TRP.RED: Home | Blogs - Forums.RED: ALL | TheRedPill | RedPillWomen | AskTRP | thankTRP | OffTopic
Hot New Old TopControversial
Login or Register
318
- Hide Preview | 168 Comments | submitted 2 months ago by whatsthisgarg [Post Locked]

Oh no! TRP heterodoxy! Burn! Burn!

You can't ban me bros. I have the blessing of none other than /u/HumanSockPuppet (not that I guarantee that he agrees with me on this or anything).

 

The phrase at hand has bugged the shit out of me since day one of my reading TRP. I was immediately struck by the obvious contraposition: here we have the most astounding collection of advice about how to become the best man and sexual adventurer you can be, and yet at the same time, there is this massive bolus of downer loser crab bucket stories, encouraging other men to just accept losing.

 

There is an undeniable connotation of learned helplessness about "it's just your turn", and a foolish sadness and resignation to the notion of "your turn" being over. And if you have to remind yourself that "she's not yours" that indicates that you still harbor Blue Pill ideas about the possibility that she could have been.

"She's not yours": first of all, why would you want her to be? Sounds like a hassle. Secondly, you can't own people. (Just go over to TwoX to see how ridiculous this is, you'll see bunch of comments talking about My Rapist… LOL, you can't own a rapist! He can rape anybody he wants!)

"It's just your turn": if you accept this, you have thrown in the towel before the game begins. You're going to let some little girl determine the course and outcome of a sexual encounter, or worse, a relationship.

 

It's not my turn with her, it's her turn with me. I'm the one who lets HER in to my world, not the other way around. It hasn't been just my turn since I was a fucking teenager. If you're older than that and you're still saying not mine just my turn, you have some work to do on making yourself into the man that women want to be with.

That's what the Red Pill is all about. Saying "she's not yours, it's just your turn" is damn near a Rule Zero violation in my opinion.

Discuss.


 

Now here's a different perspective on how stupid this phrase and mindset is, from my man /u/TheReformist94 (not saying he agrees with anything else I wrote).

We were talking about "cheating" and the massive amount of moral faggotry outrage that you see on TRP concerning it.

It's because theyre cucks and havent swallowed the pill. TRP has this little cuck mantra called "she's not yours, just your turn", so, following biology, commonsense and economics, i recall men are polygamous (i.e. if you commit, you are losing your sexual strategy everyday), but she is serial monogamy (she is gaining on her sexual strategy everyday, until she is bored on you and breaks up(cheats and branch swings)).

So by definition, by saying "she is not yours not your turn" you are saying I am a linear cuck because i forsake pussy and allow women to cheat in advance on me.

Second, sexual strategy is amoral, but its only amoral when women cheat, openly brag about open hypergamy, and relish and have no remorse, but when we cheat, its suddenly not amoral, we are meant to be "honest" about whether or not we are spinning plates.

if women can AF:BB in a linear ( socialy acceptable manner), why can we have our cake and eat it too, and have our AF:BB, i.e have a "madonna" as a wife, and cheat with "whores " on the side?

(bold added by me)

Not the most polished articulation, because it was just completely off the cuff, but it's a deep thought that I haven't seen put quite that way by anyone else. It really shows how the phrase is at odds with some TRP fundamentals about male/female sexual strategy.

Discuss.


 

Here are some other ways this stupid phrase is at odds with some TRP fundamentals.

 

1). It displays a lack of outcome independence. There will be predictable disagreement on this, but this is a perfect example of rationalization. It's just your turn, and your turn is over, but you didn't want your turn to be over, and you weren't the one who decided your turn was over. Wah. Cry about it.

Even when this isn't true, some guys badly rewrite their own history according to this loser attitude. Some guy put up a post recently where a woman he was fucking spent time with an orbiter and lied about it (quelle offense, but whatever, it was fake outrage porn anyway). He cut her off but then concluded she wasn't mine it was just my turn and my turn was over. What a goof. Her turn was over. She fucked up and he decided her turn was over, but he handed over the agency to her in retrospect. He controlled the end of the relationship, but told himself she did? It's a dumb mindset.

 

2). It displays a massive lack of abundance mentality. It's just your turn and your turn is over, and now you have to look around and try to find the next one. Just wrong. The mindset should be I'm fucking this one now and I'll be fucking the next one later and none of this shit is the most important thing in my life. Sure as fuck not crying about "it's just my turn."

 

3). It displays an implicit emotional investment in a woman; if you deny that it does, you are in denial of the rueful implication of the phrase. It's the pedestal; it's oneitis. When she's gone she's gone. Who cares. It wouldn't even occur to you that "she wasn't yours it was just your turn."

Discuss.


 

I'm sure I've whipped a bunch of faggots into a froth so let's go further into TRP heterodoxy:

 

1). The gatekeepers model is more bullshit for losers.

This might be statistically true, but TRP is about getting your sorry ass up into the top 20%. When you get there you will find that women will come to you offering both sex AND their own commitment. What they want from you is sex. Commitment is not required, and frequently not consciously desired. Exactly ZERO of my good LTRs featured a what are we? where is this going? exclusivity conversation. In every case she just assumed for her own part, and she didn't need to know or want to know if there were others.

The gatekeepers model is just backwards for the top high quality men. She wants sex from you and for it she offers you exclusivity, because she knows you won't give her quality time if she's fucking other dudes.

 

2). Briffault's Law is also bullshit.

Briffault was not a scientist, and his "law" is not a law by any stretch. It barely qualifies as a general principle.

It doesn't hold for the majority of mammals. The stag fucks what the stag wants to fuck. The Tasmanian devil goes at it so hard they bite each others faces off. There is a lot of violent non-consensual mating going on out there in Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.

It probably does hold for birds, where the female can fly away and not get raped. Also probably holds for most insects, where you have a lot of queens, and a shitload of female cannibals.

But it is not a law if it only describes 80% of male/female encounters. Do you guys know what a law is?

Specifics: The top 20% of men determine the conditions of the interactions; the women want what the men have and the men have options. No benefit for the association, that goes for every fucking encounter with anybody anywhere. Past benefit from a top 20% male is fucking remembered and damn well likely results in future association. No top 20% male gives up a current benefit for a promised future benefit, duh.

Discuss.


 

Stacy's Credo

Stacy: I really like you a lot, right now. Really, I'm crazy about you, right now. You're the best guy I've ever been with.

But there's something you should know about me. My attraction to you will wane over time, slowly or quickly, but will always be in decline, until eventually, or even suddenly, I won't be attracted to you at all.

Me: Who cares? Your loss. I'm still attractive. I didn't get attached to you and I sure as hell didn't invest anything in you. You are imminently, eminently, and immanently replaceable.

 

Discuss those three new words you just learned, and apply that phraseology to every woman you encounter for the rest of your life.


 

tldr: Sexual strategy: the words mean how to win, not how to deal with losing.

[-] Auvergnat 378 Points 2 months ago

As a proponent of that statement, and a defender of TRP orthodoxy, I'll bite.

So if you think "She's not yours; it's just your turn" is bullshit, it means that you believe "She's yours"?

Oh but no! That clashes with your argument that no woman can be yours! Does this mean I have misread your argument? Exactly. So did you.

"She's not yours; it's just your turn" is not meant to be understood as "I believe I am going to lose her". Just like "AWALT" is not meant to be understood as "All women are cheating sluts".

"She's not yours; it's just your turn" is only meant to stress the impermanence of relationships, particularly to the guys who believe in the permanence of relationships due to a lifelong blue pill indoctrination. The point is that a correct belief in the real, impermanent nature of relationships allows one to avoid investing too deeply into any relationship, giving one the anti-needy, ZFG attitude that (in a zen-type twist of events) actually improves your chances of maintaining that relationship, as per Rollo's Cardinal Rule of Relationships.

It's actually quite similar to the buddhist focus on the (very real) impermanence of life, which is just an extremely practical way to keep cool in the face of the inherent suffering in life including the ultimate death, while western onlookers are quick to misinterpret it as some bizarre and unhealthy obsession with the macabre.

The issue is that as with all TRP mantras, and all mantras for that matter, the point of a mantra to simplify a complex idea into a short, easily-remembered statement comes with the trade-off that you lose the very precious unambiguity of the original, full idea, which unfortunately opens up the door for possible misinterpretations.

What you're doing here is simply personally re-interpreting a mantra in a way that contradicts TRP principles and that's why it bothers you so much. You're reading too much, but more importantly too wrongly, in it. It's especially funny in this case because the idea that this mantra is a placeholder for is actually meant to foster outcome independence ("I don't care if that relationship ends since they are all impermanent"), abundance mentality ("The impermanence of any relationship implies the multiplicity of relationships") and a rational detachment from emotional investment, that is exactly the opposite of how you interpreted the mantra.

Now if you think the mantra doesn't reflect the idea properly, you're welcome to propose a better one. That's why some suggest "I'm not hers, it's just her turn". A different mantra to reflect the same idea. Also open to misinterpretations, so maybe this one won't get your panties in a bunch, but it might to someone else. (to start with: it won't help any oneitis-ladden newbie, which the mantra was meant to help).

[-] KeffirLime 87 Points 2 months ago

To add to that, the reason why it's your turn and not hers, is because women don't take turns per se.

Our attraction is multiple, If we find someone better we'll happily horde and fuck them all if we could, whereas a females attraction is singular. She's attracted to the highest value man possible, we "take turns".

You can influence this attraction as much as possible, but never control it. If she finds someone better, her attraction moves to him and she couldn't care shit for you, hence your turn is over.

Female attraction is turn based, male attraction is scattered.

[-] cupshadow 7 Points 2 months ago

What confuses me on this "woman attraction is singular" statement is how come some go to make up with dozen of men in a party, for example. Is this some sort of modern trend?

[-] KeffirLime 48 Points 2 months ago

A women whoring it up at a party is simply an example of a low value female. If every man and his dog have access to her then she's worthless.

I'll explain.

Generally the highest value men have their pick of the women, the women they pick are deemed high value. The women they don't pick would be left as the scraps for the lower value men to feed on.

Hence a women who is exceptionally accessible, gets associated with low value. Partly why men aren't lining up to impregnate hookers and why models are the hardest to bed.

A woman worth anything wouldn't be laying it out for free, she's only giving it out to those that prove themselves to be high status.

[-] nomsgplz 8 Points 2 months ago

If you can give women the sense of assurance that fucking you won't lower her status; either by displaying high status, or by letting her believe that no one would know about her encounter. Then most likely she would fuck you. Why? Women insert dildos and even shampoo bottles inside their vagina to get pleasure. Why they don't want a real cock to get inside them.

My mantra is not to engage in the status war. Just be available to the women and let them know that the only thing you can offer to them is your dick. Don't make sex a big deal, and they won't make it too. And if you are worried that it's just meaningless sex, then you should know that women engage in meaningless sex regularly regardless you are part of it or not. A dick is just a swipe away for them. You sticking to your morals and worrying about status means shit to their vagina

[-] RedForEducation 16 Points 2 months ago

validation seeking men become orbiters in the extreme they become stalkers.

Validation seeking women become clingy plates, and in the extreme they become the party girl who the frat ran train on last week

[-] LOLMUFFINLOL 4 Points 2 months ago

party girl who the frat ran train on last week

Imagine wifing that girl after her brain has been obliterated from a low earth orbit

[-] lux_7 11 Points 2 months ago

Keep in mind that "rules" and theories are full of exceptions.

Reality is too complex for simple schemes.

On average women tend to stick more to one man, but there plenty of women who are more on the prowl than many men and there are plenty of men who will be more than happy to stick to one girl even when they can get many.

[-] LandoChronus 8 Points 2 months ago

She may want to "just have fun" and she might actually in they moment want to be gangbanged by Chad and his lascross team. The day after (or week or month or year after as we've seen) she'll realize the mistake she's made.

Girls want to have fun and "be naughty" so they do things like that but long-term that's not what they desire deep down. A man could fuck 20 girls regularly forever. A girl can keep that up for even close to that time.

[-] good_guy_submitter 11 Points 2 months ago

Male desire is a drug for women. Most are content with indulging in it and having sex. Some take it further by posting nudes online for the world of men to see. Some OD on it by getting gangbanged.

In all cases, they all regret over indulging themselves in it at some point.

How many times has a woman cried rape months after she had consensual sex but realized she regrets it because she's no longer attracted to that man and realizes he got free no-strings sex.

[-] Gigamon2014 5 Points 2 months ago

Interesting comment. I used to partake in the swinging scene and saw my fair share of what were termed "greedy girls", as in women who enjoyed partaking in sex involving multiple partners on the same night. I noticed that said women where either:

  1. Single women who often were dealing with some kind of trauma. Whilst I met plenty of lovely, good people on the scene, it wouldnt take long to learn it was also riddled with those dealing with some form of hypersexuality. Single women often saw their ability to fuck multiple partners as a way to take back control of their sexuality, whilst older participants (who make up the lions share of swingers) were often less likely to display outwardly corrosive personality traits, you often found that younger women were glaringly troubled.
  2. Women in relationships. I think Redpill negates the importance of sexual deviance, and when I say deviance, I dont necessarily mean that negatively. I mean the people who enjoy a number of different kinks or fetishism that involve activities that the vast majority would deem harmful. Just like there are those who enjoy sexual pain, there are those who enjoy sexual degradation or voyeurism. I noticed women who did enjoy getting gangbanged were actually, more often than not, taken and participating in group sex for the express enjoyment of their male partner who, in many cases, was either actively taking part in the gangbang himself.

I think the idea of women "crying rape" is actually overplayed, despite me not particularly caring feminists or their nonsensical ideas on sex. Attraction in a man is not so much a switch as it is a dial, you tend to find women may enjoy partaking in activity with a man of a specific calibre only to then endure public shame which causes her to walk back her approval.

[-] NextBad 1 Point 2 months ago

> I think the idea of women "crying rape" is actually overplayed

It just happen yesterday ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ--HIQdKwM

Do you think this is the only women in the world he did this? or was she just unlucky to get caught on tape, it's under played.

​

[-] greenlittleman 2 Points 2 months ago

As there are LGBT - people with brain which function different from standard, there are also women with male type libido - those who physiologically have scattered type of attraction, they would want to fuck all more or less attractive men. Of course you shouldn't forget about social conditioning - for some people making out means nothing. I've read some guy who did a lot of nightgame have had make outs with 500 women while fucking only about 100 of them - it tells you a lot.

[-] redpillschool 22 Points 2 months ago

Therein lies the issue of debating semantics of an abstraction.

The reality is these cute little phrases are nothing more than mental shortcuts to demonstrate and assist with keeping the correct frame of mind.

[-] RedForEducation 16 Points 2 months ago

Damn, beat me to it.

None of what we use as RP parables are meant to be taken as literal, they are about shifting mental models.

Whether she is yours or not, it's your turn or not is irrelevant, it's about taking your mindset into where it needs to be.

RP is not, and has never been about truth, only utility. If you believe (as my above peer has suggested) in the impermanence of relationships, it prevents you from putting a gun in your mouth when you find out your girl is on "team herself", and not "team us"

I also agree that all these concepts can always use further refinement. How boring would life be if the pithy statements made 6 years ago were the best we could do? Would be pretty arrogant to think we can solve the problems of man in just a year of blogging and Redditing, no?

[-] max_peenor 3 Points 2 months ago

None of what we use as RP parables

Yesterday I posed a long parable with this exact point trying to tie in in numerous RP 101 canon and what do I get? People bitching that I wasn't direct enough. What the hell do we have to do to get the lightbulb on? We tell them directly. They ignore us. We stage sperg-a-thons. They fall for it. We write stories. They bitch about the story telling.

[-] p3n1x 3 Points 2 months ago

Ignore those who complain. You can only help those who want to be helped/changed.

Most people never go to the gym once a friend validates the idea of doing so, "that's good, you should do that"

The majority are going to adventure to the Blood Weeping Virgin Mary statue and bitch about everything until it is their miraculous miracle turn (and deeply believe they are entitled to one). Deluded by strong group suggestion of 'naysayers'. Willfully annoyed men gain acceptance by one-upping the other annoyeds'.

[-] DancesWithPugs 1 Point 2 months ago

It's great that a lot of people get the nuance and deeper interpretations. However, newcomers and (some of the gentlemen most in need of help) might read the phrases more literally and miss the point.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point 2 months ago

If they are too stupid to get it after all roadmap that has been given to them, then nothing we do will change that.

some people are just destined to be a fuck up. I'd rather spend the effort on a guy who isn't a fucking moron.

[-] TheImpossible1 15 Points 2 months ago

Wait, it doesn't mean all women are cheating sluts?

I always thought it meant something like, all women will fuck you over if given half a chance to do it to benefit themselves or Team Women.

[-] DownvoteToDisagree 47 Points 2 months ago

It's the "treat all guns like they are loaded" rule. You take precautions as if the worst case is possible to protect yourself from catastrophe.

[-] Auvergnat 5 Points 2 months ago

In short, AWALT simply means "there are no unicorns" and used as a reminder to people who think they found a "different one" and think they can lower their guard.

It's not meant to say they all do a specific thing, which is blatantly wrong. Even in your example, you'll find a lot of women who would not necessarily fuck you over "given half the chance".

Don't you find it strange how, given a divorce rate of 50%, guys still get married without getting a prenup? That's because guys are easily under the charm of women and are quick to think that they found one that is "special". AWALT is only meant to be a reminder that this is not the case. That your inability to see any red flags right now does not insure you she's not going to behave in a typical woman way at a later point.

[-] fanfanye 2 Points 2 months ago

I always took it as impermanence, and for you to develop abundance mentality

It could be her cheating, she may be bored of you, she may even be a lying golddigger.

Or it can be as innocent as incompatibility.

She could be a unicorn, but if she wants to go, no point having oneitis. She never was yours anyway, its just your turn.

[-] besee23 13 Points 2 months ago

“She could even be a unicorn”

lol. Is this even trp anymore

[-] fanfanye 12 Points 2 months ago

Thats my point.

The most perfectest women in the world could exist.

And still shes not yours

[-] buttgoogler 6 Points 2 months ago

Shroedinger's woman.

[-] LOLMUFFINLOL 1 Point 2 months ago

no because the most perfect woman would never divorce me.

[-] TheImpossible1 3 Points 2 months ago

I wouldn't know, I only came here when this place got quarantined.

[-] TheImpossible1 3 Points 2 months ago

I don't think the unicorn of a good woman exists.

[-] fanfanye 7 Points 2 months ago

Which is irrelevant to my point.

Which is a loyal woman who doesnt cheat, doesnt branch swing, and is just perfect in every way.

Is still not yours. And thus not worth spending your time fussing around

[-] Feelinggood702 15 Points 2 months ago

“... comes with the trade-off that you lose the very precious unambiguity of the original, full idea, which unfortunately opens up the door for possible misinterpretations.”

Absolutely love that statement! I guess it’s a matter of not losing the forest for the trees and understanding the full context of the tidbits of information that you are initially given.

I guess you get to the point of outcome independence by making mistakes, going through the fire, and being aware enough that what you’ve initially done was not for your own best benefit; and thus you learn.

[-] RedForEducation 9 Points 2 months ago

Understanding subtext, parable and ambiguity is a key skill modern men need. Once someone 'gets it' here with our very easy to discern examples, they are much better positioned to handle the same manipulative strategies from women.

After all, if you can't understand the your turn analogy for what it is, how the fuck will you be expected to understand what "I love you but I'm not in love with you" means?

[-] Feelinggood702 -1 Point 2 months ago

I don’t think that TRP ideas per say have some intrinsic, hidden truth underneath. Ultimately, things are simply as they are. However, the ideas can be applied by heavily indoctrinated men, or rather men who do not know themselves well enough to get started on their process of growth. Ultimately, these ideas must be tested to see their truth, and eventually thrown away as you see things for yourself, not because you’re holding on to a certain idea as if it were a religious ideation.

[-] p3n1x 2 Points 2 months ago

I don’t think that TRP ideas per say have some intrinsic, hidden truth underneath.

You mean the "truths" that are indoctrinated away?

Sometimes you have to wash your brain with a different detergent and hope you land in the middle.

If you take TRP to the cult level, yeah, you are fucked. If you listen to the "experience of altruistic sages", you DO NOT have to learn everything the hard way.

There is no need to be "willfully thick" for the sake of your own fantasy/path. We aren't the snowflakes we want to be.

[-] winner_lahmacun 13 Points 2 months ago

I feel like his reinterpretation of the mantra has some merit. ''She is not yours, it's just your turn.'' by its wording sounds like women are the superior power in the relationship when the mantra actually suggest the opposite. I'd say ''You are not hers, it's just her turn.'' is a more powerful way of communicating the mantra, because it has a more empowering vibe compared to the original. And I believe the wording of these mantras is very important since they also communicate the energy and empowerment with the reciever.

[-] Feelinggood702 1 Point 2 months ago

Depends how you look at it. Wording isn’t necessarily what forms your ideas about something but how you feel towards the idea itself.

[-] Metalgear222 9 Points 2 months ago

Literally all the points I was going to make. Thanks for the well-thought out response.

[-] Wolveryn 6 Points 2 months ago

Oh thank gawd you wrote that, better articulated than I was gonna crack at it.

I agree, OP misses the point of the quote entirely, I think the quote quite simply aims to re-frame female hypergamy in a way that helps the man play his hands more strategically. Its not some cuck/beta/loser mantra... Its just helping guys frame their mind to put themselves on the pedastal instead of the pussy.

[-] atticusfinch1973 5 Points 2 months ago

This is and should be the main post.

[-] yumyumgivemesome 2 Points 2 months ago

Upvotes to you and OP for an excellent topic and discussion.

[-] Irtotallynotrobot 2 Points 2 months ago

Woof, eloquent and hard hitting. Thanks for this.

[-] dani098 2 Points 2 months ago

She is mine till I get done with her

[-] Shankar_ 1 Point 2 months ago

"I'm not hers, it's just her turn"

Ooooh... I love this one. Much more powerful.

[-] DubbleFUPAwitCheez 1 Point 2 months ago

Nicely said. I too have a problem with the mantra itself, it sounded defeatist, possibly even feminine to me. Your bringing up AWALT is a great example for me because as possibly THE MOST repeated phrase around here I have been able to successfully attach it to the more nuanced ideas and understand it more fully. To the point that when a newcomer asks what it means I know it's not to tell them "all women are cheating sluts".

My personal interpretation for She's not yours... was "when she's gone, she's gone." It encapsulates the other mantra but also alludes to one of the truths of women and their love. When their love is gone there is no going back. A woman fallen out of love with you will treat you with the same contempt as she would an incel. Your jokes aren't funny, you aren't good looking, you're stupid and your dick is small but a woman that loves you thinks the exact opposite, in essence she is yours. But when she's gone she's gone for good.

[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] AshyLarry27 1 Point 2 months ago

The issue is that as with all TRP mantras, and all mantras for that matter, the point of a mantra to simplify a complex idea into a short, easily-remembered statement

comes with the trade-off that you lose the very precious unambiguity of the original, full idea, which unfortunately opens up the door for possible misinterpretations.

NAILED IT!

The biggest issues I have with some of these posts are how people take these mantras and try and re-invent the wheel by acting as if the wheel was actually some other shape and served some other purpose. No it's a fucking wheel. Then incels come and high-jack the mantra to "prove" how vile women are and how pussy is just something they will never get

[-] whatsthisgarg 1 Point 2 months ago

Words don't mean things. People use words to mean things. And the way the phrase is used does not foster outcome independence or abundance mentality, and it does not discourage emotional investment.

The way the phrase is used does the opposite of its original meaning. Do you not know what irony is?

[-] itiswr1tten 10 Points 2 months ago

Extremes without rational middle ground are the most effective way to unplug the audience. If AWALT, then it's easier to act the right way and eventually learn the nuance. If she's not yours it's your turn that a good way to learn the basic principles like abundance etc.

You're going out of your way to miss the the point.

The guys who don't learn on their own why the doctrine leaves room for interpretation would not have gotten there in the first place.

[-] DancesWithPugs 2 Points 2 months ago

The just your turn phrase doesn't sound abundant to me, just defeatist. Same with AWALT. If anything those words reinforce anxieties.

[-] Auvergnat 8 Points 2 months ago

I had not noticed that this specific sentence was misunderstood but I do recognise this pattern on many of TRP's other mantras and totally deplore it. "AWALT" is too often used as a basic insult. "Spinning plates" has lost its original meaning, which was infinitely more useful than its current one. "Frame" was completely denatured. "Alpha/Beta" was never agreed upon.

I fully blame the choice of the reddit platform for this because it allows newbies exposure that they do not deserve yet, resulting in a very rapid and often undesirable change of the "orthodoxy", compared to blogs, where the author gets to reset/correct the record with every post.

IMO everbody here should spend just as much time reading the rest of the Manosphere blogs, and particularly the archives, as they do this subreddit, so that they can learn from the masters, rather than fellow students. In practice, few do. Heartiste, Dalrock, Rational Male, IllimitableMen

[-] whatsthisgarg 0 Points 2 months ago

I had not noticed that this specific sentence was misunderstood but I do recognise this pattern on many of TRP's other mantras and totally deplore it. "AWALT" is too often used as a basic insult. "Spinning plates" has lost its original meaning, which was infinitely more useful than its current one. "Frame" was completely denatured. "Alpha/Beta" was never agreed upon.

I fully blame the choice of the reddit platform for this because it allows newbies exposure that they do not deserve yet, resulting in a very rapid and often undesirable change of the "orthodoxy"

1000% agree, and that's EXACTLY what I was going for in the post.

[-] broek_325 108 Points 2 months ago

Post is bullshit. The term “she’s not yours, it’s just your turn” is a simple truth. There’s no deep hidden meaning to it, there’s no cuck mantra, it’s just a simple way to let blue pill men grasp that you don’t own women and you can’t control what they do, so stop trying.

If she stays, she stays, if she leaves, she leaves.

Nothing cuckish about that. Nothing defeatist about it.

[-] thewrecker8 19 Points 2 months ago

Agree. My take on the saying is it has to do with your "little oneitis princess who isn't like all the other girls". That literally every male has had or some continue to have at some point.

Any guy who has ever his heart broken, the carpet pulled out from underneath him, or his heart tossed in a blender and hit the liquefy button. After they realize "their" gf or wife who they thought was the most special creature on the planet. Just told some other dude she wanted daddy to cum in her mouth. Then she went home to kiss her bf or husband goodnight. May or may not, but should come to the realization that "she's not yours, it's just your turn". Just like it was the other dudes turn to bust in her mouth. You're not special and neither is she.

It's like a ride at an adventure park. It's fun, it gets your heart rate up and you'll tell people how awesome it was. But when it comes to a stop you exit the ride and someone else is going to hop in your seat. While it's your turn to fuck her, enjoy it for as long as it lasts. Just don't cling to the idea that you're going to be the only one fucking her for as long as you're heart desires. More than likely that time will come to an end either by your decision or hers.

[-] alphabachelor 9 Points 2 months ago

Exactly.

Some men can’t put aside their ego and accept reality.

Embrace abundance and invest in yourself. Her loss if she leaves.

[-] BewareTheOldMan 2 Points 2 months ago

Embrace abundance and invest in yourself. Her loss if she leaves.

​

A loss that many women realize, but years later find difficult to embrace upon significant post-decline in SMV AFTER they let the good guy get out of their sight in favor of Chasing Chad.

[-] alphabachelor 2 Points 2 months ago

That’s her problem, not ours.

[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] redpillcad 33 Points 2 months ago

This was painful to read. Came across autistic. Icing on the cake saying HumanSockPuppet likes me! Cringeworthy

TRP is a toolbox. If you dont like one of the many many tools, then dont use it.

Many men have issues with ego and posessiveness and this simple phrase kick starts the non needy attitude required to succeed.

And OP wrote a manifesto about why it's wrong. Instead he could have just ignored it and focused on the 9000 other pieces of advice the community has shared.

Its obvious the kid wants to seek attention because if someone actually found a tenet of TRP that was confusing or contradictory he would first asktrp. Or PPD.

[-] MattyAnon 30 Points 2 months ago

You can't ban me bros

Dude ... please lose the ego. You are not protected from god almighty irrespective of the value of your posts.

There is an undeniable connotation of learned helplessness about "it's just your turn"

It's realistic. Saying "she's not yours, it's just your turn" is a concise way to prevent men from overinvesting in "this one special girl". It's there to prevent oneitis. It reminds us that we are not the first in her life and won't be the last. It tells us that she is not ours, we do not own her, and the relationship itself is transient. It tells us that when it is over we'll get nothing else out of the relationship. Our turn is over.

The phrase is an essential part of the early stages of unplugging. It's the right approach to relationships, it's a factually accurate way of looking at things rather than BP delusion that causes men to overinvest to their own detriment.

It's the antidote.

I'm the one who lets HER in to my world, not the other way around. It

Yeah, be the prize. Agreed here. But saying to yourself "it's her turn with me" doesn't magically cure your oneitis as quickly as the stock phrase. The stock phrase reminds you that you're not the first dick in her and won't be the last.

So by definition, by saying "she is not yours not your turn" you
are saying I am a linear cuck because i forsake pussy and allow
women to cheat in advance on me.

The whole "linear cuck" and serial dating is simply the reality of modern life with women. There are no attractive virgins over the age of 16, you won't be her last. Serial dating is unavoidable, and it's a miserable life for men who commit to women: male commitment being "together until she decides otherwise".

"She's not yours it's just your turn" neatly expresses the reality of modern dating - and I like it. It's a fuck tonne better than "marry the virgin sweetheart you went to school with and enjoy a dead bedroom for the rest of your natural life".

The people who hate it are the people who are crying they don't have the myth of the 1950's happy marriage. Here's a clue for you guys: it didn't exist then and it's not coming back. Get used to it.

1). It displays a lack of outcome independence.

No, it displays reality. Outcome independence logically comes next: "She's not mine, I will learn to expect this to be over, so I'd better line up some other options".

The gatekeepers model is more bullshit for losers.

Yeah, I don't like the "women are gatekeepers of sex, men of commitment" model either. It's trying to make a symmetrical model of male-female exclusive interactions based on the equality myth, and it's complete rubbish.

If you're a top 5% guy, you get to be the gatekeeper of everything. She wants sex with you AND your commitment. You're not exchanging commitment for sex, you're calling ALL the shots. If she's lucky she gets to spend time with you. If not, no loss because the other women are doing the same thing with you.

Putting some value on your own sexuality rather than giving it away along with some commitment is a much better approach.

Exchanging commitment for sex is a fundamentally beta proposition.

Being top-whatever-percent and not entering into any bargains or exchanges is the way to command respect and get pussy on your terms.

[-] KeffirLime 5 Points 2 months ago

The way I see it, the gatekeepers model is more so the enabling/disabling of the passage the other primarily wishes to take and less about an equal exchange.

Priorities, and a commentary on power.

Men primarily want to fuck first, commitment secondary, this is no secret to her, hence she gate-keeps passage to her pussy.

She wants his commitment first, sex secondary, this is no secret to him, hence he gate-keeps passage to a relationship.

The one who holds more power simply enforces their imperative, the one with less power generally buckles first in the hope of an exchange, but is certainly not required.

Evaluating the gatekeepers model from this perspective infers where you stand.

[-] p3n1x 1 Point 2 months ago

Interesting algorithm there.

Because any man who has had a higher level of sexual success knows that "sex secondary" doesn't exist because of his influence on women.

Sex Secondary is provider hunting material, she never has that thought with Alpha-dick.

[-] omega_fat 27 Points 2 months ago

You and many others misunnderstand the reason to say it. The idea is not to cry like a bitch once a relationship comes to end, but be stoic and look forward not backwards. Defeatist? More like realistic, hope for the best and be prepared for the worst. Cuck? How the fuck could you be a cuck with a strong mindset like this?

[-] Ananonguy88 20 Points 2 months ago

No system should fall into dogma so it's good to question it occasionally.

I think that this "turn" thing applies more to a specific kind of girls, especially young cc riders, you can always get another round with them if you go for it, but it's still, just a turn and no level of ultrachad can alter that. Also it applies less to post-wall women obviously.

[-] Blackhawk2479 15 Points 2 months ago

It’s realism versus idealism condensed into a memorable phrase for the newbies.

The idealist lifts, builds his wealth, works on his mission, achieves 20% status, becomes the best man he can be and assumes the girl that wants him now will always want him because he’s made it. When a bigger dog comes along and she branch swings he’s not mentally prepared for this and will not react stoically.

The realist on the other hand accepts the impermanence of life and human interaction. He does everything the idealist does but accepts there are things outside of his control and that there is always someone better than him out there. When Stacey’s head is turned he’s okay with it, because he’s not surprised and he’s got plenty of other girls ready to fill her place because he didn’t think he would go through life not needing any others. It’s her loss.

Nothing to do with being a cucked loser, everything to do with mindset and being at peace with how the world works. AWALT.

[-] Nezith 6 Points 2 months ago

I like your examples for the idealist versus the realist. It was easy to understand and made sense, thanks.

[-] DigitalDragonSlayer 10 Points 2 months ago

Oh, not a bad post at all.

I’ve always felt that “she’s not yours, it’s your turn” was a bit too nihilistic in the sense that every turn is temporary/unfulfilling/etc. but a more positive expression (excuse the cheeseness of this) like “I’m not her’s, it’s her turn with me” is better suited, perhaps.

What I am sure about, is that “she’s not yours, it’s just your turn” isn’t an expression that settled well with me when I first read TRP. I think you’ve done a good job in your post digging into the symbolism of that phrase and unearthing the loser mentality inherent within it.

[-] Feelinggood702 7 Points 2 months ago

As Tyler from RSD once said, “The most engaged but least attached wins.” I guess it means that what you’re experiencing in terms of sexual relationships doesn’t have to be unfulfilling in order for you to not be attached to it. In other words, you can fully appreciate the moments as they come along simply for what they are and once it’s over, you’re not longing for it.

[-] UseForThrowAwayStuff 1 Point 2 months ago

is there a source with context? thats a great new quote to me.

[-] Feelinggood702 1 Point 2 months ago

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cWaDDCjuM0w

[-] UseForThrowAwayStuff 1 Point 2 months ago

not the chad i was expecting to see

[-] DigitalDragonSlayer 1 Point 2 months ago

Kinda requires a bit of rewiring, or at least changing one’s relationship with expectations, right?

[-] askmrcia 9 Points 2 months ago

Post like these is when this sub annoys the hell out of me.

You take a phrase completely out of context, take it too literal and interpret it to however you want to interpret it.

I never looked at "she's not yours it's just your turn" as me saying I own a woman. Like wtf? You pulled that out of your ass just so you can start a flame war on here.

Let's not stop there. The rest of your post comes across ridiculous as well.

"I am the prize. I'm god. I'm so godly that I choose what women I allow in my life. It's her turn to be with me."

Like get over yourself. This is typical keyboard warrior shit.

[-] DullIntroduction 8 Points 2 months ago

Replace "losers" by "newbies" and it makes sense. The "She's not yours", and many other easy to use slogans should be viewed as a way to unlearn your previous conditioning, however there's no point to replace one with another.

Ultimately, we set the rules in our relationships, we need to think for ourselves.

I admit you made me realize that the gatekeeper part is particularily true for me. I'm in a LTR for 3 years, I'm also still spinning plates, she's aware of that, yet she never denied me sex, and makes efforts to commit. If it ended right now, I'd be bummed for her to make all those efforts for nothing.

[-] Run_Che 3 Points 2 months ago

Was going to write this. While op does make a solid point, the 'shes not yours its just your turn' is catchy and helps with newcomers that have issues with oneitis and understanding woman hypergamy.

[-] ImTooCozy 8 Points 2 months ago

There’s plenty of women out there that will take a bullet for you and have your back for the rest of your life. This is what’s key: she wasn’t raised in a broken family, she has a good relationship with her father, she understands masculine/feminine balance, she puts family as her highest value.

Most women out there are completely messed up and flakey. When you find the right woman it frees up an incredible amount of mental bandwidth bc instead of thinking of fucking new chicks, you can focus on your purpose in life, making money, and strengthening your family, which are the things that really matter.

[-] TheImpossible1 3 Points 2 months ago

woman would take a bullet for you

Good joke. She'd let you die and fuck the guy next to your corpse to save her own life.

[-] heartbroken_nerd 2 Points 2 months ago

On the flip side, she might shed a tear or two inbetween her moans, so there is that!

[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] MentORPHEUS 7 Points 2 months ago

u/auvergnat broke this down well. I'm going to comment on this:

Oh no! TRP heterodoxy! Burn! Burn!

You can't ban me bros. I have the blessing of none other than /u/HumanSockPuppet (not that I guarantee that he agrees with me on this or anything).

An edgy challenge and namedropping an EC like he's a Kardashian suggested a poor article was to follow, and it lived up to this initial impression.

[-] Zech4riah 6 Points 2 months ago

You really have to be a bit delusional if a girl leaves and you turn it upside down "It was her turn and I ended it".

Additionally you can execute male sexual strategy honestly if you work your way into open LTR.

[-] HumanSockPuppet 6 Points 2 months ago

You didn't need my blessing to post an article. I encourage anyone with an on-topic idea to post it and get discussion brewing.

And I'm glad you brought up this subject in particular, because it has gotten the people in this community to actually examine their own interpretations of this commonly-heard phrase.

I find that an individual man's interpretation of this phrase is a good litmus test of his Red Pill awakening progress:

  • A newbie, now wallowing in the fatalism that results from the smashing of his old illusions about love, takes it as a foregone conclusion and assumes the position of a traded piece of meat. He sees himself as an object for female wish-fulfillment, just as he always has - only this time, with the hope of an eventual reward stripped away from him.

  • An intermediate community member sees the phrase as a reminder that the status of a relationship with females is always subject to change. He is far enough along in his awakening process that he doesn't feel the need to ingratiate himself to a specific woman (who he believes will eventually be disloyal given a long-enough timescale).

  • An advanced member has developed sufficiently to see the phrase as an irrelevant vestige. In many cases, the man has grown so much and become so attractive that he is unlikely to be usurped in the minds of the women he is seeing. He adopts the opposite perspective: "I'm not hers, it's just her turn." His value is developed enough to render women functionally monogamous; and even if they do leave, he is too well-versed in the RP creed to care.

Now, these labels above aren't hard and fast categorizations. They are more like general guidelines for judging where a person is and what kind of assistance they need to advance.

In the interest of speeding men along as quickly as possible, I tend to emphasize the final stage and encourage men to jump straight to adopting it. ASSUME that you are not hers and that it is just her turn. Live that notion for long enough and it will become true.

[-] whatsthisgarg 1 Point 2 months ago

You didn't need my blessing to post an article.

Not what I meant and I'm sure you don't think I thought that. I just wanted to throw your username in so you would get a notification, as the former thread we were talking about this was locked and I couldn't reply there. I was sure this would go down in flames, even likely removed and I thought if you had an interest you could reinstate it. The post was widely misunderstood, more than I expected.

Matty and other ECs didn't get it. Keffir at least addressed a point I made. Auvergnat didn't get it until I made it explicit to him. The phrase has been bent out of its original meaning: it used to foster outcome independence and emotional detachment, but the way it is used now is completely the opposite.

In the interest of speeding men along as quickly as possible, I tend to emphasize the final stage and encourage men to jump straight to adopting it. ASSUME that you are not hers and that it is just her turn.

Exactly my standpoint. You are really the only high-profile contributor who has echoed the sentiment at the heart of the post. Hope I didn't fuck up your future post!

[-] j_arbuckle2012 1 Point 2 months ago

You did succeed in mad triggering the sub though. Good job.

I'm of the mind of you and u/HumanSockPuppet. It's a useful phrase for the ~6-8 months it takes to become high SMV and internalize abundance. Beyond that, it will hold you back.

[-] whatsthisgarg 3 Points 2 months ago

You did succeed in mad triggering the sub though. Good job.

It's what I do, whilst having a laugh. These guys make me feel like a right stud with their massive inferiority complexes LOL

[-] Scorptice 6 Points 2 months ago

That was a nice write-up and I enjoyed reading it! Just don't forget that she was never yours, it was just your turn.

[-] meowgoesdog 6 Points 2 months ago

You keep saying the same things over and over anyway, this would be the result if people could stutter while writing. Unfortunately my commands won't work so this will look a little ugly formatting wise but I'm hoping good wit can make it bearable.

You say: If you have to remind yourself that "she's not yours" that indicates that you still harbor Blue Pill ideas about the possibility that she could have been.

Is is not completely in our nature to seek utter control over things we love? To diminish the possibility of them slipping out of our lives? To me the will to control things, and the belief that we as men can, is not some sort of social construct or beta pill, it is just rational. And so to remind yourself that this reality is not healthy, that it will almost always lead to misery for both parts, seems totally smart and necessary, and even though more seasoned people should know this by heart there is always those times you start seeing that one girl that makes your toes curl up on sight, then you could need some of that good ol' common sense to get that glitter out your eyes.

You say: "It's just your turn": if you accept this, you have thrown in the towel before the game begins. You're going to let some little girl determine the course and outcome of a sexual encounter, or worse, a relationship.

This logic displayed in what you're saying is very unhealthy first of all, to not be able to accept the reality in that things will come and inevitably go is the mindset of someone scared and weak. Also I find this very contradicting to your earlier statement, here you try shame the saying for proposing men to "Throw in the tovel before the game begins", but what game are you refering to? The game of control? Becoming that one creepy dude who won't let her girlfriend out the house unless she's wearing a damn spacesuit? Is the game we want to win? Just before this you argued that the "game of seeking control" is everything but worth it yet now you try to shame us for not playing?

You say: "It displays a lack of outcome independence".

But this doesn't make any sense at all, to me the saying promotes outcome independence if anything. It sets you up to accept the reality that inevitably will come, it says "Ok at some point she won't be mine, but hey let's have fun while it lasts". Yet you try to paint it up like we would be the ones sitting around crying when it finally ends but it is rather the ones who actually believed they could control and "own" the girl that would be heartbroken once she breaks up with you for being a fucking weirdo, they are the ones in shock, they are the ones who fears that outcome. If we don't even go into the game, how can we possibly lose? "But.. if we don't play, we can't possibly win!", you see that is totally OK here, because the price of this game is a illusion, like we went over, you don't actually want to own the girl, it will always lead to misery.

Now I'm not saying we wouldn't give a fuck about breaking up with someone we really enjoyed being with, but we already knew it eventually would go down and guess what because of this grand knowledge we made sure we already have the next big thing lined up, so that our dicks can keep going to bed with a blanket made out of ass.

Then you go on with some more stupid shit like: "The mindset should be I'm fucking this one now and I'll be fucking the next one later and none of this shit is the most important thing in my life. Sure as fuck not crying about "it's just my turn."

Is that not exactly what the saying is all about? Like how are you even writing this up and not asking if you maybe left your logic on the kitchen table at home. Who exactly is promoting crying? The only thing being promoted is acceptance. Accepting something and crying about it are two very very different things, could be considered complete opposites even.

And the saying isin't at all promiting "learned helplessness", it is actually the complete opposite, accepting it is only our turn is to have the heart to look reality in its mean eyes and say "I know, but it don't budge me". Something should only be considered "learned helplessness if there is actually a way to get around it, but you decided to not try. This lesson is not learned, it is just the nature of things, whether you accept it or not, you will never have what you seek. And when that's the case, you have one good option: Accept it and make the best out of it, which in this case becomes, "Realize you cannot own her, but make sure to enjoy your turn" or...

"She's not yours, it's just your turn".

I won't comment on ur further discussions as I coulnd't bother reading them, probably just baiting anyway

Edit: Removed part of introduction where I flame OP for writing novels, ended up writing one myself lmao

[-] Bruchibre 6 Points 2 months ago

I agree with the overall statement but didn’t have faith to read the whole novel you wrote.

[-] empatheticapathetic 18 Points 2 months ago

Then don’t comment until you’ve read it.

I don’t understand how this acceptable as a response. Your response, positive or negative, is completely irrelevant until you’ve actually read the piece in question. How could you ever justify otherwise?

All you’re doing is saying “I am lazy and quick to judge”.

[-] Bruchibre -5 Point 2 months ago

I am lazy and quick to judge. This is not a “response” because we are not on AskTRP so I’m simply validating OP’s theory. Also if you’re not happy, I don’t mind.

[-] lux_7 5 Points 2 months ago

Man,

 

I actually enjoyed this post, but let me be the devil's advocate here:

 

Exactly ZERO of my good LTRs featured a what are we? where is this going? exclusivity conversation.

 

Have you thought that maybe you're not as cool as you think?

And that's the reason why those ladies are not even trying to lock you in?

[-] Self-honest 5 Points 2 months ago

You expected everyone to freak out...

I agree with you. Grow the fuck up and be a man. Don't waste time "progressing" through safe steps.

Life is short, get your head right and get on with it.

I prefer "Her loss" as a simple mindset when a girl flakes, ghosts, or loses interest.

It happens for so many reasons. I just keep working hard to elevate myself and continue the never-ending quest for newer, hotter pussy.

I do understand the EC's sentiments that it's a pointless phrase uttered to jumpstart outcome independence for losers and cucks as they begin their new journey. So in essence, everyone is correct.

Good post. It needed to be said for all the losers and cucks who have been on their journey for a while and use the statement as a crutch.

[-] whatsthisgarg 2 Points 2 months ago

You expected everyone to freak out...

I actually had 10X the laughs I thought this would produce, so good times lol

I do understand the EC's sentiments that it's a pointless phrase uttered to jumpstart outcome independence for losers and cucks as they begin their new journey. So in essence, everyone is correct.

Good assessment.

I've always been a free-thinker and anti-authoritarian, so I don't get why so many dudes can't just break out of the mold and see what's happening right in front of them. I got virtually no action in high school but then in college things started working out a bit, but even without great success right from the start I without thinking had a 2-strikes rule going. On that second strike if there aren't great indications it's happening soon, I'm moving on. She had her chance, I will find other prospects and she's not that special.

Or, I'm having a month-long fling with a chick I really like, sex is great and we're having fun, she starts showing less enthusiasm, as BB King says, the thrill is gone. Why stick around? Sure as fuck not crying about my turn being over.

More posts from you, please. Something about sex in public or other outrageous shit.

[-] Self-honest 1 Point 2 months ago

I've always been a free-thinker and anti-authoritarian

Same

On that second strike if there aren't great indications it's happening soon, I'm moving on. She had her chance, I will find other prospects and she's not that special.

In my experience, a lot of the time this will light a fire under her ass like nothing I've seen.

as BB King says, the thrill is gone. Why stick around? Sure as fuck not crying about my turn being over.

Right, if she isn't as enthusiastic, neither am I. This story is about me, blah blah blah I'm my own mental point of origin. If the thrill is gone, it's time to find another thrill.

More posts from you, please. Something about sex in public or other outrageous shit.

Haaaa. I'll do one soon man. I've got a recent story that I only remembered the details from because I videoed the whole thing on my cell phone and found it the next morning. Seeing what you're like when you're in the zone and hearing a girl giggle as you degrade her is eye opening to say the least.

[-] whatsthisgarg 1 Point 2 months ago

Haaaa. I'll do one soon man. I've got a recent story that I only remembered the details from because I videoed the whole thing on my cell phone and found it the next morning. Seeing what you're like when you're in the zone and hearing a girl giggle as you degrade her is eye opening to say the least.

hearing a girl giggle as you degrade her

haha I'm cracking up, many lols over here, lots a memories. Looking forward to the post, just be sure to mention how high quality the woman was! It's amazing that the very highest quality women are subject to this. Oh, but we're just a bunch of mysoginistic margiinalized nerds on the internet LOLOLOL

[-] peaceful_strong_man 4 Points 2 months ago

Men are naturally polygamous. Polygamy isnt "cheating." You've been brainwashed by this "cheating" nonsense from your fornicating and non-serious sexual relations. There is only fornication and adultery. If a married man sleeps with an unmarried woman, for example, it is fornication. If a married woman sleeps with an umarried man, it is aduletry. Us men get bored by appearance quicker than women do. Women still have the emotional rollercoaster. Women also can only get pregnant once in a while, while we can impregnate women every day. In turn, it is the man's job to provide. Women are loyal with the sexuality, while men are loyal with their resources (money, strength, etc.) Thus, in adultery, the woman collects financial resources from her husabnd without giving him sexual loyalty, and gives sex to the adulterer with whom she sleeps, without him having to give her financial resources. In fornication, the man sleeps with the woman without providing resources and the woman may get preganant with a child without having a provider.

What governments now have done for the most part is to either ban or limit polygamy (and even if we talk about non-government approved marriages, it is seen as something out of the ordinary or taboo) and enabled women to exact men's resources without giving them sexual loyalty. Thus, a woman can commit aduletry unpunished and then still collect alimony and child support. The trade is way off and totally skewed against men. It is a moral hazard. That is besides the fact that a child should stay with the father, which the governments acknowledge since they exact child support, yet give the child to the mother. Children of single mothers and distant fathers have a sub-optimal upbringing.

Also, according to this model, the best men will attract the most females, hence way more young/middle-aged men will remain single than young/middle-aged women, and more men in general would be single, although old men would find women more than old women find men - hence the 80/20 rule. The principle is correct, but the number is arbitrary. Also, with socially and legally enforced monogamy, this is skewed.

[-] Thisisntunpopular36 4 Points 2 months ago

I only wish I could upvote this more than once, a defeatist mentality is a toxic cancer that is the antithesis of red pill knowledge.

[-] KeffirLime 4 Points 2 months ago

I don't think Briffaults Law is bs.

The stag only gets to mate because he's the stag, otherwise he would be taken out by the stag, if he hasn't already been soundly mauled by the stag. The tribe keeps them in check.

Animals know their place, there's a natural order and females associate with those at the top, mostly for survival benefits. Taking a female that you are not entitled to results in jeopardizing your survival.

Humans are a bit more complex, our self awareness complicates us, particularly in relation to our perceptions of self. We have tribal genes operating in a society that those genes we're never intended for. Environmental advancement have gradually outstripped genetic advancements.

What we've ended up with is a watered down version, where a man who is not deemed fit enough by the female, but still tries to bed her is taken care of by the "tribe" he has his survival limited, he gets sent to prison on a rape charge.

You see, she still determines the fitness of the male, if not , there are penalties.

[-] RedForEducation 5 Points 2 months ago

I usually ask people to consider two marriages and tell me which they know of.

one guy who hates his wife, but stays with her because she's loyal, and loves the kids, and gets some strange during business trips; and

one guy who loves his wife, she cannot stand him, and she has a crush on some dude she met during a business trip.

Which relationship do you think will still be there in a year?

[-] TruthSeekingPerson 4 Points 2 months ago

You're a delusional low I.Q. simp if you think no woman could ever leave you. You can't get any more cuck than that.

[-] andreyeurope 4 Points 2 months ago

It's healthy to have this kind of posts once in a while, but you sounded more like a frustrated chimp than someone who wants to discuss Trp in a skeptical way.

Frankly speaking, I couldn't care less about "she is not yours, it's just your turn". If I enjoy the interaction, I really don't care about being my turn or not.

A healthy relationship is one where you give value and she gives value too from my point of view.

If the only value she has is her vagina, cool. But nothing will stop me from trying other vaginas as well.

It's kinda like eating. You cannot eat the same meal everyday. You gotta taste something else. But in the end you will have a favorite meal you like to eat once in a while. Even though it might not be the sweetest cake you ate, you know that it is the one you like.

Same with plates. You might have hundreds of plates during your life, but in the end you will end up with someone, if you want to have offsprings to carry on your biological legacy.

I don't understand these people who say that they are alpha and they will have a lot of offsprings. If you are alpha enough, you will have some kids that will get the best of you. If you have fucked a lot of women and have a lot of kids, but you don't have the money or resources to grow them, then you are just a piece of shit.

That's just my 2 cents. Have a productive year pillers.

[-] CainPrice 4 Points 2 months ago

Acknowledging that it's just your turn is the crux of outcome independence. It's recognizing that eventually, either one of you is going to get bored, find someone else, or behave in an unrecoverable way. It's recognizing that there is no magical formula for maintaining an everlasting and eternal relationship with one special woman by behaving perfectly and doing everything right. And being okay with that. Because you have other options, other things that matter in life, and outcome independence.

Slightly rewording the idea (e.g., it's her turn, not yours - she's the lucky one) is just an attempt to arrogantly ignore the very notion that a woman might ever leave an awesome alpha man. It reinforces the idea that there is some magical set of behaviors that can keep a woman until you're done with her, while she'll never be done with you.

Recognizing that it's just your turn isn't defeatist. It's true acceptance. It's recognizing that even if you're some perfect red pill specimen of a man, there is no one special magical eternal woman and perfect relationship out there for you. Just another woman. And another one once that one's done.

[-] whatsthisgarg 1 Point 2 months ago

Slightly rewording the idea (e.g., it's her turn, not yours - she's the lucky one) is just an attempt to arrogantly ignore the very notion that a woman might ever leave an awesome alpha man. It reinforces the idea that there is some magical set of behaviors that can keep a woman until you're done with her, while she'll never be done with you.

That's bordering on straw man there; I never said anything about "magical behaviors" or guarantees. My point was all about bad rationalization and acceptance of poor performance that holds the phrase-user back from becoming better.

When you buy a new car do you expect it to last the rest of your life? Do you need a constant reminder that this car could break down at any time? Do you tell yourself you're such a shitty driver that you're sure to fuck it up?

Imagine the coach of a basketball team, saying, right before the first game "guys, we're not going to make the tournament this year; we're going to lose a bunch of games this season; in fact, we're probably going to lose this game. Let's be realistic." Do you think that team is going to do better because of that pep talk?

Not only does nobody need this shit, it's detrimental. It's right there in the title of the post: defeatist. It's mental, not magical. Every time somebody says it on here, I can hear the sound of the towel being thrown in.

We're disagreeing, that's fine. But you're ignoring the timeframe: acceptance after, defeatist before. Not a good combination.

[-] CainPrice 1 Point 2 months ago

I think we're agreeing in concept but disagreeing on the subtle nuances.

Accepting that women are women and your casual or serious relationship is going to eventually end, whether you do it or her, even if you do everything right and are the perfect Red Pill specimen of a man is defeatist, yes, but also realistic. Not accepting that this "defeat" (which we should really re-cast in our minds as just as thing that happens, not necessarily a loss or a defeat) is going to eventually happen opens the door to let yourself start to feel like maybe the alternative is possible - that this could be a special woman and a special relationship that goes the distance. It leaves the door open to fall back into that blue pill fantasy of a happy life with the right woman.

[-] whatsthisgarg 1 Point 2 months ago

yeah, we are agreeing mostly; we're agreeing in the real world, but maybe disagreeing with how things should be discussed on TRP, giving advice, etc.

that this could be a special woman and a special relationship that goes the distance. It leaves the door open to fall back into that blue pill fantasy of a happy life with the right woman.

This is so foreign to me! Who thinks this? (I guess only about 30 billion people think like this.)

Shit, one year with a woman, she's shown her good side and her bad side and you just think she can stick around as long as she's pleasant, don't expect much, you're the one creating all the fun, keep her at arm's length most of the time, a little open hostility every once in a while, keep your exits open, invest nothing. That's a better mentality than "she could leave me at any time." It's 2019 guys.

[-] bonusfruit 4 Points 2 months ago

You didn't disprove the principle. You just called everyone who acknowledges it a beta cuck loser. I mean, that would be a spicey take 3 years ago but TRP has attempted to move away from self parody.

[-] Feelinggood702 4 Points 2 months ago

“ i recall men are polygamous (i.e. if you commit, you are losing your sexual strategy everyday), but she is serial monogamy (she is gaining on her sexual strategy everyday, until she is bored on you and breaks up(cheats and branch swings)).”

What do you mean exactly by the word “commit” this segment? Do you mean choosing to have a relationship with a woman? Do you think so little of yourself to say that your value (sexual strategy in your words) decreases so long as you’re with her? As if, all of a sudden you’ve given up on yourself as a man just because you choose to be in a relationship? As if you close yourself off from all the women around you just because you choose to stick around for one? Please elaborate your thinking process on this.

“So by definition, by saying "she is not yours not your turn" you are saying I am a linear cuck because i forsake pussy and allow women to cheat in advance on me.“

Where the fuck did this come from? You’re not fucking her right this moment, and therefore that makes you a cuck all a sudden? Man, you’re coming up with a lot of trash to further rationalize to yourself how you actually feel deep down. Not a good look. Go work on yourself and actually go meet some people instead of jerking off to your own ideas. Ask to see how things really are and try to remove such self-defeating thinking.

[-] krowitz 3 Points 2 months ago

I do not like your tone, but I like your post for one thing: most people here would be confused with all the short-hand phrases thrown around here. Especially for those who are still in the anger phase, they might get a quick lesson or two from TRP and justify their anger. And when it wears off, they would read and read, and find whatever fits their mindset again and justify their anger again.

​

But he may read posts on lifting, on becoming financially independent, on stoicism, on approaches, on relationships gone sour, on success stories and slowly he will realize the real meaning behind the phrases thrown around.

​

No, AWALT doesn't literally mean all women are like that, it is just saying that when shit happens to you, you can't complain because you should be expecting that as all women are like that.

​

She's not yours, its just your turn. How can it be defeatist? If the person inside you still thinks keeping her is the opposite of defeat, then you are still early in your journey. She's not yours, its just your turn is not defeatist, rather, a reminder that your blue pill conditioning of what true love is no longer holds true. Holding on to the blue pill idea of true love, you will never have abundance mentality. You will never have outcome independence. You will always have an emotional investment.

​

You attacked the gatekeepers model and Briffault's law. If you firmly believe you are in the top 20, it doesn't apply to you. It only applies to people humble enough to see it as fact. You are not a stag, nor the tasmanian devil. You can have rock solid frame, you can have all the money in the world, 0% body fat and a dick bigger than your thighs and everything else that you think gives you value, the woman is still going to decide if she wants to fuck you.

​

And finally,

​

Stacy's credo:

​

Stacy: blah blah blah

Me: ... (you should know by now a response is not needed)

​

​

I like it. You had me responding to this shit of a post that i love and hate at the same time.

​

[-] [deleted] 3 Points 2 months ago

The real question is, why playing a game with someone that eventually will play you due to hypergamy?

not Worth the effort, time and money.

If i want to have sex, i can pay for it. If i want to share my feelings i have dogs, friends and other stuff (music, art etc). No need for women in 2019 bros

[-] lauris652 3 Points 2 months ago

Ummm. I prefer "Im not hers, its just her turn"

[-] SelfUnmadeMan 3 Points 2 months ago

So what you are saying is: "She's never yours. She just wants to fuck you now."

[-] IAMB4TMAN 3 Points 2 months ago

Think the statement is being too read into. Analysis paralysis.

​

The basic meaning behind "she's not yours, it's just your turn" is to remind you of the fleeting nature of women, & you should act accordingly. You can interpret it from a winner's perspective (doesn't matter how sweet she is, I'm immune to it b/c I know woman's primal nature per TRP) or you can interpret it from a loser's perspective (damn it, I'll never have her no matter what I do so I might as well gloat & waste away).

​

All a function of perspective, but interesting post nonetheless.

[-] Ivabighairy1 3 Points 2 months ago

I thought Christmas Vacation ended and the little ones were back in school?

[-] Iceklimber 2 Points 2 months ago

"She's not yours, it's just your turn"

This phrase is a simplification of female hormone cycles:

'Your' refers to how hormones build up and she "falls in love" while 'turn' describes how hormones she gets from you will fade away eventually (they will drop below the level of strangers even)...

...while she will also develop the hots for other men.

[-] maljo24 2 Points 2 months ago

“...just your turn...” I see this as a concept to not feel so bad if someday she leaves. She may never leave - usually the case, most marriages last the duration - or she may leave because she finds someone much better or she may leave because we have deficiencies that she/we can’t or won’t fix. Does she leave for another man or does she leave and live by herself? There are some clues there, bro.

[-] RealMcGonzo 2 Points 2 months ago

I use the turn idea before we break up, not after. I do the breaking up - since RPing anyway. But before I dump, I always keep in mind that if the right guy comes along, she'll fuck him. And if the right guy comes along, she'll break up with me. It does not matter what she says, what she does, if we have legal agreements, kids, a house and a marriage. All that stuff may slow her down (maybe), but there's NFW it'll stop her. And it's not just me. It's *everybody* - it is the basic nature of women.

That's what turns is for me. It helps me to keep in mind that anything I have with any chick is just temporary.

[-] dingleburry_joe 2 Points 2 months ago

"it's her turn with me" and "The stag fucks what the stag wants to fuck"

I think this is so RP that my dick is as hard as the steel frame I'm going to get from reading this

Solid RP posts. Seen alot of self-defeating garbage posts lately. I have been thinking about this a lot but couldn't reframe it.

[-] TitusDorsus 2 Points 2 months ago

You are too emotive man, just relax.

You didn’t take in account that most part of the guys landing on this sub are bluepilled or freshly redpilled. They cannot be outcome independent and have an abundance mentality just by reading a sentence. The opposite would just make you delusional about yourself. It is a process and it takes time and experience.

You also omitted the fact that not everyone will reach the top 20% because of appearances, handicap or simply because they don’t want to. Accepting the fact that no relationship will last and you own nobody is a huge step and this mantra helps to move forward.

Most guys at first have nothing to offer to the women, so they really don’t have power on the course of the relationship.

Too long post for a little sentence.

[-] chicagorunner10 1 Point 2 months ago

Yeah, the OP comes-off as a complete spaz. This comment is a good example: "I'm sure I've whipped a bunch of faggots into a froth so..."

Just trying WAY too hard to seem all tough.

[-] soundnpound 2 Points 2 months ago

I think so many redpill guys tout this or agree with it because the majority of men won't/refuse to accept that if she is attractive and brings something of value to a relationship she probably has a ton of other options lined she would be a fool not to explore.

[-] heartbroken_nerd 2 Points 2 months ago

No top 20% male gives up a current benefit for a promised future benefit, duh.

You had me until this line.

That's silly. Of course a 20% male, given that he's likely a natural, can and will often share his resources for 'free' with a female under the premise that she might associate with him in the future. If you say otherwise, you have barely known any of these top 20% males.

Sometimes it works for them, sometimes it doesn't. Top 20% males also get rejected. Sometimes it's not their fault, sometimes it is their fault - because they did something stupid, such as giving freebies to women that are only after the freebies.

[-] tchower 2 Points 2 months ago

Lol! I love having my morning beer before my college classes reading the red pill. There actually are female cannibals, it happens when beta bucks becomes beta- cuck! I didn’t see “She’s not yours, it’s just your turn” as being outcome dependent until now, I’ve never liked this mantra and agree because I still believe we should be the prize, not the girl. There’s a lot of outcome dependent shit on here such as “girls only like this, or that” which also creates an outcome dependence. The one guy I know for sure who always has girls around and always has new and hot girls is my brother, a total bad boy who doesn’t give a fuck what a girl decided because he always has one in line. He’s a great example for abundance mentality and outcome independence as far as game, but in life, went to prison and did a lot of bad shit ect. But a great example as far as girls and game. Being good looking (SMV) and holding frame in situations where men or woman shit test you is a huge plus.

[-] KillaJewels 2 Points 2 months ago

I like this frame. And I think both of these frames should work in harmony, because they're two different perspectives that aren't necessarily wrong and balance each other out.

However, a word of caution: let's be careful with the mantras we choose to adopt. They're not "one size fits all", nor are they going to provide us value if all we have is tunnel vision for that one perspective -- otherwise we get sucked into hopelessness/insecure thought patterns on one side and toxic ego/narcissism on the other; neither is healthy.

[-] Psychological_Radish 2 Points 2 months ago

recall men are polygamous (i.e. if you commit, you are losing your sexual strategy everyday), but she is serial monogamy (she is gaining on her sexual strategy everyday, until she is bored on you and breaks up(cheats and branch swings)).

Dude /u/TheReformist94 's sentiment more or less mirrors what I say in my post about why a LTR is inconsistent with men's sexual strategy. I went back and looked through the comments and you labeled my post as a "[serious] misunderstanding of TRP principles." Not to resurrect that debacle again, but I don't see how your reply to that is consistent with what you say here (which I largely agree with, by the way). Had I left out the discussion about "Alphaness," which seemed to trigger a ton of self-proclaimed Alphas, then everything I said squares perfectly with the idea about the deleterious effects of reigning in your biological drive.

The only notion that gives me pause is this:

It's not my turn with her, it's her turn with me. I'm the one who lets HER in to my world, not the other way around.

If you approached her, then you're demonstrating through your actions that you want her to be in your world, and she (not you) either accepts or rejects the invitation. The entire concept of "outcome independence" flatly contradicts actualization of men's sexual strategy, or of any goal for that matter. [Roosh wrote about this more than six years ago]( https://www.rooshv.com/outcome-independence-leads-to-failure) and the idea still hasn't caught on around here.

Oh no! TRP heterodoxy! Burn! Burn!

Most people on this forum are still fighting the last war.

[-] whatsthisgarg 1 Point 2 months ago

Dude /u/TheReformist94 's sentiment more or less mirrors what I say in my post about why a LTR is inconsistent with men's sexual strategy. I went back and looked through the comments and you labeled my post as a "[serious] misunderstanding of TRP principles." Not to resurrect that debacle again, but I don't see how your reply to that is consistent with what you say here (which I largely agree with, by the way). Had I left out the discussion about "Alphaness," which seemed to trigger a ton of self-proclaimed Alphas, then everything I said squares perfectly with the idea about the deleterious effects of reigning in your biological drive.

You are correct, what was wrong with your other post was the focus on the "Alpha." There is no such thing as an alpha. It's an abstraction. It's not a thing.

[-] chazthundergut 2 Points 2 months ago

It is a helpful phrase when men are starting out and still getting sprung up on any female that gives him a whiff of pussy.

But you are absolutely right. I'm not the one getting lucky. She is.

[-] linkofinsanity19 2 Points 2 months ago

Regarding the1st point about losing and winning, I don't really agree, and here's why. If you're worried about "winning your sexual strategy ober her winning hers", you're adopting a me v them mentality. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to get into a committed relationship if that's the way you choose to live your life. However, if you are saying all men should strive for that lifestyle, you're wrong. I'm not the first to say this, but I'll reiterate it here. Looking for a LTR is the wrong way to go about it. If you are open to one, that's fine, but don't go seeking it from each woman you meet. Simply vet them, and if they fail, they fail. You can try prescreening the women you choose to get with if you don't want to deal with women that are obviously not what you're looking for before vetting them, but that's really about it. Don't expect her to be anything other than what she is.

I partially agree with the 2nd point about the phrasing of "She's not yours, it's just your turn." I agree that some may use this phrase to adopt a defeatist mindset, but that doesn't mean that's the original purpose of the phrase. The phrase is meant for guys to realize that we don't have control over anyone else's acrions except our own. There is no escaping the reality that there will always be a higher value man out there, so all we can control is how high value we become based off of the hand we're dealt. This is where I agree with the rephrasing to "Her turn is over now." This rephrasing does a much better job of emphasizing that you are the prize and abundance mentality.

However, to say that it displays a lack of outcome independence is wrong. It is meant as, "Her actions are outside of your control." Can we have some influence over those actions by being the highest value male in her life? Certainly, and that's the point. This is why I am in favor of, and will start using the rephrased version of "She's not yours, and now her turn is over." This obviously only applies in cases where she messed up and had to be nexted. If you get oneitis and chase her off with your needy beta behavior, then the "She's not yours" portion still applies, but in this case, you clearly are the one who messed up, in which case you're lying to yourself if you try to say that you were the prize. Clearly not, or she would have stayed. That doesn't mean tou can't continue to improve and become the prize, but first you have to accept when you aren't. Then you can address where you failed, learn from it, and continue to improve.

[-] Olram_Sacul 2 Points 2 months ago

I guess the whole "she's not yours, it's just your turn" mantra may have a different meaning for different people. For me it's just a catchy way to remind myself not to develop oneitis

[-] Quigon-Jin 2 Points 2 months ago

That's how I have always interpreted it too. But I think this post is trying to point out that the way we have it worded puts us in a reactive mindset instead of a proactive mindset. Perhaps changing it to "I'm not hers, it's just her turn as long as she continues to earn it" would be a subtle but important shift

[-] Synthetic_Citizen 2 Points 2 months ago

While i do not agree with your view i do appreciate its stance. TRP is one of the few subs that encourage skepticism and free thought. God forbid it becomes an echo chamber in here, fuck that. I have avoided church for this very reason. Deviate from the dogma and prepare to be ridiculed and shunned. This was a good read, you are definitely on to something with this, im just not sure to what extent

[-] robbiedigital001 2 Points 2 months ago

Couldn't agree more about the title, hate seeing that phrase crop up here. Surely "I'm not hers, it's just her turn" is more empowering.

[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] ImAnIronmanBtw 1 Point 2 months ago

What are the odds that the women you are with at the moment is going to be the one you are with for the rest of your life? Very low.

Unless you met her at a very young age and are her first partner, odds are you two will break up. Even if you do everything right.

Just being realistic and looking at it from a statistical stand point.

[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] sezamus 1 Point 2 months ago

Whoa, whoa! Just sthap! "She is not yours", because you cannot control her actions in every second. It is proved by the "lightswitch effect", that she might replace you and change her mind about how she percieves you in any moment. This happened to me. This is life. EVERY relationship has an end. Every, single, one. This mantra is a mental safety net for the moment when the relationship INEVITABLY ends, that is based on the "Glass is already broken" approach towards life.

I think, I am seeing some logical absurd. This post is more on not being emotionally invested, than aplying "It is just your turn mentality". The points you brought up are just weak. They reffer to "some dude" or "some post". You did not neglect the idea of being at peace that relationships end.

[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] L0neWolfAlpha 1 Point 2 months ago

Not even going to bother with this load of poop

[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] JonathanMekerset 1 Point 2 months ago

It’s a statement to keep you aware, not to make you give up. Know the difference and quit trying to be the counterculture to everything.

[-] AutoModerator 1 Point 2 months ago

Just a friendly reminder that as TRP has been quarantined, we have developed backup sites: https://www.trp.red and our full post archive (and future forums) https://www.forums.red/i/TheRedPill. Don't forget to register on TRP.RED and reserve your reddit name today. Forums.Red is currently locked but will be opened soon.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-] WarriorMonkMode 1 Point 2 months ago

"she's not yours..." with "Yours" being the betacuck, monogamy-minded blue pill indoctrination desperately seeking "the one." Possessive and insecure by nature.

"...it's just your turn." Being the red pilled acknowledgement that you are a polygamous beast by nature and that you don't have a "one" because you're simply sampling the options presented to you. It's just your turn in the buffet line, dude. Pick what you want while it's still fresh or move the fuck along.

[-] a_fortunate_life 1 Point 2 months ago

I think every statement has a context. shes not yours, it's just your turn is meant for that guy who's been emotionally wrecked and needs something to hold onto to deal with loss. its not literal though.

I would much rather read a post without the word faggit every couple of sentences and you just come across as a try hard. you're trying too hard to seem funny or like you dont give a shit about anything. I dno. it reminds me of how feminists talk to each other in their smug ass ways. people are here to learn. you're here too so does that make you a faggit as well?

[-] SnowMonkeyCracker 1 Point 2 months ago

I'll take a bite of this ....

Specifics: The top 20% of men determine the conditions of the interactions; the women want what the men have and the men have options. No benefit for the association, that goes for every fucking encounter with anybody anywhere. Past benefit from a top 20% male is fucking remembered and damn well likely results in future association. No top 20% male gives up a current benefit for a promised future benefit, duh.

The "Top 20%"is determined by the collective choices of women. Women choose this group based upon the trifecta of looks, resources and status ie what the male brings to the encounter/relationship.

Here is Briffault's Law.

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place

A "Top 20%" male does not determine women's choices, rather is blessed with options because of multiple women's choices. Briffault's Law does not claim that a male can't reject a female, but his alternatives are determined by women and not himself.

[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] deGeso88 1 Point 2 months ago

Only aquiring good girl for serious relations is winning. Fuck'n'dumping is just gracefull loosing, with taking compensation . And absolute majority (100%?) of females deserve only to be fucked, not loved

[-] boy_named_su 1 Point 2 months ago

what is with the posts trying to dismantle fundamental TRP theory lately?

[-] jonpe87 1 Point 2 months ago

Only a man that has no much experience with woman bothers with that.

If you have game to score good ass, and has scored good ass, you know that they are all the same. The guy that thinks he got the best ass, just has no experience with woman., and I would say with humans beings in general. Nobody is that fucking special, you are just projecting biased in the good aspects of the person and ignoring the bad ones.

​

Because woman don't exercise abstract thought to better themselfs or understand reallity, but to feel better, they don't change very much.

​

Guys here did never had a woman going crazy in love with them, its a danger to your mental health. The most healthy relationship that I have seen the guy always have a mistress.

​

This will create a loop of zero fucks given, and the crazy part is that you will attract more woman.

​

I think that there is something that redpill still didnt touch, the fact that a very amount of alpha males are bisexual, and that's why they have so much outcome independence near woman.

​

[-] dark-child 1 Point 2 months ago

Well said at some point you need kids a marriage is most stable environment to do this or die alone

[-] Classy_Amir 1 Point 2 months ago

I have to disagree with you. Imagine someone saying "I love this girl and we're going to live happily ever after for she is mine, and I am hers". He thinks she is his. But that's not the truth. People die. People die! Think about it! If your plate/LTR dies (of anything), it simply means your turn is over and you must get back in the game.

[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] anglertaio -1 Point 2 months ago

I agreed this statement was the worst lie at the heart of TRP, so I was hoping this post would correct it, but there is no fundamental difference.

Yes, you really can own women. If you are satisfied not owning a woman you have sex with, you are a cuck. Marriage is the ownership of women. And even against overwhelming social programming to the contrary, she will respect that if you believe it and act on that ownership, especially if she was a virgin. Read Jim.

[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] RedForEducation 3 Points 2 months ago

Final warning,

do we actually need to explain why here?

[-] [deleted] 2 Points 2 months ago

[deleted]

[-] RedForEducation 3 Points 2 months ago

Your learned helplessness rant is in-congruent with rule 0.

[-] AbusiveFather1 1 Point 2 months ago

Agreed. I look at it this way: money+looks=resource Let's say you have a lot of resource - if you have enough, you don't have to worry about strategizing to beat your opponent (that's for times when you're both equals or near that), you can keep throwing your resources at the opponent until he's down. It's like cheating in a video game.

However, let's say you've done your part to look the best you can, but financially you're just not there yet - then you need to incorporate strategy, and what op's saying is IMO the best kind in this matter.

[-] Warrior_King02 -2 Point 2 months ago

Good post. Saying "She's not yours, it's just your turn" gives me a very attached vibe. You're putting her on a pedestal. It's like a kid in a classroom playing with toys. Let's say Liam is playing with Lego and old mate Billy is waiting in the corner for his turn. As Liam is having so much fun, Billy gets jealous and more angry that Liam is having fun. Eventually tho, time runs out and it's now Billy's turn to play with the Lego. Now he's extremely happy but Liam is the one sad, jealous and angry because Billy is now playing with the Lego.

Or there's Rob. The cool kid in town who goes into the classroom. He sees the coolest toy he's ever seen and boom he starts to play with it. He's enjoying his time and then when time's up he goes to the next toy and forgets about the one previous.

Now what I'm trying to say here is, yeah sure it may be "your turn" and that phrase does have some good sense behind it but it's all about what you do after the time ends. Are you gonna be an insecure bitch crying about Liam playing with your Lego? or are you gonna be like Rob and get the next toy and move on with his life.

[-] AbusiveFather1 2 Points 2 months ago

Yeah but Rob can't really start playing with Lego whenever he wants, because otherwise he's going to get his shit pushed in.

[-] Warrior_King02 1 Point 2 months ago

Yeah but the thing is Rob doesn't care about the Lego like the others. He knows that there are plenty of toys around for him to play with. He's confident and doesn't give a fuck. When time's up for him to stop playing with Lego he'll gladly move on to the next cause the Lego is entering his world, he's not entering the Lego. You're not entering the womens world, she's entering yours

[-] besee23 1 Point 2 months ago

Or there's Rob. The cool kid in town who goes into the classroom. He sees the coolest toy he's ever seen and boom he starts to play with it. He's enjoying his time and then when time's up he goes to the next toy and forgets about the one previous.

This all happens withen the span of one hour lol. Not months or years..

[-] max_peenor 1 Point 2 months ago

Sometimes it's my turn at the urinal, but you don't catch me making wedding plans with it.

^ That oughta pop some bloop heads.

[-] Dilpil01 -6 Point 2 months ago

I gotta admit I only skimmed the post. But the whole turn mantra really is theory only spouted by guys still in an angry stage of their life or had some bad experiences with incompatible girls. Same with awalt phrase to a certain extent, or at least I think it is used in the wrong context often.

If you're providing value to a girls life whilst constantly bettering yourself and being your own person, there's no reason why she won't stay by your side indefinitely.

[-] novalentineforyou 2 Points 2 months ago

no reason why she won't stay

Maybe she becomes friends with a guy who is more attractive and is perceived to provide more value? Keep in mind that it's well documented that as a relationship goes on, attraction decreases since the novelty wears off. As soon as your girlfriend or wife starts comparing you (knowing all the vulnerabilities you've disclosed to her) to a male friend who is new and exciting and only presents a polished image, attraction to you will plummet even further.

[-] Dilpil01 0 Points 2 months ago

That's not something that happens exclusively with girls. That is always a threat to a long term relationship regardless of the gender.

Starting off with the right basis for a relationship, choosing the right sort of girl with the right priorities, whilst still developing and maintaining oneself is the best way to go the distance for any relationship.

[-] novalentineforyou 3 Points 2 months ago

Not true. Men are more likely to cheat merely because they have an opportunity with an attractive woman. It means relatively little about their partner. Women are more likely to cheat because they see their partner as lacking in some way, especially when compared to some prospective guy she has spent a lot of time with.

[-] Dilpil01 0 Points 2 months ago

Going by your first post, it's completely plausible that as a man you have a girlfriend and meet a new high quality girl that you wish to date, not just sleep with. I've been in this situation multiple times and given it serious consideration. On the inverse, it's also plausible (although not common) that a girl wants to sleep around for fun, yet still stay in some form of a relationship for comfort, especially at a young age when they are discovering their sexuality.