Radicalizing the Romanceless: "If you're smart, don't drink much, stay out of fights, display a friendly personality, & have no criminal history – then you're the population most at risk of being miserable & alone. In other words, everything that 'nice guys' complain of is pretty darned accurate."
“She was yelling at me, because I was cheating on her with one of my exes.”
And they tell me women don't like being abused like objects
So you beat up your wife, she left you, you married someone else, and then she came back and had an affair on the side with you?
She left him cuz he wasn't a good beta bucks. But fucked him (behind her current Beta Bux husband's/ boyfriend's back) later on because he was, in her mind, a good alpha fucks.
I just happen to mysteriously have picked up girlfriends.
Women will always want a beta bucks (having a provider is always good), while she's on the lookout subconsciously for any alpha fucks that makes her pussy swell in horniness.
Even three years ago, I knew there were Henry-like people – your abusers, your rapists, your bullies
and it wasn't hard to notice that none of them seemed to be having the crushing loneliness problem I was suffering from.
People claim that bullies are insecure, but that's just a way of trying to get the victim to feel better about themselves. Women, due to their subconscious lack of morality, see the real thing, that a bully is in fact a strong man with good genes capable of punishing any adversary/competition and garnering respect from weaker men. Women want these genes, because these traits carry on to their male offspring.
it’s a chance to talk about the very real problem of male sexual entitlement. The great unifying theme of the curated profiles is indignation. These are young men who were told that if they were nice, then, as Laurie Penny puts it, they feel that women “must be obliged to have sex with them.”
Really, so a nice guy who goes out of his way to be nice to a woman and do good things for her, in exchange for some sex or romance, is actingentitled? And the alpha male bad boy who grinds behind the same woman at a club, who she is horny for, and blows and gets pounded by in the bathroom of the club, is not acting entitled? Last time I checked, entitlement meant believing that one deserves something with the least amount of effort. Nice guy had to do to all nice things for the girl to win her attraction, while all bad boy had to do was just be seen by her and possibly grind her. Bad boy does nothing for her to get sex. The nice guy had to be her manservant, and doesn't even get sex. You tell me who acted more entitled. Apparently, acting entitled will get the pussy.
As a life-long nice guy I say this writing is dead-on accurate. It matches my experience. Thanks again TRP. I'm taking my nice guy tendencies, setting them on fire, and will watch them burn..
sigh. If you knew anything at all about this author and his life, and how much of a nice guy he is, and had read any of his other writing, you would be less quick to take anything he wrote as evidence that you shouldn't be nice.
Maybe just be a little more impulsive and learn to quickly recognize when you want something (and immediately take action without shame)
I'm super nice, smart, drink only to buzzed rarely drunk, don't start shit with people, and never been arrested, and it does not hold me back at all because I move towards what I want often enough that it's comfortable to do so. With that comfort comes glorious nice-guy success.
(I do pretend to be a little dickish on occasion but everyone knows it's just a joke ;)
Edit: I think I should add that you should be a nice guy on your own terms - do what resonates with you, not what you think someone else's version of nice is. That way it's a source of strength rather than a liability.
When encountering something life changing like TRP, I would caution you to avoid taking any extremes in your decision making!
What I mean to warn you of is, conflicts in the future that arise from burning away your nice guy personality may have been prevented had you maintained some balance of bad/nice guy.
If there's one thing I've learned, is that conflicts are best met head on. I don't think I'll be out there looking to pick fights, but conflict doesn't bother me. If someone has a problem with the "new me", so be it.
No, please don't do that. Dramatic personality shifts do not happen over night. You may be able to set up a "new me" frame, but without habits and experience to fall back on, you will not be able to hold it. As a result, you'll come across as extremely fake, and instead of being a confident alpha, you'll just be a dick.
Here's what you do: hit the gym, lift, read the sidebar, lift more, eat well, read the sidebar, get a haircut, lift, read the sidebar again, and then once your habits are setting in, consider getting a new hobby or putting yourself out on the dating market. But do not try to force change overnight, because it will backfire miserably.
Thanks for the(completely unsolicited) advice. Here's what YOU do: don't take it upon yourself to tell a grown-ass man(and a complete stranger) how to conduct himself. that's my decision. thanks for your input, though.
However, a grown-ass man takes all advice and carefully considers how applicable it may be to his particular situation and uses all beneficial information to better himself.
True. But, there's a difference between being offered useful info vs. being TOLD what to do like I'm five. I don't accept that *shrug I'm new to TRP, but not new to life.
I think not. All due respect to TRP, I don't let people I don't know tell me HOW I should behave based on this information. I'll interpret it, and act on it, in my way, how I see fit. If you, or anyone else doesn't like that..I don't care. I'll continue to receive and digest TRP info regardless, on my own terms. that'll be my last comment on it.
At no point should you feel obligated to subjugate yourself to the whims of another, but you make it sound like you're in desperate need of some Preparation H.
This reminds me of an anecdote I've written a couple of weeks ago (updated version).
Recently, I accompanied an acquaintance of mine to a party in her social circle, an outing organized by a couple she knows. The couple had their friends and family invited, and I didn't go there with great expectations, but what I didn't anticipate was getting three generations worth of unintentional redpill wisdom administered.
The mother of couple girl had been a single mom with changing partners who has made a habit out of neglecting and abusing her daughter during her childhood, both physically and emotionally, and was still pretty cold 20 years later (couple girl was pretty much an psychic wreck at that point). The mother of couple guy (around 55-60, though she looked much older) was your stereotypical lower class woman, who has had a daughter with some guy who regularly cheated on and abused her, then had three more children (one of them couple guy) with another dude who also abused her and the children as well before she finally broke up with him. Her daughters are even worse: The oldest one (mid 30s) has three children out of wedlock: A daughter who now is 16 and two toddlers (of course from different fathers, who have all jumped ship). She's still partying hard and gleefully riding the CC, as does her daughter (it's probably just a matter of time before she gets knocked up as well). Her half-sister has learned from her glorious example and has had her own daughter at the age of 19 as well; the baby father used to beat her but now they broke up, but she still fucks him on occasion. Couple guy on the other hand is reasonably laid-back and at the very least sticks to couple girl and their child (despite her being, as mentioned, an emotional wreck), but has his bad habits as well (compulsive gambling). The friends weren't really much better: A ladyfriend of couple guy's mother (in her 50s as well) also had a son out of wedlock back then, and of course the father bailed as well. A ladyfriend of couple girl has had a child as well in her mid 20s and, you guessed it, the father has bailed. Her CC-days were presumanly behind her, though, she showed me a picture of her and her current boyfriend who looked, unsurprisingly, like a meek pushover. Despite her toooootally loving her BF and describing at length how she would never cheat and how sucky that would be, she nevertheless dreams of a 50 Shades of Grey guy who is super hot and loaded and dominates her during kinky BDSM sessions (bonus, not trying to be racist here, but I thought that'd be of interest here: Apart from the couple girl's father and the first guy from couple guy's mother, all of the baby daddies mentioned have been from a muslim background).
And that's what's so infuriating. Because I personally know not only one, but several guys who didn't have a real relationship and everything this entails until their mid 20s or even early 30s. And it's not that there was something visibly wrong with them -they were perfectly okay guys, non-fugly, with stable jobs and/or degrees, guys who were respectful and intelligent and nice, and who, while none of them may have identified as a feminist, nevertheless have internalized the feminist-approved guidelines of how a good man has to treat a woman, and who got nothing but rejection, friendzoning and scraps for it (I had to think about them more than once during the last weekend). One of them - a rather chubby dude married a single mother of three who was probably 10 years his senior. A friend of mine who asked him if he thought whether that was a good idea got an answer along the lines of "I don't think I'll get someone else". That acquaintance of mine mentioned above? Well, she also had one friend who was unattractive but (judging from her stories) a stable and dependable guy - he had married a woman who was nice to look at but dumb as a rock (she was the type to fall for scam-mail schemes) and already had two children from two guys, and shortly after her marriage got fired from her job and spiraled into a depression or something like that.
And then you have the guys mentioned above, guys who don't just have the "asshole charme", but who actually are abusive assholes, who pump and dump sluts without looking back, who cheat on them when they're lucky and beat them up on top of that when they aren't, but who actually are the guys who get to knock women up. So yeah, can certainly confirm that the qualities that make our society work aren't exactly high in demand.
So yeah, can certainly confirm that the qualities that make our society work aren't exactly high in demand.
I think it is evolution at work.
About two or three millennia ago, the neglected children of these irresponsible parents would probably die. They even could have died at the hands of one of their own parents, if that was actually determinant to the couple survival. Therefore the selected males and females must have been of higher quality, actually cooperating with each other.
But cities and states and charities enabled the development of support networks, that could and would protect these children for soldiering or slaving or something else that would be beneficial to the city against other cities. Therefore simply having lots of children and letting the chiefs, kings or other heads of state to figure out how to provide for said children became the most optimal reproductive strategy.
It's like the start of the Idiocracy movie, but it actually happened 25 centuries ago.
Abstract
Empirical research has revealed a positive relationship between number of sex partners and involvement in antisocial behaviors. Most attempts to explain this association have taken an evolutionary perspective and argued that the same traits (e.g., impulsiveness, shortsightedness, and aggressiveness) that are related to a large number of sex partners are also related to criminal involvement. However, there is also reason to believe that the covariation between sex partners and crime behaviors can be partially explained by a common genetic pathway, where genes that are related to sex partners are also related to antisocial conduct. We test this possibility by using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). Specifically, we examine whether variants of the dopamine transporter gene (DAT1) are associated with number of sexual partners and with adult criminal behavior. The results of our analyses reveal two broad findings. First, and in line with prior research, we find that there is a strong positive association between sex partners and antisocial behavior. Second, DAT1 explains variation in both number of sexual partners and in criminal conduct for males. We speak to the implications of our findings.
Last December I passed a paper along to Razib showing that high-school age adolescents with higher IQs and extremely low IQs were less likely to have had first intercourse than those with average to below average intelligence. (i.e. for males with IQs under 70, 63.3% were still virgins, for those with IQs between 70-90 only 50.2% were virgin, 58.6% were virgins with IQs between 90-110, and 70.3% with IQs over 110 were virgins)
the team looked at 1000s of representative teens grades 7-12 in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and The Biosocial Factors in Adolescent Development datasets, both of which include an IQ test, and include detailed sexual experience questions ranging from hand-holding to intercourse. As with the other study there was a curvilinear relationship: students with IQs above 100 and below 70 were significantly less likely to have had intercourse than those in between. Also like the other study, they found teens with IQs ranging from 75 to 90 had the lowest probability of virginity (the authors note this is also the same IQ range where propensity towards crime peaks).
I wonder if the inverse correlation between IQ and sexual experience has to do with dumber people not doing what they're taught and smarter people actually following it.
I have a 150+ IQ and this was an issue with me for a long time, not just with women, but with social interactions in general. I'm very lucky that I have enough distrust for authority that I became willing to experiment and ignore convention and learned to discard behaviors that are taught but not followed. I do very well now, with social and sexual stuff. I was always very uncomfortable with the idea though, in a very 2+2=5 way...
I was actually thinking about it recently in terms like you just said and it kind of clicked that this is what was going on - it kind of cleared up a lifetime of being unsure about social dynamics to put it into literal terms like that.
I think that's part of the dynamic here in TRP - things are spelled out in ways that you can follow and test. To people who run on instinct and give lip service to BS social theory - they don't understand it and it probably seems vulgar and scary - but to those who think about their actions/consequences in literal terms it's an oasis of clarity.
I think that's part of the dynamic here in TRP - things are spelled out in ways that you can follow and test. To people who run on instinct and give lip service to BS social theory - they don't understand it and it probably seems vulgar and scary - but to those who think about their actions/consequences in literal terms it's an oasis of clarity.
That's also why I like The Rational Male best - it doesn't delve into vitriolic misogynist language, but simply gives you some coherent and logical (and comparably value-neutral) explanations and lets you make the best of it.
For the high IQ folks I think the answer is simple - people who test high on IQ tests tend to overanalyze and overthink everything, which is a horrific strategy when it comes to mating.
Source: Tested well over 110 on multiple IQ tests.
Overanalyzation is definately a problem with high IQ guys, although it's not just that they over analyze but that they come to false conclusions because their mating strategies are based on the false premise that women are rational actors.
"She told me she likes nice guys, why would she lie?"
And not just women, but basically everything we're said from a young age serves as our launching pad from which we analyze social interactions.
It's like assuming the sun revolves around the earth - based on that premise, you can create incredibly intricate and in itself coherent and seemingly logical geocentric models, which nevertheless are utter bullshit.
Interesting. I'm almost amazed I ever got laid based on the IQ data. Though I was very interested in getting some fucking done, so I watched and learned what works with women. Might explain why I have done so well, instead of spending my time and intellect on chess or math, I applied it to females and automotive interests.
Same. Having solid facial aesthetics didn't hurt. I was an extremely quiet kid that just read books all day with a good looking face. Helped me out a lot to get laid at 14.
I was 17 the first time. Lived on a farm 25 miles from any decent sized town, small school and hated most everyone who went there with me. At 45 I have lost count, can't remember many names, and I have to put it in context to pick one out. What car I was driving, where I was stationed, what race she was, what country/state I was in etc. Its well over 100, I hit that milestone back in 2002 and gave up counting.
"According to the Harvard Crimson’s survey of the class of 2013, 72 percent of students enrolled as virgins and only 27 percent of students left without having sex. "
I dont know why the article said "only" 27%, but yeah thats a huge number.
Mensa guy here. While I can't speak for everyone but just from my impressions from meetings and a forum I visit, but the "awkward geek"-variety seems to be well-overrepresented.
Hah. True enough. But I think Mensa self selects for those types. The ones that aren't awkward geeks may have a larger social circle and not feel the need for a social club like Mensa.
I think a good number of them are very aware of the typical social conventions, but don't see a good reason to follow them (as they are usually somewhat irrational). I think that is a aspergersy form of being overly rational.
Gifted child program student here from K1 through finishing college at age 17.
I grew up with an antisocial father who took out his frustrations on me through violent abuse, however he was above 150 IQ and an engineer. I know the type all too well. Over the years as a survival mechanism I developed a level of empathy near mind-reading. Coupled with my own high intelligence, I've come of the opinion that most people are ignorant of most things and unteachable to boot.
However to cope with life, instead of using my gift to look down on others I've adopted a strategy. That is, when I meet a person I focus on two things : what about them is good and what about them can I use to my advantage. Intelligence never enters the discussion because all of my relationships are a little like a game of poker where nobody knows my hand but I can freely see theirs. It is up to me not to judge, but rather enjoy the company even if the game is always rigged in my favor.
The hardest part is learning to enjoy a game where there is no challenge. A social game that most others aren't even aware they are playing, but life itself is a game. Adopting the IDGAF mentality helps.
I see no need to congregate with self selected people who use a high IQ as an excuse for being terrible at socialization. If anything a high IQ is an advantage that puts life on easy mode once you accept it for what it is.
The ones that aren't awkward geeks may have a larger social circle and not feel the need for a social club like Mensa.
True. If you're able to relate to muggles, you don't have a particular need for people who are, in all honesty (and I don't exclude myself from that equation), oftentimes rather complicated personalities.
Fellow Mensan here. I think a lot of nerdy guys have a harder time finding women interesting. They're objectively boring people in every reference frame other than their own. And good luck finding a woman who is actually interested in, for instance, the technology that enables our modern lifestyles. There were tons of women in my engineering class of 120, if you added the weight of all eleven of them together.
Honestly, maybe I'm an asshole here, but I truly believe that consciousness is more than just a binary switch. I don't think that everything in the universe is either conscious or unconscious. Rather, I think that consciousness could be modeled as a continuous function of (perhaps infinitely) many variables, the variables including all possible senses and ways in which these senses could be interpreted and combined (functions of the sense variables).
Imagining the space of all possible consciousnesses, I think that women tend to fall closer to the origin than men. That is to say, I do not think that women are as present here as men are (though, they seem to be more present than, say, dogs). Unpopular as my opinion is, I think that women are less aware of reality than men are. Otherwise, why wouldn't they show interest in the profoundly cool theories and the engineering that makes magic happen?
tl;dr:Women are more animal-like than men and it's stupid to deny this based on what women might think of you.
I think that women are less aware of reality than men are.
Avoidance is more the issue, and the genders have different strategies. Men tend to escape from reality with video games and other engaging distractions. A woman's version of reality is strongly colored by her emotions, so she'll tend to repackage reality to suit her needs and ensure emotional self-preservation.
tl;dr:Women are more animal-like than men and it's stupid to deny this based on what women might think of you.
Completely agree. I'm thinking the reason for this comes from historically, if a civilization was overthrown, the men were killed, while the woman were frequently spared.
Women who adapted to rapidly-changing societal changes and challenges got to survive and procreate.
Women who had a true moral compass, harder-set ideals, who wouldn't make nice with the "new-normal regime" were probably killed off much more frequently.
So women, from a evolutionary perspective, probably had to adapt to whatever society-type they found themselves a part of.
What we're seeing is just natural selection... modern women who still want to quickly adapt to whatever rules the "men in charge" put into place.
I've considered the same premise after a recent reading of the Buddha's "Middle Way." His end game involves a sense of total equanimity, where the sensations of joy and sorrow melt away into a neutral state of awareness. To achieve that, you have follow the Middle Way path by attaining wisdom from two opposite sides of consciousness; one being the emotional big-hearted fool, and the other a cold-hearted logical reasoner.
I thought of this dichotomy between women and men, and interpreted this as a declaration that the highest state of consciousness (according to Buddha) is a cross between the woman's way and the man's.
I find it striking because the cold-hearted and logical traits that typically seem to follow with men seem to uncover plenty of truths on basic levels that women try to bury. Not only that, but they do it almost collectively and universally. It leaves me wondering what kind of consciousness unfathomable to us may possibly exist in all that insanity.
Don't you think the massive social pressures at a young age and onward to "be" your gender hugely impact this?
I don't think you or I can claim the precision on the topic needed to be able to distinguish between (say) female engineer numbers produced by a world with just these social pressures and those produced by one with reality-awareness differences and these social pressures, because of society's variable-but-undoubtedly-massive effect on our sense of self, our interests, our habits, etc.
In it, the host interviews multiple scientists and psychologists, and they explain research that has shown that gender shapes interests within even the first few years of life, without any societal pressure.
Another example is the fact that I think Norway is the most feminist country, where you'd think that engineers and nurses would have nearest levels of a 50/50 split in genders. However, the host shows that men still supremely dominate engineering and the women dominate nursing.
I hear you, but I don't really buy that. American women are some of the most socially mobile people on the planet. Besides, gender roles have been more-or-less consistent throughout every major civilization in history, suggesting some underlying optimization of inherently gender-specific attributes. So you can blame our society for conditioning women to not like science, but can you blame every society for doing the same? That's quite a coincidence.
I agree with Throw59, check out the first part of that documentary.
The problem with nice guys reading a book like that, is they haven't accepted the reality of the world they live in yet. If I had read the book 2 years ago, I would be too afraid to apply anything. They need to wake up and see the shit hole they are putting themselves in. Then they need to read the book to bring them out of it. Without waking up the book is just a bunch of words they will forget, because they don't understand why someone would want to be Machiavellian.
If nice guys were really Machiavellian, they would be doing something that worked.
The failure of nice guys isn't that they're actually selfish and evil... it's that they aren't brave. A woman can't stand a man who isn't courageous. And they're right not to, because cowards are only loyal to whoever bullied them last.
Anyone who can't stand up to you, won't stand up for you.
cowards are only loyal to whoever bullied them last
I don't 100% agree with you, as being a Nice Guy is a much more complicated problem than mere cowardice (e.g. Glover's classic details it well). But this quote is gold.
there's nothing brave about getting in a group and bullying/mugging someone. there's nothing brave about picking a fight with someone smaller than you. there's nothing brave about beating your woman. and yet these are the guys getting laid.
which is why I didn't include the hijackers or suicide bombers or soldiers on that list. when I say brave I'm talking about risk taking and putting yourself in dangers. the types of people I listed beforehand were victimizers and they made damned sure they were as safe as possible when they chose their victims.
Women aren't attracted to virtue, they're attracted to the products of virtue. They want a guy who wins, even if he does it in ways that will hurt his prospects of winning in the future. Why not? You can find another alpha after this one goes down in flames.
I never said the products were virtuous. The products are neutral.
When I use the word "virtue" I mean something akin to what the Romans meant with their four cardinal virtues of temperance, courage, prudence, and justice. "Moral attributes that lead to power" is probably the best description of what I mean.
While women as human beings admire the attributes, the tingles have eyes only for the result. No fucks are given as to its source.
Anyone who can't stand up to you, won't stand up for you.
In the context of bullies like Henry, women would be far better off with a beta provider who won't "stand up for them" than an abusive man who beats them. Afterall, the a woman is far more likely to get killed by a significant other than by some external threat:
Females are generally murdered by people they know. In 64% of female homicide cases in 2007, females were killed by a family member or intimate partner. In 2007, 24% of female homicide victims were killed by a spouse or ex-spouse; 21% were killed by a boyfriend or girlfriend; and 19% by another family member.
You are assuming that female attraction is based on what's good for them.
Someone get this man a red pill, stat.
Female attraction is based not on what's good for them, but what's good for their genes. Her brainstem doesn't care if he beats her and makes her miserable. It only cares if she gives birth to baby badasses who are going to be the hammer instead of the nail.
This is why women aren't happy when you give them whatever they want. Because their genes are evolved with something other than their happiness as a top priority.
Girls, without guidance from a patriarchy, grow up into women who self-destruct. Because genetic imperatives could not possibly give less of a fuck about individual happiness and welfare.
In the context of bullies like Henry, women would be far better off with a beta provider who won't "stand up for them" than an abusive man who beats them.
We've created a structured society where this is true, but 99% of our evolution took place in a society where this wasn't. Our brains are still hardwired to be attracted to the shit that worked in primitive baboon tribes. The sooner we accept that, the better off we are.
Heck, as recently as 1500 years ago, Geinghis Khan was genetically the most successful man in the world, and it wasn't by being "beta".
Its good to know how our brains are wired. But civilization as we know it won't function with that mentality. I know here on TRP we aren't trying to change the world, only ourselves, but I do like to consider the consequences. But then again, what's the point? I'm not going to be running for congress unless I saw an easy way to make money off it.
Or rock climbing man, honestly I have been more scared while rock climbing than I have ever been in my martial arts. Scared of getting punched by a fist? How about falling to your death because you were too much of a bitch to hold on.
Depends on the type of rock. I'm confident in my own ability's vs. A wall. There's not a lot of unknown s going on unless you are climbing something shitty like Slate. But vs. a human the fight can change second to a second.
America's problems are sexual and demographic in origin. If you really wanted to fix them, you would reestablish societally enforced 1:1 mate pairing, and you would fix the sub-replacement fertility rate that's leaving us with a Japan-like inverted age pyramid. That solves 80% of the problems. The other 10% of the fixable problems would be solved by returning to a sane monetary policy.
White America's fertility rate is ~1.3. America in General's fertility rate is 1.89.
The difference is from the higher fertility of the newly-immigrated. In my opinion, their children will be American, but not them. But then they will have American-like fertility as well. Do you see the problem?
How'd you come up with that number?
It'd be fine to say "fertility rate will likely decrease creating a less proportionate ratio of social security beneficiaries to payees" but to say
this whole society thing is going to be taking a major hit in the next 30 years.
You can't use niceness to manipulate yourself into pussy.
The basis of our civilization is not about rewarding males with wives. It's about providing a governing body that seeks to provide security to a population so that it can mature without needing to fear for meeting the base survival needs. It's the basis of all forms of human grouping.
Society is only influenced by the structures that are required for meeting needs. In some cultures, that is family structure. In current western cultures, it is more likely economic structure. We do not need to rely on a family unit to survive and thrive as long as we have a strong economic backbone to allow individual survival. Also, what the fuck does any of this have to do with liberals? Blaming political groups is unobjective, baseless, and ignorant. TRP goes beyond politics to understanding human social behavior, which is not bounded by political ideology.
The basis of our civilization is not about rewarding males with wives.
Read the sidebar (The Misandry Bubble piece). This was actually was a major feature of the civilizations that actually created the amazing modern world we enjoy today. Cultures that didn't provide wives to the productive members of society were brutally outcompeted by those that did.
Society is only influenced by the structures that are required for meeting needs. In some cultures, that is family structure. In current western cultures, it is more likely economic structure. We do not need to rely on a family unit to survive and thrive as long as we have a strong economic backbone to allow individual survival.
Wrong. The family unit is creating the productive people, the system is looting and exploiting them. Don't confuse extortion of productive people with actual production of wealth. Do you know what Family Court does? Essentially assigning a 60% tax rate tax rate to your most productive people is not the most effective thing a society can do to encourage them to create more wealth
I agree with this. Once you simplify your argument to focus on basic needs, it becomes hard to argue against.
However, I fail to see any aspect of our civilization at any point that could be considered "sustainable". There is no utopia, and we must react accordingly as conditions change.
I actually like RP theory for the progression of society because I think many good intentioned men are using the tools they learn here to actually make the world a better place by empowering themselves. I think a lot of the men here will get tired of spinning plates after X number of years and proceed to find the right AB balance to raise a family in the Strong Parent archetype. Their children will then be much better equipped to take their rightful place in society be it as a feminine nurturer or a masculine leader.
Although, there is something about this ideal that really concerns me, which is the actual freedom of self expression. Some men really are born incredibly feminine (flamboyant), and some women incredibly masculine (tomboy, Hillary Clinton). It would be against my belief in both ethics and economics to say that any person should be forced into a role they aren't predisposed to perform. In essence, I think TRP is about unlocking supressed manhood, not about forcing men to act a certain way.
That would only make sense if our economics were based on needing family for survival. We don't. We are an individualistic society, and the only reason we bother with families is to satisfy a biological desire. In fact, our industrialized economies almost prefer that we don't have families. We would prefer if other countries did the raising of the children and have them sent to us to work whatever manual tasks are required until the plutocracy has all tasks required for survival entirely automated by machine.
Right? I think that's right... it sounds fucked up, but it almost seems like the end goal of the rich is to eliminate the need for the poor entirely.
Edit: I'm not entirely sure about all of this just yet, which is why I'm putting effort into the discussion.
In fact, our industrialized economies almost prefer that we don't have families.
It's like you totally ignore the fact that aging populations are a very serious issue for current governments.
No families means:
No good education. Growing in a Foster Care house doesn't create the same quality adults that growing in a family provides.
No new generations to hold the pensional weight of the current and past generation. This is a very serious problem in Japan, in Canada and other countries.
Immigration is a very risky way for a developed country to maintain a young population, as massive unregulated immigration is accompanied by an increase in crime. Canada holds up via immigration, but still, it's a huge bureaucratic weight to make this work.
I like how in the comments the women are saying "but you don't want the kind of women that are attracted to Henry", completely ignoring that even that is a step up from what they're getting now.
If I'm dying of starvation, and the only food I have a chance to eat is McDonald's, don't tell me "you shouldn't eat it because it doesn't taste good and it's high in calories". I don't give a fuck about taste or caloric intake at this point, I'm starving, motherfucker.
I'm just fortunate that I wasn't aware of the Nice Guy-hate on the internet before, because internalizing the feminist narrative (be respectful of her boundaries, her choices etc.; women can decide for themselves and hate if you intrude into their comfort zone; intelligence and kindness is super-important; be sensitive; identify yourself with the feminine etc.) due to constant exposure all my life and then being told that you're a rapist in sheep's clothes because you dare to resent your incel status might have driven me over the edge.
One thing though, they have yet to realize that it's just how things work and there's nothing we can do, they're still in their anger phase, and you can't change women.
It is ultimately our fault, men's. We should've (should) educate our boys better.
We should be a little more spartan with our boys. Sports from young age. Socratic teaching.
Men forgot to be both Henry and Scott.
This is the only way that balance can be restored, we must be balance.
I think that every man needs to get into a physical fight at one point in their life or another. It shocks me to meet men who've never engaged in a physical confrontation in their lives.
I also don't trust people who don't drink (unless they abstain due to prior problems w/alcohol). I won't do business with a teetotaler.
I've been in a few fights around my middle school years. I used to think I was a skinny weakling, until the first time I brought a guy to the floor with one punch. I still thought I was skinny, just no weakling.
It's interesting to see the dynamics behind a male fight. Females seem to have a hard time understanding it, but all my fights came down to a power play in retrospect, not in self defence. The interesting part is, after I kick a guy's ass, typically we become buddies afterwards. The whole power dynamic shifts and they garner a lot more respect for me. At least this is how it was back when I was in grade school, people aren't so quick to try and physically push me around in the real world.
I got in fights growing up. South side of Chicago shit with GDs, small time gangbangers, connected people, dropouts, etc. I look back and see what an absolute idiot I was. Violence is unpredictable. There may not always be someone stronger than you out there. There may not always be a better fighter. But there will always be another nigger with his crew ready to pull a gun for the stupidest shit. My last fight ever was with some skinny ass 5'2 jerk who fucked up my car. I beat his ass. He got his 6'4 boxer friend. He beat my ass and I'm lucky I didn't suffer permanent brain damage. I've had other friends in similar situations who've had guns pulled on them. The small kid ended up in juvie. I dunno what happened to the big guy. When I look back on my happy upper middle class life and see how that moment could have gone terribly wrong... I can't condone violence. Too unpredictable. We're more valuable than that. Diffuse that shit with humor if you can and proudly run away if you can't.
Lived in Chicago from age 14 to 17. Lived in Andersonville and Rogers park. I was fortunate enough to live those places where gang activity were virtually non existent. Andersonville is just a bunch of gay dudes hooking up. Rodgers park is pretty fucked up but I lived right by Loyola so it was just a bunch of college kids. School was a fuckin disaster though. Damn gangbanger's.
These lessons you've learned are exactly why I advocate that young men experience fighting for themselves.
I'd be lying if I said that I won every fight that I was ever in. Like you, I could count a few lucky instances where I could have made out much worse.
However, nobody would deny that you now take situations much more seriously - that you know how to approach things with a level head, and know how words can lead to violence, and how violence can lead to unpredictable outcomes.
A military corollary would be the situation we often see, where untested politicians want to start a fight, while tested veterans are far more cautious and urge restraint first.
Should you become a writer, please write 'For Whom the Bell Tolls' in Spanish instead of Anglicized-Spanish or Spaniarized-English or whatever that is.
Your self-description is similar to famous writer Ernest Hemingway.
He fought in the Spanish civil war and the book I mentioned has English words with Spanish grammar, which makes it cringeworthy to read for someone fluent in both languages.
I also don't trust people who don't drink (unless they abstain due to prior problems w/alcohol). I won't do business with a teetotaler.
Prior problems are motherfucker. I wish I could drink with friends without witnessing those problems again, when they happened years ago. I have to rationalize the problems away, until I get tipsy.
Care to explain why you won't do business with a teetotaler?
Every single human culture has, in one way or another, discovered alcohol - often independently of each other (in other words, it wasn't discovered in one place and spread from there). There's a clear and obvious place for alcohol in society. Rather than asking why nearly every other culture in the history of mankind uses alcohol, you should ask yourself why you don't.
To respond to your points:
I work out so that I can be fit and enjoy good foods and alcoholic beverages.
If you have news on the long-term effects of moderate alcohol consumption, do submit your studies to the AMA, JAMA or the Lancet. They'd love to read your conclusions.
If you don't want to feel like shit the next day, do not overconsume.
I'm going to assume that every dollar you spend - every dollar - is spent in the pursuit of production. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
Want to see an overconfident man that lacks capability in many areas and cannot command respect? Find a man who has never been in a fight, never gotten his ass kicked, and has never overcome an adversary. Most of them I knew were taller than 6'2" and people were intimidated by their stature. They never needed to fight, and have an over inflated sense of self because of it. Its not just tall guys, homeschooled kids get this way too, no other kids putting them in their place when they mouth off. Short but popular guys can avoid fights.
I can't remember how many fights I've been in, and I've had over 200 wrestling matches. I know men who managed to never get in an altercation, and they were always the quickest to threaten me. Its amusing, you can see the fear in his eyes, and the bluster is his only defence. They sure get mad when you laugh at them.
This is why participating in any contact sport, such as boxing, mma, or high impact martial arts is a must for any guy. It's a great confidence booster, gets you in shape, and teaches you how to defend yourself. Imagine getting in a fight with someone and not knowing how to throw a good punch? You'd be fucked.
Imagine getting in your first fight, that you started, with someone who has years of experience, lots of training, and zero fear when it comes to defending himself. Yeah, you'd be fucked. That's something I like to call 'fucking with the wrong man.'
Even if you are in the top 1%, you know you can kick most guys asses easily, thus you have nothing to prove. Its the untested wannabes who start shit trying to impress their friends or themselves.
It's the male sort of shit test: we want our worth as men to be judged by other men. It's part of attaining manhood that we understand ourselves as others see us.
Sometimes, but when you have been tested and have earned respect, you don't want to have to prove it all the time. What you're saying fits the fast street car world. Its fun to go prove you're the fastest in your area, and people are constantly working towards beating your car, and if someone is faster than your ride you improve it until they aren't faster.
That's quite different from physical combat/fighting, you can be good friends and race all the time, nobody gets hurt. Someone who can severely injure most people knows it, and unless its an actual challenge he won't bother. Same with cars, I can tell if someone's pos isn't worth the risk to my license, vehicle, and life, so why would I race a Kia or Prius in my 11 daily driver second street toy? The benefit doesn't outweigh the risk, ie nothing to prove as its already known.
For the most part, sure, but then you have guys like Melvin Guillard, Charles Bennet, Badr Hari, and War Machine. They know how good they are and they choose to use it. Guys who have their personality but aren't quite as good as them know from getting beat up in sparring that they still might lose.
There is a rather large difference between competing with other trained men, and going out to pick fights in bars or some other public place. If you feel a need to prove your manhood in a bar or parking lot, then you are a long way from having the kind of confidence those men you mentioned have.
I doubt they go looking for fights outside sanctioned events.
Its like having a car with 700hp, you know its under your right foot if you ever want it. The kids with low powered slow cars are the ones who are constantly squealing their tires and driving like idiots. They put wings and fart cans on them to make them look fast, but really they are quite slow. Open up that 700hp monster in the wrong place and you will get a lesson on how fast shit goes very wrong. It teaches you respect for the power, something the kid in the 180hp Honda can't comprehend. The man with the big power knows its there, he has nothing to prove in traffic.
Want to see scary stupid? Give that Honda kid a ride with 500hp and 600fts of torque all under 6000rpm. He will wreck it the first time he opens it up unless he is very lucky. You see it with guys who go buy a high powered car but haven't driven anything faster than a minivan. Its the other side of the coin, not knowing what you're fucking with due to inexperience, but being overconfident and doing something stupid.
If you feel a need to prove your manhood in a bar or parking lot, then you are a long way from having the kind of confidence those men you mentioned have.
Whether they're doing it to prove their manhood or for other reasons, they're still picking fights with people way out of their league.
Precisely. It gets old having them try to provoke me. I usually try to hide my arms, it cuts down on that crap. They still do it apparently thinking I'm just some old fat guy. As long as they don't take a swing, they are safe and can feel whatever they want as I chuckle and walk off. I've never had another well trained man start shit with me, its always the scrubs.
Such a response would be so antisocial and unjust that it could only possibly come from the social justice movement.
Zing!
We will now perform an ancient and traditional Slate Star Codex ritual, where I point out something I don’t like about feminism, then everyone tells me in the comments that no feminist would ever do that and it’s a dirty rotten straw man, then I link to two thousand five hundred examples of feminists doing exactly that, then everyone in the comments No-True-Scotsmans me by saying that that doesn’t count and those people aren’t representative of feminists, then I find two thousand five hundred more examples of the most prominent and well-respected feminists around saying exactly the same thing, then my commenters tell me that they don’t count either and the only true feminist lives in the Platonic Realm and expresses herself through patterns of dewdrops on the leaves in autumn and everything she says is unspeakably kind and beautiful and any time I try to make a point about feminism using examples from anyone other than her I am a dirty rotten motivated-arguer trying to weak-man the movement for my personal gain.
This guy is great. Why haven't I seen him linked here before?
You know, if you're going to link Scott's work to /r/theredpill, I feel the need to also mention that in actual practice Scott is basically a sex-positive egalitarian polyamorist Bay Area nerdy type who happens to be in a happy relationship with a female-bodied person who identifies "zirself" using non-gendered pronouns.
Scott is scary smart and I agree with nearly everything he says. He's sort of defending TRP at the moment so naturally it's really seductive ... but when you take a step back and look at him as a greater whole, there is not a trace of Dark Triad in him and he ultimately doesn't really buy into the notion that you should be like Henry. He wouldn't really identify with TRP's morality and politics, perhaps aside from how he shares contempt for the more ridiculous aspects of feminism and sympathy for the more reasonable men's rights issues.
And as you can see, those life choices are not simply because he doesn't understand TRP principles, or is too afraid to acknowledge the truth, or "hamstering" or whatever. He writes about Reactionary and Dark Enlightenment thought because he finds these movements interesting and illuminating for the seeds of doubt they plant and for those parts that they do get right. I'd go so far as to say that this article is proof enough that he understands TRP and reaction in general more than 99% of people on this subreddit, down to the scientific citations. And he still doesn't really accept it or incorporate it into his life.
I think that implies something important about the correctness of it all - it's not a proof, but it's a hint. It would certainly be enough to make me doubt, if I was a TRP adherent, that someone understood my point of view so incredibly well but still ultimately rejected it. Just something to think about.
One thing I like about Scott is that he really does try to steelman things that he disagrees with. I had some minor quibbles with his anti-Reaction FAQ, but I could tell he was smart and had done his homework.
Our political discourse has become so polarized that the most common approach so far has been a no-holds-barred delegitimization of the opposition. It's not "You're not entitled to your own facts," it's "If it's coming out of your mouth, by definition it is not true." Feminism and the manosphere don't have different opinions about the same facts, they don't even share the same facts.
TRP has a lot of bullshit. But it also has a lot of truth that the rest of the world has apparently chosen to ignore with its fingers in its ears. I think if posters pay attention to the title and pursue truth over everything, including sex, then they'll be alright.
One thing I like about Scott is that he really does try to steelman things that he disagrees with. I had some minor quibbles with his anti-Reaction FAQ, but I could tell he was smart and had done his homework.
Note that he didn't write that: his girlfriend did. I too had some quibbles and was surprised it wasn't as rock solid as his usual stuff. She's clearly well above average but ultimately she fell to the shaming-language-means-I'm-right trap of seemingly all SJWs and their ilk. It was... disappointing.
TRP has a lot of bullshit. But it also has a lot of truth that the rest of the world has apparently chosen to ignore with its fingers in its ears. I think if posters pay attention to the title and pursue truth over everything, including sex, then they'll be alright.
Yep. I treat TRP as a place with high signal-to-noise ratio for true beliefs about how people work, especially w.r.t. sexuality. It's not a 1:0 ratio of true:false beliefs. What really throws people off is that the noise is more crass and incensing than the noise most places... but one can learn to filter out any kind of noise.
I'm not certain, but I'm actually pretty sure he has other partners besides Ozy. she's (Ze's? how do possessives work...) just the one he spends the most time with. And you know, there's "oneitis", and then there is actually finding that 1% of the population that you really click with. Ozy's fairly smart, psychologically similar to him, and Scott's preferences are unlikely to be similar to yours.
Ah. Sounds like she's attractive enough to some people but also crazy and open relationshipful and.. well. She carves out the best world for herself but that's probably not the best world for Scott.
Make sure to read Steve Johnson and DrBeat over in the comment section; those guys know what they're talking about! Some highlights:
"Women's free sexual choice is a coordination problem that will destroy civilization very quickly."
"Basically women are smaller, weaker and less intelligent but still have genetic aims."
"Women are herd creatures to a much greater degree than men are and will basically try to figure out what the culture asks of them and do it."
"For the few men there's only so many times you can hear 'we're not having sex tonight' (which is confirmation that you two are going to fuck) or 'I don't normally do this' or find out she's got a boyfriend or a guy she lives with or a husband before you're simply accept that women are almost always lying to everyone about everything sexual – most importantly to themselves."
"There are serial killers who target women. This stick out in our minds because it is unusual for women to be victims of violence instead of men, and it is more emotionally affecting than the targeting of men because we place much, much, much higher innate value on women's lives. If feminism were to claim 'that guy hated women and wanted to hurt them,' and then ended that sentence and paragraph there, then it would be right. But feminism and feminists cannot stop there. They will invariably add on that this is an expression of our society's accepted hatred for women, and normalization of harm to women, even though this is the complete opposite of the truth. They will then add that this means we need to 'have a conversation' about how women don't feel safe, and what men should do to make them feel safer, even though women are by every objective measurement possible much, much safer than men."
"Look, I'm an MRA. Obviously. I reject feminism. I have looked at feminism, I have looked at what feminism claims to believe and claims to teach, what feminism actually believes and teaches, and the results of feminism's actions, and I have concluded 'Fuck that noise.' Feminism is wrong one hundred percent of the time. That is WHY feminism needs to be destroyed, not just ignored, because every person who subscribes to feminist ideology is one more person who will never, ever correctly analyze any single situation, and who will vehemently, violently oppose any effort at reform that might actually solve a problem."
"For the few men there's only so many times you can hear 'we're not having sex tonight'.... or 'I don't normally do this' or find out she's got a boyfriend or a guy she lives with or a husband before you're simply accept that women are almost always lying to everyone about everything sexual – most importantly to themselves."
I've made it to the few men club I suppose. The shit gets old, I don't even bother asking details to find out if they're lying or telling the truth. I just know they're lying. I guess I stopped giving a shit
Who is Steve Johnson and where can I find his blog? His comments are spot-on.
Here's his last one on why Betas ("Scott") are important, and why women's preference for dark-triad alphas ("Henry") destabilizes society:
Because civilization’s continued existence depends on Scott Alexander and men like him continuing to do the work that only they’re capable of and depends not at all on Henry and men like him.
Ok, so let’s say that civilization places zero weight on the good of guys like Henry – who other than Henry does this hurt? Well – women – because they prefer to get fucked by guys like Henry and let guys like Scott pay to clean up the mess (pay for her children with welfare, pull Henry off of her before he goes too far one time and kills her, keep the heat, hot water and electricity flowing, etc.).
Maybe we can even have a civilization where we don’t have to use any measures to stop women from getting fucked by guys like Henry and maybe guys like Scott will keep on working as castrated drones so Henrys and the women who love Henrys can keep on living their drama filled, exciting lives but what happens to the next generation when all the boys were fathered by Henry? Where do the Scotts that are required to clean up the mess come from?
Maybe women can do all the work of keeping civilization going – but there’s absolutely zero evidence for it (and plenty of evidence against it).
Even if you don’t think that any particular woman owes guys like Scott anything (and they don’t) your civilization needs to be structured so that guys like Scott do find wives at a young age.
We had exactly that type of civilization and feminism killed it. All that’s left now is arguing over “well, is everything really going to fall apart completely?” (what appears to be Scott’s position) and “if civilization requires monogamy then to hell with civilization” (feminism’s position).
Even if you don’t think that any particular woman owes guys like Scott anything (and they don’t) your civilization needs to be structured so that guys like Scott do find wives at a young age.
Yup, this is the key here. As I've mentioned someplace else, I know several guys who didn't get laid or relationships until they were "made men", so to speak; while they probably would have been married in their early 20s instead of having to put up with 5-10 year long dryspells which ate away the years of their prime.
It's also like someone else has written in the comments:
Also, generalizing from all the smart, upper-class, high IQ, kind men I know, I suspect that the statistical links between being smart, upper-class, nice, etc and virginity have a lot to do with those types of men being more picky in mate choice and generally more sociosexually restricted.
And while niceness and sociosexually restricted personalities might be biological thing to some extent, what else do you expect in a society where kids are told to wait before having sex? “Good” boys who listen to mom and dad and come from nice families tend to imbibe the values of self restraint and caution. “Bad” boys who don’t care what authority figures say, or who come from broken homes, will tend to follow their instincts, have sex with all willing parties, and be more bold in pursuit of sex. They’ll also know girls who grew up in similar circumstances and behave similarly, unlike their upper class counterparts.
The result is that these "bad boys" not only have a headstart in experience gathering when it comes to pulling women of at least several years, they're also more willing to act on it. I mean, my social circle consisted mostly of guys with a higher level of education except for one dude. He wasn't the best looking or most successful of us, he didn't lose his virginity particularly early or was a natural redpiller (in fact, in the relationships he had, he made so many bluepill mistakes that I've already written extensive posts about his romantic endeavors as an example to what to avoid doing). Yet he got more tail than any of us because he was willing to be in it "just for the sex" and didn't bother about the consequences. Why? Because he was unburdened by all that sociointellectual highbrow shit that imbued most others from an early age of how to behave.
"Look, I'm an MRA. Obviously. I reject feminism. I have looked at feminism, I have looked at what feminism claims to believe and claims to teach, what feminism actually believes and teaches, and the results of feminism's actions, and I have concluded 'Fuck that noise.' Feminism is wrong one hundred percent of the time. That is WHY feminism needs to be destroyed, not just ignored, because every person who subscribes to feminist ideology is one more person who will never, ever correctly analyze any single situation, and who will vehemently, violently oppose any effort at reform that might actually solve a problem."
I agree with this, but I'm also curious if there's an example where it isn't actually wrong to some degree, primarily because I'm more interested in the truth than anything else, but also because it's that much of a stronger argument to say feminism is wrong about everything except this one case. (Comparable example, in counting the ways feminism has helped men, the only way it actually has is the sexual revolution has made sex more accessible to some men.)
The assertion that feminism is wrong 100% of the time is not, and cannot be true. First, feminism itself has internal conflicts and diverges in opinion (mostly because of the sheer contradictions between its core tenets), and when those differences are strictly mutually exclusive, you know that one must be "right" and the other "wrong". And that's assuming these areas do have a correct stance, there is a whole realm of propositions where it is impossible to determine what is true and what isn't.
What you can say is that the core tenets of feminism are based on flawed assumptions (mainly the psychological equality between the sexes and the concept of female oppression), so it's really not useful to even find areas where they could be right, since they would have found this truth by accident.
| First, feminism itself has internal conflicts and diverges in opinion (mostly because of the sheer contradictions between its core tenets), and when those differences are strictly mutually exclusive, you know that one must be "right" and the other "wrong". And that's assuming these areas do have a correct stance, there is a whole realm of propositions where it is impossible to determine what is true and what isn't.
If the core tenant has contradictions, yea, that's exactly what it means. Logical term is 'explosion' IIRC.
Yes, you are right, I meant to say "complementary". As in, if the domain of possibilities is D, some feminists propose S and some D-S, then one of them would need to contain correctness.
They can be right for the wrong reasons. Let's take an easy one, feminists' take on prostitution. Sex positive ones will say women can make their own choices, and prostitution should be legalized to provide protections for women. The opposite camp will say all sex work is exploitation and should not be allowed. Both of them still believe that men are evil and women must be protected from them, but one of them is essentially "right" about whether or not prostitution should be legalized.
Unless they specifically say it should be legal to buy sex as well as to sell sex, they're still wrong. Are there any feminists who go all the way and say that?
This guy hit the nail on the head in one particular sentence. It was when he posed the question about "Henry".
The over-whelming majority of men do NOT feel entitled to a woman or a woman's body. The issue the average nice guy is when they ask themselves why someone who has kept their nose clean, got a good education education, got a good career, volunteer to help others, etc. are losing in the relationship-world to the guys like Henry who have 5 ex-wives, have beaten them all up and cheated on them all.
Once they realize they need to clean up, gain some confidence, start leading & stop apologizing, then women will respect them more and are then more open to relationships/sex.
This is exactly it. Of course men understand that they're not entitled to a women. It's just that, since women do date men, they feel like should be able to get in on the action. This is delusional, of course, but it's also supported by bullshit Disney rhetoric.
"Just wait and be yourself, you'll find the Right Girl^TM sooner or later ^after ^she's ^done ^riding ^the ^cock ^carousel."
We will now perform an ancient and traditional Slate Star Codex ritual, where I point out something I don’t like about feminism, then everyone tells me in the comments that no feminist would ever do that and it’s a dirty rotten straw man, then I link to two thousand five hundred examples of feminists doing exactly that, then everyone in the comments No-True-Scotsmans me by saying that that doesn’t count and those people aren’t representative of feminists, then I find two thousand five hundred more examples of the most prominent and well-respected feminists around saying exactly the same thing, then my commenters tell me that they don’t count either and the only true feminist lives in the Platonic Realm and expresses herself through patterns of dewdrops on the leaves in autumn and everything she says is unspeakably kind and beautiful and any time I try to make a point about feminism using examples from anyone other than her I am a dirty rotten motivated-arguer trying to weak-man the movement for my personal gain.
That's one of my favorite things I've ever read on the internet.
Some women won't chase AF, but that is probably more a consequence of circumstance. At an early age, these women weren't that attractive and didn't garner the much desired attention that attractive men gave to attractive girls, so they learned to develop a personality. Some younger unattractive women turned out to be attractive women as they aged 18-24, but the mental conditioning had already set into place, which makes them more reluctant to chase AF than your typical slut who was always attractive and received attention from men.
Don't go for an older woman that was forced to settle. They will have jumped on the cock carousel for years and only at the point where they can no longer get away with it do their "priorities change" and become interested in a stable relationship. Who wants some old used up woman that would have ignored you during their 20s? What a consolation prize. And if you're a "nice guy" that type of woman is a wolf in sheep's clothing. First of all, you'll probably be lied to about her sexual history. She is probably selfish from her years of riding alpha cock and won't provide you with affection/intimacy. She probably won't find you physically attractive because you will always be compared to the 50 other stallions that she fucked during her 20s. She is probably more likely to cheat on you if she lucks out and finds a more alpha guy than you because she sure as hell isn't sticking around for your "nice" pushover personality. Overall, she is what you would call an alpha widow. And alpha widows don't make for good relationship/wife material.
The modern dream is to find an attractive girl that has family values, didn't slut up her 20s, and will treat you with respect. It's increasingly difficult to find that in America these days (and around the world, but some countries are still better than others for positive mainstream views of relationships). I can tell anyone here from experience that people's core values don't generally change all that much past a certain age. If a girl was raised a certain way and adhered to that lifestyle for 25 years (social conditioning and positive reinforcement from friends and family), no amount of slut culture is going change that. Strong social programming is difficult to shake. That's what you want to look for when you get into relationship/marriage material, not some alpha widow that cunningly slithers into your life and feeds you a bunch of bullshit about how she's just looking for a nice stable relationship. Avoid those women like the plague.
Ultimately, women don't really end up growing mentally past the age of ~14-16. They always want "assholes," they just can't get them as they get older. Eventually, their looks start to fade, so they'll settle for a pathetic "nice guy" who thinks he can't do/doesn't deserve any better. Eventually, she wants a provider. Beta bux.
This is true. I was such a nice guy in high school and college that all of those women with their bastard spawn came crawling back after the wall. They were sad to see me friendzone them and learn of my commitment to confirmed bachelorhood.
[deleted] 10y ago
And they tell me women don't like being abused like objects
She left him cuz he wasn't a good beta bucks. But fucked him (behind her current Beta Bux husband's/ boyfriend's back) later on because he was, in her mind, a good alpha fucks.
Women will always want a beta bucks (having a provider is always good), while she's on the lookout subconsciously for any alpha fucks that makes her pussy swell in horniness.
People claim that bullies are insecure, but that's just a way of trying to get the victim to feel better about themselves. Women, due to their subconscious lack of morality, see the real thing, that a bully is in fact a strong man with good genes capable of punishing any adversary/competition and garnering respect from weaker men. Women want these genes, because these traits carry on to their male offspring.
Really, so a nice guy who goes out of his way to be nice to a woman and do good things for her, in exchange for some sex or romance, is actingentitled? And the alpha male bad boy who grinds behind the same woman at a club, who she is horny for, and blows and gets pounded by in the bathroom of the club, is not acting entitled? Last time I checked, entitlement meant believing that one deserves something with the least amount of effort. Nice guy had to do to all nice things for the girl to win her attraction, while all bad boy had to do was just be seen by her and possibly grind her. Bad boy does nothing for her to get sex. The nice guy had to be her manservant, and doesn't even get sex. You tell me who acted more entitled. Apparently, acting entitled will get the pussy.
Blacquebit 10y ago
As a life-long nice guy I say this writing is dead-on accurate. It matches my experience. Thanks again TRP. I'm taking my nice guy tendencies, setting them on fire, and will watch them burn..
E-o_o-3 10y ago
sigh. If you knew anything at all about this author and his life, and how much of a nice guy he is, and had read any of his other writing, you would be less quick to take anything he wrote as evidence that you shouldn't be nice.
[deleted] 10y ago
Maybe just be a little more impulsive and learn to quickly recognize when you want something (and immediately take action without shame)
I'm super nice, smart, drink only to buzzed rarely drunk, don't start shit with people, and never been arrested, and it does not hold me back at all because I move towards what I want often enough that it's comfortable to do so. With that comfort comes glorious nice-guy success.
(I do pretend to be a little dickish on occasion but everyone knows it's just a joke ;)
Edit: I think I should add that you should be a nice guy on your own terms - do what resonates with you, not what you think someone else's version of nice is. That way it's a source of strength rather than a liability.
teeelo 10y ago
When encountering something life changing like TRP, I would caution you to avoid taking any extremes in your decision making!
What I mean to warn you of is, conflicts in the future that arise from burning away your nice guy personality may have been prevented had you maintained some balance of bad/nice guy.
Blacquebit 10y ago
If there's one thing I've learned, is that conflicts are best met head on. I don't think I'll be out there looking to pick fights, but conflict doesn't bother me. If someone has a problem with the "new me", so be it.
[deleted]
F9R 10y ago
No, please don't do that. Dramatic personality shifts do not happen over night. You may be able to set up a "new me" frame, but without habits and experience to fall back on, you will not be able to hold it. As a result, you'll come across as extremely fake, and instead of being a confident alpha, you'll just be a dick.
Here's what you do: hit the gym, lift, read the sidebar, lift more, eat well, read the sidebar, get a haircut, lift, read the sidebar again, and then once your habits are setting in, consider getting a new hobby or putting yourself out on the dating market. But do not try to force change overnight, because it will backfire miserably.
Blacquebit 10y ago
Thanks for the(completely unsolicited) advice. Here's what YOU do: don't take it upon yourself to tell a grown-ass man(and a complete stranger) how to conduct himself. that's my decision. thanks for your input, though.
F9R 10y ago
Good advice does not need to be solicited, and you are not a grown-ass man. Accept that and then become one. That's TRP.
[deleted]
dj10show 10y ago
However, a grown-ass man takes all advice and carefully considers how applicable it may be to his particular situation and uses all beneficial information to better himself.
Blacquebit 10y ago
True. But, there's a difference between being offered useful info vs. being TOLD what to do like I'm five. I don't accept that *shrug I'm new to TRP, but not new to life.
teeelo 10y ago
Dude, don't let yourself get offended, most of us would rather be blunt and to the point than dance around an issue till it won't hurt your feelings.
Here you can look forward to Men helping Men, even if one is a bit of an ass.
F9R 10y ago
Grow a pair and quit whining about the way in which people give you advice.
manwhy 10y ago
You're straying awfully close to fatass lesbian short-hair militant feminist don't-tell-me-how-to-live-my-life territory with that comment.
Blacquebit 10y ago
I think not. All due respect to TRP, I don't let people I don't know tell me HOW I should behave based on this information. I'll interpret it, and act on it, in my way, how I see fit. If you, or anyone else doesn't like that..I don't care. I'll continue to receive and digest TRP info regardless, on my own terms. that'll be my last comment on it.
manwhy 10y ago
At no point should you feel obligated to subjugate yourself to the whims of another, but you make it sound like you're in desperate need of some Preparation H.
exit_sandman 10y ago
This reminds me of an anecdote I've written a couple of weeks ago (updated version).
Recently, I accompanied an acquaintance of mine to a party in her social circle, an outing organized by a couple she knows. The couple had their friends and family invited, and I didn't go there with great expectations, but what I didn't anticipate was getting three generations worth of unintentional redpill wisdom administered.
The mother of couple girl had been a single mom with changing partners who has made a habit out of neglecting and abusing her daughter during her childhood, both physically and emotionally, and was still pretty cold 20 years later (couple girl was pretty much an psychic wreck at that point). The mother of couple guy (around 55-60, though she looked much older) was your stereotypical lower class woman, who has had a daughter with some guy who regularly cheated on and abused her, then had three more children (one of them couple guy) with another dude who also abused her and the children as well before she finally broke up with him. Her daughters are even worse: The oldest one (mid 30s) has three children out of wedlock: A daughter who now is 16 and two toddlers (of course from different fathers, who have all jumped ship). She's still partying hard and gleefully riding the CC, as does her daughter (it's probably just a matter of time before she gets knocked up as well). Her half-sister has learned from her glorious example and has had her own daughter at the age of 19 as well; the baby father used to beat her but now they broke up, but she still fucks him on occasion. Couple guy on the other hand is reasonably laid-back and at the very least sticks to couple girl and their child (despite her being, as mentioned, an emotional wreck), but has his bad habits as well (compulsive gambling). The friends weren't really much better: A ladyfriend of couple guy's mother (in her 50s as well) also had a son out of wedlock back then, and of course the father bailed as well. A ladyfriend of couple girl has had a child as well in her mid 20s and, you guessed it, the father has bailed. Her CC-days were presumanly behind her, though, she showed me a picture of her and her current boyfriend who looked, unsurprisingly, like a meek pushover. Despite her toooootally loving her BF and describing at length how she would never cheat and how sucky that would be, she nevertheless dreams of a 50 Shades of Grey guy who is super hot and loaded and dominates her during kinky BDSM sessions (bonus, not trying to be racist here, but I thought that'd be of interest here: Apart from the couple girl's father and the first guy from couple guy's mother, all of the baby daddies mentioned have been from a muslim background).
And that's what's so infuriating. Because I personally know not only one, but several guys who didn't have a real relationship and everything this entails until their mid 20s or even early 30s. And it's not that there was something visibly wrong with them -they were perfectly okay guys, non-fugly, with stable jobs and/or degrees, guys who were respectful and intelligent and nice, and who, while none of them may have identified as a feminist, nevertheless have internalized the feminist-approved guidelines of how a good man has to treat a woman, and who got nothing but rejection, friendzoning and scraps for it (I had to think about them more than once during the last weekend). One of them - a rather chubby dude married a single mother of three who was probably 10 years his senior. A friend of mine who asked him if he thought whether that was a good idea got an answer along the lines of "I don't think I'll get someone else". That acquaintance of mine mentioned above? Well, she also had one friend who was unattractive but (judging from her stories) a stable and dependable guy - he had married a woman who was nice to look at but dumb as a rock (she was the type to fall for scam-mail schemes) and already had two children from two guys, and shortly after her marriage got fired from her job and spiraled into a depression or something like that.
And then you have the guys mentioned above, guys who don't just have the "asshole charme", but who actually are abusive assholes, who pump and dump sluts without looking back, who cheat on them when they're lucky and beat them up on top of that when they aren't, but who actually are the guys who get to knock women up. So yeah, can certainly confirm that the qualities that make our society work aren't exactly high in demand.
Nicolay77 10y ago
I think it is evolution at work.
About two or three millennia ago, the neglected children of these irresponsible parents would probably die. They even could have died at the hands of one of their own parents, if that was actually determinant to the couple survival. Therefore the selected males and females must have been of higher quality, actually cooperating with each other.
But cities and states and charities enabled the development of support networks, that could and would protect these children for soldiering or slaving or something else that would be beneficial to the city against other cities. Therefore simply having lots of children and letting the chiefs, kings or other heads of state to figure out how to provide for said children became the most optimal reproductive strategy.
It's like the start of the Idiocracy movie, but it actually happened 25 centuries ago.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
noteventrying 10y ago
That article is really long and the real meat of it -and the title of this post- can be found at these sources:
A gene-based evolutionary explanation for the association between criminal involvement and number of sex partners.
[Intercourse and Intelligence] (http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php)
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/Group/MestonLAB/Publications/mestonetal_fivefactor.pdf
anonlymouse 10y ago
I wonder if the inverse correlation between IQ and sexual experience has to do with dumber people not doing what they're taught and smarter people actually following it.
dropit_reborn 10y ago
I suspect this is at least part of it.
humankin 10y ago
This was definitely the biggest factor in my own failures.
exit_sandman 10y ago
I support that assumption. It may not be an automatism, but it surely doesn't help.
(it would if the fundamentals of our worldview were factually accurate, but since that isn't the case...)
[deleted] 10y ago
I have a 150+ IQ and this was an issue with me for a long time, not just with women, but with social interactions in general. I'm very lucky that I have enough distrust for authority that I became willing to experiment and ignore convention and learned to discard behaviors that are taught but not followed. I do very well now, with social and sexual stuff. I was always very uncomfortable with the idea though, in a very 2+2=5 way...
I was actually thinking about it recently in terms like you just said and it kind of clicked that this is what was going on - it kind of cleared up a lifetime of being unsure about social dynamics to put it into literal terms like that.
I think that's part of the dynamic here in TRP - things are spelled out in ways that you can follow and test. To people who run on instinct and give lip service to BS social theory - they don't understand it and it probably seems vulgar and scary - but to those who think about their actions/consequences in literal terms it's an oasis of clarity.
exit_sandman 10y ago
That's also why I like The Rational Male best - it doesn't delve into vitriolic misogynist language, but simply gives you some coherent and logical (and comparably value-neutral) explanations and lets you make the best of it.
[deleted] 10y ago
For the high IQ folks I think the answer is simple - people who test high on IQ tests tend to overanalyze and overthink everything, which is a horrific strategy when it comes to mating.
Source: Tested well over 110 on multiple IQ tests.
_trp 10y ago
Overanalyzation is definately a problem with high IQ guys, although it's not just that they over analyze but that they come to false conclusions because their mating strategies are based on the false premise that women are rational actors.
"She told me she likes nice guys, why would she lie?"
exit_sandman 10y ago
Oooooh yes, this, sooo much.
And not just women, but basically everything we're said from a young age serves as our launching pad from which we analyze social interactions.
It's like assuming the sun revolves around the earth - based on that premise, you can create incredibly intricate and in itself coherent and seemingly logical geocentric models, which nevertheless are utter bullshit.
Nicolay77 10y ago
You should overanalyze and overthink things only once, and remember the results. The response can be automatic after that.
Source: You can guess.
vengefully_yours 10y ago
Interesting. I'm almost amazed I ever got laid based on the IQ data. Though I was very interested in getting some fucking done, so I watched and learned what works with women. Might explain why I have done so well, instead of spending my time and intellect on chess or math, I applied it to females and automotive interests.
Looks like I'm a 30% man.
Redpiller456 10y ago
Same. Having solid facial aesthetics didn't hurt. I was an extremely quiet kid that just read books all day with a good looking face. Helped me out a lot to get laid at 14.
vengefully_yours 10y ago
I was 17 the first time. Lived on a farm 25 miles from any decent sized town, small school and hated most everyone who went there with me. At 45 I have lost count, can't remember many names, and I have to put it in context to pick one out. What car I was driving, where I was stationed, what race she was, what country/state I was in etc. Its well over 100, I hit that milestone back in 2002 and gave up counting.
[deleted] 10y ago
Alcohol was my crutch for years. Drinking yourself to 70-90 IQ range works.
vengefully_yours 10y ago
I barely drank, but learned to play stupid because people could relate to me better.
exit_sandman 10y ago
Can confirm, though it's probably more the DGAF-effect than the low IQ that seals the deal.
Ill_mumble_that 10y ago
But is being too dumb to care an intelligent strategy? I think it is.
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
[deleted]
junk2sa 10y ago
Holy smokes. If it goes up to 70% at just 110 IQs, it must be in the 90+% range for those at Mensa levels.
antidoxdevice 10y ago
http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/05/most-harvard-virgins-had-sex-before-graduation.html
"According to the Harvard Crimson’s survey of the class of 2013, 72 percent of students enrolled as virgins and only 27 percent of students left without having sex. "
I dont know why the article said "only" 27%, but yeah thats a huge number.
anonlymouse 10y ago
When Albert Einstein was asked what it was like to be the smartest man alive, he said, "I don't know, you'd have to ask Nikola Tesla."
It's apocryphal, but he may very well have been the smartest man ever, and might just have been in the 100% virgin IQ bracket.
exit_sandman 10y ago
Mensa guy here. While I can't speak for everyone but just from my impressions from meetings and a forum I visit, but the "awkward geek"-variety seems to be well-overrepresented.
junk2sa 10y ago
Hah. True enough. But I think Mensa self selects for those types. The ones that aren't awkward geeks may have a larger social circle and not feel the need for a social club like Mensa.
I think a good number of them are very aware of the typical social conventions, but don't see a good reason to follow them (as they are usually somewhat irrational). I think that is a aspergersy form of being overly rational.
Ill_mumble_that 10y ago
Gifted child program student here from K1 through finishing college at age 17.
I grew up with an antisocial father who took out his frustrations on me through violent abuse, however he was above 150 IQ and an engineer. I know the type all too well. Over the years as a survival mechanism I developed a level of empathy near mind-reading. Coupled with my own high intelligence, I've come of the opinion that most people are ignorant of most things and unteachable to boot.
However to cope with life, instead of using my gift to look down on others I've adopted a strategy. That is, when I meet a person I focus on two things : what about them is good and what about them can I use to my advantage. Intelligence never enters the discussion because all of my relationships are a little like a game of poker where nobody knows my hand but I can freely see theirs. It is up to me not to judge, but rather enjoy the company even if the game is always rigged in my favor.
The hardest part is learning to enjoy a game where there is no challenge. A social game that most others aren't even aware they are playing, but life itself is a game. Adopting the IDGAF mentality helps.
I see no need to congregate with self selected people who use a high IQ as an excuse for being terrible at socialization. If anything a high IQ is an advantage that puts life on easy mode once you accept it for what it is.
exit_sandman 10y ago
True. If you're able to relate to muggles, you don't have a particular need for people who are, in all honesty (and I don't exclude myself from that equation), oftentimes rather complicated personalities.
F9R 10y ago
Fellow Mensan here. I think a lot of nerdy guys have a harder time finding women interesting. They're objectively boring people in every reference frame other than their own. And good luck finding a woman who is actually interested in, for instance, the technology that enables our modern lifestyles. There were tons of women in my engineering class of 120, if you added the weight of all eleven of them together.
Honestly, maybe I'm an asshole here, but I truly believe that consciousness is more than just a binary switch. I don't think that everything in the universe is either conscious or unconscious. Rather, I think that consciousness could be modeled as a continuous function of (perhaps infinitely) many variables, the variables including all possible senses and ways in which these senses could be interpreted and combined (functions of the sense variables).
Imagining the space of all possible consciousnesses, I think that women tend to fall closer to the origin than men. That is to say, I do not think that women are as present here as men are (though, they seem to be more present than, say, dogs). Unpopular as my opinion is, I think that women are less aware of reality than men are. Otherwise, why wouldn't they show interest in the profoundly cool theories and the engineering that makes magic happen?
tl;dr:Women are more animal-like than men and it's stupid to deny this based on what women might think of you.
RedPillDad 10y ago
Avoidance is more the issue, and the genders have different strategies. Men tend to escape from reality with video games and other engaging distractions. A woman's version of reality is strongly colored by her emotions, so she'll tend to repackage reality to suit her needs and ensure emotional self-preservation.
Nicolay77 10y ago
Based on your comment, I recommend you to read this book:
I of the Vortex: From Neurons to Self
Not that I disagree with you about women, but the bit about consciousness is a bit underdeveloped.
[deleted] 10y ago
Completely agree. I'm thinking the reason for this comes from historically, if a civilization was overthrown, the men were killed, while the woman were frequently spared.
Women who adapted to rapidly-changing societal changes and challenges got to survive and procreate.
Women who had a true moral compass, harder-set ideals, who wouldn't make nice with the "new-normal regime" were probably killed off much more frequently.
So women, from a evolutionary perspective, probably had to adapt to whatever society-type they found themselves a part of.
What we're seeing is just natural selection... modern women who still want to quickly adapt to whatever rules the "men in charge" put into place.
SneakyTouchy 10y ago
I've considered the same premise after a recent reading of the Buddha's "Middle Way." His end game involves a sense of total equanimity, where the sensations of joy and sorrow melt away into a neutral state of awareness. To achieve that, you have follow the Middle Way path by attaining wisdom from two opposite sides of consciousness; one being the emotional big-hearted fool, and the other a cold-hearted logical reasoner.
I thought of this dichotomy between women and men, and interpreted this as a declaration that the highest state of consciousness (according to Buddha) is a cross between the woman's way and the man's.
I find it striking because the cold-hearted and logical traits that typically seem to follow with men seem to uncover plenty of truths on basic levels that women try to bury. Not only that, but they do it almost collectively and universally. It leaves me wondering what kind of consciousness unfathomable to us may possibly exist in all that insanity.
But usually I see it the same way.
HobKing 10y ago
Don't you think the massive social pressures at a young age and onward to "be" your gender hugely impact this?
I don't think you or I can claim the precision on the topic needed to be able to distinguish between (say) female engineer numbers produced by a world with just these social pressures and those produced by one with reality-awareness differences and these social pressures, because of society's variable-but-undoubtedly-massive effect on our sense of self, our interests, our habits, etc.
Throw59 10y ago
Consider watching the first part of this documentary: http://vimeo.com/m/19707588
In it, the host interviews multiple scientists and psychologists, and they explain research that has shown that gender shapes interests within even the first few years of life, without any societal pressure.
Another example is the fact that I think Norway is the most feminist country, where you'd think that engineers and nurses would have nearest levels of a 50/50 split in genders. However, the host shows that men still supremely dominate engineering and the women dominate nursing.
F9R 10y ago
I hear you, but I don't really buy that. American women are some of the most socially mobile people on the planet. Besides, gender roles have been more-or-less consistent throughout every major civilization in history, suggesting some underlying optimization of inherently gender-specific attributes. So you can blame our society for conditioning women to not like science, but can you blame every society for doing the same? That's quite a coincidence.
I agree with Throw59, check out the first part of that documentary.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
anonlymouse 10y ago
Of course that's because Machiavellian guys only manipulate people in ways that actually work.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
Entrefut 10y ago
The problem with nice guys reading a book like that, is they haven't accepted the reality of the world they live in yet. If I had read the book 2 years ago, I would be too afraid to apply anything. They need to wake up and see the shit hole they are putting themselves in. Then they need to read the book to bring them out of it. Without waking up the book is just a bunch of words they will forget, because they don't understand why someone would want to be Machiavellian.
Whisper 10y ago
If nice guys were really Machiavellian, they would be doing something that worked.
The failure of nice guys isn't that they're actually selfish and evil... it's that they aren't brave. A woman can't stand a man who isn't courageous. And they're right not to, because cowards are only loyal to whoever bullied them last.
Anyone who can't stand up to you, won't stand up for you.
redpillfrasier 10y ago
I don't 100% agree with you, as being a Nice Guy is a much more complicated problem than mere cowardice (e.g. Glover's classic details it well). But this quote is gold.
[deleted] 10y ago
there's nothing brave about getting in a group and bullying/mugging someone. there's nothing brave about picking a fight with someone smaller than you. there's nothing brave about beating your woman. and yet these are the guys getting laid.
niczar 10y ago
You're confused about the meaning of "brave." it does not imply intelligence or virtue. The 9/11 hijackers were brave.
[deleted] 10y ago
which is why I didn't include the hijackers or suicide bombers or soldiers on that list. when I say brave I'm talking about risk taking and putting yourself in dangers. the types of people I listed beforehand were victimizers and they made damned sure they were as safe as possible when they chose their victims.
dropit_reborn 10y ago
Women aren't attracted to virtue, they're attracted to the products of virtue. They want a guy who wins, even if he does it in ways that will hurt his prospects of winning in the future. Why not? You can find another alpha after this one goes down in flames.
[deleted] 10y ago
and what virtuous products come from victimizing someone weaker than you?
dropit_reborn 10y ago
I never said the products were virtuous. The products are neutral.
When I use the word "virtue" I mean something akin to what the Romans meant with their four cardinal virtues of temperance, courage, prudence, and justice. "Moral attributes that lead to power" is probably the best description of what I mean.
While women as human beings admire the attributes, the tingles have eyes only for the result. No fucks are given as to its source.
ThorLives 10y ago
In the context of bullies like Henry, women would be far better off with a beta provider who won't "stand up for them" than an abusive man who beats them. Afterall, the a woman is far more likely to get killed by a significant other than by some external threat:
Whisper 10y ago
You are assuming that female attraction is based on what's good for them.
Someone get this man a red pill, stat.
Female attraction is based not on what's good for them, but what's good for their genes. Her brainstem doesn't care if he beats her and makes her miserable. It only cares if she gives birth to baby badasses who are going to be the hammer instead of the nail.
This is why women aren't happy when you give them whatever they want. Because their genes are evolved with something other than their happiness as a top priority.
Girls, without guidance from a patriarchy, grow up into women who self-destruct. Because genetic imperatives could not possibly give less of a fuck about individual happiness and welfare.
niczar 10y ago
Correction: based on what looks good to their genes. consider the barman's über appeal.
MartialWay 10y ago
We've created a structured society where this is true, but 99% of our evolution took place in a society where this wasn't. Our brains are still hardwired to be attracted to the shit that worked in primitive baboon tribes. The sooner we accept that, the better off we are.
Heck, as recently as 1500 years ago, Geinghis Khan was genetically the most successful man in the world, and it wasn't by being "beta".
Also, what Whisper said.
cincilator 10y ago
Actually it's as recently as 800 years ago... which actually makes your point stronger.
Ill_mumble_that 10y ago
Its good to know how our brains are wired. But civilization as we know it won't function with that mentality. I know here on TRP we aren't trying to change the world, only ourselves, but I do like to consider the consequences. But then again, what's the point? I'm not going to be running for congress unless I saw an easy way to make money off it.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
Entrefut 10y ago
Or rock climbing man, honestly I have been more scared while rock climbing than I have ever been in my martial arts. Scared of getting punched by a fist? How about falling to your death because you were too much of a bitch to hold on.
Ill_mumble_that 10y ago
Depends on the type of rock. I'm confident in my own ability's vs. A wall. There's not a lot of unknown s going on unless you are climbing something shitty like Slate. But vs. a human the fight can change second to a second.
manwhy 10y ago
America's problems are sexual and demographic in origin. If you really wanted to fix them, you would reestablish societally enforced 1:1 mate pairing, and you would fix the sub-replacement fertility rate that's leaving us with a Japan-like inverted age pyramid. That solves 80% of the problems. The other 10% of the fixable problems would be solved by returning to a sane monetary policy.
Chicago1871 10y ago
America's fertility rate is at replacement level, even for non-immigrants.
It's the highest in the developed world.
Although, I'd say that immigrant men are more red pill than your average white middle-class american.
manwhy 10y ago
White America's fertility rate is ~1.3. America in General's fertility rate is 1.89.
The difference is from the higher fertility of the newly-immigrated. In my opinion, their children will be American, but not them. But then they will have American-like fertility as well. Do you see the problem?
CombatEffective 10y ago
How'd you come up with that number? It'd be fine to say "fertility rate will likely decrease creating a less proportionate ratio of social security beneficiaries to payees" but to say
Is just /r/PanicHistory
[deleted] 10y ago
You can't use niceness to manipulate yourself into pussy.
The basis of our civilization is not about rewarding males with wives. It's about providing a governing body that seeks to provide security to a population so that it can mature without needing to fear for meeting the base survival needs. It's the basis of all forms of human grouping.
Society is only influenced by the structures that are required for meeting needs. In some cultures, that is family structure. In current western cultures, it is more likely economic structure. We do not need to rely on a family unit to survive and thrive as long as we have a strong economic backbone to allow individual survival. Also, what the fuck does any of this have to do with liberals? Blaming political groups is unobjective, baseless, and ignorant. TRP goes beyond politics to understanding human social behavior, which is not bounded by political ideology.
MartialWay 10y ago
Read the sidebar (The Misandry Bubble piece). This was actually was a major feature of the civilizations that actually created the amazing modern world we enjoy today. Cultures that didn't provide wives to the productive members of society were brutally outcompeted by those that did.
Wrong. The family unit is creating the productive people, the system is looting and exploiting them. Don't confuse extortion of productive people with actual production of wealth. Do you know what Family Court does? Essentially assigning a 60% tax rate tax rate to your most productive people is not the most effective thing a society can do to encourage them to create more wealth
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
Naturally Beta men are forced to act like "shit heads".
Naturally Alpha men already do.
If the beta men can't act alpha, they are fucked. Either way, the naturally alpha will get laid.
[deleted] 10y ago
I agree with this. Once you simplify your argument to focus on basic needs, it becomes hard to argue against.
However, I fail to see any aspect of our civilization at any point that could be considered "sustainable". There is no utopia, and we must react accordingly as conditions change.
I actually like RP theory for the progression of society because I think many good intentioned men are using the tools they learn here to actually make the world a better place by empowering themselves. I think a lot of the men here will get tired of spinning plates after X number of years and proceed to find the right AB balance to raise a family in the Strong Parent archetype. Their children will then be much better equipped to take their rightful place in society be it as a feminine nurturer or a masculine leader.
Although, there is something about this ideal that really concerns me, which is the actual freedom of self expression. Some men really are born incredibly feminine (flamboyant), and some women incredibly masculine (tomboy, Hillary Clinton). It would be against my belief in both ethics and economics to say that any person should be forced into a role they aren't predisposed to perform. In essence, I think TRP is about unlocking supressed manhood, not about forcing men to act a certain way.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
That would only make sense if our economics were based on needing family for survival. We don't. We are an individualistic society, and the only reason we bother with families is to satisfy a biological desire. In fact, our industrialized economies almost prefer that we don't have families. We would prefer if other countries did the raising of the children and have them sent to us to work whatever manual tasks are required until the plutocracy has all tasks required for survival entirely automated by machine.
Right? I think that's right... it sounds fucked up, but it almost seems like the end goal of the rich is to eliminate the need for the poor entirely.
Edit: I'm not entirely sure about all of this just yet, which is why I'm putting effort into the discussion.
Nicolay77 10y ago
It's like you totally ignore the fact that aging populations are a very serious issue for current governments.
No families means:
No good education. Growing in a Foster Care house doesn't create the same quality adults that growing in a family provides.
No new generations to hold the pensional weight of the current and past generation. This is a very serious problem in Japan, in Canada and other countries.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
rpkarma 10y ago
Correct.
Fucked if I know how we can fix I though. So I guess I'll just enjoy the ride and the free pussy.
Ill_mumble_that 10y ago
We can't. Greed has a snowball effect and there's too much money in "empowering women."
Demonspawn 10y ago
Revolt, Expat, or Turtle. The only way to "fix" this would require removing women's suffrage which would require revolt.
stuckinbathroom 10y ago
Where do you propose going to? I ask as a brown man, raised in America. I would like to live in a country with first-world amenities. Any suggestions?
Demonspawn 10y ago
Best places I've heard are SE Asia (including, for some, China), selected South American countries, and Eastern Bloc Europe.
Ohmyqueef 10y ago
I swear, TRP is on a fucking roll these days with the gold stored within these posts. And, oh look, we hit 70k. Nice!
TheSKSpecial 10y ago
I like how in the comments the women are saying "but you don't want the kind of women that are attracted to Henry", completely ignoring that even that is a step up from what they're getting now.
If I'm dying of starvation, and the only food I have a chance to eat is McDonald's, don't tell me "you shouldn't eat it because it doesn't taste good and it's high in calories". I don't give a fuck about taste or caloric intake at this point, I'm starving, motherfucker.
Silverbacked 10y ago
I generally try and stay above a lot of the bitterness and anger in TRP but Christ this takes me to a bad place.
exit_sandman 10y ago
I concur.
I'm just fortunate that I wasn't aware of the Nice Guy-hate on the internet before, because internalizing the feminist narrative (be respectful of her boundaries, her choices etc.; women can decide for themselves and hate if you intrude into their comfort zone; intelligence and kindness is super-important; be sensitive; identify yourself with the feminine etc.) due to constant exposure all my life and then being told that you're a rapist in sheep's clothes because you dare to resent your incel status might have driven me over the edge.
Silverbacked 10y ago
I feel you, man. On my old account, one of my most upvoted comments was on SRS :\
HobKing 10y ago
This should be in the sidebar.
DexiAntoniu 10y ago
These guys are spot on!
One thing though, they have yet to realize that it's just how things work and there's nothing we can do, they're still in their anger phase, and you can't change women.
It is ultimately our fault, men's. We should've (should) educate our boys better.
We should be a little more spartan with our boys. Sports from young age. Socratic teaching.
Men forgot to be both Henry and Scott. This is the only way that balance can be restored, we must be balance.
[deleted] 10y ago
Being both doesn't work either. Women don't know what to do with a well balanced alpha. They literally self-destruct.
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
I think that every man needs to get into a physical fight at one point in their life or another. It shocks me to meet men who've never engaged in a physical confrontation in their lives.
I also don't trust people who don't drink (unless they abstain due to prior problems w/alcohol). I won't do business with a teetotaler.
[deleted] 10y ago
The fucking estrogen in alcohol will fuck up my muscle mass. You trying to kill precious gains faggot? No way in hell am i drinking alcohol.
widec 10y ago
I've been in a few fights around my middle school years. I used to think I was a skinny weakling, until the first time I brought a guy to the floor with one punch. I still thought I was skinny, just no weakling.
It's interesting to see the dynamics behind a male fight. Females seem to have a hard time understanding it, but all my fights came down to a power play in retrospect, not in self defence. The interesting part is, after I kick a guy's ass, typically we become buddies afterwards. The whole power dynamic shifts and they garner a lot more respect for me. At least this is how it was back when I was in grade school, people aren't so quick to try and physically push me around in the real world.
[deleted] 10y ago
I got in fights growing up. South side of Chicago shit with GDs, small time gangbangers, connected people, dropouts, etc. I look back and see what an absolute idiot I was. Violence is unpredictable. There may not always be someone stronger than you out there. There may not always be a better fighter. But there will always be another nigger with his crew ready to pull a gun for the stupidest shit. My last fight ever was with some skinny ass 5'2 jerk who fucked up my car. I beat his ass. He got his 6'4 boxer friend. He beat my ass and I'm lucky I didn't suffer permanent brain damage. I've had other friends in similar situations who've had guns pulled on them. The small kid ended up in juvie. I dunno what happened to the big guy. When I look back on my happy upper middle class life and see how that moment could have gone terribly wrong... I can't condone violence. Too unpredictable. We're more valuable than that. Diffuse that shit with humor if you can and proudly run away if you can't.
[deleted] 10y ago
Lived in Chicago from age 14 to 17. Lived in Andersonville and Rogers park. I was fortunate enough to live those places where gang activity were virtually non existent. Andersonville is just a bunch of gay dudes hooking up. Rodgers park is pretty fucked up but I lived right by Loyola so it was just a bunch of college kids. School was a fuckin disaster though. Damn gangbanger's.
[deleted] 10y ago
These lessons you've learned are exactly why I advocate that young men experience fighting for themselves.
I'd be lying if I said that I won every fight that I was ever in. Like you, I could count a few lucky instances where I could have made out much worse.
However, nobody would deny that you now take situations much more seriously - that you know how to approach things with a level head, and know how words can lead to violence, and how violence can lead to unpredictable outcomes.
A military corollary would be the situation we often see, where untested politicians want to start a fight, while tested veterans are far more cautious and urge restraint first.
Nicolay77 10y ago
Should you become a writer, please write 'For Whom the Bell Tolls' in Spanish instead of Anglicized-Spanish or Spaniarized-English or whatever that is.
Thanks.
[deleted] 10y ago
I'm not following you here; could you please re-phrase?
Nicolay77 10y ago
Your self-description is similar to famous writer Ernest Hemingway.
He fought in the Spanish civil war and the book I mentioned has English words with Spanish grammar, which makes it cringeworthy to read for someone fluent in both languages.
[deleted] 10y ago
Ah; gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
ColdEiric 10y ago
Prior problems are motherfucker. I wish I could drink with friends without witnessing those problems again, when they happened years ago. I have to rationalize the problems away, until I get tipsy.
Care to explain why you won't do business with a teetotaler?
[deleted] 10y ago
Why?
I personally don't drink as a matter of principle because of serious problems that it caused in my family.
However, even if that wasn't the case, I still probably wouldn't drink for the follow reasons;
When I do a cost benefit analysis, it simply doesn't seem worth it to me.
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
Excessive drinking wears down bone enamel. I'm down for a couple beers on the weekend but the way people drink now? Have fun with that, weaklings.
SgtBrutalisk 10y ago
Exactly, and alcohol causes gums to recede, among other things. I will try out exotic drinks (mead) but in general, no thanks.
[deleted] 10y ago
Every single human culture has, in one way or another, discovered alcohol - often independently of each other (in other words, it wasn't discovered in one place and spread from there). There's a clear and obvious place for alcohol in society. Rather than asking why nearly every other culture in the history of mankind uses alcohol, you should ask yourself why you don't.
To respond to your points:
I work out so that I can be fit and enjoy good foods and alcoholic beverages.
dazed111 10y ago
i dont drink because i dont want to drink and i dont like to drink.
vengefully_yours 10y ago
Want to see an overconfident man that lacks capability in many areas and cannot command respect? Find a man who has never been in a fight, never gotten his ass kicked, and has never overcome an adversary. Most of them I knew were taller than 6'2" and people were intimidated by their stature. They never needed to fight, and have an over inflated sense of self because of it. Its not just tall guys, homeschooled kids get this way too, no other kids putting them in their place when they mouth off. Short but popular guys can avoid fights.
I can't remember how many fights I've been in, and I've had over 200 wrestling matches. I know men who managed to never get in an altercation, and they were always the quickest to threaten me. Its amusing, you can see the fear in his eyes, and the bluster is his only defence. They sure get mad when you laugh at them.
[deleted] 10y ago
Very well stated. When I think of the overconfidence you described, a scene from HBO's "The Pacific" comes to mind.
enticingasthatmaybe 10y ago
I played football my whole life and it has nearly the same effect. I can distinguish the differences because I've been in my share of fist fights.
Redpiller456 10y ago
This is why participating in any contact sport, such as boxing, mma, or high impact martial arts is a must for any guy. It's a great confidence booster, gets you in shape, and teaches you how to defend yourself. Imagine getting in a fight with someone and not knowing how to throw a good punch? You'd be fucked.
vengefully_yours 10y ago
Imagine getting in your first fight, that you started, with someone who has years of experience, lots of training, and zero fear when it comes to defending himself. Yeah, you'd be fucked. That's something I like to call 'fucking with the wrong man.'
Chicago1871 10y ago
Or as I like to call them....white belts...in jiujutsu.
I don't even go for subs on them, I make them so tired, they just tap out of exhaustion.
anonlymouse 10y ago
Unless you're really in the top 0.01% of fighting ability, if you've been in fights, you know you might lose, and you're not going to provoke it.
vengefully_yours 10y ago
Even if you are in the top 1%, you know you can kick most guys asses easily, thus you have nothing to prove. Its the untested wannabes who start shit trying to impress their friends or themselves.
humankin 10y ago
It's the male sort of shit test: we want our worth as men to be judged by other men. It's part of attaining manhood that we understand ourselves as others see us.
vengefully_yours 10y ago
Sometimes, but when you have been tested and have earned respect, you don't want to have to prove it all the time. What you're saying fits the fast street car world. Its fun to go prove you're the fastest in your area, and people are constantly working towards beating your car, and if someone is faster than your ride you improve it until they aren't faster.
That's quite different from physical combat/fighting, you can be good friends and race all the time, nobody gets hurt. Someone who can severely injure most people knows it, and unless its an actual challenge he won't bother. Same with cars, I can tell if someone's pos isn't worth the risk to my license, vehicle, and life, so why would I race a Kia or Prius in my 11 daily driver second street toy? The benefit doesn't outweigh the risk, ie nothing to prove as its already known.
anonlymouse 10y ago
For the most part, sure, but then you have guys like Melvin Guillard, Charles Bennet, Badr Hari, and War Machine. They know how good they are and they choose to use it. Guys who have their personality but aren't quite as good as them know from getting beat up in sparring that they still might lose.
vengefully_yours 10y ago
There is a rather large difference between competing with other trained men, and going out to pick fights in bars or some other public place. If you feel a need to prove your manhood in a bar or parking lot, then you are a long way from having the kind of confidence those men you mentioned have.
I doubt they go looking for fights outside sanctioned events.
Its like having a car with 700hp, you know its under your right foot if you ever want it. The kids with low powered slow cars are the ones who are constantly squealing their tires and driving like idiots. They put wings and fart cans on them to make them look fast, but really they are quite slow. Open up that 700hp monster in the wrong place and you will get a lesson on how fast shit goes very wrong. It teaches you respect for the power, something the kid in the 180hp Honda can't comprehend. The man with the big power knows its there, he has nothing to prove in traffic.
Want to see scary stupid? Give that Honda kid a ride with 500hp and 600fts of torque all under 6000rpm. He will wreck it the first time he opens it up unless he is very lucky. You see it with guys who go buy a high powered car but haven't driven anything faster than a minivan. Its the other side of the coin, not knowing what you're fucking with due to inexperience, but being overconfident and doing something stupid.
anonlymouse 10y ago
Whether they're doing it to prove their manhood or for other reasons, they're still picking fights with people way out of their league.
vengefully_yours 10y ago
Precisely. It gets old having them try to provoke me. I usually try to hide my arms, it cuts down on that crap. They still do it apparently thinking I'm just some old fat guy. As long as they don't take a swing, they are safe and can feel whatever they want as I chuckle and walk off. I've never had another well trained man start shit with me, its always the scrubs.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
erwgv3g34 10y ago
Try this.
anonlymouse 10y ago
Zing!
This guy is great. Why haven't I seen him linked here before?
erwgv3g34 10y ago
His best posts on gender dynamics are actually at his old blog. They're the Meditations.
E-o_o-3 10y ago
You know, if you're going to link Scott's work to /r/theredpill, I feel the need to also mention that in actual practice Scott is basically a sex-positive egalitarian polyamorist Bay Area nerdy type who happens to be in a happy relationship with a female-bodied person who identifies "zirself" using non-gendered pronouns.
Scott is scary smart and I agree with nearly everything he says. He's sort of defending TRP at the moment so naturally it's really seductive ... but when you take a step back and look at him as a greater whole, there is not a trace of Dark Triad in him and he ultimately doesn't really buy into the notion that you should be like Henry. He wouldn't really identify with TRP's morality and politics, perhaps aside from how he shares contempt for the more ridiculous aspects of feminism and sympathy for the more reasonable men's rights issues.
And as you can see, those life choices are not simply because he doesn't understand TRP principles, or is too afraid to acknowledge the truth, or "hamstering" or whatever. He writes about Reactionary and Dark Enlightenment thought because he finds these movements interesting and illuminating for the seeds of doubt they plant and for those parts that they do get right. I'd go so far as to say that this article is proof enough that he understands TRP and reaction in general more than 99% of people on this subreddit, down to the scientific citations. And he still doesn't really accept it or incorporate it into his life.
I think that implies something important about the correctness of it all - it's not a proof, but it's a hint. It would certainly be enough to make me doubt, if I was a TRP adherent, that someone understood my point of view so incredibly well but still ultimately rejected it. Just something to think about.
[deleted]
dropit_reborn 10y ago
One thing I like about Scott is that he really does try to steelman things that he disagrees with. I had some minor quibbles with his anti-Reaction FAQ, but I could tell he was smart and had done his homework.
Our political discourse has become so polarized that the most common approach so far has been a no-holds-barred delegitimization of the opposition. It's not "You're not entitled to your own facts," it's "If it's coming out of your mouth, by definition it is not true." Feminism and the manosphere don't have different opinions about the same facts, they don't even share the same facts.
TRP has a lot of bullshit. But it also has a lot of truth that the rest of the world has apparently chosen to ignore with its fingers in its ears. I think if posters pay attention to the title and pursue truth over everything, including sex, then they'll be alright.
humankin 10y ago
Note that he didn't write that: his girlfriend did. I too had some quibbles and was surprised it wasn't as rock solid as his usual stuff. She's clearly well above average but ultimately she fell to the shaming-language-means-I'm-right trap of seemingly all SJWs and their ilk. It was... disappointing.
Yep. I treat TRP as a place with high signal-to-noise ratio for true beliefs about how people work, especially w.r.t. sexuality. It's not a 1:0 ratio of true:false beliefs. What really throws people off is that the noise is more crass and incensing than the noise most places... but one can learn to filter out any kind of noise.
E-o_o-3 10y ago
You're mistaken - the text you are referring to is not the anti-reaction faq. This is the anti-reaction faq. (Neo)Reaction is broader than TRP.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
E-o_o-3 10y ago
I'm not certain, but I'm actually pretty sure he has other partners besides Ozy. she's (Ze's? how do possessives work...) just the one he spends the most time with. And you know, there's "oneitis", and then there is actually finding that 1% of the population that you really click with. Ozy's fairly smart, psychologically similar to him, and Scott's preferences are unlikely to be similar to yours.
humankin 10y ago
Do you have specific reasons to think he shouldn't stay with Ozy? I don't know much about her but this:
Good: Way more rational than most people. Probably the hottest woman that's shown an interest in Scott.
Bad: Some kind of SJW even if she's at least one standard deviation more open-minded than SJWs in general. Genderqueer, or at least claims to be.
I don't know enough about her personality to judge her character. She could just be one of those girls that found feminism too young.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
[deleted]
humankin 10y ago
Ah. Sounds like she's attractive enough to some people but also crazy and open relationshipful and.. well. She carves out the best world for herself but that's probably not the best world for Scott.
DazPatrick 10y ago
Masculinity might as well be illegal
erwgv3g34 10y ago
Make sure to read Steve Johnson and DrBeat over in the comment section; those guys know what they're talking about! Some highlights:
trpcounselor 10y ago
I've made it to the few men club I suppose. The shit gets old, I don't even bother asking details to find out if they're lying or telling the truth. I just know they're lying. I guess I stopped giving a shit
enticingasthatmaybe 10y ago
There comes a moment of clarity when a woman answers a call from her husband while on a beach trip with you that she paid for in full.
We all know men do the same shit, but at least we don't try to pretend we don't.
renzy77 10y ago
Who is Steve Johnson and where can I find his blog? His comments are spot-on.
Here's his last one on why Betas ("Scott") are important, and why women's preference for dark-triad alphas ("Henry") destabilizes society:
exit_sandman 10y ago
Yup, this is the key here. As I've mentioned someplace else, I know several guys who didn't get laid or relationships until they were "made men", so to speak; while they probably would have been married in their early 20s instead of having to put up with 5-10 year long dryspells which ate away the years of their prime.
It's also like someone else has written in the comments:
The result is that these "bad boys" not only have a headstart in experience gathering when it comes to pulling women of at least several years, they're also more willing to act on it. I mean, my social circle consisted mostly of guys with a higher level of education except for one dude. He wasn't the best looking or most successful of us, he didn't lose his virginity particularly early or was a natural redpiller (in fact, in the relationships he had, he made so many bluepill mistakes that I've already written extensive posts about his romantic endeavors as an example to what to avoid doing). Yet he got more tail than any of us because he was willing to be in it "just for the sex" and didn't bother about the consequences. Why? Because he was unburdened by all that sociointellectual highbrow shit that imbued most others from an early age of how to behave.
erwgv3g34 10y ago
If you like Steve Johnson, you will love James A. Donald.
http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-ancestral-environment-of-females/
http://blog.jim.com/economics/the-cause-of-population-decline/
http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-anti-anti-reactionary-faq-sluts/
http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-false-life-plan/
http://blog.jim.com/culture/fertility/
tenpointsix 10y ago
If you want fun game-theoretic analysis of civilization, you could do worse than to start with nydwracu's series Status and Civilization:
http://nydwracu.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/status-and-civilization/
http://nydwracu.wordpress.com/2014/05/17/status-and-civilization-part-2/
http://nydwracu.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/status-and-civilization-part-3/
anonlymouse 10y ago
I agree with this, but I'm also curious if there's an example where it isn't actually wrong to some degree, primarily because I'm more interested in the truth than anything else, but also because it's that much of a stronger argument to say feminism is wrong about everything except this one case. (Comparable example, in counting the ways feminism has helped men, the only way it actually has is the sexual revolution has made sex more accessible to some men.)
zyk0s 10y ago
The assertion that feminism is wrong 100% of the time is not, and cannot be true. First, feminism itself has internal conflicts and diverges in opinion (mostly because of the sheer contradictions between its core tenets), and when those differences are strictly mutually exclusive, you know that one must be "right" and the other "wrong". And that's assuming these areas do have a correct stance, there is a whole realm of propositions where it is impossible to determine what is true and what isn't.
What you can say is that the core tenets of feminism are based on flawed assumptions (mainly the psychological equality between the sexes and the concept of female oppression), so it's really not useful to even find areas where they could be right, since they would have found this truth by accident.
TDCRedPill 10y ago
| First, feminism itself has internal conflicts and diverges in opinion (mostly because of the sheer contradictions between its core tenets), and when those differences are strictly mutually exclusive, you know that one must be "right" and the other "wrong". And that's assuming these areas do have a correct stance, there is a whole realm of propositions where it is impossible to determine what is true and what isn't.
If the core tenant has contradictions, yea, that's exactly what it means. Logical term is 'explosion' IIRC.
anonlymouse 10y ago
They can both be wrong. All we know when they're mutually exclusive is that at least one of them is wrong.
zyk0s 10y ago
Yes, you are right, I meant to say "complementary". As in, if the domain of possibilities is D, some feminists propose S and some D-S, then one of them would need to contain correctness.
anonlymouse 10y ago
In that case, if it's impossible for feminists to not have been right at least once, it shouldn't be hard to find an example of when they were.
JohnPeel 10y ago
I think it's more of a case of monkeys and typewriters to be perfectly honest :p
zyk0s 10y ago
They can be right for the wrong reasons. Let's take an easy one, feminists' take on prostitution. Sex positive ones will say women can make their own choices, and prostitution should be legalized to provide protections for women. The opposite camp will say all sex work is exploitation and should not be allowed. Both of them still believe that men are evil and women must be protected from them, but one of them is essentially "right" about whether or not prostitution should be legalized.
anonlymouse 10y ago
Unless they specifically say it should be legal to buy sex as well as to sell sex, they're still wrong. Are there any feminists who go all the way and say that?
CornyHoosier 10y ago
This guy hit the nail on the head in one particular sentence. It was when he posed the question about "Henry".
The over-whelming majority of men do NOT feel entitled to a woman or a woman's body. The issue the average nice guy is when they ask themselves why someone who has kept their nose clean, got a good education education, got a good career, volunteer to help others, etc. are losing in the relationship-world to the guys like Henry who have 5 ex-wives, have beaten them all up and cheated on them all.
Once they realize they need to clean up, gain some confidence, start leading & stop apologizing, then women will respect them more and are then more open to relationships/sex.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
CornyHoosier 10y ago
I disagree. I don't think one person has a right to someones body without the other person's permission.
F9R 10y ago
This is exactly it. Of course men understand that they're not entitled to a women. It's just that, since women do date men, they feel like should be able to get in on the action. This is delusional, of course, but it's also supported by bullshit Disney rhetoric.
"Just wait and be yourself, you'll find the Right Girl^TM sooner or later ^after ^she's ^done ^riding ^the ^cock ^carousel."
rcglinsk 10y ago
That's one of my favorite things I've ever read on the internet.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
Redpiller456 10y ago
This is the AF/BB dichotomy.
Some women won't chase AF, but that is probably more a consequence of circumstance. At an early age, these women weren't that attractive and didn't garner the much desired attention that attractive men gave to attractive girls, so they learned to develop a personality. Some younger unattractive women turned out to be attractive women as they aged 18-24, but the mental conditioning had already set into place, which makes them more reluctant to chase AF than your typical slut who was always attractive and received attention from men.
Don't go for an older woman that was forced to settle. They will have jumped on the cock carousel for years and only at the point where they can no longer get away with it do their "priorities change" and become interested in a stable relationship. Who wants some old used up woman that would have ignored you during their 20s? What a consolation prize. And if you're a "nice guy" that type of woman is a wolf in sheep's clothing. First of all, you'll probably be lied to about her sexual history. She is probably selfish from her years of riding alpha cock and won't provide you with affection/intimacy. She probably won't find you physically attractive because you will always be compared to the 50 other stallions that she fucked during her 20s. She is probably more likely to cheat on you if she lucks out and finds a more alpha guy than you because she sure as hell isn't sticking around for your "nice" pushover personality. Overall, she is what you would call an alpha widow. And alpha widows don't make for good relationship/wife material.
The modern dream is to find an attractive girl that has family values, didn't slut up her 20s, and will treat you with respect. It's increasingly difficult to find that in America these days (and around the world, but some countries are still better than others for positive mainstream views of relationships). I can tell anyone here from experience that people's core values don't generally change all that much past a certain age. If a girl was raised a certain way and adhered to that lifestyle for 25 years (social conditioning and positive reinforcement from friends and family), no amount of slut culture is going change that. Strong social programming is difficult to shake. That's what you want to look for when you get into relationship/marriage material, not some alpha widow that cunningly slithers into your life and feeds you a bunch of bullshit about how she's just looking for a nice stable relationship. Avoid those women like the plague.
[deleted] 10y ago
Ultimately, women don't really end up growing mentally past the age of ~14-16. They always want "assholes," they just can't get them as they get older. Eventually, their looks start to fade, so they'll settle for a pathetic "nice guy" who thinks he can't do/doesn't deserve any better. Eventually, she wants a provider. Beta bux.
human_bean_ 10y ago
Older women are more interested in nicer guys, because that's all they can get anymore.
Red_King_Rising 10y ago
This is true. I was such a nice guy in high school and college that all of those women with their bastard spawn came crawling back after the wall. They were sad to see me friendzone them and learn of my commitment to confirmed bachelorhood.
yeahweewee 10y ago
dumb bimbos =/= assholes
assholes can be any level of intelligence as can nice guys
ColdEiric 10y ago
Intelligence is one thing. Wisdom is another.