries", who's going to pay for them?

With modern technologies? They absolutely can. We don't need cannon fodder anymore, warfare is no longer hand-to-hand combat - it's unmanned drones with bombs attached. Whoever has the superior technology wins, superior numbers do not guarantee victory.

That's modern day small scale conflict. Large scale military conflicts are boots on the ground -- lots and lots and LOTS of boots on the ground. Agree that superior technology wins, but don't agree that superior numbers guarantee victory. YOu also need lots of people (men) to operate that superior technology.

Women aren't as capable as men of being in executive positions. I've seen up close and personal what happens when you have that.

Women do very much promote polygamy. It's what they're doing now - soft polygamy, where women implicitly agree to share high value men. That's what WOMEN want.

[–]Wolfsouls1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The 70% estimate is too high. It would be more like 60%. Also, you're forgetting about all of the gay, bisexual, and asexual men who would be on women's/Chad's "side" in this hypothetical conflict.

Because if some of those men decide to rape women, there's nothing that can stop them other than bigger stronger men

Really? A woman is just as capable of pulling a trigger as a man is, in fact women are better shots, on average. Your observation would be accurate if we were still fighting with rocks and clubs.

Large scale military conflicts are boots on the ground -- lots and lots and LOTS of boots on the ground

It doesn't matter how many "boots" you have, if the enemy drops a fire bomb or a chemical weapon on your head. Also, why would the "side" with fewer numbers EVER agree to face their enemy head on in a large-scale battle?

YOu also need lots of people (men) to operate that superior technology

You say that like women are incapable of learning how to operate technology. We're not.

Women aren't as capable as men of being in executive positions. I've seen up close and personal what happens when you have that.

Yeah, I should just take your biased anecdote as the gospel-truth and ignore all the contradictory anecdotal evidence in existence /s

[–]LewisCross1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Could be 70% is a bit high. Oh, you mean the 3% of gay, bi and asexual men? Negligible. Also, most of those gay, bi and asexual men won't want anything to do with any sort of military conflict.

Really? A woman is just as capable of pulling a trigger as a man is

IN a real time situation conflict, most women (or men, for that matter) wouldn't even be able to remove the weapon from their purses/bags/cases/holsters and unlock the safety in time to get off a shot. Also, most women aren't trained in the use of handguns. They'll rely on their 30% of alphas to do it for them.

in fact women are better shots, on average

cite, please.

Your observation would be accurate if we were still fighting with rocks and clubs.

If a man or group of men decide to attack and rape women, or attack anyone, it's almost always done in close range hand to hand melees, streetfight style. That's what self defense courses teach and rely on.

You say that like women are incapable of learning how to operate technology. We're not.

A few women are able to, and want to be trained to, operate sophisticated technology and weaponry. Most can't and don't want to.

Response to your ninja edit:

It doesn't matter how many "boots" you have, if the enemy drops a fire bomb or a chemical weapon on your head.

Yeah it matters, because fire bombs and chemical weapons can't kill them all.

Also, why would the "side" with fewer numbers EVER agree to face their enemy head on in a large-scale battle?

Agreement's got nothing to do with it. If your enemy's declared all out war on you, you're going to war, and all's fair.

[–]Wolfsouls1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Also, most of those gay, bi and asexual men won't want anything to do with any sort of military conflict.

Source? Men are still men.

Also, most women aren't trained in the use of handguns

Most PEOPLE living in cushy first-world countries have never touched a gun in their life. That doesn't mean they could never learn, if the time ever came for it.

Most can't and don't want to.

I don't think you're very good at telling the difference between the two.

Yeah it matters, because fire bombs and chemical weapons can't kill them all

They can if the bomb is big enough, lol. Or snipers could just pick off the survivors.

Agreement's got nothing to do with it. If your enemy's declared all out war on you, you're going to war, and all's fair.

During the revolutionary war, England had superior numbers, training, funding, and organization on their side. But, the rebel colonists won, because they refused to fight out in the open, making England's numbers useless.

[–]LewisCross1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolfsouls1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They're not known for wanting to engage in military conflict.

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with modern military culture, and "don't ask don't tell" laws, right? Also, let's not pretend a majority of soldiers in ancient Greek and Roman armies weren't porking each other.

The best weapons training is useless if you can't unholster it in time to get off a shot

Comes with training.

I think you don't understand this stuff

Nice rebuttal /s

exactly. Which is why I said agreement's got nothing to do with it

I don't think you quite understood my point. You argued that the "beta male" side of the conflict would win, because they have the numbers. I then said that numbers only count when both parties meet for a large-scale battle. If the side without numbers in their favor refuse to ever do so, and instead engage in guerrilla tactics, their disadvantage is notably lessened.

[–]darkmoon090 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Wolfsouls 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkmoon090 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Wolfsouls 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, bodily autonomy is allowing a woman to have sex with who she wants to (who she's attracted to, within reasonable standards of course) and not necessarily for her to have sex with many different men.

Men like to complain that society downplays a man's 'need' for sex, but why do you downplay a woman's need to have sex with and make children with a man she's biologically attracted to and feels like she can make the best offspring with? You might argue that a woman being able to choose who she can have sex with (most likely who she's attracted to), is just a 'want', but then I could also conclude that a man's need for sex is also just a want, as no man has ever died from not having sex. And so technically he doesn't 'need' it.

Besides, what would be your alternative? Forcing women to have sex with and/or marry men that they're not attracted to and have no interest in having sex with, all in the name of Patriarchy? Men may be happy with this scenario, but a society where the women feel like they're forced to go against their biological programming and are getting the short end of the stick, is one where the radical effects of feminism breeds. You cannot push one gender to the brink and not expect serious push back.

[–]LewisCross 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ercole-- 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Throwaway198798[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ercole-- 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Throwaway198798[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ercole-- 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Throwaway198798[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisaster1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill221 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisaster1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill221 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisaster1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill221 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArthurMacArthur 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (139 children) | Copy Link

[–]Throwaway198798[S] 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Doom_and-Gloom5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Doom_and-Gloom8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill221 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisaster1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lerellen0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]N0blesse0blige0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrDenisovich 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]N0blesse0blige0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrDenisovich 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]N0blesse0blige0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrDenisovich 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]N0blesse0blige1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So when asked to make a plausible account of men's typical entitlement to sex, you end up describing a scenario where the man doesn't live up to social expectations of female entitlement to male resources (man is expected to pay for whatever she decides to order should she not feel inclined to pay herself)? Sure, you are describing the silhouette of how a guy coming to feel entitled to sex may take place. It is very obvious, though, that he is responding to real entitlement from the girl, which will naturally instill an (unconscious) sense that there is an underlying transaction, and thus a feeling of entitlement, in many people, men and women. Your friend is solving the problem, though, by stepping out of the potential perceived transaction, by not buying the girl stuff he is not ready to give away for free. And the overwhelming majority of native Western men responsibly inhibit any such feeling of entitlement, should they come to feel it, and the expectation isn't typically even sex per se, but a romantic relationship that eventually includes sex. Anyone should be able to feel bad about spending lots of money on dates that end up nowhere. You, who care so much about how individuals feel should have no problem understanding that.

[–]DrDenisovich1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is very obvious, though, that he is responding to real entitlement from the girl, which will naturally instill an (unconscious) sense that there is an underlying transaction

If a guy is paying because he believes the girl expects it he's going into the interaction with an incorrect mindset that will only make him more upset later. If a guy genuinely feels that way towards a small expenditure for drinks/dinner then he shouldn't be dating or taking his dates to a park or something.

Your friend is solving the problem, though, by stepping out of the potential perceived transaction, by not buying the girl stuff he is not ready to give away for free

That's exactly it he isn't ready to give it away for free, he doesn't want to take a risk he wants guarantees. If a guy doesn't have enough excess he probably shouldn't be doing that activity. It's like balling on a budget it makes no sense and rips the fun out of it.

And the overwhelming majority of native Western men responsibly inhibit any such feeling of entitlement, should they come to feel it, and the expectation isn't typically even sex per se, but a romantic relationship that eventually includes sex. Anyone should be able to feel bad about spending lots of money on dates that end up nowhere

People feel bad at the end of that sequence because they build up expectations in their own minds. You pay for a chance you don't pay for a result when it comes to this type of interaction between people. She's not a service provider that guarantees price/time-frame/quality. Although that is an option if you are looking for that type of interaction with women.

The mindset that things are a transaction between men and women is dangerous because it can rob people of genuine happiness.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lerellen0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lerellen0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Butt-Factory7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]squidracer 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Butt-Factory0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]squidracer 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Butt-Factory1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]squidracer 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]single_use_accTaupe Enema0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fdreal 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (99 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgtownigga9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (88 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (83 children) | Copy Link

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgtownigga19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theambivalentrooster4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PadaV42 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYou3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darkmoon093 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYou3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theambivalentrooster3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They've constructed a narrative that fits their experiences and apply it to the whole world. I've said this before, but this 80/20 Chad supremacy delusion can easily be debunked by, wait for it, going outside.

Literally go to Walmart or Target or to a water park (for maximum obesity exposure) or the beach or to a sporting event or do literally anything but sit inside and post about this shit and you'll see so many varied couples it blows their narrative out of the water. There are so many 'ugly' guys who are married and in relationships. Short guys, fat guys, poor guys, sometimes short, fat, poor guys! So many of them out there with women!

But. But. BUT! The problem? Those women with those men are 'in their league'. TRPers and incels don't want women in their league. They want Stacey. I'm convinced this whole Chad archetype is just a gender inverted projection of what they actually want.

[–]LewisCross2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theambivalentrooster3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theambivalentrooster2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theambivalentrooster3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Love8Death1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theambivalentrooster2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Love8Death1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rainisthelife1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

LOL! "maximum obesity exposure". Forget tv, Walmart has the best entertainment!

And yes, I've long since observed that these 'average men' that are apparently getting the short end of the stick and having women treat them like shit, have always aimed for women out of their individual leagues. They complain about getting rejected by women, but they themselves have already indirectly rejected a lot of women within their own league, or perhaps slightly below it, either by never approaching them or by never reciprocating interest in them. Here is where the male entitlement that women talk about, lies. Hitting on only hot women, being rejected by them and then coming on here to complain and give broad (and false) generalizations about the female gender, makes absolutely no sense and is a characteristic of a man that believes he deserves only the hot females. The not so hot ones never even fall under his radar. He doesn't even notice them.

After reading some of these articles and subreddits, I try to be empathetic with these men, but it is incredibly hard to do so when in the real world, you see the complete opposite of what these men claim to be experiencing. I hate to use anecdotal evidence, but my cousin is a prime example. Has a nice, sweet girl (not fat) that has clearly been into him for years (and he knows!), yet he still runs after the bitch that treats him like shit because the latter is hotter. There are so many instances of this, not only in real life, but if you do a google search, you'll find many of such stories. Yet, on this side of the internet, you only get one side of the story.

[–]LewisCross2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYou2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women send average men the message that they're worthless meatbags by rejecting them 90% + of the time. That their only value is as "friends" and beta orbiters. That if he wants to do things for her, it's fine; but if he wants something from her, it's an imposition and he's an eeeevil NiceGuy (TM) who lied about wanting to be friends and used "friendship" to get close to her so he could pounce on her with his sexual desire.

Average men's sexual desire is viewed as creepy and criminal. Average men are expected NOT to express sexual desire.

TO women, average men exist to serve them. They change the oil in her car, dispose of her garbage, fix shit in her house, sell and service her smartphone, bag her groceries, bring her her food at the restaurant, sell her the shit she wants and needs at the stores she goes to, and otherwise procure the goods and services she wants and needs. That's what they should do. They are not to express sexual desire, because to her, they're just not sexual beings.

The minute an average man asserts his sexual attraction to her, at best she views him as "awww, isn't that cute, the widdle avewage guy thinks I wike him" and "gee, you're so NICE, but I'm just not interested" and lies to him that "be nice, be yourself and someday someone will love you just for who you are".

Women expect less attractive men to bow and scrape to them, to defer to them, etc. They expect "lesser" men to help them, do things for them, help them do their work, carry heavy shit for them, help them move from apartment to apartment, etc. If a man objects and says "no you can't borrow my pickup truck", then he's an inveterate asshole. If a man objects and says "no I don't want to be "friends" with a woman who rejected me", then he's an asshole who she shittalks to anyone who will listen.

Because, you see, she's borderline entitled to what she wants from him. She is entitled to his continued orbit and service to her, even though she overtly rejected his sexual advances and has made it clear she gets what she wants from him; but he will get NOTHING he wants from her. (It also pisses her off to no end that her post-rejection offer of "Friendship" is rejected, because she views that as "he thinks I'm just another piece of ass, and he's not hot enough to think of me that way, so fuck him".)

That's what I mean.

[–]Love8Death1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mgtownigga1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Electra_Cute1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darkmoon091 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mgtownigga1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GermanEgo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYou1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GermanEgo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYou1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mgtownigga1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]honeypuppy1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_pants7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]decoy88Black Male in London9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]MyMorningCovfefePM me ur pills9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]decoy88Black Male in London2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkmoon0910 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]decoy882 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darkmoon093 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]decoy881 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darkmoon092 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]decoy881 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darkmoon091 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]decoy881 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darkmoon091 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]decoy881 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cxj1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyMorningCovfefePM me ur pills1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]decoy88Black Male in London1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GermanEgo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]decoy882 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mgtownigga4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Scurvemuch 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Butt-Factory6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]GermanEgo 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Butt-Factory1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuestionablePresence 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GermanEgo 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mgtownigga0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GroovyEFS 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]quotient_isPurple Pill3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]GroovyEFS 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]quotient_isPurple Pill3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GroovyEFS 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]notworthmuch20xx 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]0kool740 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArthurMacArthur 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArthurMacArthur 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

At no point did I ever say you were the only man.

I dispute, and will continue to dispute, your assertion that most men get these messages and internalize them to the extent that they are paralyzed by the idea of acting against any woman's wishes, however absurd those wishes may be. I mean, Mr. Arthur is proof of that. He grew up during the exact same time period you did, in the same part of the country, and he internalized none of what you say is common for the majority of men. Neither did any of his friends. Neither did literally anybody I grew up with; granted, I grew up in a different part of the country, but like you and Mr. Arthur, I also grew up before the fundamentalist religious revival of the 1990s. And I grew up surrounded by white ethnics, most of whom were Catholic and none of whom gave a flying fuck about offending a woman's tender sensibilities.

I would say that perhaps that is because Mr. Arthur's parents didn't belong to an evangelical Protestant sect, but last night you yourself said that church doesn't account for more than a small percentage of that message.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArthurMacArthur 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArthurMacArthur 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nyjl0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daniel_Bryan_FanBlue Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ultramegasaurus10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]Butt-Factory4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daniel_Bryan_FanBlue Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daniel_Bryan_FanBlue Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daniel_Bryan_FanBlue Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daniel_Bryan_FanBlue Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Except as RP will tell you, women don't want a doormat to fuck them. They have rape fantasies and want a big scary man to bend them over and have them. They want an asshole, a douchebag who is selfish and popular. Women are not wonderful, they're products of millions of years of evolution, and are optimized for reproduction in caveman times.

See this stuff is why most people assume red pills are all misogynistic basement dwellers. They want confident men who aren't doormats, sure, but they don't want some rapey douche (the red pill) and popularity stops mattering after high school which you are probably still in I guess.

Outrage porn you see on r/niceguys is mostly either fake or just some autistic social retard having a meltdown, has nothing to do with billions of actually genuinely nice guys pedestalizing women

I think you just see a lot of yourself in these young men.

[–]DarkLord0chinChin3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

See this stuff is why most people assume red pills are all misogynistic basement dwellers

We love women, so they're wrong.

They want confident men who aren't doormats, sure, but they don't want some rapey douche (the red pill) and popularity stops mattering after high school which you are probably still in I guess.

Ah, "Confidence". Confidence is just a buzzword women use to refer to alpha traits they like in men. "Being confident" without RP context is creep territory. It's not even confidence that men need most of the time. It's the DGAF frame

popularity stops mattering after high school which you are probably still in I guess.

Where there is society, there is hierarchy

I think you just see a lot of yourself in these young men.

Damn, that hurt so bad I guess I'll go kms then (not).

[–]Daniel_Bryan_Fan2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daniel_Bryan_Fan1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daniel_Bryan_Fan1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BPremium2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daniel_Bryan_FanBlue Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daniel_Bryan_Fan2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Butt-Factory0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rreliable0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkmoon091 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]theambivalentrooster1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]notworthmuch20xx 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]theambivalentrooster2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]theambivalentrooster1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]theambivalentrooster0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theambivalentrooster2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]notworthmuch20xx 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkmoon091 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rreliable1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgtownigga4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throw_away_today_9324 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pinkgoldrose6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]MyMorningCovfefePM me ur pills12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pinkgoldrose2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sweet_samsara11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GroovyEFS 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pinkgoldrose2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuestionablePresence 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"A lucky few." Come on. A majority of men have fulfilling relationships. Don't project your unhappiness and insecurities on the entire population.

Are you really sure all these relationships are fulfilling? Because I am not sure you can tell from the outside. Sometimes I wonder if it's similar to jobs - most people do have jobs, but how many people actually find them fulfilling? I work as a researcher (a job supposedly for people passionate about science or something) and I can count the people who are actually happy to work here in science on the fingers of one hand. For most (and for me, too, I guess) it's just a job, something they settled for because finding what you are actually passionate about and working towards it is a pain in the ass. I am kinda afraid that had I been more social in my youth (and had I studied at a place that actually had women), I would have been stuck in a relationship just like my job, a relationship of convenience. And I can't really tell whether some of my friends and coworkers are truly happy about their relationships or just content with them, accepting they can't have done better.

I don't know, it might be just my loneliness and sadness speaking, though...

[–]GroovyEFS 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]throwawayQCsummer2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is some truth to this but it's rooted in a deeper understanding of the "warm" and "cold" heartedness" you think you are seeing. Insecurity tends to produce high levels of attentiveness and agreeableness. This may not necessarily be genuine concern for the other person but "what the other person thinks of you." However, it seems warm.

On the other hand confidence tends to produce aloofness and determination. This may not represent a lack of concern for the other person as a person but simply a lack of concern about that person's evaluation of you. However, it can seem cold.

The reason advice tilts men towards seeming cold is that it is try to get them to exude confidence rather than insecurity. If this is a authentic change it radically alters how you respond to others evaluatelion of you but if anything it tends to reinforce genuine concern for the other person because you are less concerned about rejection or what others will think of your relationship.

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Butt-Factory3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GroovyEFS 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Throwaway198798[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]suscitareMGTOW Red Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GermanEgo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]darkmoon091 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Truedemocracy2 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]suscitareMGTOW Red Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]decoy88Black Male in London0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillDetox0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]tossa010 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theiamsamurai 3 points3 points3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Fdreal 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fdreal 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fdreal 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Throwaway198798[S] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]theiamsamuraiRavishment Realist-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Throwaway198798[S] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theiamsamuraiRavishment Realist0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]acecutty -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daniel_Bryan_FanBlue Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Does the SMP make men cold-hearted?
Author	Throwaway198798
Upvotes	17
Comments	324
Date	July 7, 2017 3:49 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/6lr5ia/does_the_smp_make_men_coldhearted/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/does-the-smp-make-men-cold-hearted.267128 https://theredarchive.com/post/267128

Comments