Women can be classified into five different strata, based on their physical attractiveness, their personality, their intelligence, and their behaviors. This post aims to shed some light regarding how women can be classified. Much like a caste system, the women in this post resemble a social hierarchy, with those at the top being less in number than those at the bottom.
I. Marriageable women.
The Red Pill’s stance on marriage is simple: don’t get married. As such, one can infer that these women do not exist, because, if the message of the subreddit is to not get married, what women would be marriage material? Thus, we can conclude that the women in the uppermost echelon are unicorns (i.e. women that do not exist).
These are the women you’d fantasize about growing up with a BP mentality—hot, young, attractive, kind, does not shit test, puts food on the table everyday, gives you sex whenever you want, etc. They are your hourglass virgin women who are excellent in bed. They can cook like Gordon Ramsay. They are seemingly perfect.
If you think you’ve found a unicorn, you need to think again. They don’t exist. Don’t get married.
Edit: I want to clarify something that is causing confusion in the comments. If you want to get married, good for you. TRP's position is don't get married. Hence I conflated Unicorns with marriageable women, to remind people to not get married. There are LTR-worthy women out there (that are NOT unicorns) that you can get married with, but you would still be taking a huge risk.
II. LTR-worthy women.
These women are physically attractive (to your tastes at the least), have a reasonable level of intelligence, have some common sense, are polite in their interactions with others, are sexually available, understand that you are the head of the house, etc. In short, they are like marriage material, except they have flaws. There are one, two, three, or more flaws that they have—major and/or minor—that you are willing to tolerate because they add value you to your life. This is key. If they do not add value you your life, consider demoting them into the third strata of women.
LTR-worthy women are obtainable only if you have demonstrated to them that you have value. Such value is obtainable by maximizing your physical attractiveness (i.e. working out), making more money (or getting a job for some of you), cultivating an alpha-male mindset, and not being an ignorant dumbass. It takes work to get LTR-worthy women, as a lot of them are going to want someone of quality as well. Nevertheless, understand that in a LTR, you are the prize. Make sure she is submissive & and that YOU are the special one.
For those of you interested in learning more about LTRs, finding and/or molding LTR-worthy women, I recommend you read the [LTR Game Series]( /user/OccamsUsername/submitted/) submitted by /u/OccamsUsername .
III. Plates.
Plates are what the majority of TRP men go after. If you work out, act confident, and learn how to game women through emotional manipulation and deceit (read: dark triad), getting women to sleep with you should not be especially difficult. These are women that may or may not be LTR-worthy women depending on some of their traits. For example, a plate with a slutty past is not a LTR-worthy woman. I have written about this topic before. However, a plate that you obtained, that does not fail at some of the most important LTR checks (e.g. partner count) has the potential to become LTR material if you mold her into one properly. Again, Occam’s LTR game details this.
Plates are the girls you hook up with on Tinder. They are the ones you easily pick up at a Subway, like [this guy wrote about]( /r/TheRedPill/comments/2r8jiw/fr_getting_subway_at_the_mall_leads_to_plate_your/). They are not the girls that sleep with you on your first date. They are not the women who bitch and shit test you to the point where you would rather be alone or with your buddies. They are not the ones that bug you constantly when you’re out and about asking where you are. As an aside, if any of this happens, consider employing dread game quickly.
Plates can be (easily) demoted into the fourth strata of women if you determine that a plate is unworthy of effort. Remember, to acquire a plate, you need game, you need to lift, you still need to make the first move on Tinder. You still put in some effort. But what if the plate isn’t even worth that much effort? Maybe she’s only a 6. Maybe she’s an 8, but she shit tests you every damn day? What then? Then you demote them.
IV. Cumdumpsters
Cumdumpsters are basically sluts. Now, don’t misunderstand me—plates can be sluts too. In fact, I prefer to call these women cumdumpsters, simply because the language is more colorful and humorous.
A cumdumpster is a former plate that you have pressed under your thumb. You do not go out of your way at all to get sex from this woman. This woman sticks around because of her attraction to you that you have instilled in her by making her believe that you are someone she needs in her life. Getting a cumdumpster is difficult. The easiest way to acquire one is to first acquire a plate and then demote her.
In order to keep around a former plate as a cumdumpster, you need to convince the woman that she has a chance at a relationship with you. Do whatever you want to do so—lie, cheat, steal; TRP is amoral. I’m telling you that these immoral actions, that you can perform, will work. Hell, gaslight them if you want to.
Cumdumpsters are not women you cohabitate with. They are not women you waste time and money on. They make themselves sexually available to you at almost all times because of her attraction to you that you can bolster through manipulating her. Getting a cumdumpster requires you to be at the top of your game, as it relies on you putting in nothing to the relationship and her putting in everything. She needs to feel on edge for her to be a cumdumpster. You cannot give her any sense of security. A lot of women, (yes a lot) will object to this. Sadly, they are not stupid enough to realize they are being used, so a lot of women will abandon you if you treat them like a cumdumpster because they want plate status back. It is up to you if you want to promote them to plate status or not.
Let me further clarify the differences between a cumdumpster and a plate. A plate is a woman who spreads her legs for you because you texted her “Come over. Now.” A cumdumpster is a woman who spreads her legs for you because she came to your residence out of her own volition because she believes that she needs to have sex with you for you to keep her around. A plate cooks a meal for you because you told her “I want steak tonight.” A cumdumpster cooks for you because she is so attracted to you she wants to keep you happy. A plate is a woman who you want in your life (for sex primarily). A cumdumpster is a woman who you DGAF about whether she’s in your life or not. If you are not disgusted by a CD, fuck her, otherwise demote her.
But perhaps the biggest difference is that plates commit to you, while a cumdumpster—true to her name—fills her holes with the cum of many guys and is incapable of commitment. [They have no self control at all]( /r/TheRedPill/comments/2kd5px/women_lack_self_control/). [Remember that British girl who back in July received international attention for sucking off 24 guys at a bar?]( http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/magaluf-sex-video-shows-girl-3817206) She is a cumdumpster. She is so mentally damaged that she cannot be anything more than a plate at most.
A good example of demoting a woman to a cumdumpster can be found in this post, in which the OP demoted her from an LTR to a cumdumpster. That is two rungs down the ladder.
Cumdumpsters are your former sluts turned single-mothers that genuinely think they have a chance with you and give you sex whenever you ask because that is the one thing they know how to do.
V. The Untouchables.
There are some women out there—the 4s and lower, the obese women, the feminists, the SJW retards, the writers at Jezebel, the Tumblrinas, the “otherkin,” the transgenders,—that are not worth your time. An untouchable woman is one who is, in no way, shape, form, or manner, of a high enough status to have sex with you. Remember, you are the prize. You have standards. You decide who you want to sleep with.
If you meet an 8 and she is a feminist blabbering on and on about how she only sleeps with white athletes over 6 ft tall, then be my guest and fuck her. But if you meet a 4 and she is a feminist blabbering on and on about she only sleeps with white athletes over 6 ft tall, you should not give her the time of day. Why? 1) she’s a four, 2) she’s a feminist, 3) her hypergamy is unchecked.
Untouchables need to understand that there are some men they cannot get, and you need to understand that there are better women you can get.
It is quite easy to distinguish untouchables from cumdumpsters. If you meet a woman that is slutty but easily manipulated, she is a cumdumpster. If she is hot but vapid she is a cumdumpster. If she is a ONS she is a cumdumpster. If she is so unattractive that you don’t want to fuck her and would instead enjoy a pint in the billiards room with your mates, she is an untouchable.
TL;DR Don't get married, LTRs require effort from you and a good woman^TM that is difficult to come by, use game to get plates, demote the plate into a cumdumpster if you're bored, and don't fuck obese feminists who are 4s. Also, read the post.
I wrote a sister post titled The Hierarchy of Men on /r/RedPillWomen . Feel free to check it out. Please note, the RPW subreddit has a different moderation team and they will not respond kindly to people who disrupt their female oriented space.
saraburzy 11y ago
Although women can be classified into your five respective strata, it does not indicate that there are women that have been mistakenly placed due to human error in operating whatever method you're trying to enforce. Being mistakenly placed is not limited to a faulty categorization, but also applies to inexperience with women who possess characteristics beyond a generalized frame. That is, women you believe cannot exist that, beyond your experience or present comprehension and speculation, do. That is not to say that this model is not generally accurate, but by no means is any model, hypothesis, or attempt of solving a problem sophisticated to the point that it does not allow the possibility for other alternatives.
The issue, then, lies not in the fault of the nature of the model but the nature of being a finite living organism whose experiences are severely truncated in comparison to the incalculable possibilities that could exist.
Many in academia or even those just in prominent public roles (e.g. Justices Breyer or Scalia) have self-proclaimed models that yearn to solve a particular problem. Cartesian epistemology, Kantian critique of pure moral reason (categorical imperative), scientific method(s) (induction, abduction, deduction, hypothetico-deductive, etc.), how to approach Supreme Court cases in the service of active liberty (Breyer) or originalism (Scalia), MBTI personality types - the list is endless. Methods apply an illusory sense of confidence in answers whose methodology is unique, hyperbolic, and singular to a particular event. Again, their generalizations may be consistent, but to extend its explanatory power to being unconditionally true, all encompassing, or truth-bearing is plainly officious.
If you dislike the idea of marriage because of generalizations and predictable qualities, that's fine. But to apply this model and use it as credible support as to why marital commitment is a poor decision and the ideal woman is purely fantasy merely displays a beacon of ignorance along with an inconsistency with something I often see here in this sub. For example, I was just reading in another thread regarding the history of education how the Prussian model of education is what the US adopted and spoke about women in education; it claimed that women pay attention to the details of how they march as opposed to the larger picture of where they're going. That much like the fear-mongering, slave-creating educational institution they are creating for children to be wage slaves, they are also cheapened slaves indoctrinated in the same political process that fools them into thinking they're making a difference. At one point, it even said that women like predictability and rules because it allows them to be in a place where they don't have to think. To me, this is all a glorified intellectual "method" boils down to. It is a diluted, unsophisticated way of approaching the true nature of an experience. Varying methodologies certainly have a pragmatic benefit, but to invigorate them with as much confidence in being truth-bearing as we do is beyond pedantic - it's destructive and naive.
As was aforementioned, it saves time and saves people from 'having to think' which is not something that is exclusive to women. Accordingly, it's involuntary and instinctual to become familiarized with consistent, recurring circumstances; I'm not arguing natural habituation is an enemy but that academia has a frustratingly excessive amount of contributors whose 'methods' and 'processes' are intended to be representative of anything more substantial than a generalization. This isn't irrelevant to the conversation and undergirding arguments that compose this sub since I routinely see how women do not prefer to think for themselves, when in many cases male-dominated institutions benefit from the same processes not because of a reason indebted to gender, but human nature and habituation. For clarification, I am not claiming that women are not more emotionally unstable, or that generalizations are not more appealing to women, etc. just that paying attention to details and losing sight of the big picture is less to do with gender and more to do with historical context, sociocultural inheritance, and the like. There are women, at least myself, who have a mind that operates in a way that is the opposite of what has been stated. Accordingly, in my experience it has hardly been welcomed, even in most undergrad courses; that is, to theorize, to introduce new ideas without fine tuning to details. The creative mind is not supposed to jump, it is supposed to mechanically regurgitate past intellectual leaps and embellish them with novel phrasings and as many details as possible in a double-spaced, typewritten fashion. In sum, if a the critique routinely made that women crave structure because it allows them the freedom not to think (and that is worthy of condemnation) why conversely affirm a petty hierarchy of a subset of the demographic that cheapens the nature of experience? Why condone something that is quite clearly argued to be negative and associated with a generalization of females?
Philosophy is often seen as the pursuit to generalize the singular; what that means is with respect to the singular nature of experiences and understanding the true subjectivity and hyperbolic element that composes an individual's experience with anything, to synthesize that with a generalization is often the lofty, high-minded goal that is not only impossible to reach, but cheapens what could alternatively be a sophisticated, richer account of something with respect to its intricacies and details.
I am a 21 year old female who has been in a relationship with my SO for about a year and a half. I've told him before that he has never been my boyfriend, but someone that I love passionately. That I don't understand titles, I am just choosing to spend my time and share my life with him on a more intimate level. I had never been in a relationship before, and had no other intimate encounters. I just didn't see the point of telling someone he was my 'boyfriend' when he is something so much more incredible than that. Similarly, when we first began talking he wasn't just a relationship prospect, he was a person with a beautiful mind who cared about conversing about topics that demand a strong intellect. He is still someone I am committed to without carrying the cheapened title of what other manipulative, lying, infidelity-bound partners call their current slampiece. Or what other people who never care to have an insightful thought call their partner that was 'meant to be.' I don't need a title to remind me to commit to a lover, and I don't need relationship advice based on general ideas borne out of petty relationships that congest this planet. I don't want that, and I don't want what marriage is. I want to love someone faithfully and passionately founded on openness and communication, especially about things that are difficult to express. However I don't just want that, it is my reality. I (to my knowledge, which is an important qualifier) make a man fulfilled by supplying him with qualities of what you consider a realistically unfeasible unicorn. In the end, he has an experience that you do not. Having this lack of experience does not make an individual ignorant, adhering to a model of generalizations and believing that it is truth-bearing does.
[Also, this is intended to be read in an inquisitive tone, not a defamatory one. I am fairly new to these subs; I apologize in advance if the way I spoke signaled a negative, condescending demeanor.]
jagrmeister721 11y ago
Great breakdown.
I can't help but notice that the Untouchables are the ones who've become so bitter for their inability to attract men (esp. top men) that their personality is the only thing more repugnant than their looks. They have the aura of a reject. Every once in a while, I'll practice my approach in a store and mistakenly think I can use a low-value girl as a test subject. She is in such disbelief that any man would talk to her, her defensive bitterness is the "reward" for saying hi.
LeGrandDiableBlanc 11y ago
I have found that women with low self esteem hate men who are interested in them. Its almost as if their subconscious is telling them, "This guy is hitting on you? What a fucking loser!"
PracticallyAlpha 11y ago
Often it'll be more along the lines of "What's this guy really after?" When approached by an attractive man, girls will assume some ulterior motive (pump & dump/catfish paranoia abounds in the uggo community)
Aerobus 11y ago
I want to thank /u/IllimitableMan for sharing some of his insight while I was writing this post. He helped me clarify my points and strengthen my arguments.
Kaelteth 11y ago
Regarding #1 above...
I disagree that TRP philosophy is inherently anti-marriage. Marriage is still a reasonable construct in the context of reproduction.
Secondly, there are unicorns. They exist. The problem is that AWALT as well - your precious unicorn can become a horse with a cone glued to its head in a heartbeat. The thing is...
It is your fault if your unicorn becomes a horse with a cone glued to it's head.
Yes, you read that correctly.
There are women out there that have been raised correctly. That understand, accept, and desire the Captain-First Mate household. That aren't nutjob feminist cunts.
But the thing is, they have an expectation of you - that you will be the leader. That you will be the rock of stability in a fucked up world. That you're the person that makes them know they are secure, and in exchange they do their part as wives - respect you, do their duties in the household, and fuck your brains out.
Fuck up that stability - open up your gaping mangina ONCE, or get fat an lazy, or not strive for professional success, or any of a myriad of BP bullshit behaviors, and the dream is shattered. You're not a rock, you're a fucking pile of sand. And your unicorn is out there looking for a guy that is what she thought you were.
Unicorns do exist. It is up to you to keep them a unicorn once you find them.
[deleted] 11y ago
The theory goes that men wonder if their wives are going to turn out to be crazy while women worry about if their husband is actually a loser.
[deleted] 11y ago
Your comment made me believe that there are no unicorns. It's the pressure of constantly having to be the rock to her that doesn't make her a unicorn IMO.
Even the strongest people have their weak moments, it's unreasonable of her to expect her rock to not crack once in a while. The dream is to have a woman love you the way a beta loves his gf, women aren't capable of seeing past the weaknesses.
[deleted] 11y ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, this is mere conjecture.
Redpillc0re 11y ago
Look, it's not a matter of finding your unicorn. You have to be able to protect it from itself (hypergamy). In the modern west men have been deprived of all means to keep their women at bay. Ergo, you're being asked to enter a lifetime contract of full-time hard level Game to keep a family. This requires too much effort and may prevent you from reaching your other goals in life. It's just not a good deal, not just because there are no unicorns, but mostly because the environment is not conductive to their survival.
[deleted] 11y ago
More or less, just protect your assets. But I am inclined to think that it's all just because of social constructs, though I am not closing my brain that there is possible a pragmatic benefit for a man to marry (even /u/Rollo-Tomassi 's reason for getting married himself boils down to him thinking that it was a good idea at the time). What I'm pretty sure of is that it will be healthier for the child to have a mother.
thestealthsuit 11y ago
No, there are no unicorns. Unicorns don't exist, except in one's imaginations. That's why the term is unicorns.
Yes, there may be GOOD WOMEN out there, but even good women are still women, thus falling into the concept of AWALT. All Women Are Like That. And they are, in the right circumstances.
KyfhoMyoba 11y ago
Yep. All women are LIKE that, but not all women DO that. To the extent that she has a libido, she is susceptible to cheating, with the right man (high SMV relative to dyadic pair) in the right circumstances (anonymity).
Aerobus 11y ago
Basically I agree with you, but there are two details that we view differently.
1) TRP is inherently anti-marriage because of the no-fault divorce, 50/50 split, women gaining child custody 90% of the time, etc. In the west, marriage is just too risky.
2) What you're saying makes sense, but I'd argue that what you refer to as a unicorn is what I refer to as a marriageable woman. I use unicorn in a literal sense--a mythical being. Can you imagine a woman who has no flaws at all, is perfect in every way possible, and doesn't present any risk of divorce? I can't.
PedophilePriest 11y ago
There is no perfect woman. But there are plenty of beautiful 18-20 year old virgins, who for religious reasons have been raised to want nothing more than an old school marriage where they stay home, cook, clean and have babies. Divorce is not an option for these women since they would be ostracized from their large extended families. They dont care if their husband is older than them, and you dont have to be religious to marry them. Oh and they will work if they feel they need to, but they won't develop a career.
You might have to marry them before hitting it however. ..
Hideydid 11y ago
And at 35 they realize they only had one man, their hormones are going crazy, the kids are teenagers and don't need a mom, she feels useless and bored, and jumps ship because she's been integrated into feminist culture and now views you as an oppressor and wants to start by opening her marriage. May not happen to everyone, but I've seen it enough.
Red_August 11y ago
A unicorn is a mythical animal. The whole point of TRP's usage of the word unicorn is that there is no such thing. It is a useful construct to help newcomers de-pedestalise women. There are no unicorns, keep the semantics consistent.
Kaelteth 11y ago
That's kinda my point though - while this is now digressing from the OP's topic, quite bluntly I think the unicorn "mythological" argument is patently false.
I do agree 100% that you don't pedestalize women. The #1 cause of BP behavior is thinking that one specific woman is somehow special above all the rest. There are literally 100's of millions of worthwhile women out there IMHO. But we do need to teach that any single woman, if she goes off the rails in any way, is not in any way worth losing our shit about. There are an abundance of women.
But the thing is - there ARE women out there where the juice is worth the squeeze. Now, please let me be perfectly clear - just because the juice is worth the squeeze, doesn't mean that us men should get all blubbery about it. If she doesn't want you (friendzone), or makes you jump through all sorts of hoops to get the pussy, then fuckit - there are literally billions of vaginas out there.
But to say that a worthwhile woman is mythical quite bluntly is a steaming pile of horseshit. In the vernacular we've chosen - unicorns exist. But it is very much up to us to be the fucking man, or the unicorn is slain, to be replaced by a goat.
The key of TRP in my mind when it comes to marriage is to not get married to a goat. You get married to the unicorn, and then it is up to you to keep her a unicorn. Fail, and you're fucked. Succeed, and you will have a long and happy marriage where you don't have to worry in any way about getting fucked in a divorce.
Just my thoughts, but I sincerely believe we're feeding a pile of horseshit to literally suggest that out of 4 billion women on the plant there is not one single woman out there that is worthwhile to an Real Man.
Aerobus 11y ago
I think you misunderstood me. I agree there are worthwhile women out there--dunno if it's 100s of millions. They fall into my second category, LTR-worthy women.
Like /u/Red_August said you understand the basic ideas, but you're mixing up terminology. A unicorn by definition does not exist.
Aerobus 11y ago
In the words of /u/trpsubmitter
/r/TheRedPill/comments/1vcdcy/think_you_or_your_friends_captured_a_unicorn/
Red_August 11y ago
No one is saying that a "worthwhile woman" is mythical. You seem to be stuck with this. There are worthwhile (LTR) women out there but there will never be unicorns - by definition. You are conflating constructs. A woman whose "juice is worth the squeeze" is precisely that - a woman whose juice is worth squeezing. She is not a unicorn.
I got your point, don't worry, but get the terminology right, and the meaning for why the terminology was created in the first place. What you mean is "a high quality woman" (and yes, they need tending to). A unicorn means something else. The lack of consistency will bite you in the ass when discussing more subtle theory. Sure, sometimes the term is used more loosely in TRP, sometimes simply for effect.
EDIT - upon re-reading OP's text, he is in fact stating that marriageable women are unicorns, so I stand corrected. Although I personally don't believe in marriage, I do think that some women are marriageable material. But they are not unicorns.
Kaelteth 11y ago
Choosing to respond here instead of any other individual comment to my post...
I (now) understand the difference being expressed here, and indeed I was getting hung up on nomenclature.
The "unicorn" - the mythical woman that is perfect in every conceivable way - absolutely does not exist. There is no "perfect woman" - I agree 100% that AWALT.
I agree fully (and express strongly) that women exist that are marriageable material - that possess enough quality components and mentality that given a proper Alpha husband/leader will not go off the rails and end up in your kids gone with half or more of your assets. But also, that even the highest level of marriageable material WILL go off the rails if you fail as a man.
Thank you all for your responses - I definitely understand the difference being presented now.
AndrewAtrus 11y ago
"Unicorn" doesn't mean a "perfect woman", being a mere extension of a marriageable or high-quality woman.
It's an illustration of AWALT: there is no woman who you can guarantee will keep her hypergamy in check.
Are there women who will stay loyal to you? Yes.
Are there women for whom you can say, with a high degree of confidence, that they are slaves to hypergamy and external validation? Yes.
Are there attributes and flags you can look out for that hint that a woman might stay loyal? Yes.
But there is no way to guarantee, for any given woman, that she will stay loyal, despite your best efforts.
Aerobus 11y ago
I edited my post to clarify further. If people want to get married, good for them. TRP's message is to not get married, so I'm not parroting a message contradictory to the sub's values. If you want to get married, pick a woman from the second strata because unicorns don't exist.
AndrewAtrus 11y ago
TRP's "message" is simply knowledge. It's amoral and non-prescriptive. It's up to the individual man what he wants to do with it.
IllimitableMan 11y ago
People will argue this to the cows come home. Basically marriage is fucked. Cohabit with a bitch, get her to accept you won't marry her, don't be forced into marriage out of pressure/manipulation. Avoid common law states. Pay the child support if/when it fucks up, at least you won't pay alimony/half your assets. This has come up many times, and there's always a conservative crowd (Texans, is that you?!) who were raised to see marriage through stained glass windows.
EG: "my parents/grandparents were together 50 years bla bla bla... so strong bla bla bla... they were so happy bla bla bla" that was called marriage 1.0. That's when women were less narcissistic, reliant on men economically and were SCORNED BY SOCIETY for divorce. That was marriage 1.0 - it died a grizzly death by the hands of feminism. Now we have marriage 2.0 where women are societally gassed up on social media/thirsty betas/pussy on a pedestal white knighting. They don't need men's money to survive (only to be more greedy) and divorce is acceptable - some even have divorce parties. Different climate mate, stop looking to the past for inspiration for marriage - we're not in the 50's we're in the here and now. The establishment has made marriage anti-masculine. Only a fool signs up for that.
Someone will now mention pre-nups, assuming you are 100% sure it can't be overturned, sure. Do that. But why take the unnecessary risk? Why do you want to be married? What changes? Save a bit on your taxes? OK. What else? Joint medical insurance? OK. What else? You believe somehow it benefits the kids? Wrong. Your bit of paper you signed means shit. It's all living in the same house that makes the difference to the kids. You being around all the time is the difference, not the signing your balls to the woman who then uses the state to hold you at gun point and divorces your ass when she's no longer HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPY. And you may not even get to see your kid any more because she weaponises them against you in the divorce.
Divorce fucks kids up, mentally - really badly - it can be ugly. But in your selfishness "to be married" and achieve whatever recognition/status that means in your mind, you're willing to risk putting them through that. You will not last forever with a woman. Period. So why chain your balls to her? How does that make you feel? How will that make the kids feel? Do they deserve that heartache? You may not give a shit about a bitch tossing you out - but what about your kids who have to see you argue, who are made to hate you and poisoned against you because she's out for blood and wants half the assets?
You just moving out one day is nowhere near as ugly as a divorce battle and kids being forced to lie in court and used as weapons. You have some autonomy and ability to affect dread without being married. Without being married and a ring on her finger she doesn't think "haha, I have him now." Unless you are in high society and need marriage to be accepted into the upper echelon, your entire desire for marriage is idealistic, whimsical nonsense that makes poor sense from a strategic point of view. Yet I suspect someone will try to pick holes in my post and argue why "marriage is worth it." Such people are deluded fools with no strong counterarguments. Just idiots who believe in a dead institution, indoctrinated into religious ideals/social pressure I suspect.
It irks we have people on TRP who were raised to view marriage in such a way that no amount of RP can slap them out of how much of a bad decision that is. If you want to make dumb, poorly thought-out decisions, that's your life to fuck up - but It's not something TRP as a sub endorses.
EDIT - READ THIS SHIT: /r/TheRedPill/comments/2rkz4s/older_players_late_40s50s_up_tell_us_what_you/cnh0tgt
gran_helvetia 11y ago
Thanks for always delivering, man
Clemence999 11y ago
Lots of truth here.
I had a fascinating conversation with my OLTR the other day about marriage, that began when I reiterated my unequivocal refusal to participate:
Her: "Well, what if we have kids? I'm gonna need health insurance."
Me: "I'll pay for it out of pocket. No problem, well worth avoiding the risks associated with marriage. Anything else?"
(60-90 seconds of silence / hamster spinning)
Me: "Let me ask you something, what's your take on equal custody as a default?"
Her: "Well I'm torn. Because yeah that would be more fair, but I just feel like a lot of the time kids love their Moms more."
Me: "Shocking."
IllimitableMan 11y ago
She may as well have said "I'm a selfish fuck who doesn't care about fairness and wants to use the kids as weapons to get my own way" but hey! Who am I to judge?
wendy-fly 11y ago
I really don't think you should even consider having kids with this person. If you are married or not, if custody/visitation comes into play and she has that attitude you may be in for a long fight.
Clemence999 11y ago
Honestly I don't hold it against her. It is in any woman's bloodline to do whatever it takes to stay close to their children, and that often means disregarding what is "fair". Women who don't have this instinct disgust me. David Shade (sexual technique pua type guy) wrote about his divorce, and how his wife had been cheating on him despite the two of them having (allegedly) amazing sex. She came home one day and said "I want a divorce, you can keep the kids." That story made my stomach churn, and may have been one of the prominent catalysts for me taking the red pill.
IF I ever have kids I will get a PARENTING PLAN signed. It is the paternal equivalent of a prenup. If the mother and I decide we don't want to live together any longer there, will be a specific framework in place for custody. Nobody will decide whether or not I have access to my kids. Not their mother, and most definitely not the government.
Rhunta 11y ago
Maariage is an option, but not in america.
gekkozorz 11y ago
I'm sure you have plenty of these by now, but here's another. ♂
I get sick and tired of hearing this bullshit - "you can still get married and be RP! If you're badass enough, you can make it last forever! You can even keep her from getting fat and becoming a total cunt!"
No. No, you can't.
Okay, maybe you can. I'm sure plenty of you will find a way to stay Don Draper forever and have that perfect life together forever and ever and live the Disney dream.
But the thing is, you're opening yourself up to the possibility of being stuck in a relationship with a horrible cunt of a woman, and if that happens, the only way out is to get fucked through your wallet for the rest of your adult life.
Marriage 2.0 is like any other shit test. When a woman is testing you, she'll try to make you do something weak and unmasculine, like say "open up and talk about your feelings!"
She thinks she wants you to do that. She really does. The part of her lizardbrain that is probing you to see if you have an vulnerabilities is poking and prying at your Man Shield to make sure it's bulletproof.
But what she doesn't realize is that what she actually wants you to do is swat her down - "no way honey, I don't have feelings, I'm a total Terminator." The front of her brain is disappointed, the back of her brain is excited. You're a real man. That's what she really wanted.
That's what marriage 2.0 is. She thinks marriage is exactly what she needs and it will make her happy. But all it's going to do is make her respect you less and probably just make the two of you miserable in the long run. Except that unlike her, you will not have a golden parachute when it fails.
X346 11y ago
When a man and woman marry, they also involve the government. The government is on the woman's side, and in effect, the government also becomes her "husband" as well. No alpha man can out-alpha the powerful alpha state government. In effect, an alpha guy becomes a beta when he gets married. The woman has the power in the marriage. A woman can get her husband kicked out of his own home and jailed with just a phone call (VAWA). Now that's power. Once a wife realizes this, the dynamics of the marriage relationship change, and not good for the man.
trpbot 11y ago
Confirmed: 1 point awarded to /u/IllimitableMan by gekkozorz. ^[History]
[This is an Automated Message]
ConfidenceMatters 11y ago
This is absolutely beautiful.
Also, the safety and comfort of marriage and the gov/state backing her up WILL get allow her to let herself go with very little consequences, REGARDLESS how hard she denies she will.
IllimitableMan 11y ago
Quite right. Woman's words are worth absolutely fuck all WHEN their actions consistently demonstrate the contrary. Marriage = less sexual satisfaction, she gets fatter bla bla bla. The safety of marriage (and power of the state corrupting the marriage by holding it at constant gunpoint) causes her to stop working on her game. When you get married you're in a PUT UP & SHUT UP situation with a woman. Married men already here are in damage control mode; they are playing on the hardest difficulty and if they had found TRP say 10 or 20 years ago (Assuming it existed) they may not even be married right now. They were fools and they're trying to make the best of a bad situation, but we don't need to follow in their footsteps to validate the "RP marriages" they have now. I do believe in LTRs. I do believe in having a family. I don't believe contemporary marriage is necessary or conducive in making that happen. That's probably where I differ from the traditionalists, whereas on most issues - I am in agreement with them.
[deleted] 11y ago
[deleted]
IllimitableMan 11y ago
RPW or not, their sexual strategy clashes with ours. And yeah I go there occasionally, but not often. I think they sidebarred one of my posts.
[deleted] 11y ago
[deleted]
[deleted]
frozen_strawberry 11y ago
the thing with marriage is: getting married is the man taking a lot of the risks. if the relationship fails and the woman turns into a super bitch the man is fucked.
not getting married is the woman taking most of the risks of the relationship. as a woman you usually would stay home with the kids and raise them, make a home, have a part time job to pull your weight. no career, no safety net to fall on. so if the relationship fails and all of a sudden you have to support your kids (i dont know how much child support is but i kind of doubt it covers ALL the expenses) and yourself with what you have and make. i know, i know, alimony and blahblahblah but when's the last time you heard of a single mother living the life? and then there's this whole family unit thing, that's not very logical but i just want to have the same last name my kids have. because i do think it matters. and i do think it looks trashy when the mother has a different name for whatever reason. there's so much else but i'm too tired to type it all out. basically: marriage is risky for men, cohabitation is risky for women.
edit: and i guess i will now be banned from this subreddit.
wendy-fly 11y ago
I totally agree with this. I just couldn't have a child with someone who wouldn't marry me even though logically I can understand the man's concern. Certainly I agree that marriage is a risky business. However, I want to at least downgrade my career to raise our children. I want to give everything to my SO but if he isn't my husband I don't think I can do that. I just don't think you are likely to get a good woman to have children with you without putting a ring on it. That said, get a good prenup.
Aerobus 11y ago
You're not going to get banned if you make an argument that is contrary to ours, explain your reasoning, and defend your position. You will get banned if you make baseless claims. You will get banned if you are arguing things that should not be argued (i.e sidebar material).
I read your comment, and I agree with your general sentiment. I don't see why you fear a ban.
frozen_strawberry 11y ago
i fear(ed) a ban because it goes against pretty much anything the red pill says. the portion of you who want to start a family obviously want a quality woman and what i said was pretty much 'you aint gonna get a good woman if you dont put a ring on her finger'. because as bad an idea it is for men to get married it's just as bad an idea to start a family with someone who you're not married to as a woman.
a_scourge 11y ago
so you're trying to convey basic, core RP dogma.
marriage 2.0 - very very bad for men
all the alternatives - VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY bad for women.
but it's going to happen anyways. the number of blue pill guys is getting smaller every day. you won't get banned for making a VERY good corollary to RP essentials :D
mrp3anut 11y ago
I don't believe TRP is agianst marriage in the broad sense. TRP generally sees modern western marriage under the current laws to be very risky.
No-fault + 50/50 asset split + near gauranteed child custody + alimony is very bad for men however if those laws were not so stacked agianst men then marriage would be a good deal for most guys.
What a lot of TRP readers seem to forget is that everyone cannot be the "20" that gets to slay strange pussy all day everyday and even if a ton of guys hit the gym, dress right, act alpha etc then the new "20" would just be the guys at the top of the new super alpha society and nothing would change.
Aerobus 11y ago
Of course. The reason I equated unicorns with marriageable women is because in today's climate, with no fault divorce, the 50/50 split, etc, there's no reason to marry for men living in the west.
mrp3anut 11y ago
I would not say there is no reason to get married. Many of the reasons men would want to get married are still valid.
The current legal system puts actually pursuing those reasons risky since there is no reasonable assurance of achieving them.
Just because there are factors causing marriage to be risky does not invalidate the concept of marriage.
[deleted] 11y ago
Bullshit. I'm the fucking man and can have any girl I want.
mrp3anut 11y ago
What? Did you even understand what i said?
reddiforlove 11y ago
Even if a hypothetical "super alpha society" were possible, the average marriage would still not be a better choice than being out of the top 20%. That is a very all or nothing philosophy. That's like saying life isn't worth living unless you are in the top 20% of wealth earners. You are vastly underestimating how good the top 20 has it if you think that is the only better alternative to marriage.
On one hand, you give up your personal and economic freedom to a woman who will automatically find you less attractive because you made the extremely disqualifying move of legally binding yourself to her, and on the other hand, you may not be fucking 3 new hotties every week, but your free time is your own, your money is your own, and if you have your shit together and know what you're doing, you can on average fuck a new girl every two or three months without much effort.
If TRP isn't against marriage in the broad sense, it should be.
mrp3anut 11y ago
You seem to think the current hookup culture would still exist. Women are being mislead to believe that sleeping with a lot of guys in their 20's is good for them partly because the consequences for their bad decisions are being mitigated by the legal system.
So if women started needing marriage to have a good life how many would slut it up with you?
reddiforlove 11y ago
I absolutely believe the current hookup culture would still exist. I don't like it, but it's not going anywhere for a very long time.
Women aren't only being mislead to believe that sleeping around is good for them, it's in their nature, and always has been. That understanding is what TRP is all about.
I'm having trouble understanding why you'd even ask this question for two reasons.
One, how in that situation would women possibly start needing marriage to have a good life? You didn't address anything besides marriage laws and male SMV. Globally, wealth has steadily been transferring from men to women with no signs of slowing that I'm aware of, and this is including Muslim Theocracies in the mix. Women have it better than ever before, it's likely the next US President will be a woman. Nothing you stated would have changed this fact. Women on average now have more wealth on top of control of access to sex.
Second, in my experience, a woman whoring around rarely has any effect on her ability to get married. Take a look at /r/relationships or society in general. Everywhere you look, men are not even asking how much their partner has slept around before giving her a ring, and even if they find out, they aren't holding it against her. It's pretty much just us here, natural alphas, and a few religious and minority communities who still hold that view.
So, to answer your question, plenty.
mrp3anut 11y ago
You say women now have access to money and sex as if this is a known fact and that it applies to all women at every socioeconomic level. You also assume that the relative prosperity much of the world now lives in will never go away.
They need for male power is diminishing because much of what people consider to be work is now centered around office jobs, service industry, luxuries etc which often do not require the sort of physical strains present in the past.
I think it is very likely the shift back to traditional roles and societal expectations will happen however, that may be in 1 year or 50. The deciding moment won't be some revolt of men or a crafty bit of legislation from the MRM. It will happen when the current world economy goes to shit as the first world buries itself in debt buying luxuries and other frivolous things.
The return of men will come from necessity not willful action and when it does the expectations on women will come with it.
reddiforlove 11y ago
Women control access to sex, always have always will, it is a known fact, if you aren't aware of it, you either need to lurk more or read the sidebar.
You make it sound as if male power has always revolved around brute strength. Men have always had higher amounts of wealth and education in relation to women in addition to their physical strength. That advantage is gone now, in addition to technology making physical ability more irrelevant.
The first world is already buried in debt, that isn't going to magically make technology disappear. You also seem to forget that there are first world countries like Russia, China, and the UAE that aren't drowning in feminism. The West's only hope for returning to more traditional gender roles is for more men to opt out of marriage. Of course there won't be a men's "revolt" or legislation against women (over 50% of the electorate), but it isn't out of the question that enough men will act in their own self interest and stop marrying these whores to make a difference in how they conduct themselves.
mrp3anut 11y ago
Women only control sex when society allows them to. There are a lot of young girls in the pacific islands sold of by their parents into the sex trade since it is seen by those cultures as better for everyone.
Men were able to hold said power and education in the past due to the necessity of their physical strength and the responsibilities it carries.
The first world countries you listed are only first world for the elite or communist party members etc so not really a viable comparison since the populace does not live first world lifestyles.
LifeAtPeace 11y ago
Although I would agree that I like the concept of marriage and family (that good feeling of coming home to a loving wife and kids), marriage these days is more risky than it was 20 years back. I am not from a western country. But I notice the change in women and their attitude even in Asia. Education, jobs and laws to protect them have given women too much power. Forget marrying, I even find it difficult to work long term (more than a year) with women. Their entitlement, childish behavior, laziness repulse me.
Whenever the thought of marriage comes to mind, I recall what I undergo with female coworkers and think of the situation where one like them comes to share my house, finances, family and dreams along with law to protect her from anything she thinks is against her.
2FAM0US 11y ago
this is almost identical to a post i made last year called "hierarchy of pussy" great minds think alike
mast0rz 11y ago
Great post! Well written and informative. However, I feel that the usage of the term "The Untouchables" is somewhat weird. In my head, when a girl is untouchable, it means she is so extremely hot that only the very tip-top millionaire tier men have a shot at her.
Unfortunately I lack a better term. Perhaps "The Unwanted", "The Unfuckables" or "The Non-worthwhiles" is better. Looking forward to more posts!
cock_pussy_up 11y ago
Untouchable can have different meanings. In the USA the word "untouchable" is associated with somebody who is so high status and powerful that nobody can touch them or harm them.
But in India "untouchable" are the lowest caste, because nobody wants to touch them.
[deleted]
Aerobus 11y ago
I can't help you if you feel that distinguishing between women--some of who are better than others--equates to woman-hating.
MachiavellianRed 11y ago
Don't worry they're just a random neurotic SJW who spends most of their time in asktransgender. Banned 'em.
KyfhoMyoba 11y ago
Good lord! /r/asktransgender?!?! The apocalypse is truly upon us.
[deleted] 11y ago
I imagine a perfect wife as Claire Underwood. Smart, nonjelous, patient, full of understanding. And nonexistent, unfortunately.
SabineLavine 11y ago
Didn't she have an ongoing affair? Or would you be ok with an open marriage like that?
[deleted] 11y ago
As long as she shares everything with me, and doesn't try to divorce rape, sure.
[deleted] 11y ago
Also, psychopathic. At least a little. When she breaks dine and cries it made me question her commitment.
[deleted] 11y ago
I... didn't see that episode. I watched all until S2E13.
[deleted] 11y ago
Oh shit... Sorry about that : (
[deleted] 11y ago
I keep the last episode for the end of the month. Its not too revealing, no problem.
ostroman1989 11y ago
both threads read like a fiction book imho.
whats funny is how in the rpw thread it starts with not existing and ends with not existing. thats deep stuff maybe the james bond yearly millionaire is MGTOW lmao.
Aerobus 11y ago
Ends with not existing? What are you talking about? Most men are unattractive to women. Did you even read the sidebar?
ostroman1989 11y ago
read the RPW article parallel, I find this funny detail prince charming doesn't exist! 80% of men don't exist!
this little gem is worthy of some folk songs that begin at the end.
Aerobus 11y ago
I never said 80% of men don't exist. You misunderstood me.
Redpillc0re 11y ago
I saw your other post in redpillwomen. Good job btw. However the word hierarchy is not correct, it's more of a classification because in both cases the power dynamics are not aligned.
[deleted] 11y ago
By the way, I checked your post on /r/RedPillWomen and damn, they don't have the down vote option there! Haha! I'm not talking about downvoting you, btw, I just noticed it because I was checking how many upvotes it already got.
Mire_Lurker 11y ago
How is this real? What does their board even talk about?
Aerobus 11y ago
They disabled it with their subreddit style. They don't want people downvoting.
[deleted] 11y ago
Yeah, really shows the difference in sensitivity between men and women.
cocaine_face 11y ago
That's funny. I can't even imagine downvotes being a problem.
KyfhoMyoba 11y ago
FYI , guys, she did not "suck off" anyone. The video shows her having oral contact with each guy for no more than a couple of seconds - a quick kiss on the cock.
Still not someone anyone with a shred of self-esteem should even think about the possibility of considering the circumstances leading up to imagining what might have to happen in order to lay the ground work for picturing in ones mind the idea of wifing up.
All for a drink that cost about $4. US
Mire_Lurker 11y ago
Back to tumblr slut sympathizer.
MomoUnchained 11y ago
Why is he being downvoted?
Did any of you autistic fucks watch the video in question? He's 100% right.
Cyralea 11y ago
Because it's needlessly pedantic. The difference between a chick that sucked off 24 guys and one that simply kissed 24 consecutive dicks in a row is minimal.
[deleted] 11y ago
The technicalities make no difference.
Silverbacked 11y ago
Some good advice; shame about the psychopathy.