So I've been lurking here for a few days; I've read your literature and have explored your posts. This thread is primarily in response to the thread by the gentleman who discussed why there is such hostility towards this community. Let me state first and foremost that this is NOT an attempt to "troll" this community; rather, it is an attempt to start an open, critical dialog. Feel free to delete this thread if necessary, but it is important for all philosophies to be critiqued so that the adherents to said philosophy might either be convinced of their misguidance or become reinforced through intellectual debate.

I vehemently disagree with the philosophy promoted by this community. In fact, I find it disturbing. Possibly I have somehow misunderstand the tenants of what you all preach but I do not think this is the case. Before you respond with simple "blue pill" and "beta" ad hominems you should continue to read.

The first disturbing feature of this community are the pejoratives directed towards woman and homosexuals. Any woman who is sexually active has been labeled (on many occasions) a "slut" or "whore;" homosexuals are labeled "fags" or "dykes." I have seen these words used numerous times in my exploration of this subreddit. The irony found within calling sexually active and/or promiscuous women sluts is painfully obvious: there is a double standard. Just the other day I read a post on this subreddit where a gentleman described the "whore" whom he and three other gentleman engaged in sexual relations with. The woman was described in the most disrespectful of language without any individual in this community pointing out that the original poster engaged in sexual relations with that "whore." Why do the men in this community not turn their criticisms upon themselves and realize that they too are no better or worse? And of homosexuals. I take it the gentleman in the community find homosexual behavior as a paradigmatic example of the "feminization" of men in today's society? What of the homosexual relationships both men and women have engaged in since early civilization? One need look no further than Plato's Phaedrus to discover the rampant homosexuality in Ancient Greece, including Sparta. Furthermore, if there is an emphasis on evolutionary psychology in this community then homosexuality should be embraced as simply an example of that psychology.

Second, the denial of inter-personal relationships. It appears that most men in this community find it less than advantageous to emotionally connect with any other individual on the planet, especially if that individual happens to be a woman. If ones primary objective in life is simply sexual contact then maybe this philosophy would help in attracting woman of a certain mindset; however, this philosophy relies too heavily upon solipsism to be taken seriously. Man is a social creature, and with this it implies becoming vulnerable with other members of your species. It doesn't mean that you must open up completely to whomever will listen, but becoming an emotionless automaton is neither healthy for the individual nor society as a whole (although, apparently anger is encouraged under particular circumstances).

Third, applying particular characteristics to universals. Unless speaking specifically of physiological characteristics, saying something such as "all women are x" is more than likely WRONG. As Jean-Paul Sartre wrote, man is doomed to be free. As human beings we have choice. One cannot speak for women in their entirety because one does not know all women. Maybe some women like men who are emotionally open, maybe some like men who are more of the "strong silent type." But one cannot say that all women look for x characteristics in a man because it completely ignores the particularity of the individual. By apply these particular characteristics to all women (and men for that matter) one denies the subject of their agency. Of course, if one says "all women look for x in a man" they will certainly find one or two instances of a woman who adheres to that assertion, but one can does not make a universal case. Any universal claim that might adhere to a large percentage of whichever group one is talking about (in this case sex) is typically a product of the reification of gender that is rampant in all capitalist societies.

These are but a few points to begin the discussion. However I would like to point one last thing out. Could it be that all of the negative characteristics that you gentleman apply to women in the community is due to the women you associate with? I mean if your primary objective is simply sexual gratification then the women you meet who are comfortable with this type of relationship might be of questionable character. Now I realize that wives and girlfriends are talked about frequently in this community, but the same critique could be applied to them. It very well could be the case (and I would argue it is) that most intelligent, independent women will not not be beholden to the criticisms you all level towards them.

That all being said I have painted a few broad strokes over your philosophy; therefore, I am sure that you all will point out where I have been mistaken. However, I would encourage that the responses in this thread not be simply loaded statements that are only applicable to your positions regarding society, feminism and the gender roles of men.