If you're not familliar with it allready, read about the objectivist view on your main premise: The is-ought problem.

I am so glad someone posted this. It's like I said back in another thread: If you want to fuck around with someones woman and feel no moral obligations I hope when her man puts a shotgun to your face you don't feel he's morally obligated to not pull the trigger.

If it comes down to a choice of momentary sexual satisfaction versus the actualisation of your own character and dignity, I would hope that this place has done a good enough job in teaching us what the right decision would be.

Solid philosophical underpinnings. Excellent post.

really it's amoral because existential nihilism and science!

Society's emphasis of science without the backing of philosophy has led to this insanely ignorant mindset, which is a huge part of the "decline" that we all lament, yet most of TRP is a part of. Kudos to /u/illimitableman for pointing this out.

Blame whomever you want, but not too long ago basic philosophy and moral systems were a major part of high school and even elementary school education. This has been lost on us, and now we're paying for it.

I hit a crossroads on this because I do not believe a 100% selfish existence is mentally healthy. I lived one for years and I believe part of life is being able to give back to people - it's not easy.

That being said, it does not change my sexual perspective at all. It does not change how I go about business or anything else. But you want to maintain balance.

Personally I have worked on giving more time to others and not just thinking about my needs all the time. It is not easy, but I believe it is key to having a balanced existence.

I think you're onto a greater point. I definitely agree with the major points and bold points you've hilighted. Is life inheriently amoral? To an extent yes: evolutionary biology would suggest that helping someone is only done when you expect something in return and on that basis, an abstraction of morality can be made.

Furthermore, I agree with your point about the whole justification of acting like a slut via nihilism. But I think its more of nihilism and post-modernism masquerading as "freedom." This is because the question and burden of proof has shifted from "why" to "why not." For instance, instead of asking "why should you be allowed to sleep with 100 dudes before marriage," more people are asking "why cant' I be allowed to sleep with 100 dudes before marriage." The reason is a misunderstanding and (deliberate) misinterpretation of "freedom." For women, this "freedom" comes with no strings attached because men are always there to take the fall hence she has no responsibility. Men cannot posit the same assumption because they are forced to take responsibility for their actions (and other people's actions).

Finally, this piece is very good as being a "back of the envelope" explanation for why anyone should act in a moral manner. Of course, many philosophers have a few books dedicated to the subject but I think this is one of the better "quick and dirty" articles to warm people up to the idea. For future reference, tone down the language: sometimes it detracts from the point. But keep it up. I want to see more of these topics.

Interesting viewpoint. Much of society's moral and legal direction is to aim us towards a blue pill provider life....like outlawing and stigmatizing sex outside marriage (one example would be prostitution). An 'upstanding' 'moral' man becomes 'responsible' by marrying a woman and having a family. So I am fine bucking "society's morality" and even some of its laws that are not in my interest. But that doesn't mean I kick my conscience into the ocean. Instead I follow my own personal morality and sense of fairness.

I sometimes fear we will end up emulating a woman's worldview by adopting pure opportunism- doing what one can get away with. I've always felt men live by values; by seeing the big picture. To me, that's what morality is about. Women tend not to have long-term orientation, they function on feeling. We have best friends for life, guys we went to school with, while women go through BFFs every year. We keep hobbies for life, we build businesses across a lifetime. That kind of long-term mindset knows that doing right by other people pays dividends in your own life. It's not a goodie-two-shoes mentality; you can live a successful, uncomplicated life by joining your goals with a moral code that considers the well-being of others. To me, that's a key way the genders differ.

Separating actual morality (and consideration for others) from society's bullshit blue-pill social engineering masquerading as 'morality' is key.

Wonderful to read this post. It's good to know there are men of good character who will take the high road. This is how we progress as a species.

FRDevlin makes a good point that it's easier to encourage moral behavior if females as modest, for one because men have much stronger sex drives, so it can be more difficult for them. Now that women are encouraged to slut it all out, it's good to know men of good character are willing to work to get things back on track.

Well said OP.

Endorsed contributor vs. the mods. Let's see how this plays out.

I agree with parts of what you're the saying. The not fucking taken women, the long term vendettas you may get out of it, but the whole create a family, be a patriach. Maybe cause I hate being around kids and domestic life, it isn't a requirement for a full life. Personally I'd rather have cancer than a family.

The basis of civilization is a codified law, complex social structures and abundant food supply. You can look at a myriad of civilizations from the aztecs, Rome, Greece, Sumeria, the United States, China and the British Empire. They do not share the same moral values.

Society can be amoral, as long as people don't riot, loot and cause enough disruption for infrastructure and law enforcement to become ineffective.

It also takes a significant majority. If we trps, got to our job, follow the written law, we will not effect and cause civilization to decay. We are gaming the system sexually, for us it's a big benefit for society the effect of us few is pretty much null.

Imo, there are no objective morals, and fucking loose women won't cause the end of days.

Can we all just agree to stop using the term bro-knighting? It's the only term that sounds more queer than man-o-sphere.

The OP, whether aware or not, is speaking from a very Nietzschean viewpoint. Friedrich Nietzsche is popularly referred to as the founder of the school of thought of nihilism - a philosophy suggesting that morals are subjective and do not exist in an objective sense (i.e. the universe is without meaning).

Of course, in a totally amoral universe, excessively antisocial behaviour would be rampant without deterrents to those who harbour feelings that this behaviour is acceptable. Machiavellianism as a default platform for behaviour would hypothetically become a norm.

However, Nietzsche did not preach the virtues of nihilism. He actually identified nihilism as being a pervasive issue in society, suggesting that destructive and antisocial behaviours will rise as a result of "the death of God", which he meant as a metaphor for Christian values becoming less and less important in Western society as the Church lost power (irrelevant to my point, but good to know for context).

His proposed solution to a nihilistic universe was that humankind must take the next step in its evolution, socially. It became man's duty to evolve into the Übermensch, or super man. Not in the sense of leaping over buildings and having a weakness to Kryptonite, but instead that this new kind of person must go above and beyond, and become superior to his predecessor.

Interestingly enough, we at TRP simply know this as MGTOW. Not all Übermensch are MGTOW, as the measure by which the meaningfulness of the life life of an Übermensch was how he advanced future generations of humankind (or even his own lineage). This idea also ties in with another popular book within the Manosphere - Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius, where he refers to the concept of being a citizen of the universe, with a duty to all intelligent creatures.

Nietzsche even noted that the primary aspiration of a woman should be to give birth to, and raise, an Übermensch.

From Wikipedia:

Zarathustra presents the Übermensch as the creator of new values. In this way, it appears as a solution to the problem of the death of God and nihilism. If the Übermensch acts to create new values within the moral vacuum of nihilism, there is nothing that this creative act would not justify. Alternatively, in the absence of this creation, there are no grounds upon which to criticize or justify any action, including the particular values created and the means by which they are promulgated.

This refers to the antisocial and Machiavellian modus operandi OP and I have both referred to.

The polar opposite of Nietzsche's Übermensch, is Nietszche's "Last Man".

The last man is a term used by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra to describe the antithesis of the imagined superior being, the Übermensch, whose imminent appearance is heralded by Zarathustra. The last man is tired of life, takes no risks, and seeks only comfort and security.

Sound familiar? Nietzsche was Red Pill as fuck. He identified the concepts of "Alpha" (beyond "fuck bitches get money") and "Beta" way before our time, and he cleverly suggested it was everyone's duty to evolve to become the so-called superman.

Further reading:

• Thus Spake Zarathustra - Nietzsche
• Meditations - Marcus Aurelius

P.S. To the OP, thanks for posting this. It's nice to see some content that isn't totally fucking stupid for once.

Morality is an ideological construct to deter individually favorable Prisoner's Dilemma type decisions in order to achieve a collective Pareto efficiency high enough to allow a society's continued existence despite itself.

When individually favorable choices outweigh collectively favorable choices on enough fronts, it ends. It will always end because the inertia of time combined with consistent collectively favorable choice making create enough surplus for rampant individually favorable choice making to begin and go on for enough to be irreversible before collapse due to the very same inertia which allowed it. In our current stage of civilization, we are long past the crest of morality.

What's past that crest? The decline / absence of morality, hence the saying "fall into depravity". This is important because once "the whole" begins disregarding morality, it's near the end. Those still embracing morality crash first.

After reading this and WatchTower's post, I think TRP may split into two or even more schools.

I left TRP because I recently felt that redpillers are no longer human anymore. It broke my heart when I saw someone who question the true meaning of alpha vs being a good person got downvoted a lot. They made me wonder, what is a true redpiller? Should a redpiller be a human? Or be some humanoid that is "alpha" but without moral, decency and emotions? And what is alpha?

And this post makes me think, how important is humanity in the redpill philosophy?

The only reason why morality exists is to keep the sheeple in line to keep building the elites' empires.. It's a lot easier to socially engineer the masses when you have this charade going on, makes them a lot more predictable too.

EDIT: Also, you say that you can't stand men who say one thing and do the other. As a guy who has had multiple girlfriends cheat/leave for another guy, but have always refused to be that guy who coaxed the girl into leaving, why should I care anymore? I'm certainly not going to chase women who are specifically taken, but why should I care to ask if they have a boyfriend or husband? If a girl leaves her college boyfriend for you, that's one thing.. But if she leaves a husband and cheats with you? Why not treat her like the dirt she is? Just fuck her and send her home to the bucks.

Let's take a moment to clarify certain terms in pragmatic ways.

Moral refers to actions pertaining to code of values and moral actions are those in line with them. Immoral actions are those that are explicitly against the code of values. Amoral refers to items that are not concerned with any values.

From a practical point of view, moral actions are ones approved by society that you live in and immoral actions are ones that are those that are disapproved.

The disapprovals will be proportionate to how seriously the value is viewed in a society. For example, murder is strongly disapproved in most cultures enough that the perpetrator will be captured and killed. Other actions such as adultery may be viewed as equally vile in some societies and may result in death by stoning while it may simply result in loss of social standing in other societies.

Science, objects and strategy for the most part are amoral. The queens gambit, a chess strategy, all-in or fold, a poker strategy are amoral because they do not represent actions in a code of values.

Sexual strategy while being amoral, the individual participating in its execution will be subject to society's determination of morality.

Do not conflate the strategy part (DHV/negging/escalation) which are amoral with aspects of how you apply it (coersion, adultery) which can certainly be immoral.

You will suffer loss of social standing for some actions. High quality people may cease associating with you. Your professional network may shrink. Your ability to run for office or hold important positions may suffer. Consider these practical consequences and ask yourself if this special snowflake is worth the trouble.

Guard your reputation, so much depends on it

Thank you for posting this, it brings up a few great points on the subject of morality. I would agree with you that morality forms the foundations of a man and of society at large and those examining sexual strategy are reaching the wrong conclusions of morality, but I disagree about sexual strategy as a question of morality.

Sexual strategy creates amoral techniques but its end results are subject to morality. Sexual strategy, for both men and women, forms the means to achieve ends: sex, and commitment, respectively. If a man used game he learned on TRP to convince a new girl he met at a bar to fuck, we could say the results are not immoral, they might be considered on the grounds that the hook up benefited both parties. Now, if that same man used the same game to fuck a married woman, we could consider the action to be immoral. Because the result of the sexual strategy changed, the morality of the action changed. However, the sexual strategy remains unchanged. The strategies in and of themselves, are amoral. The question of morality should be focused not on the strategy but the application of the strategy.

Questioning the application of sexual strategy allows segregation of means and ends. Having a clear division between method and results of strategy highlights the true nature of sexual strategy as a tool. Sexual Strategy is a means, Morality is the ends.

There is no right and wrong. Only karma. If you wrong a man by sleeping with the mother of his children, he may come and kill you. We just live in a time of law, fear and cowardess. So for the moment the bounty is free for te taking. But when the pressure builds so too will the karmic consequences.

This right here is where I really enjoy the application of the 38th law of power. I will continue to have my own personal beliefs on morality, but act in a way that keeps me aligned with the general population and their opinions on morality, for my safety and that of societies. By picking and choosing the situations that benefit me most to be ammoral, I am limiting the number of people who view me as an immoral person. Personally I don't see the personal benefit in fucking a woman with a family, unless it is of no effort on my end (in which case it's my dick or 1 of 50 in the bar) or yields substantial personal gain. Is fucking this woman going to do anything for me and my future that I couldn't do with a couple minutes and some hand lotion in the bathroom? You never know when the man who's family you defiled can come back and bite you in your ass. Making uneccesary enemies and opening yourself up to risk for some easy pussy is not in my list of priorities. From a societal stand point, not fucking married women is of more personal gain to you than fucking them... unless you're trying to speed up the failing of their relationship. In the end we just have to ask ourselves, what does this woman offer that other women don't and are the risks associated with that worth it?

Whole thing reminds me of a story arch from Lost. Sawyer's family was destroyed on a con, which sent him on a blood hunt for the man who ruined his childhood. An extreme example, but can you afford to make more enemies? Cheating with a senator's wife in your home town is going to give you much more struggle than gain. Where as fucking a Senators wife in a different state, country, or continent will have much fewer downfalls. Understand and accept the consequences of all that you do. Don't say, "I CAN FUCK HIS WIFE WITH OUT CONSEQUENCES CAUSE LIFE IS AMMORAL." say, "I openly accept the possible consequences of my actions, but this decision pushes my personal agenda more than it sets it back, so in the end, I don't give a fuck."

[deleted]

I feel the OP is very much misguided. The reason why morality is very much discussed here is because women are often amoral, while men often have this notion of morality (e.g. fucking only loved ones, being nice, buying presents, keeping your word, having a good life, etc, etc) which is not shared by the women.

So you end up having a lot of angry, misunderstood men, who cannot understand why the hell does that rude, broke guy get to fuck all those girls, while he is at home watching porn.

Why does this happen? Why do men have this notion of morality? Because it is banged into them from an early age by the manipulative media, and everyone around them. For example, be nice to girls, men are all bad rapists, you must work hard to make a good living, etc, etc, etc.

Everyone uses this morality to manipulate men. They are taught to treat women nicely by their manipulative mothers, they are taught not to steal by the governments which themselves do all the stealing, and they are taught not to step out of line by the people who themselves have stepped out of line, just to control everyone else.

So understand, morality is just a tool to control you, just like religion is, and just like the culture is. Follow it, and lose in life, be that good slave that the corporations want you to be, be that beta husband that the old used up slut wants you to be, or be that law abiding citizen that the government wants you to be so that they make as much money as possible.

Or choose the other way. Reject all those morals, do not live by them. Live by RESULTS. See that young girl, realise that she enjoys being mistreated, and fucked like a slut. Do that if you want. See that the government takes the piss, use that to your advantage, game the government if you find a way.

When it comes to killing... why is it fine to kill in a war, but not normally? Because the government says so? Because George Bush says it is fine to kill Iraqis now? Realise that when you kill someone, even though it is amoral, what results will you create? You are creating a world where killing happens, a couple of enemies, and maybe jail for the rest of your life. That is why it probably is not the best thing for you, not because it is immoral (which it isn't, everything is amoral), but because the results are not what you want. That is why, living in a country with no negatives for killings (i.e. jail) isn't a great idea, since there will be so many of them. There will be no real negatives (jail), it would need very strong mental manipulation (morality, etc) to control. People who will break free of this control, will control that world. That is why it is so important to enforce it with real negatives.

Lost faith in this sub over the last few weeks, thanks for restoring it.

Machiavellian only when necessary, to preserve one's interests. When you are non-defensively violent with your manipulations, you benefit nothing but your own sadistic lust.

Morality to some degree differs among social groups and cultures. Machiavellian reason why you should be "moral" when possible is because if you are caught you will lose "reputation".

Sexual example of a moral code. Between the Army and Navy is a lot of rivalry. If you where army and fucked another army guy's wife, you are playing with fire. On the other hand if an Army guy fucked a Navy guy's wife it would build your reputation among your Army peers. The reasoning is all Navy guys are closet homos and wimps. So it is ok to poach their women.

Whether or not you agree with the code. That is the code. If you break it you are playing with fire so you better have a good reason to break it.

Violence is a solution, but it is always best to find peaceful solutions first. It should only be used as a last resort.

A lot of posters here seem to think that a woman has absolutely no say in cheating on their partner and that it's all the 3rd party's fault that the cheating happens.

I find men that justify fucking someone's wife behind his back repugnant. They are accomplices of the woman's moral felony. Of course, they would spare no punishment for both parties, if they were to be cheated on by their partners.

These men are the proof that hamstering is not a women-only phenomenon.

I just want to direct everyone's attention to the side bar.

The Red Pill: Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

Notice the second part? in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

OP is spot on if you ask me.

With great power comes great responsibility.

TRP is about determining the objectively best sexual strategy (objective being sex). However you define right and wrong will not change that strategy.

Therefore, the strategy itself is amoral even if committing the use of the strategy is immoral (by whatever definition of good and evil).

On one hand you say morality is personal and yet judge the guys who do certain things because that doesnt fit into your moral compass. You say you wont fuck a wife (what about the children!) but are down to fuck up a relationship if there are no fucking kids involved as if you hamstering to your moral code is not evident. Why is this ok n not that?! No one who says sexual strategy is amoral is actually an amoral person. Everyone has a moral code. It may be broad or narrow and may or may not align with yours. Even as I write this I know that I wont do certain thing.. I wont even fuck someone's girlfriend knowingly even if i dont know the guy. But i also understand that its just MY PERSONAL world view and irs not absolute. I dont care if it makes sense to anybody else and I dont care if the whole world doesnt live by it. I do. But i wont shove it down your throat and expect you to follow a code that isnt yours.

In the end your long post is basically.. "actions have consequences". You dont like the consequences of certain actions and hamster by putting a moral spin on it. And when there are no consequences to YOU, you condone it

I think your writing is making the world a better place. These cunts in TRP want to watch the world burn because they want to get their dicks wet in all the wrong cunts. You are doing the wrong thing if you are ruining a family. At the very least, don't lie to yourself about what you are doing, you hamstering faggots.

Thank you /u/IllimitableMan for posting this. This is a great counterpoint to some of the nonsense that has been tossed about here.

Perhaps sexual strategy itself is amoral. Perhaps TRP is supposed to be. But it's not. We've had numerous stories about non-sexual based topics since I've been on here. We're currently going through the "48 Law of Power", which is almost entirely non-sexual. So the argument that no other types of topics belong on TRP because we're only her to talk about amoral sexual strategy is bullshit.

You bring up some fantastic points. Man has the capacity to either be rational and productive, or irrational and destructive. Those of you who glibly talk about taking another man's wife or girlfriend, should keep in mind that there are no contradictions in life or reality, which are the same. If you encounter a contradiction, check your premises. One of them is wrong. What if someone were to kill your family, or rape(real rape, not regret "rape") a relative, would you feel anything at all? Would you have an emotional reaction? Why? Something inside you would say that it as wrong. For whatever reason you choose, the human animal has developed something we call an conscience. Man is a moral animal. We have the capacity to have values.

In women, we call the ability to "rationalize" two disparate realities as hamstering. Hamstering at its core is the ability to convince oneself of a contradiction. We see it every day from women. Something she believes is right for her to do but wrong for anyone else. A contradiction of values. We rightly decry this as destructive and while we seek ways to use it to our advantage, we never say that it is "right" or rational. Reality is. A is A. And one can chose to ignore reality, but one can never choose to ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

But that is exactly what these men are doing, these men who spout nihilism, choose to act without honor, values, ethics, or respect. Again, what if someone drove to your house and murdered a member of your family? Would it be wrong? If yes, than it is also wrong if you were to do it. Making a conscious choice to do preemptive harm or destruction to another is wrong Now what if someone drove the murderer to your house, knowing that he was going to kill someone in your family? Would you hold the driver entirely blameless? If not, we can conclude that making the conscious choice to enable someone else to preemptively cause harm or destruction to another is also wrong. And if it's wrong on one level, it's wrong on all levels. If it's wrong for one persons, it's wrong for all. Contradictions do not exist. Exceptions to rules disprove the rules.

Ideas themselves may be amoral, but your own actions are not. They can never be. Even something as simple as choosing to eat a Twinkie over broccoli is in some way more. Moral is that which is constructive. Immoral is that which is destructive. We talk all the time about building yourself up, increasing value, being productive, living your own life in a positive way. Is that not morality itself? Making a conscious choice to be constructive. And the inverse would be anything that destroys. If your choices are consciously harming yourself, or another, they are immoral. The concept of honor was created by man to promote moral acts of construction and decry immoral acts of destruction.

Women are not entitled to the reality of their choosing. We all know this. Well, neither are men. If something is wrong if it is done to you, it is wrong when you do it to someone else. You are not entitled to your own special reality where everything you do is OK because you just call it "amoral" but wrong if others do it to you. And if you're going to take that route, you must be consistent. If your actions are amoral to you, the actions of others in response to you must also me amoral. If you sleep with another man's wife and say it's OK, you must be willing to admit that if he does it with your wife it's also OK. And as another poster said, if he chooses to blow you away with a shotgun, that must also not be amoral to you. You are not entitled to contradictions.

And IM was right on another point. Theory can always be amoral. But your actions can never be. If we hold that which is constructive to yourself or others as moral, and that which is destructive to yourself or others as immoral, than every action you take will be one or the other. Consciously choosing to employ an amoral theory in a destructive way is immoral, whether you want it to be or not. Again, you're not entitled to a special reality just for you where you can hamster away all of your own actions as fine for you, but then apply a different standard to others. Everything you choose to do to others you must accept them doing to you, or whatever reaction they have to what you have done. You live in a world with other people who have just as much right to their lives, property, relationships, and happiness as you do. If you act destructively, you will and should reap destruction and you have no right to complain when and if it happens.

I forget who it was, but one of the authors of one of those recent controversial posts implied that morality and having a conscience is the result of men being feminized. That bullshit is getting really old. I unsubscribed from this sub when I read that, and then subscribed again when I saw this upvoted. Thank you for posting this.

Thanks for posting this. There has been some real bullshit posted lately, and I feel like this is a good counter to all that garbage.

I'm just going to leave this here as I find it relevant to the discussion.

"When the devil wants to dance with you, you better say never, because a dance with the devil might last you forever."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r-1ZaMe72ZU

I don't want people "bro-knighting" and trying to guilt trip men here for fucking women who were up for it, but were in a relationship. At the same time I don't want those same men saying "fucking up peoples families is fine, it's the beta's fault for not keeping her happy" and then taking no personal responsibility for the part they play in the whole sordid ordeal.

This seems somewhat inconsistent. Either it is immoral, in which case "guilt trip"ping is appropriate, or it is moral, in which case, it should affirmatively be done. I guess a third option is that it is amoral, in which case there is no morality-based criterion upon which to decide whether to bed a married woman or not, and another criteria should be used to determine whether to proceed. If you mean to communicate an additional moral classification, please clarify . . .

Morals are tenets of an evolutionary stable strategy of individuals within an ecosystem.

Our moral values are nothing more than a ball and chain when living in and around millions of other people. We grew from tribes that could be supported by the immediate territory.

I protect and serve my trusted council and their immediate ties. That's as far as morality had in mind for our species. Extrapolating from here it's easy to say something like:

So what? You're ok with genocide?

No. But I will fuck a stranger's wife is she comes onto me or is giving heavy IOIs. I owe no allegiance to a stranger and frankly if the family is torn apart by her actions then that's another nail in the coffin for the feminine imperative and we can actually try to reconcile the red pill reality of society today with the blue pill dream that once was.

No. What is meant by "Sexual strategy is amoral" is that sexual strategy is largely zero-sum. You take someone else's girl? His loss, your gain, but at the end of the day there's still only one man with one girl. Another way to think about this is that sex partners are positional goods, that is the value of a sex partner is determined by a rankable social hierarchy. If you drop out, everyone else moved up a spot. If you improve yourself, everyone you've passed moves down a spot. If every man improved themselves, no one is better off.

This is not true for most things in life. Producing food is not zero sum: if everyone produces for food, everyone eats better. Working hard at your job gives you money and provides others with things they need.

Producing or not producing food can be viewed as moral/immoral. But sexual strategy...that's amoral.

Morality is a male trait the way I see it. After all it was us men who created the whole subject of philosophy. Women want us to go back to the neolithic. I personally wont follow. They can follow their Gina tingles. I prefer rationality.

The thing is, this is a sub about sexual strategy, not morality. We are here to learn how things work, and people who present themselves as "family wreckers" are also doing some things right.

Disagreements in morality is fine, but saying "it is not redpill" is wrong. TRP has no morality, it is just a collection of observations on sexual strategy. What those people are noting down IS sexual strategy, it does work, and therefore it is part of what TRP should be inspecting and explaining.

Trying to push these people out of the sub on the basis of moral disagreements is basically the equivalent of feminist censorship you'd get in the greater world against TRP, which is why bro-knighting is bad.

As a Christian and a fan of Dalrock, I feel that this viewpoint only represents a section of red pill. I believe that there are objective morals, but red pill is and can be a part of those morals, and that the blue pill position is immoral.

That being said, one can be immoral while also being redpill, but the TRP philosophy is not immoral per se.

It wouldn't feel good to me to help damage some other schmuck's relationship.

Pretty simple.

I dont need a philosophical argument. It would feel fucked up and would make me unhappy.

TRP is about taking care of myself and others i care about. Why do something that would feel shitty, and that has no real benefit to anyone.

Who needs to fuck chicks who are taken? Pussy isn't that scarce, and I'm not that hungry. The whole point of TRP is you dont have to be pathetic.

I think those people saying sexual strategy is amoral have a "watch the world burn while you still can" mentality. They don't realize or don't care that their actions are making society suck even more than it already does. Their only contribution to society is to create pain, destruction and sorrow in the lives of others. They justify it by saying that if they don't do it, the next guy will. Or they say that everybody does it. How is that a justification? Morality is doing the right thing even when everybody else is doing the opposite. I encourage you to use the knowledge you gain here to better yourself, but also society as a whole.

Well then, I came here expecting another insightful post by the Illimitableman, but I didn't expect this.

If I have understood your post correctly, you're saying that even if you have not engaged in anything immoral by sleeping with a taken chick, you bear some responsibility to the consequences and therefore you shouldn't do it because it might hurt someone else? Married chicks with kids and serious LTRS are off the table because "think of the children" but those without children and whores aren't? What the hell man? How do you even decide something like that? There's a very clear line in the sand which you're conveniently ignoring. The line is "is this chick in a relationship". Flatly put, you did something wrong. You fucked another mans chick. Whether you want to spin it as your personal code of morality or she was a whore, it doesn't matter. You either fuck another mans chick or you don't. There are no "degrees of immorality", there is just "immorality". The self-flagellation that your "code of morality" makes it OK to do it to some chicks and not others, or "I don't want to hurt the kids" is utter bullshit. It has nothing to do with legal precedent or messing up the kids.

In all those instances where a taken woman cheated on her other half with you, why did she do it? Did she do it to intentionally hurt him? Then she is being sadistic. However, did she do it because of sexual attraction? That isn't being sadistic, it's following her "feelings". She isn't being immoral, she's following what she believes to be the best decision. The action then becomes "immoral", because another person got hurt, therefore the action could not be condoned, because if every Jane, Sally and Mary followed their "feelings", one of the cornerstones of society (marriage) would crumble and fall out.

The act of cheating in a relationship also doesn't stand up to comparison with "murder/theft". One is a one-way action, you don't "choose" to be murdered. Cheating on someone requires two people to consent to have sex. A better comparison may be two business partners cutting a third out of a major deal and walking away with the profits.

Nature is amoral. 'Gina tingles are amoral. Desire is amoral. What it comes down to as an individual is whether or not an action you take is worth the effort and the consequences. Risk/Reward. Cost/Benefit. That is what it comes down to. Is one person willing to live with the consequences of their actions. If you can, do whatever you feel comfortable doing. If not, don't fucking do it. We don't need 1,000 words of some guy who, with one hand, reminisces and justifies his actions to us while with the other, he condemns others for taking actions they are comfortable with because it doesn't fit with his own code of morality.

I don't know what you were trying to convey with this post, but holy shit, sleep it off man. One thing that Ted Mosby did get right was that nothing good happens after 2am.

Obviously this post is in response to my a couple of my latest posts and the latest controversy here with the Bro knight circlejerk. So I'll respond.

I'm a huge fan of you, IM. But all you're trying to do is play to the crowd here.

"don't judge my immorality, really it's amoral because existential nihilism and science!"

"fucking up peoples families is fine"

Really, dude? No one has said that ever. And obviously if someone did, they'd be full of shit obviously. All you're trying to do is label one side of the argument with false-flags, because obviously no one likes hypocrites and everyone will be galvanized against them.

So do I agree with your premise? 100% yes (I've even explicitly said morality is important, but just not in the sexual marketplace. I actually went out of my way to mention morality as important because I knew someone would try to twist my words into "TRPsubmitter = condones immorality!")

But your premise is faulty, because no one is saying "go around and ruin other people's lives on purpose because there is no such thing as morality!" (If someone is actively saying how amoral = immoral = okay, then I'd like to see where).

What sexual strategy is amoral means is that peoples' MOTIVATIONS in the sexual marketplace are not dependent on morality. It doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist or isn't important. It means morality lies outside the realm of sexual decisions whether we like it or not (that last part is very important).

That is why people cheat and lie in relationships. They know it's "wrong", but there's other motivations that override their morality. Those (those factors are hypergamy, AFBB, etc, you know them all). They don't cheat in order to actively hurt their bf/husband (in which case it would be immoral and "sadistic" as you put it). No. They cheat to satisfy an other, overriding force...their sexual motivation.

So what my original point is all of this was simply: While you may make a moral decision in your sexual behavior, don't expect women (or other man) to do the same. Because morality isn't what motivates/guides people when it comes to sex. Further, expecting people to be moral in the sexual marketplace and then finding out people aren't, inevitably leads to rage/hurt.

Anything is amorally justifiable, even theft and murder. You're not going to go around doing that now are you? No. Why? Because it will put you prison. But you won't get locked up for fucking people's wives, so you think you can justify the same kind of immorality due to a lack of legal sanction.

This is a terrible analogy. Murder and theft are non-consentable crimes. The very definition of theft and murder means the victim didn't consent to having their life/stuff stolen away. When you sleep with a married/engaged woman, that woman DECIDED to do it. You're relating a victimless (cheating) action with a victim (murder) action.

There are no victims in cheating; the only "victim" you can possibly have in that situation is the cuckolded guy. And even then, he's not a real victim...because no one has the "right" to fidelity/honest marriage. It's not an inherent right like physical safety you are taking away from someone.

It's a privilege that can be earned and lost and nothing more. But with all things nowadays, loss of privilege by a certain group always results in rage.

so you think you can justify the same kind of immorality due to a lack of legal sanction

Again, your premise that cuckolding is the "same kind of immorality" as murder/theft, and the only reason people do it is because of "lack of legal sanction" is totally wrong.

In lying, there is a reasonable expectation and social contract that you don't lie to your friends/family. Because you know them. If you break that, that's immoral.

There is no such contract if I sleep with a random woman who has a wedding ring. First, she herself consented to the action. Second, you have no obligation to someone (the man) you've never met; that man doesn't get to imbue his moral expectations onto another man.

due to a lack of legal sanction

Again, anyone who says X is morally okay just because there's no law against it is retarded.

People are genuinely motivated to cheat for legitimate reasons (more alpha man, richer man, etc). Those reasons may be ugly, but they're real and evolutionary and primal. So recognizing that people want to cheat is also recognizing human nature. No one is going around saying people justify cuckolding just because there's no law.

I've fucked women with boyfriends (knowingly and unknowingly) - but not any married women.

Lastly this. This is perfectly fine and I've never said any different (if someone has actually labeled not wanting to cuckold as beta/bad/weak, then that's wrong obviously. And I gave another explicit disclaimer about this in my last post). That's what your comfortable with and that's great.

So where do you get off rationalizing another's position as "needless destruction partaken in only to satisfy sadistic-narcissistic urges"?

You see what I'm getting at here? This is what I'm talking about with the bro-coders and the high morality circlejerk in TRP. They can't let bygones be bygones and say "hey you want to sleep with a woman and she happens to be engaged...ok fine. I don't want to do that, but you can.".

Why does it always have to be some rationalized bullshit like "nihilistic tendencies to engage in destruction"? What does that even mean beyond pontification to sound good? I don't go around saying refusing to cuckold is beta...so where do you get off saying engaging in cuckolding is "immoral destruction"?

TL;DR If your premise is that people who cuckold are actively trying to hurt other people and ruin their lives and/or only do it because they derive some sick pleasure from it, then yeah your post is 100% true. However, that's not the case, at least for me.

For me, cuckolding is a unique type of sexual situation and nothing more. All that is required for a sexual act to not be immoral is to not violate consent or betray someone's trust in the process. And a random man who I don't know holds no trust to betray.