Hello everyone, it's been about a year since I took the redpill. It started with 4-months of monk mode, after which I entered an LTR where I have been verifying RP theory and developing my awareness. Below I present the key perspectives that have enhanced my life thus far:
AWALT
No description necessary here, it's just a truth you need to accept. I'm not angry about it anymore.
This dick ain't free
Thank you Kendrick for putting into words the sentiment that sexual strategy is amoral. Sex is not a reward, it's an activity that two consenting individuals choose to do. You fuck me, in exchange I fuck you. I.e, no free drinks. (See Marc Rudov No Harmony Without Equality)
Judge a woman by her behavior
There is no longer a vagina pedestal, and I am immune to hypergamous shame tactics. Strip away the sexual potential that a woman offers and judge her character and demeanor. What does she offer you if you subtract the sex? This perspective breeds abundance mentality.
To be a good partner to a woman, you have to be their lover and their father
I'll quote /u/HumanSockPuppet for this one:
When you're a good boyfriend, you love your woman twice: once as a partner, and once as a "father".
As lovers, we want to please the women we love. But sometimes we have deny our girls what they want so that we can achieve something for their own good. That's where being a father comes into play. You have to inoculate yourself against her tantrums and tears. You have to be ready and willing to lay down the law and set firm boundaries so that you can care for her in a way that she is not physically or emotionally equipped to do.
Put your foot down, lay down the law. I.e, maintaining frame.
Patrice O'Neal: Men are better - a man can make any woman his queen
A king is better than the queen, and he can make any woman his queen. The key AWALT perspective is that this does not work in reverse. A queen just can't make any man her king, HE HAS TO BE BETTER THAN HER. You are a king, you can elevate any woman to be your queen. Alpha widows cannot make you their king. (See Patrice O'Neal - We're Better Than You)
Thanks for reading, I hope to hear the perspectives that you guys may have that I can add to my list.
rombios 10y ago
the patrice o'neal clip is a MUST SEE
TheYellowPill 10y ago
The entire post is solid, but this is what stuck out to me the most. If you're searching for an LTR, this should be at the forefront of your mind always. ONS, not so much.
[deleted] 10y ago
I was explaining this to a friend who just ended a relationship a few days ago.. Except I used it in a different context.
Look at women as if they're all physically ugly, or at least unattractive. Would you still have a good time hanging out with her based on her personality and the life she lives?
I know so many hot chicks who only go to the bar/party or stay home and binge watch netflix while eating junk food. Their only other hobbies are posting selfies on social media and/or bitching on tumblr.
Do you hang out with dudes who only drink beers, watch TV/play video games, and bitch on the internet? I used to, and I guess we all bitch on the internet to a degree in 2015..
But I realized that while I'm young (25), I want to make the most of my life while I can. When the weather's permitting, I'll wake up at 5 AM to go mountain climbing. I spend my time painting and drawing over posting selfies and drinking (I'll go out 2 or 3 nights a week tops just to be social with friends). I like to read books and have interesting conversations that go beyond dull shit talking, sports, and hating my job like those conversations that flood most social groups.
Anyway, obviously you're going to have to deal with at least one negative trait in anyone that you're going to date, but at least have the option to be choosy when it comes to who you pick.
ioncehadsexinapool 10y ago
I loved that Patrice video. Any idea where i can find more podcasts like this?
evader11 10y ago
just youtube the Black Philip show. Pure gems are dropped by him all day long. I will admit, he is a little bit bitter towards women but his advice is solid af.
SilentForTooLong 10y ago
"A king is better than the queen, and he can make any woman his queen. The key AWALT perspective is that this does not work in reverse. A queen just can't make any man her king, HE HAS TO BE BETTER THAN HER."
This is logically inconsistent. You, and everyone else, do realize that...right? Like elementary logic inconsistent.
If you have to be better than a woman to be able to make her your queen, then logic tells you that any woman that is better than you, you cannot make your queen. Both of the statements here cannot be simultaneously true.
MattyAnon Admin 10y ago
This is Patrice trolling women - something he is fucking hilariously good at.
He speaks truth alternating with trolling to wind women up and make them angry. This is power. This is how you counter feminism. This is what a man does. This is strength and teasing. This is hot, masculine, powerful. This is chick crack and deeply disturbing to the female psyche. Yet sexy as hell ;)
SilentForTooLong 10y ago
So what men are supposed to do is be emotional, rhetoricians, and shed the rational, logical guise?
MattyAnon Admin 10y ago
There is no alternative. The strength of women, shit tests and feminism is that it works if you accept it, and it works if you argue against it. It's like a fucking medusa that will grow more heads as you chop each one off (every argument with a woman feels like this - you must have experienced this).
The only way to not be subsumed by the feminine imperative is to have abundance mentality (ie options), laugh at it, not take it too seriously, be prepared to walk away, always have a plan B, always have other options. This is the logical response in terms of your lifestyle. But second to second... definitely don't be logical - women find this both predictable and boring. And when they can predict it, they'll start to control it. And when they control you, it will be for guess who's benefit?
Once more: abundance mentality (ie options), laugh at life and the sitaution, nothing too serious, can walk away, always plan B, always options. Trolling women is just a bonus ;)
SilentForTooLong 10y ago
Weird... I've never heard it phrased as if women are the paragons of logic before...
User-31f64a4e 10y ago
Not inconsistent.
A superior man can elevate an inferior woman.
A superior woman ( ?! ) can not elevate an inferior man.
He is not saying all men are kings.
SilentForTooLong 10y ago
Superior woman is just as capable of giving money to a man as a superior man as to a woman.
Hotter woman being seen with a less attractive guy = giving him insane social elevation.
I've seen superior women elevate men quite several times in my life. It's not common, but very possible.
But the statements aren't even about that. I guess you have to think of it on a model level to see it maybe:
Man1, Man2, Woman1, and Woman2 are all the men an women in the universe.
Man1 is better than everyone else. Man2 is better only than Woman2.
If the statements hold then:
Man1 can make Woman1 or Woman2 his queen. But Man2 can only make Woman2 his queen (statement #1: men can make any women their queen is false). But in this current scenario statement #2 is true, because Woman2 can only make Man1 her king, not Man2 (since he is beneath her).
If you say, no, it doesn't matter to try and make statement #1 true, arguing that Man2 is actually capable of doing enough to be able to make Woman2 his queen, then Statement #2 becomes false because by forcing that statement to be true, women can make any man her king.
It will always equal out to this. In order for any universe to reach equilibrium, either Statement #1 is false and Statement #2 is true, or vice versa. They can never both be true, or both be false. They are contradictories.
Axoc 10y ago
I think in the final sentence where it says, "because Woman2 can only..." it should be Woman1. Otherwise this doesn't make sense and your analysis of the issue is itself a contradiction. Other than that though this was a solid explanation.
[deleted]
User-31f64a4e 10y ago
Is that statement one, or is statement one that a King, not any man, can make any woman his queen?
You seem to be just not getting it. The point is that (some) men can elevate women, but no women can elevate men.
You address this by saying women can give money to a man, as if being a Beta Bucks was being superior (not), and as if provisioning were elevation.
I think that the claim (not my claim; it may or may not be true, but I am just helping you here with remedial reading comprehension) is that a masculine man can draw out the femininity in a woman, but a feminine woman can't draw out the masculinity in a Beta.
Does that help?
SilentForTooLong 10y ago
What does "elevate" refer to? I was assuming that referring to objective things like "amount of money/income" or "social attractiveness" or "connections" or "power".
Getting upset over having to clarify language is the marker of a weak mind btw. You should think about getting over your whiny nature.
BowlOfCandy 10y ago
Just like the HB scale is relative to each individual, the "king potential" that every man has is relative to every woman. It's also a moving target. I wasn't arguing that every man is a king and can get any woman to be their queen, I'm saying that a woman can ONLY be fulfilled with a man that she regards as better than her and worthy of being her king. AWALT.
SilentForTooLong 10y ago
Ah, ok. That makes more sense with clarification then.
But still, I wonder, can a man really be fulfilled by a woman he sees as that far beneath him? Could a man choose to be fulfilled by a 300 lb, jobless woman?
2red4u 10y ago
A man's sexual attraction doesn't work the way a woman's does. How much a woman makes, her social status, her past relationships, none of these things matter to me. The only thing that matters is her looks, and her charm.
The reason men can "elevate" women to their status is because women derive their status from the man they have locked down. The things you can provide her, social standing, security, etc. are essentially passed on to her, and this elevates her social status in her and her peers eyes.
I would not have a perceived elevated sense of self-worth, nor would my peers feel that way about me, if I was to date a "higher quality woman" because as a man, we create our own value. We can't inherit it from our women.
That's the main difference he's trying to explain that I think you're missing. A woman can give me 50 grand, but it's not going to "elevate" me or raise my status. In fact, I could be seen as less of a man in my own eyes, her eyes, and the eyes of my peers.
SilentForTooLong 10y ago
Just sounds too theoretical to me. I must live in a different world or something.
In my world, it doesn't matter if someone giving you $50,000 has a penis or a vagina, that cash is going to elevate your social status.
I have literally observed super hot, or socially powerful (connected) women dating certain men around me elevate them from very low social status to superstar status.
Personally, the idea of getting a woman to give me $50,000 turns me on. It's not a usual course of action, so I view it as extremely empowering. I have gotten women to buy me all kinds of things in the past, and I always feel fucking amazing about it. And it has demonstrably boosted my social status. When my peers have found out that a woman was willing to buy me some expensive gift they usually assume I must be fucking incredible (which is true). Especially other women, who have never considered that anything other than their vagina would be worth giving to a man. I have seen the wheels spin in their eyes more than once wondering what could possibly make a man worth buying things for.
Maybe I just enjoy subverting social mores, but honestly, it seems like some kind of weird personal hangup to me to not want to be given things by women. But more importantly, I experience the opposite of the truth of your theory in my life, where I live.
I must live in a topsy turvy world, but these are my observations of the world I actually live in. I would prefer to rely on empirical data at my disposal than a theory that contradicts it.
2red4u 10y ago
You are free to have your own perceptions of the world you live in. I'm not telling you to think anything.
In my social circle, having a female "above you" would lessen your status as a man. It's feminine to be "taken care of" or doted on as such. It's something we as men should not be used to, and to me it would be completely foreign. It would make me uncomfortable.
If you are a stay at home husband married to a millionaire, technically as a family unit you are worth millions, but you won't get the same kind of respect, and won't instigate the same type of tingles in a womans vagina that you would if you were a self-made man.
It just lowers your status immensely to be the product of someone else's success as a man, rather than creating your own success. This should be really self-explanatory.
A woman has always inherited her mans success, which is why women get physically aroused and can actually be sexually attracted to money, power, fame, etc. even if the man himself isn't physically attractive. Generally this isn't the case for men, as we are attracted to youth, beauty, fertility, etc.
To me, a woman being rich would not increase her value to me in any way. I want to be a product of my own success. I don't want to be given 50 grand, I don't want to be the male equivalent of a gold digger, and I would lose respect for myself.
As men we are the leaders, and we strive to create and persevere on our own terms, from the sweat of our own brow. Wanting to become a stay at home husband or inherit the success of a female seems pretty beta. But what do I know?
SilentForTooLong 10y ago
You're free to have your perceptions as well. But can I ask why you care so much about what everyone thinks about you?...
I don't really give a fuck what people think about me.
My aim is not to be a house husband (I never plan on having kids), but the world is not as black and white as you make it out to be. If I can partner with a woman that is very connected in business, or a fellow entrepreneur that wants to build businesses with me, that's a candidate for an LTR. Or if I could just marry a wealthy woman and therefore have the free time to focus solely on my art projects, that would be a life well-lived to me. I would never live my life with finding a rich woman to marry as a goal unto itself, but I sure as fuck would not distance myself from the opportunity because I was afraid it would somehow make my penis fall off.
If I can fuck the brains out of some rich girl that wants to buy me a Ferrari to play around with, that's awesome. Maybe some envious dickwad will say something behind my back, but I can't imagine giving any thought to such nonsense.
Honestly, you're free to do whatever makes you happy, but I personally find this notion of finding some woman to pay for to be the most demeaning thing in the world. I can't imagine paying for some woman's life when all she does for me is have sex with me...unless that woman is literally an escort I've hired for the night.
Is some girl fucking you really enough for you to feel like you should give her all your money, and share all of your power with her?
From my perspective, you place a weird amount of value in sex, and a you seem to care way too much about what other people think about you. I personally never want to live like that. I would rather kill myself than just work all day and night to pay for some vagina to live out her dreams. It's weird, because I thought that was the Beta Bux trap... I didn't realize that is the goal most guys are working towards here? Personally, I only come here to get advice specifically on how to avoid ever being in that situation.
2red4u 10y ago
I'm literally just explaining to you what the intended message was, it's not even necessarily my own point of view, so you don't have to say "you place too much value in sex", and "you care so much what everyone thinks about you". There's no reason to be defensive or use such a salty aggressive tone.
Historically, throughout time, man has had a firm position as a provider in the household. Many men still feel driven to fulfill this role, it's technically what our role has been since the dawn of time. It is our genetic imperative.
This is why being doted on, purchased things, being the stay at home dad, being the arm candy for a woman, or in general just being the first mate to a female captain in any way, is seen as a little feminine and can cause both sexes to lose respect for you.
This is what he meant about the King / Queen dynamic. This is about our societies ingrained systems and perceptions of gender roles, not about whether you like to have girls buy things for you or how I feel about it.
The majority of men, in my opinion, would find it very feminine to be in the positions you describe. Men are the dominant sex, we are the leaders, we are the providers and the protectors. This is how we have been programmed biologically.
I don't care about sex or prostitutes, I don't give women my money. I'm just explaining to you why your higher post got downvoted to hell, and explaining the entire "king / queen" dynamic that you questioned in the first place.
If you want to have a woman be your king and you be her queen that's totally your business. Just most men would be uncomfortable (myself included) with that kind of arrangement. I don't want a woman buying me anything, taking care of me, or being the head of the household in any way. That's just me.
BowlOfCandy 10y ago
I would say fulfillment is proportional to inspiration, so this is a very personal question. What inspires you? I'm inspired by integrity, gratitude, and a hot body.