Dating a Red Piller

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, Elliot Rodger murdered six people, but I'm sure it's just a harmless set of dating guidelines, amirite?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/05/27/inside-the-manosphere-that-inspired-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/

It’s pretty easy to cherry pick examples like that based on the truly crazy. Do you hold the Bernie Bros accountable for the shooting of the House GOP leadership a few years back? I think the red pill has done vastly more good than harm by providing guidance to numerous lost and confused men.

I think Red Pill is toxic. But I also think cherry-picking Elliot Rodger is disingenuous. That's the Internet for you, I suppose.

There are unpleasant truths about attraction - for example, well-muscled extroverts are more attractive to women on first sight than conscientious underweight introverts. The former are way more likely to have fun, short-term sexual relationships with pretty women than the latter. But the Red Pill kind of stops there and uses it as a foundation for building a harmful world-view. Women aren't bad people for being superficial about their early attraction any more than men are. Short term sexual relationships aren't the most important things in lives. They aren't the basis for long term happiness. Women aren't uniquely bad -- there is about as much good & bad among women as there is among men. Men are sometimes victimized and, in some areas more victims than women are. But, if it's a misery contest, women have an overall tougher hill to climb in life than men do. There's no real room for this kind of nuance in Red Pill circles which is why all of the good stuff -- be more confident, exercise, practice good hygiene, don't derive your self-worth from the approval of a particular woman, and so forth -- gets lost in the stupid stuff (women are hypergamous opportunists stringing along bluepill orbiters. Alphas rule, betas drool; etc.)

Why is the fact that being attractive and extroverted makes you a more appealing partner "unpleasant"? Those things aren't superficial to care about, either in short-term or long-term partners, for women or men. Growing up as a woman being told that I wasn't supposed to care what my partner looked like, and therefore that what I was actually into was wrong - *that* was unpleasant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, Elliot Rodger murdered six people, but I'm sure it's just a harmless set of dating guidelines, amirite?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/05/27/inside-the-manosphere-that-inspired-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/

It’s pretty easy to cherry pick examples like that based on the truly crazy. Do you hold the Bernie Bros accountable for the shooting of the House GOP leadership a few years back? I think the red pill has done vastly more good than harm by providing guidance to numerous lost and confused men.

I think Red Pill is toxic. But I also think cherry-picking Elliot Rodger is disingenuous. That's the Internet for you, I suppose.

There are unpleasant truths about attraction - for example, well-muscled extroverts are more attractive to women on first sight than conscientious underweight introverts. The former are way more likely to have fun, short-term sexual relationships with pretty women than the latter. But the Red Pill kind of stops there and uses it as a foundation for building a harmful world-view. Women aren't bad people for being superficial about their early attraction any more than men are. Short term sexual relationships aren't the most important things in lives. They aren't the basis for long term happiness. Women aren't uniquely bad -- there is about as much good & bad among women as there is among men. Men are sometimes victimized and, in some areas more victims than women are. But, if it's a misery contest, women have an overall tougher hill to climb in life than men do. There's no real room for this kind of nuance in Red Pill circles which is why all of the good stuff -- be more confident, exercise, practice good hygiene, don't derive your self-worth from the approval of a particular woman, and so forth -- gets lost in the stupid stuff (women are hypergamous opportunists stringing along bluepill orbiters. Alphas rule, betas drool; etc.)

Why is the fact that being attractive and extroverted makes you a more appealing partner "unpleasant"? Those things aren't superficial to care about, either in short-term or long-term partners, for women or men. Growing up as a woman being told that I wasn't supposed to care what my partner looked like, and therefore that what I was actually into was wrong - *that* was unpleasant.

DP but I think the point is women often seek tall and muscle bound extroverted men who then treat them poorly over the nice guys who may be attractive enough but lack that alpha status. After years of getting dumped by the alpha guys the women settle for a nice guy. Then after ten years the women get tired of their beta and cheat on him and deny him sex.

You haven’t seen this pattern on this board? The red pill seeks to point this out to men so they focus their efforts on the gym and not being the shoulder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, Elliot Rodger murdered six people, but I'm sure it's just a harmless set of dating guidelines, amirite?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/05/27/inside-the-manosphere-that-inspired-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/

It’s pretty easy to cherry pick examples like that based on the truly crazy. Do you hold the Bernie Bros accountable for the shooting of the House GOP leadership a few years back? I think the red pill has done vastly more good than harm by providing guidance to numerous lost and confused men.

I think Red Pill is toxic. But I also think cherry-picking Elliot Rodger is disingenuous. That's the Internet for you, I suppose.

There are unpleasant truths about attraction - for example, well-muscled extroverts are more attractive to women on first sight than conscientious underweight introverts. The former are way more likely to have fun, short-term sexual relationships with pretty women than the latter. But the Red Pill kind of stops there and uses it as a foundation for building a harmful world-view. Women aren't bad people for being superficial about their early attraction any more than men are. Short term sexual relationships aren't the most important things in lives. They aren't the basis for long term happiness. Women aren't uniquely bad -- there is about as much good & bad among women as there is among men. Men are sometimes victimized and, in some areas more victims than women are. But, if it's a misery contest, women have an overall tougher hill to climb in life than men do. There's no real room for this kind of nuance in Red Pill circles which is why all of the good stuff -- be more confident, exercise, practice good hygiene, don't derive your self-worth from the approval of a particular woman, and so forth -- gets lost in the stupid stuff (women are hypergamous opportunists stringing along bluepill orbiters. Alphas rule, betas drool; etc.)

Why is the fact that being attractive and extroverted makes you a more appealing partner "unpleasant"? Those things aren't superficial to care about, either in short-term or long-term partners, for women or men. Growing up as a woman being told that I wasn't supposed to care what my partner looked like, and therefore that what I was actually into was wrong - *that* was unpleasant.

DP but I think the point is women often seek tall and muscle bound extroverted men who then treat them poorly over the nice guys who may be attractive enough but lack that alpha status. After years of getting dumped by the alpha guys the women settle for a nice guy. Then after ten years the women get tired of their beta and cheat on him and deny him sex.

You haven’t seen this pattern on this board? The red pill seeks to point this out to men so they focus their efforts on the gym and not being the shoulder.

I think the point is men often seek hot extroverted women who then treat them poorly over the nice girls who may be attractive enough but lack that hot girl status. After years of getting played/dumped by the hot crazy girl the men settle for a nice girl. Then after ten years the men get tired of their aging wife and cheat on her and ignore her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, Elliot Rodger murdered six people, but I'm sure it's just a harmless set of dating guidelines, amirite?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/05/27/inside-the-manosphere-that-inspired-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/

It’s pretty easy to cherry pick examples like that based on the truly crazy. Do you hold the Bernie Bros accountable for the shooting of the House GOP leadership a few years back? I think the red pill has done vastly more good than harm by providing guidance to numerous lost and confused men.

I think Red Pill is toxic. But I also think cherry-picking Elliot Rodger is disingenuous. That's the Internet for you, I suppose.

There are unpleasant truths about attraction - for example, well-muscled extroverts are more attractive to women on first sight than conscientious underweight introverts. The former are way more likely to have fun, short-term sexual relationships with pretty women than the latter. But the Red Pill kind of stops there and uses it as a foundation for building a harmful world-view. Women aren't bad people for being superficial about their early attraction any more than men are. Short term sexual relationships aren't the most important things in lives. They aren't the basis for long term happiness. Women aren't uniquely bad -- there is about as much good & bad among women as there is among men. Men are sometimes victimized and, in some areas more victims than women are. But, if it's a misery contest, women have an overall tougher hill to climb in life than men do. There's no real room for this kind of nuance in Red Pill circles which is why all of the good stuff -- be more confident, exercise, practice good hygiene, don't derive your self-worth from the approval of a particular woman, and so forth -- gets lost in the stupid stuff (women are hypergamous opportunists stringing along bluepill orbiters. Alphas rule, betas drool; etc.)

Why is the fact that being attractive and extroverted makes you a more appealing partner "unpleasant"? Those things aren't superficial to care about, either in short-term or long-term partners, for women or men. Growing up as a woman being told that I wasn't supposed to care what my partner looked like, and therefore that what I was actually into was wrong - *that* was unpleasant.

DP but I think the point is women often seek tall and muscle bound extroverted men who then treat them poorly over the nice guys who may be attractive enough but lack that alpha status. After years of getting dumped by the alpha guys the women settle for a nice guy. Then after ten years the women get tired of their beta and cheat on him and deny him sex.

You haven’t seen this pattern on this board? The red pill seeks to point this out to men so they focus their efforts on the gym and not being the shoulder.

I think the point is men often seek hot extroverted women who then treat them poorly over the nice girls who may be attractive enough but lack that hot girl status. After years of getting played/dumped by the hot crazy girl the men settle for a nice girl. Then after ten years the men get tired of their aging wife and cheat on her and ignore her.

If you read the women on the relationship discussion you may have a different view

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, Elliot Rodger murdered six people, but I'm sure it's just a harmless set of dating guidelines, amirite?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/05/27/inside-the-manosphere-that-inspired-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/

It’s pretty easy to cherry pick examples like that based on the truly crazy. Do you hold the Bernie Bros accountable for the shooting of the House GOP leadership a few years back? I think the red pill has done vastly more good than harm by providing guidance to numerous lost and confused men.

I think Red Pill is toxic. But I also think cherry-picking Elliot Rodger is disingenuous. That's the Internet for you, I suppose.

There are unpleasant truths about attraction - for example, well-muscled extroverts are more attractive to women on first sight than conscientious underweight introverts. The former are way more likely to have fun, short-term sexual relationships with pretty women than the latter. But the Red Pill kind of stops there and uses it as a foundation for building a harmful world-view. Women aren't bad people for being superficial about their early attraction any more than men are. Short term sexual relationships aren't the most important things in lives. They aren't the basis for long term happiness. Women aren't uniquely bad -- there is about as much good & bad among women as there is among men. Men are sometimes victimized and, in some areas more victims than women are. But, if it's a misery contest, women have an overall tougher hill to climb in life than men do. There's no real room for this kind of nuance in Red Pill circles which is why all of the good stuff -- be more confident, exercise, practice good hygiene, don't derive your self-worth from the approval of a particular woman, and so forth -- gets lost in the stupid stuff (women are hypergamous opportunists stringing along bluepill orbiters. Alphas rule, betas drool; etc.)

Why is the fact that being attractive and extroverted makes you a more appealing partner "unpleasant"? Those things aren't superficial to care about, either in short-term or long-term partners, for women or men. Growing up as a woman being told that I wasn't supposed to care what my partner looked like, and therefore that what I was actually into was wrong - *that* was unpleasant.

DP but I think the point is women often seek tall and muscle bound extroverted men who then treat them poorly over the nice guys who may be attractive enough but lack that alpha status. After years of getting dumped by the alpha guys the women settle for a nice guy. Then after ten years the women get tired of their beta and cheat on him and deny him sex.

You haven’t seen this pattern on this board? The red pill seeks to point this out to men so they focus their efforts on the gym and not being the shoulder.

No, I think that's an insane fable that applies to a small fraction of women unless you are distorting all of the details of what happened and framing this in the least charitable way possible. I was in an abusive relationship in my early 20s with a short and not-very-muscular guy who sought me out, seduced to me, and lied to me. Was that me 'seeking out tall and muscle bound extroverted men who treated me poorly'? No, that was me making a bad life choice, suffering from it immensely, and then changing my priorities about who I dated and then married. My husband has a similar story about dating a woman who was abusive to him (and also not especially attractive, by the way.) Do you take offense to the fact that when I was younger I made bad romantic choices? Was I somehow "denying" sex to nice guys that I owed to them? If so, what was my husband doing? Also, do you think attractive, confident guys don't have wives who get tired of sleeping with them after ten years and a few kids?

Go to the gym because you'll be more attractive and it's good for you physically and emotionally. Draw healthy boundaries in your life. Walk away from people who are abusive. But if you use this kind of language to talk about women, and they find out, a lot of them aren't going to like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, Elliot Rodger murdered six people, but I'm sure it's just a harmless set of dating guidelines, amirite?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/05/27/inside-the-manosphere-that-inspired-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/

It’s pretty easy to cherry pick examples like that based on the truly crazy. Do you hold the Bernie Bros accountable for the shooting of the House GOP leadership a few years back? I think the red pill has done vastly more good than harm by providing guidance to numerous lost and confused men.

I think Red Pill is toxic. But I also think cherry-picking Elliot Rodger is disingenuous. That's the Internet for you, I suppose.

There are unpleasant truths about attraction - for example, well-muscled extroverts are more attractive to women on first sight than conscientious underweight introverts. The former are way more likely to have fun, short-term sexual relationships with pretty women than the latter. But the Red Pill kind of stops there and uses it as a foundation for building a harmful world-view. Women aren't bad people for being superficial about their early attraction any more than men are. Short term sexual relationships aren't the most important things in lives. They aren't the basis for long term happiness. Women aren't uniquely bad -- there is about as much good & bad among women as there is among men. Men are sometimes victimized and, in some areas more victims than women are. But, if it's a misery contest, women have an overall tougher hill to climb in life than men do. There's no real room for this kind of nuance in Red Pill circles which is why all of the good stuff -- be more confident, exercise, practice good hygiene, don't derive your self-worth from the approval of a particular woman, and so forth -- gets lost in the stupid stuff (women are hypergamous opportunists stringing along bluepill orbiters. Alphas rule, betas drool; etc.)

Why is the fact that being attractive and extroverted makes you a more appealing partner "unpleasant"? Those things aren't superficial to care about, either in short-term or long-term partners, for women or men. Growing up as a woman being told that I wasn't supposed to care what my partner looked like, and therefore that what I was actually into was wrong - *that* was unpleasant.

DP but I think the point is women often seek tall and muscle bound extroverted men who then treat them poorly over the nice guys who may be attractive enough but lack that alpha status. After years of getting dumped by the alpha guys the women settle for a nice guy. Then after ten years the women get tired of their beta and cheat on him and deny him sex.

You haven’t seen this pattern on this board? The red pill seeks to point this out to men so they focus their efforts on the gym and not being the shoulder.

I think the point is men often seek hot extroverted women who then treat them poorly over the nice girls who may be attractive enough but lack that hot girl status. After years of getting played/dumped by the hot crazy girl the men settle for a nice girl. Then after ten years the men get tired of their aging wife and cheat on her and ignore her.

If you read the women on the relationship discussion you may have a different view

If you read the men on the relationship discussion you may have a different view

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, Elliot Rodger murdered six people, but I'm sure it's just a harmless set of dating guidelines, amirite?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/05/27/inside-the-manosphere-that-inspired-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/

It’s pretty easy to cherry pick examples like that based on the truly crazy. Do you hold the Bernie Bros accountable for the shooting of the House GOP leadership a few years back? I think the red pill has done vastly more good than harm by providing guidance to numerous lost and confused men.

I think Red Pill is toxic. But I also think cherry-picking Elliot Rodger is disingenuous. That's the Internet for you, I suppose.

There are unpleasant truths about attraction - for example, well-muscled extroverts are more attractive to women on first sight than conscientious underweight introverts. The former are way more likely to have fun, short-term sexual relationships with pretty women than the latter. But the Red Pill kind of stops there and uses it as a foundation for building a harmful world-view. Women aren't bad people for being superficial about their early attraction any more than men are. Short term sexual relationships aren't the most important things in lives. They aren't the basis for long term happiness. Women aren't uniquely bad -- there is about as much good & bad among women as there is among men. Men are sometimes victimized and, in some areas more victims than women are. But, if it's a misery contest, women have an overall tougher hill to climb in life than men do. There's no real room for this kind of nuance in Red Pill circles which is why all of the good stuff -- be more confident, exercise, practice good hygiene, don't derive your self-worth from the approval of a particular woman, and so forth -- gets lost in the stupid stuff (women are hypergamous opportunists stringing along bluepill orbiters. Alphas rule, betas drool; etc.)

Why is the fact that being attractive and extroverted makes you a more appealing partner "unpleasant"? Those things aren't superficial to care about, either in short-term or long-term partners, for women or men. Growing up as a woman being told that I wasn't supposed to care what my partner looked like, and therefore that what I was actually into was wrong - *that* was unpleasant.

DP but I think the point is women often seek tall and muscle bound extroverted men who then treat them poorly over the nice guys who may be attractive enough but lack that alpha status. After years of getting dumped by the alpha guys the women settle for a nice guy. Then after ten years the women get tired of their beta and cheat on him and deny him sex.

You haven’t seen this pattern on this board? The red pill seeks to point this out to men so they focus their efforts on the gym and not being the shoulder.

"Alpha f**ks. Beta bucks." (Women have sex with jerks when they're young & hot, then settle down with a resource provider and stop having sex.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think the point is men often seek hot extroverted women who then treat them poorly over the nice girls who may be attractive enough but lack that hot girl status. After years of getting played/dumped by the hot crazy girl the men settle for a nice girl. Then after ten years the men get tired of their aging wife and cheat on her and ignore her.

Nah. The cute-but-not-hot nice girls were also writing "Chad" with little hearts in their high school notebooks; not pining over the reasonably attractive captain of the chess team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the point is men often seek hot extroverted women who then treat them poorly over the nice girls who may be attractive enough but lack that hot girl status. After years of getting played/dumped by the hot crazy girl the men settle for a nice girl. Then after ten years the men get tired of their aging wife and cheat on her and ignore her.

Nah. The cute-but-not-hot nice girls were also writing "Chad" with little hearts in their high school notebooks; not pining over the reasonably attractive captain of the chess team.

The reasonably attractive captain of the chess team was pining over the prom queen, not thinking about the OK looking girl on the debate team.

Bro, I can do this all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, Elliot Rodger murdered six people, but I'm sure it's just a harmless set of dating guidelines, amirite?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/05/27/inside-the-manosphere-that-inspired-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/

It’s pretty easy to cherry pick examples like that based on the truly crazy. Do you hold the Bernie Bros accountable for the shooting of the House GOP leadership a few years back? I think the red pill has done vastly more good than harm by providing guidance to numerous lost and confused men.

I think Red Pill is toxic. But I also think cherry-picking Elliot Rodger is disingenuous. That's the Internet for you, I suppose.

There are unpleasant truths about attraction - for example, well-muscled extroverts are more attractive to women on first sight than conscientious underweight introverts. The former are way more likely to have fun, short-term sexual relationships with pretty women than the latter. But the Red Pill kind of stops there and uses it as a foundation for building a harmful world-view. Women aren't bad people for being superficial about their early attraction any more than men are. Short term sexual relationships aren't the most important things in lives. They aren't the basis for long term happiness. Women aren't uniquely bad -- there is about as much good & bad among women as there is among men. Men are sometimes victimized and, in some areas more victims than women are. But, if it's a misery contest, women have an overall tougher hill to climb in life than men do. There's no real room for this kind of nuance in Red Pill circles which is why all of the good stuff -- be more confident, exercise, practice good hygiene, don't derive your self-worth from the approval of a particular woman, and so forth -- gets lost in the stupid stuff (women are hypergamous opportunists stringing along bluepill orbiters. Alphas rule, betas drool; etc.)

Why is the fact that being attractive and extroverted makes you a more appealing partner "unpleasant"? Those things aren't superficial to care about, either in short-term or long-term partners, for women or men. Growing up as a woman being told that I wasn't supposed to care what my partner looked like, and therefore that what I was actually into was wrong - *that* was unpleasant.

DP but I think the point is women often seek tall and muscle bound extroverted men who then treat them poorly over the nice guys who may be attractive enough but lack that alpha status. After years of getting dumped by the alpha guys the women settle for a nice guy. Then after ten years the women get tired of their beta and cheat on him and deny him sex.

You haven’t seen this pattern on this board? The red pill seeks to point this out to men so they focus their efforts on the gym and not being the shoulder.

"Alpha f**ks. Beta bucks." (Women have sex with jerks when they're young & hot, then settle down with a resource provider and stop having sex.)

Resource provider?? All the couples I know both work, unless she has small children. I earn more than my husband. Am I the resource provider here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain?

I had to google it. Apparently it’s some online group of men who believe all women are evil and that society is anti-man. It seems there’s overlap between the red pillers and incels. The main belief is that society favors women and that men need to learn to be dominant over women. To me, it sounds like a hate group with women being the targets.

Thank you. I thought it was a reference to the Matrix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain?

I had to google it. Apparently it’s some online group of men who believe all women are evil and that society is anti-man. It seems there’s overlap between the red pillers and incels. The main belief is that society favors women and that men need to learn to be dominant over women. To me, it sounds like a hate group with women being the targets.

Thank you. I thought it was a reference to the Matrix.

It was. The conceit is that, just like in the Matrix, these guys are taking the "red pill" -- bravely seeing the harsh world (and the true nature of women) as it really is rather than believing all of those "blue pill" fantasies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the point is men often seek hot extroverted women who then treat them poorly over the nice girls who may be attractive enough but lack that hot girl status. After years of getting played/dumped by the hot crazy girl the men settle for a nice girl. Then after ten years the men get tired of their aging wife and cheat on her and ignore her.

Nah. The cute-but-not-hot nice girls were also writing "Chad" with little hearts in their high school notebooks; not pining over the reasonably attractive captain of the chess team.

The reasonably attractive captain of the chess team was pining over the prom queen, not thinking about the OK looking girl on the debate team.

Bro, I can do this all day.

Chess team guy was fantasizing about all of them. Guaranteed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just like anything, there are varying degrees of what people take out of any ideology.

I am a man who frequents the redpill subreddit. I found it after a particularly harsh breakup and it opened my eyes into what I was doing wrong with women. Not having a strong father figure, I learned how to deal with women from romantic comedies, Disney movies, and love songs. And that's how I did things, which is not how the world works.

Since stumbling upon this, I am more successful with women and just overall happier. Ignore the extreme edges of the ideology and focus on its core tenants. Which I won't get into here.

NP. Not to derail OP's post, in a nutshell, does it have to do with men being either Alphas or Betas? And that Alphas are more "successful" with women (however MGTOW would define it)?

I have trouble with such a strict, reductive dichotomy, and I would say men in happy relationships with women are likely often blends of what MGTOW would describe as Alpha and Beta qualities.

OP, maybe he looked into and then rejected these beliefs. Or maybe like PP he took some positive ideas and left the negative. I've looked at Female Dating Strategy myself (although I found it way too reductive, cynical, and depressing.) I would ask him about it and, if you feel comfortable enough with him, tell him your concerns.

[Anonymous]

No. Red pill guys are mentally unstable and I don’t need that level of drama.