Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of these responses reflect the liberal mindset of the DC area and people who frequent this site. I have a very close friend who is a truly wonderful man who joined MGOTW after a horrific divorce/custody battle in which he lost his kids to his drug addicted wife. I know the wife so can confirm he is not making this up. She is now in jail and he has his kids back, but I think that experience traumatized him beyond belief and he saw how at least in some areas of the country outside of the big metropolitan areas, men are often given the shaft. So I think you have to consider the back story of why these men (or the man you dated) are on these sites. I'm surprised how much people are judged in this area for their thoughts rather than their deeds and with absolutely no consideration that their individual life experiences inform those thoughts and do not necessarily make them terrible people.
Would you date a Black man who was a Black panther? White men are now viewed as the devil personified. It's sad actually and makes me understand why some men gravitate towards these "extreme" groups.

So you know one person who is psychologically disturbed due to a bad divorce joining this nutty movement and that’s your evidence that these people are ok? You’re making our case for us...

Psychologically Disturbed DCUMer:
There is nothing wrong with red pills 💊
It isn’t just crazy people there. I know a lot of crazy people that are joining the MGTOW band wagon. Sadly, none of them live in this well-educated area of ransoms from all walks of life. So sad, cry bad. Wamp, waammmmp.

DCUM Audience:
🙄
🤦‍♀️ 🤦‍♂️ 🤦

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of these responses reflect the liberal mindset of the DC area and people who frequent this site. I have a very close friend who is a truly wonderful man who joined MGOTW after a horrific divorce/custody battle in which he lost his kids to his drug addicted wife. I know the wife so can confirm he is not making this up. She is now in jail and he has his kids back, but I think that experience traumatized him beyond belief and he saw how at least in some areas of the country outside of the big metropolitan areas, men are often given the shaft. So I think you have to consider the back story of why these men (or the man you dated) are on these sites. I'm surprised how much people are judged in this area for their thoughts rather than their deeds and with absolutely no consideration that their individual life experiences inform those thoughts and do not necessarily make them terrible people.
Would you date a Black man who was a Black panther? White men are now viewed as the devil personified. It's sad actually and makes me understand why some men gravitate towards these "extreme" groups.

the fact that some men turn to MGOTW because of traumatic experiences actually confirms that these people are disturbed. I am sorry for your friend, but he should try to get therapy to fell better instead of joying a women-date group. a friend of my sister finally divorced a psycho wife (she was really psycho, years later he found out that her mom and brother, who were dead according to the lady, were actually well alive and still terrified of her because of what she had done to them, including trying to get custody of the then minor brother and having the mother committed or put in prison alleging inexistent mental illness and abuse). she manipulated a well-meaning group of people of her religion and one day they helped her smuggle her 4 children out of the country to Russia. the father tried for years to get them back or even to just talk to them. years later the oldest child is troubled adult in and does not want to see the dad at all, the second child managed to got in touch with the father online and the father managed to get him back. the other two kids are still missing and this happened over 10 year ago. the friend of my sister has been deeply traumatized as you can imagine, especially because he knew that the crazy ex was drugging the kids and telling them that the dad had abandoned them and hated them. he found another woman, married her and has another child, while still trying to find and help his other kids.

what you say frankly confirms that people who join these groups are disturbed.

If what you described is true, that is bonkers. Good grief.

Anonymous wrote:I think most of these responses reflect the liberal mindset of the DC area and people who frequent this site. I have a very close friend who is a truly wonderful man who joined MGOTW after a horrific divorce/custody battle in which he lost his kids to his drug addicted wife. I know the wife so can confirm he is not making this up. She is now in jail and he has his kids back, but I think that experience traumatized him beyond belief and he saw how at least in some areas of the country outside of the big metropolitan areas, men are often given the shaft. So I think you have to consider the back story of why these men (or the man you dated) are on these sites. I'm surprised how much people are judged in this area for their thoughts rather than their deeds and with absolutely no consideration that their individual life experiences inform those thoughts and do not necessarily make them terrible people.
Would you date a Black man who was a Black panther? White men are now viewed as the devil personified. It's sad actually and makes me understand why some men gravitate towards these "extreme" groups.

So you know one person who is psychologically disturbed due to a bad divorce joining this nutty movement and that’s your evidence that these people are ok? You’re making our case for us...

Anonymous wrote:I think most of these responses reflect the liberal mindset of the DC area and people who frequent this site. I have a very close friend who is a truly wonderful man who joined MGOTW after a horrific divorce/custody battle in which he lost his kids to his drug addicted wife. I know the wife so can confirm he is not making this up. She is now in jail and he has his kids back, but I think that experience traumatized him beyond belief and he saw how at least in some areas of the country outside of the big metropolitan areas, men are often given the shaft. So I think you have to consider the back story of why these men (or the man you dated) are on these sites. I'm surprised how much people are judged in this area for their thoughts rather than their deeds and with absolutely no consideration that their individual life experiences inform those thoughts and do not necessarily make them terrible people.
Would you date a Black man who was a Black panther? White men are now viewed as the devil personified. It's sad actually and makes me understand why some men gravitate towards these "extreme" groups.

the fact that some men turn to MGOTW because of traumatic experiences actually confirms that these people are disturbed. I am sorry for your friend, but he should try to get therapy to fell better instead of joying a women-date group. a friend of my sister finally divorced a psycho wife (she was really psycho, years later he found out that her mom and brother, who were dead according to the lady, were actually well alive and still terrified of her because of what she had done to them, including trying to get custody of the then minor brother and having the mother committed or put in prison alleging inexistent mental illness and abuse). she manipulated a well-meaning group of people of her religion and one day they helped her smuggle her 4 children out of the country to Russia. the father tried for years to get them back or even to just talk to them. years later the oldest child is troubled adult in and does not want to see the dad at all, the second child managed to got in touch with the father online and the father managed to get him back. the other two kids are still missing and this happened over 10 year ago. the friend of my sister has been deeply traumatized as you can imagine, especially because he knew that the crazy ex was drugging the kids and telling them that the dad had abandoned them and hated them. he found another woman, married her and has another child, while still trying to find and help his other kids.

what you say frankly confirms that people who join these groups are disturbed.

+1 but we can put signs in our yard that tell you how we feel even if it isnt true. This area is such a virtue signaling joke.

Anonymous wrote:I think most of these responses reflect the liberal mindset of the DC area and people who frequent this site. I have a very close friend who is a truly wonderful man who joined MGOTW after a horrific divorce/custody battle in which he lost his kids to his drug addicted wife. I know the wife so can confirm he is not making this up. She is now in jail and he has his kids back, but I think that experience traumatized him beyond belief and he saw how at least in some areas of the country outside of the big metropolitan areas, men are often given the shaft. So I think you have to consider the back story of why these men (or the man you dated) are on these sites. I'm surprised how much people are judged in this area for their thoughts rather than their deeds and with absolutely no consideration that their individual life experiences inform those thoughts and do not necessarily make them terrible people.
Would you date a Black man who was a Black panther? White men are now viewed as the devil personified. It's sad actually and makes me understand why some men gravitate towards these "extreme" groups.

I think most of these responses reflect the liberal mindset of the DC area and people who frequent this site. I have a very close friend who is a truly wonderful man who joined MGOTW after a horrific divorce/custody battle in which he lost his kids to his drug addicted wife. I know the wife so can confirm he is not making this up. She is now in jail and he has his kids back, but I think that experience traumatized him beyond belief and he saw how at least in some areas of the country outside of the big metropolitan areas, men are often given the shaft. So I think you have to consider the back story of why these men (or the man you dated) are on these sites. I'm surprised how much people are judged in this area for their thoughts rather than their deeds and with absolutely no consideration that their individual life experiences inform those thoughts and do not necessarily make them terrible people.
Would you date a Black man who was a Black panther? White men are now viewed as the devil personified. It's sad actually and makes me understand why some men gravitate towards these "extreme" groups.

Run as far and fast as you can

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes!!! Seriously for all this "never listen to women about dating advice", I've been telling dudes to lift since before there was redpill, and I have to say no one was exactly subscribing to my newsletter.

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.

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).

I think you did mean to quibble, as it allowed you to not have to address the core point.

I think it is fairly difficult to claim that the underpinnings of Christianity's view on sex are not rooted in historical misogyny (of course, what isn't?). The edicts about saving oneself for marriage are tied to the idea that women were seen as property to be purchased with a dowry and then to fulfill their role as producing heirs. That is simply the world the bible was written in. And its rules are tied to those philosophies. Women's exclusion from the priesthood is anchored in the same concepts. These sexist underpinnings 100% have impacts on how the church implements these teachings today. As is evidenced in communities like the one the Duggar's inhabit, where a woman is subservient and is expected to dress modestly and produce an insane amount of children. If you are denying the sexist underpinnings of Christianity than I feel like you are simply not going to see sexism where it is present anywhere. Bad actors glom onto the sexist aspects because the sexist aspects are there to glom onto.

The Red Pill subreddit, which is, to my understanding, the genesis of the movement defined their mission as: "The recognition and awareness of the way that feminism, feminists and their white-knight enablers affect society."

That is sexist language. They use that 'recognition and awareness' to try to give men advice on how to be more successful at dating. But the presumptive philosophy is that they need to change the way they show themselves to the world to get around feminism. The core belief is that feminism, feminists and male advocates are bad things. And the reason a person does something does matter when it comes to picking a life partner. Do I want to date someone who spends time at the soup kitchen in order to post about it on social media and look good? Well they're doing good work so who cares you might say. But their motivations reveal something about who they are. So if you are a guy and you are confident and calm and assured and clear with your intentions then hey thats great! But if you're doing it because you believe that I (or whoever the target of your conquest is) am too easily allured by the douc4ey alpha man and therefore have to be treated differently to be convinced that you alone will spark fire in my loins, then that is gross. And if I found that out I would dump you. Because I would like to have sex with someone who likes me, respects me, thinks I have valuable thoughts, wants to engage with me intellectually, not someone for whom every interaction is a goal towards sexual conquest. The underpinnings allow you to think of me as less than fully human, therefore permanently poisoning the potential of a future relationship. At least a relationship with some feminist like me.

Red pillers have deep seated issues,twisted thinking, and an unatural desire for acceptance based on their experieences with rejection. Glad you dumped him OP. I wish you the best in your future pursuits. You probably prevented at least one stalker from not letting go by doing it sooner rather than later.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Twisted” thinking, “terrible defense,” “poor argument” — all invective without substance. To be clear, I meant that you were calling my argument names rather than refuting it; not implying it was personal. By “point and sputter” I mean using such invective without substance, and also implying I was some sort of cautionary tale about the “common characteristics” of Red Pillers (which, full disclosure, I’m actually not) without specifying why.

You just don't make sense, and you don't respond to sensible arguments coherently or succinctly. It is that simple. I won't bother jumping into your word salad with the rest. Go ahead an refer to your thesaurus for an attempt at a refined response. If I were namecalling, I would call you an actual name, like a "foolish moron", or a "dumb deadbeat", or an "undereducated pedantic pussy", or an "angry red pill popping troll".

To be clear - I did not name call at all, my statements are accurate observations. While we can agree to disagree, you are really mucking up what is typically a thought provoking intellectual exhange with your random sprinklings of low-grade analysis of opinion and misappropriation of the most basic levels of vocabulary. If you are insulted by that, perhaps you should ask yourself why? Or not. No sweat off my back either way.

Lol. I guess all that is in the eye of the beholder. I’m content to let the audience here decide who is what.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Twisted” thinking, “terrible defense,” “poor argument” — all invective without substance. To be clear, I meant that you were calling my argument names rather than refuting it; not implying it was personal. By “point and sputter” I mean using such invective without substance, and also implying I was some sort of cautionary tale about the “common characteristics” of Red Pillers (which, full disclosure, I’m actually not) without specifying why.

You just don't make sense, and you don't respond to sensible arguments coherently or succinctly. It is that simple. I won't bother jumping into your word salad with the rest. Go ahead an refer to your thesaurus for an attempt at a refined response. If I were namecalling, I would call you an actual name, like a "foolish moron", or a "dumb deadbeat", or an "undereducated pedantic pussy", or an "angry red pill popping troll".

To be clear - I did not name call at all, my statements are accurate observations. While we can agree to disagree, you are really mucking up what is typically a thought provoking intellectual exhange with your random sprinklings of low-grade analysis of opinion and misappropriation of the most basic levels of vocabulary. If you are insulted by that, perhaps you should ask yourself why? Or not. No sweat off my back either way.

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you are black and a red piller, you are an even bigger fool and disgrace to your AA heritage. Clear enough?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Twisted” thinking, “terrible defense,” “poor argument” — all invective without substance. To be clear, I meant that you were calling my argument names rather than refuting it; not implying it was personal. By “point and sputter” I mean using such invective without substance, and also implying I was some sort of cautionary tale about the “common characteristics” of Red Pillers (which, full disclosure, I’m actually not) without specifying why.