Dedicated to exposing all the women who complain about wanting a "good man", to show women's poor dating behavior and unreasonable standards while offering little to no value themselves.
- Main Forums
- What's Hot
- TRP.RED
- Tribe Forums
- TheRedPill
- Tribe Management
- Create New Tribe
- Manage My Tribes
- Find New Tribes
- Recent News
-
-
Lone_Ranger Live by the pork sword, die by the pork sword 2h ago
this is hilarious. but they don't mention the wine.
And also, one of the packages is a bit unrealistic. Why woudl her boss want to have an affair with a 40 year old?
No-Stress-Cat Jr. Hamster Analyst 3d ago
LMAO
mattyanon TRP Endorsed 3d ago
"The cats come with every package at this point"
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 3d ago
Note how none of the packages mention getting a husband or kids now, despite it being assumed they'd still available back when the 30's packages were being picked.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 3d ago
Moving into the 50's packages, men and children aren't mentioned at all. It's just aging. For men past 50, what's the point of marriage? No kids, sex isn't all that important and, what? What possibly do they have to offer that we're not supposed to already provide for ourselves?
There is value to marriage in for men who marry early: A connection to a family, kids who care about us and so on but after that, it must really be dumb for men to marry some boss babe after we turn 50 unless she's got more money than us.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 3d ago
Hell I was already at that point by the time I hit 40, I didn't see any reason to jump through my own asshole trying wife up any woman that within the next next decade was going to be nigh guaranteed to be both infertile and unfuckable and contributing less economically.
It's like buying a project car for $40K, that needs another $40K in repairs, and will only ever be worth $60K once repaired. Easier to just set half your money on fire instead.
And for men, marrying up has a heavy risk of getting henpecked to the point of wanting to die early unless one uses her connections to slingshot your own status well above hers within a few years.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 3d ago
:(
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 2d ago
Yeah it's one of those truths that's a little grim even for here, innit? Seen enough guys that are completely checked out of their marriage that I prefer to avoid that outcome like the plague.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 3d ago
@Overkill_Engine What many people fail to realize is that "chivalrous romance" when it came out was cash poor knights with fame and awards sought out the daughters of wealthy nobleman with huge tracts of land for dowries. Hypergamy was something that men practiced as much as women did. When the commoners, the working class, started to pretend to be "gentlemen" and "ladies" and pre-marital sex became common is when it degenerated into what we have today.
I know couples where the woman has more going on than the man such as schoolteachers who marry rich, educated women. Sure, he risks getting divorced if she gets "bored" with him or he refuses to be henpecked but so what? He doesn't lose a cent in a divorce and she's back on the market older trying to compete in a smaller pool than when she met him.
The challenge, of course, is finding a woman whose wealthy willing to "marry down" but (see above) that can be offset by the pre-marital sex game. Poor men with decent looks and some game can bed wealthy women, emotionally game them for marriage, and land a sugar momma. It just turns out that most of these men never learn that game because PUA focuses on short-term situationships or plate spinning for such men and not marrying up.
I think that's the next level of RP wisdom we'll see break out as men Get Smart and learn to play women for cash.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 2d ago Stickied
I've seen you comment things to this effect many times, and have been meaning to clarify something. Mainly for any newbies reading along, but maybe also for you.
"Hypergamy" as strictly the money/class use of the word, sure.
But the Red Pill definition of "hypergamy" is something strictly women do, and it's actual sexual attraction strictly to those perceived as "above". It's why women rarely will give a shot to a man who is shorter than them. It's why women will frequently divorce their husbands if they take a leap forward in their careers and start making more money than their husbands. It's why simping doesn't win them over and in fact dries them out (though they'll still use the favors etc). Women are only attracted to and aroused by men they perceive as above themselves. This is almost entirely driven by instinct and done mostly subconsciously.
It is thus different from the classic, dictionary definition that was only about marriage and money.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 2d ago
I need to give the movie Barry Lyndon a rewatch. A visually splendid epic period film whose protagonist, acted by Ryan O'Neil, was himself known to be a narcissist.
Agreed that women have this instinct of hypergamy that comes out due to the freedom of acting upon their subconscious instincts and I don't want to propose a BP theory that if only we doubled down on feminism, we could get women to think like men. That said, consider the shaming ploys often utilized by women against men who don't live up to our supposed "instinctual role" to provide and protect for them "Not Real Man!" or "Grow up!"
What's amusing about women's unchecked and even encouraged hypergamous behavior is how it often leads to self-destruction:When marrying even just slightly below them would be much more beneficial than winding up alone.
Although this is not well documented (would make a great master's thesis), I wonder if back when women were supposedly oppressed whether they didn't mind marrying down simply to marry due to the social stigma of remaining unmarried and a worthless spinster similar to the shame men now have for being "incels". Back then, being a "bachelor" was actually regarded with disdain because they were perceived of being free and having fun much like "strong, independent" women of today. They could hit the (legal) brothel and didn't have to provide for a family.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 2d ago
Back when women didn't have jobs and careers of their own, every man was "above" them at least on the beta bucks side of hypergamy as long as he could support a family.
Lone_Ranger Live by the pork sword, die by the pork sword 2h ago
below them? there is no below.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 2d ago
I'm reminded of feminists griping that before the 1970's, they weren't "allowed" to have credit cards forgetting that credit cards barely existed a decade up until then and weren't in common use. Certainly women had "careers" during the era of oppression: Rose's mother in Titanic was TERRIFIED of having to work in a textile mill. Until unionization and the reformation of "serfdom", a majority of men and women alive "had" to work and for little wages. There certainly were single mothers out there but this was not something to be celebrated but rather pitied, at best, as they would work and struggle.
I posted a few months ago a single mother daring to gripe in a news article that her neighbor didn't rush up to help her with the groceries even though she was a "single mother by choice" because she had refused to date down so she bought sperm.
Women's history month is likely full of stories of enterprising women who were outearning their alcoholic or loser husbands but they couldn't get divorces and if they had affairs, and got caught, the ramifications could be serious.
Plus there were men injured in the mines and such and the wives working their whole lives while the disabled men were home.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 2d ago
Part of what made the OG version of "chivalrous romance" work was the need for armed and trained knights to fight on behalf of one's family and holdings. Each knight was a hard to replace asset that incentivized treating them well enough for them to remain loyal, thus the land and dowry and marrying them off to a female relative to help ensure nominally loyal replacements in the coming years as well since the reward of such was inheritance of assured status and resources in exchange.
That's not as reliable in today's society of male hyper disposability. Especially since women know they can outsource their need for protection to society as a whole regardless of their poor behavior instead of needing to behave well enough to maintain access to protection from their family/house/liege.
Which means while some men can still manage to make the modern paradigm work for them, it's not going to be realistically obtainable for the majority of men, and without the majority of men having a good reason for civil participation in society, it will eventually downgrade or collapse outright.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 4d ago
On this day of thanks and cheer,
I share warm words for all to hear.
Yet one small wish I cannot fulfill,
To post this link—against my will.
So if you’d kindly lend a hand,
And share it wide across the land,
On Reddit’s feast of thoughts and threads,
My gratitude is what you’ll spread.
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 3d ago
I will not post it in the day
I will not post it in the night
I will not post it on the 'gram
I will not post it, Sam I am
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 3d ago
Would you, could you, if we said "please"?
Would you, could you, if we got down on our knees?
Please crosspost this to the sub!
Do it! You know you want to, bub!
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 3d ago
I would not post it for a "please"
I would not post it for your knees
Reddit is not worth a damn
So I won't post it, Sam I am
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 2d ago
While true, crossposting to it helps more men unplug and drives traffic to this site.