Dating a Red Piller

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are all these nice guys who can’t get a girl to look at them?

Off of the top of my head, I can think of five single, attractive women in their late twenties who are smart, funny, and have good jobs. But I can’t think of anyone to set them up with.

This comes up more often in the teen and early 20s. How the red pill folks describe it, this is when women have the most options, are acting on attraction (rather than other motives), and are most interested in sex. The guys they pick at this period in their lives reflect what they truly find attractive in men.

[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.)

I get where you are coming from but don’t agree. IME, the Red Pill type beliefs are realistic about many unpleasant truths, and rather than feeding a view that women are “bad people,” it instead encourages engagement with reality and managed disappointment. What makes many men “angry” in this context is not the behavior of women, its the fact that they have been, essentially, lied to by society and encouraged to act in ways that are counter to their own interests as a result. That’s what causes toxic anger and resentment. Take what you have just said: “well-muscled extroverts are more attractive to women.” Obvious, yes? Beyond dispute, IMO. But there are lots of men who have become confused about that simple and obvious fact due to years of cultural programming that muddies that up, and when such men act on contrary scripts and get bad results, anger is the natural result. Whereas if they had a more realistic view from the get-go, there would be less of that. Also, it gives men the prospect of ways to improve their chances: hit the gym and work on your social presentation. To be sure, there are those who simply cannot handle reality and blow up in toxic and dangerous ways, but that’s not an argument against accurately describing reality.

NP. Not true re muscled guys being universally attractive to women. I have always liked lanky intellectual guys. Never into muscles. Women are individuals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
[snipped for brevity] The problem is that the philosophies underpinning this advice are toxic. Evangelical Christianity wants people to treat their sexuality carefully and with love. To not give your body away and to be careful in who you choose to trust with it. This is good advice. But of course it is based on the idea that a man is entitle to his wife's virginity and therefore a woman's body is not solely her own. The toxic underpinning philosophy creates the direction that you slide down the slippery slope. And its a slope that leads towards repressed sexuality and misogyny.

The toxic underpinning of the red pill ideology means its good advice is muddied by everything that surrounds it. It creates a framework where the good advice is based in something that makes you fundamentally respect the women you are dating less. You have assigned them a worldview and motivation structure that frames them as shallow and transactional. Therefore you are permitted to behave shallowly and transactionally. You believe you would not have had dating success without this, so your girlfriend/wife/whatever is a shallow creature who had to be manipulated into loving you. The justification for your behavior, which is not bad on its face, reveals ugly things about the way you see the world. Your means to achieving the end of a successful relationship have laid toxic seeds that will eventually, IMO, poison the relationship.

I think this is where you miss the point of the red pill theories on partner count. For most, the impetus to seek a spouse with a low number of partners is not motivated by religious morality, but rather by an empirical judgement (which may of course be in error) that the greater number of partners a woman has had, the greater the chance that she is pining for “the one who got away,” which can have toxic effects on a relationship, and the more likely she is to be “settling” sexually for her long term partner, which can have toxic effects on the sexual aspects of a relationship. Men simply cannot intuit the idea of marrying someone you are not really sexually attracted to, but as I have grown older and wiser it seems to me that it happens all the time. The partner count issue is not moral (for most) or transactional; it’s risk management.

Cue the chorus of people who will call that insecure. It’s not insecure if its accurate. There’s always someone better. If a woman has had 30 partners, what are the odds that you, groom, are the one that really knocks her socks off? Or are even in the top 3? A lot longer than if that number is 4. This issue may not be that important to women, but it is to men.

[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.

"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?

I'm guessing that the Red Pill followers have a very black and white view of life. I also work outside the home and share all household and childcare responsibilities with my DH, who I love and am very attracted to and have actual sex with, lol. I guess the RP worldview doesn't include any egalitarian relationships.

[Anonymous]

^^ and i will be beyond disappointed if any of these Red Pill popping dope heads any black AAs, buying into this crap and polluting already broken black families in recovery a few generations away from slavery, the loss of identify, the lack of human right and education/examples of male leadership. Because this incel red pill mra attitude is completely irrelevant to the TRUE reality of what MOST BLACK MEN have experienced as a byproduct of systemic dysfunction that we are all working to address. HBCUs are a thing for a reason.

Women were the ones that felt the emotional tug on their heart strings when George Floyd called for his mama with his last breath while all the world watched in horror.

I don’t know where this bS started but that is all that it is. The devil is a liar and weak minded souls looking for acceptance are his easiest prey. Don’t fall for the banana in the tail pipe son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm guessing that the Red Pill followers have a very black and white view of life. I also work outside the home and share all household and childcare responsibilities with my DH, who I love and am very attracted to and have actual sex with, lol. I guess the RP worldview doesn't include any egalitarian relationships.

Or maybe they have been on DCUM and read the legion of threads confirming the relatively obvious proposition that women place more weight on the earning prospects of a potential marriage partner than men do. Does anyone really dispute that this is generally true?

[Anonymous]

^^yes. Clearly your research wasn’t comprehensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

[snipped for brevity] The problem is that the philosophies underpinning this advice are toxic. Evangelical Christianity wants people to treat their sexuality carefully and with love. To not give your body away and to be careful in who you choose to trust with it. This is good advice. But of course it is based on the idea that a man is entitle to his wife's virginity and therefore a woman's body is not solely her own. The toxic underpinning philosophy creates the direction that you slide down the slippery slope. And its a slope that leads towards repressed sexuality and misogyny.

The toxic underpinning of the red pill ideology means its good advice is muddied by everything that surrounds it. It creates a framework where the good advice is based in something that makes you fundamentally respect the women you are dating less. You have assigned them a worldview and motivation structure that frames them as shallow and transactional. Therefore you are permitted to behave shallowly and transactionally. You believe you would not have had dating success without this, so your girlfriend/wife/whatever is a shallow creature who had to be manipulated into loving you. The justification for your behavior, which is not bad on its face, reveals ugly things about the way you see the world. Your means to achieving the end of a successful relationship have laid toxic seeds that will eventually, IMO, poison the relationship.

I think this is where you miss the point of the red pill theories on partner count. For most, the impetus to seek a spouse with a low number of partners is not motivated by religious morality, but rather by an empirical judgement (which may of course be in error) that the greater number of partners a woman has had, the greater the chance that she is pining for “the one who got away,” which can have toxic effects on a relationship, and the more likely she is to be “settling” sexually for her long term partner, which can have toxic effects on the sexual aspects of a relationship. Men simply cannot intuit the idea of marrying someone you are not really sexually attracted to, but as I have grown older and wiser it seems to me that it happens all the time. The partner count issue is not moral (for most) or transactional; it’s risk management.

Cue the chorus of people who will call that insecure. It’s not insecure if its accurate. There’s always someone better. If a woman has had 30 partners, what are the odds that you, groom, are the one that really knocks her socks off? Or are even in the top 3? A lot longer than if that number is 4. This issue may not be that important to women, but it is to men.

I’m unsure what point of mine you believe you are arguing against. Because this response doesn’t seem related to my point. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say? My point is not about any one specific aspect of the red pill stuff, it’s that the entire mindset is tainted by the toxic and misogynistic base level beliefs that inform even the harmless and even good pieces of advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
[snipped for brevity] The problem is that the philosophies underpinning this advice are toxic. Evangelical Christianity wants people to treat their sexuality carefully and with love. To not give your body away and to be careful in who you choose to trust with it. This is good advice. But of course it is based on the idea that a man is entitle to his wife's virginity and therefore a woman's body is not solely her own. The toxic underpinning philosophy creates the direction that you slide down the slippery slope. And its a slope that leads towards repressed sexuality and misogyny.

The toxic underpinning of the red pill ideology means its good advice is muddied by everything that surrounds it. It creates a framework where the good advice is based in something that makes you fundamentally respect the women you are dating less. You have assigned them a worldview and motivation structure that frames them as shallow and transactional. Therefore you are permitted to behave shallowly and transactionally. You believe you would not have had dating success without this, so your girlfriend/wife/whatever is a shallow creature who had to be manipulated into loving you. The justification for your behavior, which is not bad on its face, reveals ugly things about the way you see the world. Your means to achieving the end of a successful relationship have laid toxic seeds that will eventually, IMO, poison the relationship.

I think this is where you miss the point of the red pill theories on partner count. For most, the impetus to seek a spouse with a low number of partners is not motivated by religious morality, but rather by an empirical judgement (which may of course be in error) that the greater number of partners a woman has had, the greater the chance that she is pining for “the one who got away,” which can have toxic effects on a relationship, and the more likely she is to be “settling” sexually for her long term partner, which can have toxic effects on the sexual aspects of a relationship. Men simply cannot intuit the idea of marrying someone you are not really sexually attracted to, but as I have grown older and wiser it seems to me that it happens all the time. The partner count issue is not moral (for most) or transactional; it’s risk management.

Cue the chorus of people who will call that insecure. It’s not insecure if its accurate. There’s always someone better. If a woman has had 30 partners, what are the odds that you, groom, are the one that really knocks her socks off? Or are even in the top 3? A lot longer than if that number is 4. This issue may not be that important to women, but it is to men.

I’m unsure what point of mine you believe you are arguing against. Because this response doesn’t seem related to my point. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say? My point is not about any one specific aspect of the red pill stuff, it’s that the entire mindset is tainted by the toxic and misogynistic base level beliefs that inform even the harmless and even good pieces of advice.

Ok I think I fixed this formatting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
[snipped for brevity] The problem is that the philosophies underpinning this advice are toxic. Evangelical Christianity wants people to treat their sexuality carefully and with love. To not give your body away and to be careful in who you choose to trust with it. This is good advice. But of course it is based on the idea that a man is entitle to his wife's virginity and therefore a woman's body is not solely her own. The toxic underpinning philosophy creates the direction that you slide down the slippery slope. And its a slope that leads towards repressed sexuality and misogyny.

The toxic underpinning of the red pill ideology means its good advice is muddied by everything that surrounds it. It creates a framework where the good advice is based in something that makes you fundamentally respect the women you are dating less. You have assigned them a worldview and motivation structure that frames them as shallow and transactional. Therefore you are permitted to behave shallowly and transactionally. You believe you would not have had dating success without this, so your girlfriend/wife/whatever is a shallow creature who had to be manipulated into loving you. The justification for your behavior, which is not bad on its face, reveals ugly things about the way you see the world. Your means to achieving the end of a successful relationship have laid toxic seeds that will eventually, IMO, poison the relationship.

I think this is where you miss the point of the red pill theories on partner count. For most, the impetus to seek a spouse with a low number of partners is not motivated by religious morality, but rather by an empirical judgement (which may of course be in error) that the greater number of partners a woman has had, the greater the chance that she is pining for “the one who got away,” which can have toxic effects on a relationship, and the more likely she is to be “settling” sexually for her long term partner, which can have toxic effects on the sexual aspects of a relationship. Men simply cannot intuit the idea of marrying someone you are not really sexually attracted to, but as I have grown older and wiser it seems to me that it happens all the time. The partner count issue is not moral (for most) or transactional; it’s risk management.

Cue the chorus of people who will call that insecure. It’s not insecure if its accurate. There’s always someone better. If a woman has had 30 partners, what are the odds that you, groom, are the one that really knocks her socks off? Or are even in the top 3? A lot longer than if that number is 4. This issue may not be that important to women, but it is to men.

I’m unsure what point of mine you believe you are arguing against. Because this response doesn’t seem related to my point. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say? My point is not about any one specific aspect of the red pill stuff, it’s that the entire mindset is tainted by the toxic and misogynistic base level beliefs that inform even the harmless and even good pieces of advice.

Ok I think I fixed this formatting

Apologies if my point wasn’t clear. As I understand your position, it was that notwithstanding accuracy on some (I’d say many) points, red pill theories are inherently tainted by misogyny. I read your post to reference Evangelical theological principles related to chastity and the “transactional” approach to sexuality as evidence that what you say is true. I believe that claim is incorrect, as red pill theories are actually premised on other things, as I tried to explain. Does that clarify where I was coming from? I’m not sure I can be much clearer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are all these nice guys who can’t get a girl to look at them?

Off of the top of my head, I can think of five single, attractive women in their late twenties who are smart, funny, and have good jobs. But I can’t think of anyone to set them up with.

This comes up more often in the teen and early 20s. How the red pill folks describe it, this is when women have the most options, are acting on attraction (rather than other motives), and are most interested in sex. The guys they pick at this period in their lives reflect what they truly find attractive in men.

So, if a woman in her late twenties is interested in you, but you don’t think she would have been 5-10 years earlier when she had more options (based on YOUR idea of what 22 year old girls are interested in), then you conclude that she doesn’t *really* find you attractive?

This all sounds to me like you are trying to use women to prove something to yourself about what kind of man you are. Like, “if a woman with a lot of options chooses me, then I must be good enough.*”


*(...and my mom was wrong.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are all these nice guys who can’t get a girl to look at them?

Off of the top of my head, I can think of five single, attractive women in their late twenties who are smart, funny, and have good jobs. But I can’t think of anyone to set them up with.

This comes up more often in the teen and early 20s. How the red pill folks describe it, this is when women have the most options, are acting on attraction (rather than other motives), and are most interested in sex. The guys they pick at this period in their lives reflect what they truly find attractive in men.

So, if a woman in her late twenties is interested in you, but you don’t think she would have been 5-10 years earlier when she had more options (based on YOUR idea of what 22 year old girls are interested in), then you conclude that she doesn’t *really* find you attractive?

This all sounds to me like you are trying to use women to prove something to yourself about what kind of man you are. Like, “if a woman with a lot of options chooses me, then I must be good enough.*”


*(...and my mom was wrong.)

No, it’s really more that there is reason for concern that her sexual interest is feigned, with dire prospects for the sexual future of a potential marriage. They may, of course, be incorrect in this assessment. But I think it is a reasonable concern in many cases. Indeed, I often think the visceral distaste many women have for red pill ideology is not because it is wrong, but because it is correct. YMMV, of course.

As for the late 20s friends referenced above, I’ve known a lot of single women who are “smart” “funny” and have a “good job,” and IME they have been and stayed single because they didn’t want to be a member of any club that would have them—there might always be someone better, you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
[snipped for brevity] The problem is that the philosophies underpinning this advice are toxic. Evangelical Christianity wants people to treat their sexuality carefully and with love. To not give your body away and to be careful in who you choose to trust with it. This is good advice. But of course it is based on the idea that a man is entitle to his wife's virginity and therefore a woman's body is not solely her own. The toxic underpinning philosophy creates the direction that you slide down the slippery slope. And its a slope that leads towards repressed sexuality and misogyny.

The toxic underpinning of the red pill ideology means its good advice is muddied by everything that surrounds it. It creates a framework where the good advice is based in something that makes you fundamentally respect the women you are dating less. You have assigned them a worldview and motivation structure that frames them as shallow and transactional. Therefore you are permitted to behave shallowly and transactionally. You believe you would not have had dating success without this, so your girlfriend/wife/whatever is a shallow creature who had to be manipulated into loving you. The justification for your behavior, which is not bad on its face, reveals ugly things about the way you see the world. Your means to achieving the end of a successful relationship have laid toxic seeds that will eventually, IMO, poison the relationship.

I think this is where you miss the point of the red pill theories on partner count. For most, the impetus to seek a spouse with a low number of partners is not motivated by religious morality, but rather by an empirical judgement (which may of course be in error) that the greater number of partners a woman has had, the greater the chance that she is pining for “the one who got away,” which can have toxic effects on a relationship, and the more likely she is to be “settling” sexually for her long term partner, which can have toxic effects on the sexual aspects of a relationship. Men simply cannot intuit the idea of marrying someone you are not really sexually attracted to, but as I have grown older and wiser it seems to me that it happens all the time. The partner count issue is not moral (for most) or transactional; it’s risk management.

Cue the chorus of people who will call that insecure. It’s not insecure if its accurate. There’s always someone better. If a woman has had 30 partners, what are the odds that you, groom, are the one that really knocks her socks off? Or are even in the top 3? A lot longer than if that number is 4. This issue may not be that important to women, but it is to men.

I’m unsure what point of mine you believe you are arguing against. Because this response doesn’t seem related to my point. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say? My point is not about any one specific aspect of the red pill stuff, it’s that the entire mindset is tainted by the toxic and misogynistic base level beliefs that inform even the harmless and even good pieces of advice.

Ok I think I fixed this formatting

Apologies if my point wasn’t clear. As I understand your position, it was that notwithstanding accuracy on some (I’d say many) points, red pill theories are inherently tainted by misogyny. I read your post to reference Evangelical theological principles related to chastity and the “transactional” approach to sexuality as evidence that what you say is true. I believe that claim is incorrect, as red pill theories are actually premised on other things, as I tried to explain. Does that clarify where I was coming from? I’m not sure I can be much clearer.

Yeah, no. Your thinking is twisted. The correlation between religion and misogyny was drawn solely as an example of another belief system that may be well intentioned but poorly executed is dangerous. Plus, aside from the fact that the "argument" you are making is a terrible defense of your claim around quantity of partners having any impact, the poor argument is completely irrelevant to any point being discussed here.

However - you did show the thread the exact issue with those who support Red Pilling, and the common characteristics associated with someone who buys into it.

NP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are all these nice guys who can’t get a girl to look at them?

Off of the top of my head, I can think of five single, attractive women in their late twenties who are smart, funny, and have good jobs. But I can’t think of anyone to set them up with.

This comes up more often in the teen and early 20s. How the red pill folks describe it, this is when women have the most options, are acting on attraction (rather than other motives), and are most interested in sex. The guys they pick at this period in their lives reflect what they truly find attractive in men.

So, if a woman in her late twenties is interested in you, but you don’t think she would have been 5-10 years earlier when she had more options (based on YOUR idea of what 22 year old girls are interested in), then you conclude that she doesn’t *really* find you attractive?

This all sounds to me like you are trying to use women to prove something to yourself about what kind of man you are. Like, “if a woman with a lot of options chooses me, then I must be good enough.*”


*(...and my mom was wrong.)

No, it’s really more that there is reason for concern that her sexual interest is feigned, with dire prospects for the sexual future of a potential marriage. They may, of course, be incorrect in this assessment. But I think it is a reasonable concern in many cases. Indeed, I often think the visceral distaste many women have for red pill ideology is not because it is wrong, but because it is correct. YMMV, of course.

As for the late 20s friends referenced above, I’ve known a lot of single women who are “smart” “funny” and have a “good job,” and IME they have been and stayed single because they didn’t want to be a member of any club that would have them—there might always be someone better, you know?

Just too much. Too much, too early. Coffee aint strong enough for you bruh. Good luck and god speed DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
[snipped for brevity] The problem is that the philosophies underpinning this advice are toxic. Evangelical Christianity wants people to treat their sexuality carefully and with love. To not give your body away and to be careful in who you choose to trust with it. This is good advice. But of course it is based on the idea that a man is entitle to his wife's virginity and therefore a woman's body is not solely her own. The toxic underpinning philosophy creates the direction that you slide down the slippery slope. And its a slope that leads towards repressed sexuality and misogyny.

The toxic underpinning of the red pill ideology means its good advice is muddied by everything that surrounds it. It creates a framework where the good advice is based in something that makes you fundamentally respect the women you are dating less. You have assigned them a worldview and motivation structure that frames them as shallow and transactional. Therefore you are permitted to behave shallowly and transactionally. You believe you would not have had dating success without this, so your girlfriend/wife/whatever is a shallow creature who had to be manipulated into loving you. The justification for your behavior, which is not bad on its face, reveals ugly things about the way you see the world. Your means to achieving the end of a successful relationship have laid toxic seeds that will eventually, IMO, poison the relationship.

I think this is where you miss the point of the red pill theories on partner count. For most, the impetus to seek a spouse with a low number of partners is not motivated by religious morality, but rather by an empirical judgement (which may of course be in error) that the greater number of partners a woman has had, the greater the chance that she is pining for “the one who got away,” which can have toxic effects on a relationship, and the more likely she is to be “settling” sexually for her long term partner, which can have toxic effects on the sexual aspects of a relationship. Men simply cannot intuit the idea of marrying someone you are not really sexually attracted to, but as I have grown older and wiser it seems to me that it happens all the time. The partner count issue is not moral (for most) or transactional; it’s risk management.

Cue the chorus of people who will call that insecure. It’s not insecure if its accurate. There’s always someone better. If a woman has had 30 partners, what are the odds that you, groom, are the one that really knocks her socks off? Or are even in the top 3? A lot longer than if that number is 4. This issue may not be that important to women, but it is to men.

I’m unsure what point of mine you believe you are arguing against. Because this response doesn’t seem related to my point. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say? My point is not about any one specific aspect of the red pill stuff, it’s that the entire mindset is tainted by the toxic and misogynistic base level beliefs that inform even the harmless and even good pieces of advice.

Ok I think I fixed this formatting

Apologies if my point wasn’t clear. As I understand your position, it was that notwithstanding accuracy on some (I’d say many) points, red pill theories are inherently tainted by misogyny. I read your post to reference Evangelical theological principles related to chastity and the “transactional” approach to sexuality as evidence that what you say is true. I believe that claim is incorrect, as red pill theories are actually premised on other things, as I tried to explain. Does that clarify where I was coming from? I’m not sure I can be much clearer.

Yeah, no. Your thinking is twisted. The correlation between religion and misogyny was drawn solely as an example of another belief system that may be well intentioned but poorly executed is dangerous. Plus, aside from the fact that the "argument" you are making is a terrible defense of your claim around quantity of partners having any impact, the poor argument is completely irrelevant to any point being discussed here.

However - you did show the thread the exact issue with those who support Red Pilling, and the common characteristics associated with someone who buys into it.

NP

You know there is nothing but namecalling in that response. Pointing and sputtering convinces only those who already agree with you.