Dating a Red Piller

[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?

So, if *you* don’t think you are good enough in some way, then whatever woman you are with is probably feigning her interest in you, and this doesn’t speak well for the future of your marriage, right?
Can’t you see that the problem is your own belief that you aren’t good enough, and it has nothing to do with this hypothetical woman?

And whatever you want to say about these young women...I can’t say that I know them well enough to know their entire dating history, my point is that I really don’t know any young men in this same position. You say they are out there, but where are they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He hates women. It is only a matter of time before you become the object of his hate. Leave him immediately.

Maybe he doesn't hate them, but does deny them his essence. Also he only drinks grain alcohol and rainwater.

extra credit if you know where those lines come from, millennials...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ 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.

English please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He hates women. It is only a matter of time before you become the object of his hate. Leave him immediately.

Maybe he doesn't hate them, but does deny them his essence. Also he only drinks grain alcohol and rainwater.

extra credit if you know where those lines come from, millennials...

Why would a millennial know Dr. Strangelove? Maybe if you quoted Dr. Horrible...

[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.)

I think this captures it. A lot of the dysfunction of Red Pill adherents is rooted in insecurity and trying to measure self-worth by the perceived attractiveness and number of women they can have sex with. And it's not the approval of these women they're seeking, particularly, to measure their self-worth. Rather, it's how impressed they think other guys will be by these sexual conquests.

[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.

You quibbling with the precise accuracy of my metaphorical parallel vs addressing what I am actually saying. I think that is a disingenuous way to argue.

I said that Christianity's views on sexuality are tainted by misogyny, as a comparative example to how red pill theories are inherently tainted by misogyny. Perhaps you disagree with my read on Christianity's views on sexuality but I was simply using it to explain how I feel about red pill theories, not to prove the inherent misogyny of red pill theories as the two are pretty unrelated to one another.

[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.

You quibbling with the precise accuracy of my metaphorical parallel vs addressing what I am actually saying. I think that is a disingenuous way to argue.

I said that Christianity's views on sexuality are tainted by misogyny, as a comparative example to how red pill theories are inherently tainted by misogyny. Perhaps you disagree with my read on Christianity's views on sexuality but I was simply using it to explain how I feel about red pill theories, not to prove the inherent misogyny of red pill theories as the two are pretty unrelated to one another.

Fair enough; I didn’t mean to quibble. I thought you were providing some explanation of the reason you thought those things. I disagree on the alleged misogyny of either (although I recognize that there are misogynists that glom onto both; every religion, ideology, or theory attracts its share of bad and dysfunctional people).

[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.)

I think this captures it. A lot of the dysfunction of Red Pill adherents is rooted in insecurity and trying to measure self-worth by the perceived attractiveness and number of women they can have sex with. And it's not the approval of these women they're seeking, particularly, to measure their self-worth. Rather, it's how impressed they think other guys will be by these sexual conquests.

And yet it moves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is the name calling? Please clarify what "pointing and sputtering" means. Before I disagree I want to ensure that there is no misunderstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

I think this captures it. A lot of the dysfunction of Red Pill adherents is rooted in insecurity and trying to measure self-worth by the perceived attractiveness and number of women they can have sex with. And it's not the approval of these women they're seeking, particularly, to measure their self-worth. Rather, it's how impressed they think other guys will be by these sexual conquests.

And yet it moves.

I mean, there's that too -- whatever these guy's motivations for wanting to have sex with hot 20 somethings, the fact remains that trying to act and look more like Chad Thundercock makes it more likely (than whatever they were doing before they found the Red Pill) that they'll end up having sex with these young women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

I think this captures it. A lot of the dysfunction of Red Pill adherents is rooted in insecurity and trying to measure self-worth by the perceived attractiveness and number of women they can have sex with. And it's not the approval of these women they're seeking, particularly, to measure their self-worth. Rather, it's how impressed they think other guys will be by these sexual conquests.

And yet it moves.

I mean, there's that too -- whatever these guy's motivations for wanting to have sex with hot 20 somethings, the fact remains that trying to act and look more like Chad Thundercock makes it more likely (than whatever they were doing before they found the Red Pill) that they'll end up having sex with these young women.

But the point is, you don't need red pill dogma to work out, eat right and present yourself well. You can get that from Men's Health or Esquire without the secret sauce of women-hating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He hates women. It is only a matter of time before you become the object of his hate. Leave him immediately.

Maybe he doesn't hate them, but does deny them his essence. Also he only drinks grain alcohol and rainwater.

extra credit if you know where those lines come from, millennials...

The essawnse is only derived from one person, and one person alone.
Men dont have it. Nor do they have firm nipples. Or I would be droolin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

I think this captures it. A lot of the dysfunction of Red Pill adherents is rooted in insecurity and trying to measure self-worth by the perceived attractiveness and number of women they can have sex with. And it's not the approval of these women they're seeking, particularly, to measure their self-worth. Rather, it's how impressed they think other guys will be by these sexual conquests.

And yet it moves.

I mean, there's that too -- whatever these guy's motivations for wanting to have sex with hot 20 somethings, the fact remains that trying to act and look more like Chad Thundercock makes it more likely (than whatever they were doing before they found the Red Pill) that they'll end up having sex with these young women.

But the point is, you don't need red pill dogma to work out, eat right and present yourself well. You can get that from Men's Health or Esquire without the secret sauce of women-hating.

I tell men to lift weights for free and without even having to buy a magazine. They generally don't listen, though. I would suggest that not doing things to make yourself more attractive is generally not from lack of understanding what's attractive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He hates women. It is only a matter of time before you become the object of his hate. Leave him immediately.

Maybe he doesn't hate them, but does deny them his essence. Also he only drinks grain alcohol and rainwater.

extra credit if you know where those lines come from, millennials...

Why would a millennial know Dr. Strangelove? Maybe if you quoted Dr. Horrible...

Wrong again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

I think this captures it. A lot of the dysfunction of Red Pill adherents is rooted in insecurity and trying to measure self-worth by the perceived attractiveness and number of women they can have sex with. And it's not the approval of these women they're seeking, particularly, to measure their self-worth. Rather, it's how impressed they think other guys will be by these sexual conquests.

And yet it moves.

I mean, there's that too -- whatever these guy's motivations for wanting to have sex with hot 20 somethings, the fact remains that trying to act and look more like Chad Thundercock makes it more likely (than whatever they were doing before they found the Red Pill) that they'll end up having sex with these young women.

But the point is, you don't need red pill dogma to work out, eat right and present yourself well. You can get that from Men's Health or Esquire without the secret sauce of women-hating.

I tell men to lift weights for free and without even having to buy a magazine. They generally don't listen, though. I would suggest that not doing things to make yourself more attractive is generally not from lack of understanding what's attractive.

So you agree it's not the health tips that draw men to red pill.