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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)