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.
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.
(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.
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."
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.
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.