# Please don't take the blue pill, either....



## Faithful Wife

I don't mean Viagra.

The blue pill is a term made up by the red pill folks...it is an analogy from The Matrix. The blue pill represents the horrible advice men have been given over the years that ends up making women not respect them or be turned on by them. The red pill (to them) represents "the truth", which (to them) means that you must be alpha or die, and the rest of that stuff.

I had the red pill thread closed, but anyone who wants to continue or quote from that thread, that's fine with me. (I had asked a new guy a few questions for example, that he didn't have time to answer before the other thread was closed). Here's the old thread: http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/265130-please-dont-take-red-pill.html

On this thread though, I'd love to hear what you (anyone) considers bad relationship advice. For instance, some women were told when young to act stupid around men, because "men don't like it when you are smarter than them". Stuff like that is crappy advice, period.

It doesn't have to be male oriented advice. Just any advice that is counter productive or causes problems in relationships to arise or become worse.

So bad advice or blue pill advice (which is more specific to men and has a more specific slant to it)....please give me your thoughts.

Also I'd like to know what books would be considered blue pill.

I loved the original Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.

Does red pill consider that one blue pill? That's one example.


----------



## tech-novelist

If your wife is unhappy, you should just agree with everything she says.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> If your wife is unhappy, you should just agree with everything she says.


Ok but did someone actually tell you that?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't mean Viagra.
> 
> The blue pill is a term made up by the red pill folks...it is an analogy from The Matrix. The blue pill represents the horrible advice men have been given over the years that ends up making women not respect them or be turned on by them. The red pill (to them) represents "the truth", which (to them) means that you must be alpha or die, and the rest of that stuff.
> 
> I had the red pill thread closed, but anyone who wants to continue or quote from that thread, that's fine with me. (I had asked a new guy a few questions for example, that he didn't have time to answer before the other thread was closed). Here's the old thread: http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/265130-please-dont-take-red-pill.html
> 
> On this thread though, I'd love to hear what you (anyone) considers bad relationship advice. For instance, some women were told when young to act stupid around men, because "men don't like it when you are smarter than them". Stuff like that is crappy advice, period.
> 
> It doesn't have to be male oriented advice. Just any advice that is counter productive or causes problems in relationships to arise or become worse.
> 
> So bad advice or blue pill advice (which is more specific to men and has a more specific slant to it)....please give me your thoughts.
> 
> Also I'd like to know what books would be considered blue pill.
> 
> I loved the original Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.
> 
> Does red pill consider that one blue pill? That's one example.


A friend's mother came over when my first born was about 2 1/2. She told me to put him to bed at 5. YES 5! So that he is already gone when my husband arrived home from work. (I did not even barely get home by 5.) She told me that when I wanted something, I should get dressed up in a negligee and basically sweet talk him into whatever I wanted and follow up with sex. He would not deny me after sex. (The strong implication being that without some kind of payment, there was no sex.)

My husband :scratchhead: when would I see my son, and why do you need me to get what you want. And if it is something from me, all you have to do is ask.


----------



## Brigit

To FW..


----------



## Brigit

That AK....what a freaking woman hating...piece of crap...no good...

(OK....lets reopen the Red thread...this isn't working.)


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lol! You're funny.

We'll see where it goes....I just want to discuss the stuff.

I'm particularly fascinated to hear exactly WHAT advice is considered blue pill, and how is that advice delivered, to whom, and when did they hear it.


----------



## Fozzy

Wait. I'm confused. If blue pill is bad advice, and you consider red pill bad advice, does that make red pill "blue pill"?


----------



## Fozzy

intheory said:


> Well, just some stupid things about interacting with men:
> 
> *Don't hold doors open for guys (who are reaching the door right after you)*
> 
> Great sex, for men, is in a really turned on woman, (as if it's not exactly the same for women: Great sex, for women, is in a really turned on man)
> 
> If a guy says something perfectly ordinary to you "Excuse me", "hello", you should try to come up with something "cute and funny" to say to him, 'cause he's obviously flirting with you.
> 
> ^^^Stuff like that, which I have ignored.
> 
> The one about disguising your intelligence; I am so sorry to say, but I have found a lot of truth in that, sadly.


Boggles me how often I see this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Fozzy said:


> Wait. I'm confused. If blue pill is bad avice, and you consider red pill bad advice, does that make red pill "blue pill"?


No, blue pill is bad and red pill is badder.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Fozzy said:


> Boggles me how often I see this.


Would you walk through the door if a woman was holding it or go up and hold it open yourself and let her walk through?

I have tried holding the door for men who literally refuse to go through it before I do.


----------



## Fozzy

On the few occasions where a woman will hold a door, I'll thank them, grab the door and allow them to go through.

Most of the time however, what I see happen is women will quite obviously see you heading for the door, but will pretend not to.

Likewise, I will always hold a door for anyone behind me, man or woman, but it's relatively rare for a woman to say thank you. I'd say over half the time they will just breeze through the door without acknowledging me. Maybe it's just local gals, but that's been my experience.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Weird.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But that's what Fozzy just said, too. This is what I meant.



Fozzy said:


> On the few occasions where a woman will hold a door, I'll thank them, grab the door and allow them to go through.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Alright the bad Beta advice.

Nothing is more attractive to a woman than a man doing housework.
(on the other hand a man cooking is a whole different thing)

While we are on the subject {that I brought up). My Son took Ball Room Dance, and advanced Culinary arts this year. He has had no increase in female attention if fact may are intimidated by him. So maybe there is some kind of generation gap in effect here. 
MN


----------



## Mr. Nail

OK back to the door thing. Just the other day a younger woman held the door for me. I told her the truth, "I'm too old to feel comfortable with you holding the door for me". Now maybe when I start using a cane or walker . . .


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mr. Nail said:


> My Son took Ball Room Dance....He has had no increase in female attention


Welll.....I mean, you can't just take A class and then have women paying attention to you. You have to take MANY classes, go to MANY dances, and gain experience...until you are a proficient dancer. THEN you get attention from women, while you are at dances or if you are seen dancing. No woman knows you are a dancer until she sees you dancing, therefore, no extra interest will show up just at random.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I'd like an example of a blue pill book too. 

I think some women fall into the same rut as some men do. They are being doormats and not getting their own needs met but I'm not sure of a book directed at women that we could compare to the red pill ones. 

As for bad advice- I think all the crap about don't sleep with him before the 3rd date, don't call before 3 days or whatever dating "rules" they've decided on now are all playing games and bad advice. Just be you, do what feels right and if he doesn't like it he's not compatible. 

Also, I think in general the "only thing a man needs is a full belly and empty balls" thing is bad advice but I don't even know what side that is coming from. Men can have all kinds of emotional needs so you have to know YOUR man and focus your efforts where he feels it most, just like with a woman.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Yes yes two mornings a week for the entire school year competitions, performances the works. Went from nothing to bronze level. The dancing girls think he is a prop, the non dancing girls won't dance with him because he knows more than them.

Your reply reminds me of the day that I announced my success at swimming fitness. I was told right here on this forum. that I should start training for a Iron Man Triathlon. Obviously none of this stuff will impress you. You want us to waste years and years jumping through contrived hoops While you continue to dump on us because of one of 2 things.

We aren't over 6' tall
We aren't Bad Boys

I swear a pot habit and a shoulder Tattoo would have done my son more good.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's an article by a red pill guy about what blue pill is...for reference...

Why Blue Pill Love Is Different From Red Pill Love


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mr. Nail said:


> Yes yes two mornings a week for the entire school year competitions, performances the works. Went from nothing to bronze level. The dancing girls think he is a prop, the non dancing girls won't dance with him because he knows more than them.
> 
> Your reply reminds me of the day that I announced my success at swimming fitness. I was told right here on this forum. that I should start training for a Iron Man Triathlon. Obviously none of this stuff will impress you. You want us to waste years and years jumping through contrived hoops While you continue to dump on us because of one of 2 things.
> 
> We aren't over 6' tall
> We aren't Bad Boys
> 
> *I swear a pot habit and a shoulder Tattoo would have done my son more good*.


:lol:

That last line is funny, because here in Portland, well....yeah.

However....my son is also a dancer (not ballroom, though) and is chased by many women....the dancers, their friends who don't dance, the girls who don't dance and want him to teach them....he is also not a bad boy and is not over 6' tall.

So I don't know how to generalize when we are talking about a specific person.

But having said that, if your son didn't get any extra attention, I will believe you and just say, well then I don't know why he didn't. Mine did/does. :scratchhead:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Personal said:


> Are women promoting blue pill? The reason why I ask is I have no idea what blue pill is supposed to be. So I am wondering if it is something packaged like MMSL, or is it a straw woman assembled by those promoting red pill rubbish?
> 
> As an aside when my wife reads these forum she jokes (at least I think she's joking ), she'd be very happy if I were a doormat!


If you asked a red pill guy, blue pill advice is all the fault of feminism. Also the wussification of boys is the fault of feminism, so the whole Nice Guy syndrome can be blamed there as well. 

Also, some red pill guys think women give and follow blue pill advice just to hide our true wh*re natures from them, while we save all the hot sex for alpha studs on the side.


----------



## OnTheFly

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's an article by a red pill guy about what blue pill is...for reference...
> 
> Why Blue Pill Love Is Different From Red Pill Love


Great link, thx!

As for terrible advice….."Just be yourself''. This specifically is awful.

Generally speaking, any relationship advice promoted by mainstream print/TV/movies for the last 50 years.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Can you discuss why "just be yourself" is bad advice, in your estimation?


----------



## MountainRunner

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's an article by a red pill guy about what blue pill is...for reference...
> 
> Why Blue Pill Love Is Different From Red Pill Love


That blog is the biggest pile of horseshyte I've ever read. And if that "dude" is masculine as he likes to refer himself as...heh...I'm Chuck Norris.

And the other articles? Ferreal? How to build your harem? How to "pump and dump" an Indian girl? Some men w/ their attitudes toward women need a swift kick...to the teeth.


----------



## OnTheFly

Faithful Wife said:


> Can you discuss why "just be yourself" is bad advice, in your estimation?


I imagine a young man just having passed through puberty, and having been unschooled in the ways of women, having no problem being a friend to girls, but when he tries to advance the relationship…..utter failure. When he reads or watches tv/movies and the oft refrain 'just be yourself' is parroted, he thinks to himself, 'that's what I'm doing, and it's not working'. Confusion ensues. He witnesses characters 'being themselves' and it's very successful. More confusion. What is he to think?


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Blue Pill: Women and men are not really different, the culture (patriarchy) just made them that way.

Red Pill: Women and men are hardwired by nature and nurture to fulfill optimal roles and have generally different psychologies.


Blue Pill: Women really want men that are nice.

Red Pill: Being nice to women only makes them feel like they could do better with another man.


Blue Pill: Women are primarily rational and reasoning in relationships.

Red Pill: Women are irrational and justifying in relationships.


Blue Pill: Women want to a man that is devoted to them.

Red Pill: Women think they want a strong man that is devoted to them without realizing that their devotion destroys their strength making what they desire an impossible paradox.


Blue Pill: Relationships are a partnership.

Red Pill: Women need to be led, and if you don't lead them, they will find a man that will.


Blue Pill: Feminism seeks to liberate women.

Red Pill: Feminism seeks to harness and marginalize men and the value of manhood.


Blue pill: Attraction is about love.

Red Pill: Attraction for women is about status of the male. 


Blue Pill: True love should be what everyone strives for.

Red Pill: True love is mostly a lie and the feminine perspective of love that is hollow to men. It may exist but it is so rare, don't expect it and plan for a life without it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MountainRunner said:


> That blog is the biggest pile of horseshyte I've ever read. And if that "dude" is masculine as he likes to refer himself as...heh...I'm Chuck Norris.
> 
> And the other articles? Ferreal? How to build your harem? How to "pump and dump" an Indian girl? Some men w/ their attitudes toward women need a swift kick...to the teeth.


Yeah...he's one of many dudes who have blogs, systems, and books about red pill and/or PUA. Pretty typical.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Scrambled....thank you that was an excellent breakdown.


----------



## Marduk

I remember my parents giving me "the talk."

And explaining that girls are sensitive, emotionally and physically, and you need to be gentle with them. To always be kind, loving, and never disrespectful.

It all sounded very nice.

My girlfriend at the time laughed her head off, told me to tie her up and give her a good spanking because she was naughty.

I decided that while what my parents said sounded nice, what my girlfriend said sounded more fun.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I mentioned on the red pill thread that there is actually a smallish purple pill movement. Best of blue pill + best of red pill = purple pill.

Here's the reddit site for it: Question what you believe

I found this site because someone had linked one of my blog posts to it and they were debating the purple pill merits of it. I felt honored, as I had not yet heard of this group.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *OnTheFly said:** As for terrible advice….."Just be yourself''. This specifically is awful*.


Somewhere in the daily grind of every budding relationship..."your REAL self" is going to be revealed to this person before you anyway.. I only feel this is BAD advice if you are a dysfunctional mess & need to get your sh*t together... if you can carry a conversation.. have something to offer.. laugh with each other, why the he** not ?? Aren't we all just looking for someone authentic to connect with ... relate with, love ? 

Myself & husband think games are asinine... we were both JUST ourselves.. that's it.. SIMPLE.. and TRUE..some may feel that's Boring (but we would not)...

He was easy going, laid back.. I was on the feisty side, never afraid to spit out what was on my mind... he liked that.. made his life easier I guess.... and I was thrilled to have a guy who was so Into ME.... made me feel on top of the world....I wasn't sure it would be forever early on.. but I knew it was something very special and authentic.. 

When he gave his word on something .. I could always count on him.... . Never caught him in a Lie... I was the same....I don't know.. it just flowed very easily for us.. Had we been with someone else, it probably wouldn't have been the case..

*I think when you meet the right person, you can't help but* *FIND YOURSELF*..*.and let loose*.


----------



## OnTheFly

Faithful Wife said:


> I mentioned on the red pill thread that there is actually a smallish purple pill movement. Best of blue pill + best of red pill = purple pill.


Faithful Wife, participate in a thought experiment for me, if you're willing. Imagine you have a fifteen year old nephew and he comes to you for general relationship/girl advice. What would be your five best 'purple pill' bullet points.

Thx.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok but did someone actually tell you that?


Yes. I explained that the results of that approach are not very good. There has actually been a small experiment about what happens when a man agrees with everything his wife says:

Marriage Experiment: Better to Be Right Than Happy | TIME.com

Interestingly, no one has tried the converse experiment, where the wife agrees with everything the husband says. I wonder why not? :scratchhead:


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> :lol:
> 
> That last line is funny, because here in Portland, well....yeah.
> 
> However....my son is also a dancer (not ballroom, though) and is chased by many women....the dancers, their friends who don't dance, the girls who don't dance and want him to teach them....he is also not a bad boy and is not over 6' tall.
> 
> So I don't know how to generalize when we are talking about a specific person.
> 
> But having said that, if your son didn't get any extra attention, I will believe you and just say, well then I don't know why he didn't. Mine did/does. :scratchhead:


Well, at least we know to ignore the theory that one of the reasons that women prefer alphas is that their (the alphas') sons are sexier and have more children than the sons of betas, so women who had sons by alphas would be over-represented in the population.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Can you discuss why "just be yourself" is bad advice, in your estimation?


Oh, that's an easy one. Because the men for whom "just be yourself" is appropriate aren't in the market for advice on how to attract women.


----------



## tech-novelist

ScrambledEggs said:


> Blue Pill: Women and men are not really different, the culture (patriarchy) just made them that way.
> 
> Red Pill: Women and men are hardwired by nature and nurture to fulfill optimal roles and have generally different psychologies.
> 
> 
> Blue Pill: Women really want men that do nice.
> 
> Red Pill: Being nice to women only makes them feel like they could do better with another man.
> 
> 
> Blue Pill: Women are primarily rational and reasoning in relationships.
> 
> Red Pill: Women are irrational and justifying in relationships.
> 
> 
> Blue Pill: Women want to a man that is devoted to them.
> 
> Red Pill: Women think they want a strong man that is devoted to them without realizing that their devotion destroys their strength making what they desire an impossible paradox.
> 
> 
> Blue Pill: Relationships are a partnership.
> 
> Red Pill: Women need to be led, and if you don't lead them, they will find a man that will.
> 
> 
> Blue Pill: Feminism seeks to liberate women.
> 
> Red Pill: Feminism seeks to harness and marginalize men and the value of manhood.
> 
> 
> Blue pill: Attraction is about love.
> 
> Red Pill: Attraction for women is about status of the male.
> 
> 
> Blue Pill: True love should be what everyone strives for.
> 
> Red Pill: True love is mostly a lie and the feminine perspective of love that is hollow to men. It may exist but it is so rare, don't expect it and plan for a life without it.


That is quite a good summary. Now the only question is which perspective is more in accord with reality. :lol:


----------



## Faithful Wife

OnTheFly said:


> Faithful Wife, participate in a thought experiment for me, if you're willing. Imagine you have a fifteen year old nephew and he comes to you for general relationship/girl advice. What would be your five best 'purple pill' bullet points.
> 
> Thx.


At 15 my advice is different than at 18, at 23, at 27....(I have 2 adult kids so that's how I know).

But for the 15 y/o nephew...

1. Who do you have in mind? I would grill him to find out if he is asking about a particular girl or just girls. Then I would find out what/who he is attracted to in general if he wasn't talking about a specific girl. 

2. Is he bold or introverted? I would want to know which of these he is in order to guide him further, as any suggestions will be different for each, and also different for someone in the middle.

3. I would tell him to learn how to read body language. And then learn how to speak it, or rather, learn what yours is saying about you.

4. I would tell him to learn how to know when a girl is flirting with you. I'm happy to spend more time with nephew to explain this in more detail.

5. Is he ready to be sexually active or is he just curious and getting ready for that? I would grill him on these details and would assume he is not ready for it, he is just wanting to be near girls and maybe kiss them. If he was asking because he really just wants to have sex, I would advise him that he needs more sex ed before he does that, and that self servicing is really the way to go for now at this young age until he's a little older and can take the responsibilities that come with having sex. But if he was just wanting a little kissy-stuff, I'd be happy to advise nephew on what girls of that age are mature enough to handle (they can barely figure out how to kiss in a good way at that age, let them tongue wrestle for a few years before any clothes come off).

. . . . . . 

The above list would apply to a 15 y/o niece as well.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Well, at least we know to ignore the theory that one of the reasons that women prefer alphas is that their (the alphas') sons are sexier and have more children than the sons of betas, so women who had sons by alphas would be over-represented in the population.


I'm not sure if this is what you mean or not...but my sex god husband is not my son's father, (he is my son's step-father).

But if that wasn't what you meant, would you please 'splain?


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> That is quite a good summary. Now the only question is which perspective is more in accord with reality. :lol:


technovelist...Let me ask you a Matrix style question...

What if....

What if your first love had turned out exactly blue pill. What if your first love loved you back, you were happily married and had some beautiful kids, and she was the best wife of your dreams you could have ever imagined. She loved you, she was loyal, she thought you were a sexy devil, and she respected you. You live happily ever after.

If that were true...then wouldn't the blue pill be your reality?


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not sure if this is what you mean or not...but my sex god husband is not my son's father, (he is my son's step-father).
> 
> But if that wasn't what you meant, would you please 'splain?


I was referring to the evo-psych "sexy sons" hypothesis, which suggests that one of the attractions of being alpha is (sort of self-referentially, but not really) is that being alpha is somewhat inheritable, so women who have sons with alphas tend to have more descendents. Thus, their offspring would tend to represent an increasing proportion of the overall population.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> technovelist...Let me ask you a Matrix style question...
> 
> What if....
> 
> What if your first love had turned out exactly blue pill. What if your first love loved you back, you were happily married and had some beautiful kids, and she was the best wife of your dreams you could have ever imagined. She loved you, she was loyal, she thought you were a sexy devil, and she respected you. You live happily ever after.
> 
> If that were true...then wouldn't the blue pill be your reality?


Yes, it would.

Unfortunately, of all the marriages I know, exactly *none* of them fit that description. So it seems a bit risky to count on that outcome.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Yes. I explained that the results of that approach are not very good. There has actually been a small experiment about what happens when a man agrees with everything his wife says:
> 
> Marriage Experiment: Better to Be Right Than Happy | TIME.com
> 
> Interestingly, no one has tried the converse experiment, where the wife agrees with everything the husband says. I wonder why not? :scratchhead:


From the article:

Obviously the results are to be taken with extreme caution, *since this was just one couple* with who-knows-what underlying issues beforehand.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Yes, it would.
> 
> Unfortunately, of all the marriages I know, exactly *none* of them fit that description. So it seems a bit risky to count on that outcome.


SimplyAmorous right here at TAM is one like that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> I was referring to the evo-psych "sexy sons" hypothesis, which suggests that one of the attractions of being alpha is (sort of self-referentially, but not really) is that being alpha is somewhat inheritable, so women who have sons with alphas tend to have more descendents. Thus, their offspring would tend to represent an increasing proportion of the overall population.


I'm still unclear if you get that my sex god husband is not my son's father or not, or if you are even talking about me...you had posted after a post about my son that is why I am assuming this.

In any case...my son's father is a very good man, definitely a blue pill man, an attractive man, a man of integrity, a very strong man, but not what you guys mean by an alpha man. 

My son does carry my extremely awesome genes, however...he can't help it, he is just drawn that way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Yes, it would.
> 
> Unfortunately, of all the marriages I know, exactly *none* of them fit that description. So it seems a bit risky to count on that outcome.


My point there was to say that since the blue pill IS a reality for some people (and they don't have to fit the description I gave you of the first love scenario, either)...but since SOME people do experience this as their reality, then isn't it ok for those people to believe in blue pill type ideals? If you read that list that SE wrote and read just the blue pill parts, and then think about the millions of people who have had love like that....how can you deny that this is reality for those people? You can barely imagine it for yourself, but for many, it has happened. It does not always have to be a first love, like I said. But people DO have that type of love and romance.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> From the article:
> 
> Obviously the results are to be taken with extreme caution, *since this was just one couple* with who-knows-what underlying issues beforehand.


That's why I said "a small experiment". However, my observation of marriages yields similar results.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> SimplyAmorous right here at TAM is one like that.


I'm happy for her, of course. But just because there are lottery winners doesn't mean that buying lottery tickets is a good financial plan.


----------



## MountainRunner

technovelist said:


> Yes, it would.
> 
> Unfortunately, of all the marriages I know, exactly *none* of them fit that description. So it seems a bit risky to count on that outcome.


You don't get out much, do you?

My "right hand man" at work happens to be one of my best friends. George and I got hired 6 months apart at my company about 15 years ago. George is about 5'6" with a very pleasant disposition. As long as he and I have known each other, he has been w/ Rose his SO. Rose used to work at the same company and was in accounting (George is one of my techs). I like Rose. She is professional and an all around "good person".

Rose attracted the attention of the VP of the company. The VP, John, happens to be the owner's son. John is also married. John is about 6' 5" and VERY wealthy. He stands to inherit the company along with his mother's wealth once she passes on.

John expressed his undying love to Rose. I suppose we can overlook the fact that he's been married for over 30 years and the family knows of his desire for Rose. She chose to leave the company as opposed to suing and eventually owning the company...but that's another story.

Red pill guys would look at George and laugh. They would look at John's position, wealth, and place in life and say he's an "alpha"...Guess which one Rose has chosen to be with?


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm still unclear if you get that my sex god husband is not my son's father or not, or if you are even talking about me...you had posted after a post about my son that is why I am assuming this.
> 
> In any case...my son's father is a very good man, definitely a blue pill man, an attractive man, a man of integrity, a very strong man, but not what you guys mean by an alpha man.
> 
> My son does carry my extremely awesome genes, however...he can't help it, he is just drawn that way.


Yes, I did get that your husband is your son's stepfather, and I wasn't talking about you specifically. Your comments about your son simply reminded me about the "sexy sons" hypothesis as a potential way of explaining some of the attraction of women to alphas.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> I'm happy for her, of course. But just because there are lottery winners doesn't mean that buying lottery tickets is a good financial plan.


But the lottery isn't the only way to make money or get rich or even to get lucky.

There are millions of happily married or committed couples who would fit the description of blue pill.

Is blue pill or is it not a reality for them?

Because the post of yours I'm responding to is the one where you said "which one is more like reality?" And I'm saying, it depends on whose reality you are talking about.



(cue gong sound)


----------



## tech-novelist

MountainRunner said:


> You don't get out much, do you?
> 
> My "right hand man" at work happens to be one of my best friends. George and I got hired 6 months apart at my company about 15 years ago. George is about 5'6" with a very pleasant disposition. As long as he and I have known each other, he has been w/ Rose his SO. Rose used to work at the same company and was in accounting (George is one of my techs). I like Rose. She is professional and an all around "good person".
> 
> Rose attracted the attention of the VP of the company. The VP, John, happens to be the owner's son. John is also married. John is about 6' 5" and VERY wealthy. He stands to inherit the company along with his mother's wealth once she passes on.
> 
> John expressed his undying love to Rose. I suppose we can overlook the fact that he's been married for over 30 years and the family knows of his desire for Rose. She chose to leave the company as opposed to suing and eventually owning the company...but that's another story.
> 
> Red pill guys would look at George and laugh. They would look at John's position, wealth, and place in life and say he's an "alpha"...Guess which one Rose has chosen to be with?


That's a wonderful story, but of the people I know personally, things don't wind up that way. Maybe I need different family members and friends?

Let's see if I can think of some examples:

A woman who divorced her husband of 20 years or so because he lacked ambition.

A woman who married her alpha quite young. They ended up divorced and she married someone else she wasn't attracted to for financial support and ended up cheating on him after giving him the ILYBINILWY speech. They are probably going to get divorced.

A man and wife who are married and miserable but can't afford to get divorced. He says "Yes, dear" to almost everything she says, although it is obvious he doesn't mean it.

A woman who married a musician thinking he was going to be rich and famous but he ended up neither. They are unhappy but can't afford to get divorced.

Oh, wait, I do know one success story sort of like the original description by FW:

They got married in college and have been apparently happily married for almost 50 years. I don't know whether it is relevant that she is and always has been VERY plain whereas he is a ****y, arrogant, reasonably good-looking bastard (and a good friend).

I have a lot more unhappy stories, but no more happy ones.

Other than mine, which also doesn't resemble FW's story. We are indeed happy now, but were both unhappily married before.

So why shouldn't I believe my experience, which also goes along with the roughly 50% divorce rate, which of course doesn't include sexless marriages and other unhappy outcomes?

Please understand that I really wish the blue pill was reality. I don't like having to worry about whether I need to recalibrate my alpha/beta mix to keep things on an even keel.

Actually, I never was that much of a beta. I've had a fair number of sex partners, some of whom have been very attractive, and I am not known in general for kowtowing to anyone. But I'd still rather be able to relax and assume that I can count on my wife's love even if I'm not planning and executing properly.

I just don't think that is wise.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> But the lottery isn't the only way to make money or get rich or even to get lucky.
> 
> There are millions of happily married or committed couples who would fit the description of blue pill.
> 
> Is blue pill or is it not a reality for them?
> 
> Because the post of yours I'm responding to is the one where you said "which one is more like reality?" And I'm saying, it depends on whose reality you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> (cue gong sound)


I think I have answered your question(s) in the post that I cross-posted with you. If not, please ask for clarification.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> So why shouldn't I believe my experience, which also goes along with the roughly 50% divorce rate, which of course doesn't include sexless marriages and other unhappy outcomes?
> 
> Please understand that I really wish the blue pill was reality. I don't like having to worry about whether I need to recalibrate my alpha/beta mix to keep things on an even keel.


Of course we should all believe statistics and realize that marriage doesn't always work out. I personally think this is due to the flaws in marriage. I don't think it is "because blue pill ruined everything".

So knowing that marriages split at least 50% of the time should mean we are ALL on our toes and giving our A game in marriage, right? But we don't, and I bet you didn't either. My only point there being....maybe if we were all much more mindful of how likely it is our marriages will fail, we would all put in a lot more effort...but we would have all had to understand this and know it much earlier in life. If you didn't know that, then you likely didn't always do your best in your marriage, right? 

If we care so much about not getting divorced, why are people falling into lazy marriage efforts, and then complaining about how marriages don't last? 

To me, divorce is reality and yes it by god might happen to YOU. Anyone. It is a person's choice to walk away and leave you...so instead of whining that they have this power, if you love them and don't want to get divorced, why would you have stopped trying to bring your A game every single day of your marriage? We all know that no one does that. But then we are shocked at the high divorce rate? 

Again, divorce is reality. So sit back and fear it it. Or do everything you can to prevent it because you love your spouse and sincerely don't want to lose them.

This is HOW you can make blue pill be your reality.

And I'm not talking about blindly worshipping and pedastalizing someone who doesn't love or respect you.

I'm talking about just seeing that both blue pill and red pill are realities, for different people at different times in their lives. Neither of them are hard and fast truth for the whole population of us. We can even go through phases in our lives that are completely opposite in those ways, yet all these phases are our reality.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Of course we should all believe statistics and realize that marriage doesn't always work out. I personally think this is due to the flaws in marriage. I don't think it is "because blue pill ruined everything".
> 
> So knowing that marriages split at least 50% of the time should mean we are ALL on our toes and giving our A game in marriage, right? But we don't, and I bet you didn't either. My only point there being....maybe if we were all much more mindful of how likely it is our marriages will fail, we would all put in a lot more effort...but we would have all had to understand this and know it much earlier in life. If you didn't know that, then you likely didn't always do your best in your marriage, right?
> 
> If we care so much about not getting divorced, why are people falling into lazy marriage efforts, and then complaining about how marriages don't last?
> 
> To me, divorce is reality and yes it by god might happen to YOU. Anyone. *It is a person's choice to walk away and leave you...so instead of whining that they have this power, if you love them and don't want to get divorced, why would you have stopped trying to bring your A game every single day of your marriage?* We all know that no one does that. But then we are shocked at the high divorce rate?
> 
> Again, divorce is reality. So sit back and fear it it. Or do everything you can to prevent it because you love your spouse and sincerely don't want to lose them.
> 
> This is HOW you can make blue pill be your reality.
> 
> And I'm not talking about blindly worshipping and pedastalizing someone who doesn't love or respect you.
> 
> I'm talking about just seeing that both blue pill and red pill are realities, for different people at different times in their lives. Neither of them are hard and fast truth for the whole population of us. We can even go through phases in our lives that are completely opposite in those ways, yet all these phases are our reality.


I agree with *this* completely.

The question is what "A game" looks like. If the following are all true:

1. The description given earlier for the blue pill paradigm is accurate; 
2. That is the prevailing relationship approach in society; and 
3. People are actually trying that approach and failing in enormous numbers, given the great incidence of divorce in recent years;

Then I think we need a new definition of "A game". 

Is the red pill precisely true in every respect? I doubt that very much, for any definition of "red pill". But I would submit that if one accepts as reasonably accurate the descriptions of "red pill" and "blue pill" in the previous posting (that post should be a sticky, by the way), the track record of the "blue pill" approach is too poor for me to bet my happiness on it.


----------



## MountainRunner

technovelist said:


> Please understand that I really wish the blue pill was reality. I don't like having to worry about whether I need to recalibrate my alpha/beta mix to keep things on an even keel.
> 
> Actually, I never was that much of a beta. I've had a fair number of sex partners, some of whom have been very attractive, and I am not known in general for kowtowing to anyone. But I'd still rather be able to relax and assume that I can count on my wife's love even if I'm not planning and executing properly.
> 
> I just don't think that is wise.


I'm not a "beta" either. In fact, far from it, but ya know what? I never heard of this bullshyte "alpha/beta, red pill/blue pill" BS until a few months ago. The more I learn/read about this red pill crap the more I want to unload on these "wannabe alpha" that buy into the BS that in order to get laid, you need to treat women like "the *****s that they are".

Here's my take on what it means to be an "Alpha"...

1. You care for your mate.
2. You share the intimate parts of your soul with her .
3. You respect her and treat her like a lady while respecting her sense of "self".
4. You build a future for her...and yourself....together.
5. When she hurts...you nurture her.
6. When she is happy, you revel in it with her.
7. You listen to her and acknowledge her.


And the most important part of being an "Alpha" is...

You don't "NEED" anyone or anything...but you do WANT and DESIRE your soulmate and you will do anything for her.

So much so that you would do anything for her to ensure and strengthen the bonds between that the two of you have together.

No exceptions.

Is that putting her on a pedestal? Maybe so, but that is my philosophy and guess what else? I have NEVER had a problem "getting" a woman with my "blue pill" ideology.

My problem is that a lot of women like my ideology and I have a problem turning them away...at least I used to. I'm a work in progress at the moment.

I have fretted over saying this, but I will now...

I am not a "red pill/MMSL" guy and I'd venture a guess and say I've "had" more partners than most self avowed "alphas" here. All I ever had to do to attract them was...

"be myself"...What a concept, eh?


----------



## tech-novelist

MountainRunner said:


> I'm not a "beta" either. In fact, far from it, but ya know what? I never heard of this bullshyte "alpha/beta, red pill/blue pill" BS until a few months ago. The more I learn/read about this red pill crap the more I want to unload on these "wannabe alpha" that buy into the BS that in order to get laid, you need to treat women like "the *****s that they are".
> 
> Here's my take on what it means to be an "Alpha"...
> 
> 1. You care for your mate.
> 2. You share the intimate parts of your soul with her .
> 3. You respect her and treat her like a lady while respecting her sense of "self".
> 4. You build a future for her...and yourself....together.
> 5. When she hurts...you nurture her.
> 6. When she is happy, you revel in it with her.
> 7. You listen to her and acknowledge her.
> 
> 
> And the most important part of being an "Alpha" is...
> 
> You don't "NEED" anyone or anything...but you do WANT and DESIRE your soulmate and you will do anything for her.
> 
> So much so that you would do anything for her to ensure and strengthen the bonds between that the two of you have together.
> 
> No exceptions.
> 
> Is that putting her on a pedestal? Maybe so, but that is my philosophy and guess what else? I have NEVER had a problem "getting" a woman with my "blue pill" ideology.
> 
> My problem is that a lot of women like my ideology and I have a problem turning them away...at least I used to. I'm a work in progress at the moment.
> 
> I have fretted over saying this, but I will now...
> 
> I am not a "red pill/MMSL" guy and I'd venture a guess and say I've "had" more partners than most self avowed "alphas" here. All I ever had to do to attract them was...
> 
> "be myself"...What a concept, eh?


As I said before, men who don't have any trouble finding sex partners don't go looking for relationship advice; they can just "be themselves".

There is a shorthand term for such men, by the way. They're called "alphas".


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> I agree with *this* completely.
> 
> The question is what "A game" looks like. If the following are all true:
> 
> 1. The description given earlier for the blue pill paradigm is accurate;
> 2. That is the prevailing relationship approach in society; and
> 3. People are actually trying that approach and failing in enormous numbers, given the great incidence of divorce in recent years;
> 
> Then I think we need a new definition of "A game".
> 
> Is the red pill precisely true in every respect? I doubt that very much, for any definition of "red pill". But I would submit that if one accepts as reasonably accurate the descriptions of "red pill" and "blue pill" in the previous posting (that post should be a sticky, by the way), the track record of the "blue pill" approach is too poor for me to bet my happiness on it.


I understand and respect your decision of pill color choice.

I'm just saying....

Do any of us really have to knock the other pill color? Isn't it obvious that blue pill and red pill people don't live in the same reality, and both can be happy where they are?

The implication that blue pill is horrible for everyone...just isn't true.

And yes, I acknowledge and understand there are many happy red pill people.

Neither is a universal truth.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> As I said before, men who don't have any trouble finding sex partners don't go looking for relationship advice; they can just "be themselves".
> 
> There is a shorthand term for such men, by the way. They're called "alphas".


So an alpha may be blue pill then, right?


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> I understand and respect your decision of pill color choice.
> 
> I'm just saying....
> 
> Do any of us really have to knock the other pill color? Isn't it obvious that blue pill and red pill people don't live in the same reality, and both can be happy where they are?
> 
> The implication that blue pill is horrible for everyone...just isn't true.
> 
> And yes, I acknowledge and understand there are many happy red pill people.
> 
> Neither is a universal truth.


Certainly, whatever works for each person is fine with me, but of course it's not up to me anyway.

It's just that I have seen the results of blue pill thinking in my own circle of friends and family, and they have been fairly uniformly awful, so I can't recommend it or follow it myself.

I'm also 100% N in MBTI terms, and systems have a lot of interest for me, but that applies to much more than this topic...


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> So an alpha may be blue pill then, right?


Absolutely! In fact, I suspect many naturals are, to a fair extent anyway, because "being themselves" works for them. Unfortunately it doesn't work for a lot of men, and they're the ones who look for reasons why, especially if they are theoretical thinkers anyway...


----------



## MountainRunner

technovelist said:


> There is a shorthand term for such men, by the way. They're called "alphas".


Which is PRECISELY why I stated my definition of an "Alpha Male" because it seems to be anathema to what these "red pill" pussies are trying to sell.

And yes...I call them pussies because they come across to me as manipulative, weak, limp-****ed, males that are posturing/posing/lying to get their "weenies" wet and to hell with what "she" thinks and feels...because we all "know" that their nothing bu=t a bunch of manipulative *****s, yeah?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I used to call my husband an alpha male, but that was before I realized that all this other stuff was associated with that word...I had never heard the word beta before coming to TAM. SA is the one who quickly educated me on this whole hierarchy of other types of males....I had no idea.

So I have since stopped using the word in reference to myself or my husband, because I realize there's soooooo much more to those words in some people's languages. I am glad I got that education and know this stuff now.


----------



## tech-novelist

MountainRunner said:


> Which is PRECISELY why I stated my definition of an "Alpha Male" because it seems to be anathema to what these "red pill" pussies are trying to sell.
> 
> And yes...I call them pussies because they come across to me as manipulative, weak, limp-****ed, males that are posturing/posing/lying to get their "weenies" wet and to hell with what "she" thinks and feels...because we all "know" that their nothing bu=t a bunch of manipulative *****s, yeah?


No, my point was that a man who has no trouble attracting women is by definition an alpha male. However, most naturals (alphas who were born that way) have a lot of trouble understanding the reality that most men live in, because their lives are very different in this regard.

Of course, if a woman is highly attracted to you when you "act like yourself", you won't be looking for advice as to how to attract women. You may not even know WHY they are attracted to you, which of course would make it very difficult to explain that to others.

For this reason, most if not all the "red pill" bloggers and authors are nerdy types who have applied their often formidable intelligence to "reverse-engineering female sexual response" (to define "red pill" in operational terms).


----------



## MountainRunner

Agreed FW....semantics...Which is why I posted what I think are some good traits in an "alpha male"...All we ever see on those other sites is "how" an "alpha" needs to behave in order to get laid...


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Absolutely! In fact, I suspect many naturals are, to a fair extent anyway, because "being themselves" works for them. Unfortunately it doesn't work for a lot of men, and they're the ones who look for reasons why, especially if they are theoretical thinkers anyway...


But it does really sound like you discount every example people give you of men who don't fit the alpha mold but who are good with women. We have several of these guys right here at TAM. It isn't that uncommon. It isn't just tall studly muffin jock mans. It is quite a wide range of types of guys.

So I'm just trying to bend you my way a tiny bit here...

Can you just be happy for those people for who are succesfully blue pill, and acknowledge them? Why do guys who feel they weren't lucky with the ladies seem to be a little scorned at the guys who were lucky with the ladies?

Some women are lucky with men, some are not...and it isn't as easy as "who was prettier". 

There are natural talents such as, being a musician. It may be something someone does very easily, and they do not even pursue it. They may not even be that interested in their own talent.

But to someone who doesn't have that kind of talent, who is practicing, taking lessons, and really struggling...it would seem that the naturally talented musician has it so easy and they would wonder how could they not take advantage of that talent?

Again, the natural may never even play his or her instrument anymore....because they don't prioritize it the same way that the struggling person does.

Is there any reason to be disdainful of people who have natural talent?

Especially when we actually do want to know how they got to where they are at?

Men here are a little bit pushed back against if they are bold and talk about having had sexual success in their lives. Yet these guys are just normal guys, right here at TAM along with you. They are not unicorns.


----------



## MountainRunner

technovelist said:


> For this reason, most if not all the "red pill" bloggers and authors are nerdy types who have applied their often formidable intelligence to "reverse-engineering female sexual response" (to define "red pill" in operational terms).


Umm...You're addressing a "NERD"...My nickname in my town was "professor" because of my book smarts and lack of sports skills (I was ALWAYS the last kid picked for the street softball/football team because I was so "husky" (codeword for fat). I hold a Computer Science degree and I like comic books.

I also happen to be a great conversationalist, an excellent cook, "STRONG LIKE BULL" (that one is for my wife because she likes to describe me like that with a Russian accent), and although I'm not hung like one...I do fvck like a pornstar ...(thanks to my cardiovascular fitness...LOL!)


----------



## MountainRunner

Faithful Wife said:


> Men here are a little bit pushed back against if they are bold and talk about having had sexual success in their lives.


Which is why I was reluctant to post. After all...I am the WH...I hope you can understand that I was only trying to make a point.


----------



## MountainRunner

As a role model to my son, if I was to ever hear/see any kind of behavior even remotely resembling this "limp-d1cked", wannabe alpha's attitude...He would rue the day...That is all...


----------



## MountainRunner

And I'm going to say it...If any of you guys buy into this shyte...You don't deserve to get laid...PERIOD!

And another trait of an "alpha" that I've observed from the animal kingdom...

A "true alpha" will defend and fight for his mate....to the death.

All you guys that are eating this slop from the red pill/MMSL trough believing that the message of these sites that an "alpha" needs to treat a woman like she is a POS and you need to play the "doom game" on her to keep her? Think again...An alpha will literally die for his woman...Look to your true "alphas" in the animal kingdom (isn't that where we coined the phrase from anyway, yes?).

You guys that buy into this shyte are being played.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife;12715002[B said:


> *SimplyAmorous right here at TAM is one like that*.


I must admit when you posted your question to Technovelist....I thought to myself.. "WOW... is she talking about us "... 



> My point there was to say that since the blue pill IS a reality for some people (and they don't have to fit the description I gave you of the first love scenario, either)...*but since SOME people do experience this as their reality, then isn't it ok for those people to believe in blue pill type ideals?* If you read that list that SE wrote and read just the blue pill parts, and then think about the millions of people who have had love like that....how can you deny that this is reality for those people? You can barely imagine it for yourself, but for many, it has happened. It does not always have to be a first love, like I said. But people DO have that type of love and romance.


 I ALMOST quoted those blue pill ideals in my last post...what is taught.. and for almost every one (though I did leave 2 out)...Yes.. I DID want that sort of man.... those all work for ME ...and pretty much he lived those before me.. 

We all want a DEVOTED MAN..to us, our children... I did want a NICE MAN -(meaning he is caring , has our best interests at heart)... NICE has become a bad word though -getting difficult to use that without raised eye brows....

I look upon our relationship as a partnership/ an equal give & take... as it should be.. he would as well.... True love is what I longed for...something lasting..that I could count on...he had to want that TOO... 

When it says "attraction is Love" - not sure what they mean but physical attraction is very very important... but equally so is "*Compatibility*".. especially in the areas that mean so much TO US personally -for whatever reason -even if others may not understand.. we are all individual, have our quirks, different passions & dreams....so knowing oneself and our deal breakers .. what we *COULD live with*.. *what we could NOT*..... and does the other person KNOW themselves ?? 

My thread on Compatibility IS how we speak to our teens about relationships.. so many things to be aware of, always being honest -with any potential partner ... also with themselves.. that it's nobody's fault if a relationship doesn't last... if they don't have enough in common, or the chemistry is just not there. it happens.. .. it's for the best these fall by the wayside.. 

One of our sons will be with his GF for 4 yrs in Oct (they are just 18)... another 1st love story here.. kinda crazy.. ..they seem to be taking after US.. (I met their dad at 15)...

I can see differences in their relationship over ours.. but at the same time.. I can see that they are COMPATIBLE in those differences...(and this is what's important).. 

Not long ago.. in the kitchen he was stroking her long blonde hair ...and it made me think of his dad.. as he always does this when I am near.. I opened up the Love language talk with her.. she's easy to talk too & loves me....and by golly.. the order she gave was the same as HIS.. always a good sign...

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/long-t...ility-b4-vows-beyond-marital-harmony-joy.html

I just left this on another thread here.. how "*Love is NOT enough*" ....these 2 articles also speak of the importance of the more practical ...


Love is Not Enough..and Love That Lasts- 11 Questions to Ask Before Marriage



> *1*. *DO you ACCEPT EACH OTHER AS you BOTH ARE?*
> 
> It is important to accept each other’s faults, flaws, and shortcomings without the need to make changes.
> 
> This is a fundamental issue and possibly the most important question here. It reaches into the heart of the relationship and addresses a matter basic for stability and longevity.
> 
> *2. * * HAS YOUR COURTSHIP BEEN SMOOTH OR TURBULENT?*
> 
> Frequent or caustic premarital fights predict turmoil after marriage.
> 
> Did you get along well during your time of dating, or did you have many fights and disagreements? A “no” answer to the previous question (Quest. 1) indicates a lack of acceptance of each other’s basic behavioral traits. Your lack of acceptance will show itself in frequent fights and conflict and, thus, as a high level of turbulence in your courtship.
> 
> *3*. * DO YOU LIKE THE WAY YOU FEEL ABOUT YOURSELF WHEN YOU ARE WITH YOUR INTENDED?*
> 
> The way you feel about yourself when in your mate’s company frequently reflects your partner’s underlying, often unstated sentiments.
> 
> This is really a variant of the previous questions and has to do with feelings of personal acceptance stemming from the relationship, but at deeper levels.
> 
> *4. ** DO you HAVE COMPATIBLE INTERESTS, ATTITUDES, VALUES AND GOALS?*
> It is important to be in harmony about the things you like to do, the beliefs you hold important, the way you view the world, and your life’s objectives.
> 
> These issues are so fundamentally important I could have listed them first. These are also the areas most frequently focused on by dating services. Without a reasonable match in these four areas, we diminish our chances for a long and successful relationship.
> 
> *5.* *WHAT SPOUSAL ROLES DO you EXPECT AFTER MARRIAGE?*
> You need to agree about whether your marriage will be traditional or modern.
> 
> In marriage, we play many parts, i.e., partner, parent, companion, provider, homemaker, lover, helpmate, playmate, friend, confidant, and so forth all of which we can be subsume under the heading “spousal roles.” We usually come to a relationship with a certain set of expectations and desires regarding these roles
> 
> *6. * *IS your INTENDED SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE AND SATISFYING TO you?*
> 
> Sexual and affectional compatibility are vital parts of a lasting and satisfying marriage.
> 
> For almost everyone, sexual gratification is one of the prime features of marriage. It is important that your needs be met in this area.
> 
> *7*. * DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WHEN YOU ARE IN THE COMPANY OF YOUR INTENDED’S FAMILY AND FRIENDS?*
> 
> Be aware that marriage frequently comes with a large cast of loveable, and sometimes not-so-loveable, characters
> It is true that you will be marrying your mate and not your mate’s family. Nevertheless, if your intended loves his or her family and plans to spend much time with them, you best like them too, or at least be able to tolerate them.
> 
> *8*. *ARE YOU INTERESTED IN THE SATISFACTION OF EACH OTHER’S NEEDS?*
> 
> Love includes a passionate desire to gratify your loved-one’s needs and desires.
> 
> Many people marry with the idea that marriage will satisfy all their requirements. Others believe it is their spouses’ duty to take care of them. In addition, some people are unhappy being single and believe only marriage will make them happy. Imagine the burden all three of these views place on their partners.
> 
> *9. * * IS THERE THE FEELING OF SOLID AND ENDURING FRIENDSHIP?*
> 
> People in satisfying marriages often describe their spouses as their best friend.
> 
> Some people have trouble accepting the notion that a person of the opposite sex could be their best friend. Thus, they overlook the possibility of friendship in marriage. However, a good friendship, with its trust, support, and loyalty, is the bedrock of a solid marriage.
> 
> *10.** ARE YOUR PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD HYGENIC STANDARDS COMPATIBLE?*
> 
> Incompatibility in the need for orderliness and cleanliness can seriously undermine an otherwise gratifying partnership.
> This is a more important area then many people realize.
> 
> *11.* *ARE YOU WILLING TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY, AS FAR AS IS REASONABLE, FOR MAKING THE RELATIONSHIP WORK?*
> 
> People who recognize that their actions influence their spouses’ behavior are best able to work out marital difficulties.
> 
> Choosing the right person is, sadly, not sufficient to produce a happy marriage. You must also be the right person both for your mate as well as for marriage in general.


*And Whatever they do.. DO NOT.. waste your time with someone who doesn't seem like they want you back.. GOD.. KICK THAT TO THE CURB !!*


----------



## MountainRunner

SimplyAmorous said:


> Not long ago.. in the kitchen he was stroking her long blonde hair ...and it made me think of his dad..


*Not only likes, but "loves" this* 

I brush "her" hair too.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Absolutely! In fact, I suspect many naturals are, to a fair extent anyway, because "being themselves" works for them. Unfortunately it doesn't work for a lot of men, and they're the ones who look for reasons why, especially if they are theoretical thinkers anyway...


But what does it mean when you say being themselves doesn't work?

It takes more time for someone to get to know you first? You don't get the type of girl you are after? You don't have girls coming to you, you have to go to them? Your friend gets more girls than you do?

Maybe other ways to meet girls will work better for some types of men. Internet dating, quieter social groups, etc. There are women in the same position of trying to find men but don't fit into the mold either. 

Being myself isn't going to "work" out in a club. I'm a shy, anxious, introvert. It takes a little time before I can be noticed. So for me to find someone, I have to adjust to what will work for me, not change to be like Jane down the street who is naturally outgoing and easy to talk to. I'd also only want to be with another introvert so I'm not likely to find him in a big crowd picking up all the chicks.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> I used to call my husband an alpha male, but that was before I realized that all this other stuff was associated with that word...I had never heard the word beta before coming to TAM. SA is the one who quickly educated me on this whole hierarchy of other types of males....I had no idea.
> 
> So I have since stopped using the word in reference to myself or my husband, because I realize there's soooooo much more to those words in some people's languages. I am glad I got that education and know this stuff now.


Honestly, does it matter what phrases you use?

Every single time you describe your relationship with your husband it reads like a Red Pill 101 manual on how (on his part) to demonstrate the natural talents and behaviors of an Alpha and gain dominance and respect while convincing her that said dominance, from social to sexual interactions, is not "bad" because she feels respected, protected, and attracted to him.

Which, regardless of your caricature of the men who use this advice, is actually the end goal of it.

Mountain Runner is a classic example of an individual who had no need for this kind of advice and is clearly disdainful of people who do. Ergo the name calling and shaming before anyone really has had a moment to disagree with his point of view.

In reality there is no "Blue Pill."

It really only existed as a rhetorical counter-narrative to the Red Pill advice and was seized upon by angry feminists as a way to mock and make fun of the Red Pill sub-reddit.

As best as I can tell "Blue Pill" is a stand in for advice that serves to emasculate, shame, or basically accomplish in any manner a relationship in which the man's desires and needs are suborned to the woman's.

Items of Blue Pill advice tend to:
1) Tell you to "just be yourself," despite failing, as yourself, for years.
2) Assume that the woman in the relationship is always meeting all needs, and problems are the man's fault, by default.
3) Advocate for effeminate and emotionally effusive behaviors in men under the claim that "women like sensitive men."
4) Repeat the mantra of "Happy Wife, Happy Life."
5) Advocate men become more domesticated and assume traditionally feminine household chores
6) Delegitimize sex as a legitimate need in a relationship, when it comes from a man.
7) Argue in favor of defining intimacy in a primarily/traditionally feminine manner
8) Characterize sex as something men need to earn and something that women provide

Basically, anything that serves to place women on a pedestal that assumes their needs are legitimate and their efforts are always authentic and satisfactory, while instructing men to be more supplicating.

Often I have hit it as more background noise to my life. Little bits here and there which are always brought up, though never in a coherent body of knowledge.

It was only when I was actively searching for advice on fixing a dying bedroom that I hit the full force of these arguments in the face and realized what some of the things I was told growing up actually meant and did…


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Icey181 said:


> It really only existed as a rhetorical counter-narrative to the Red Pill advice and was seized upon by angry feminists as a way to mock and make fun of the Red Pill sub-reddit.
> 
> As best as I can tell "Blue Pill" is a stand in for advice that serves to emasculate, shame, or basically accomplish in any manner a relationship in which the man's desires and needs are suborned to the woman's.


The exact term is called a Straw Man Arguement.

It is worth noting that the act creating a bad argument as the counterpoint to the argument that one intends to promote is considered not a valid way to make a 'proof' or point. While not all Red Pill is a straw man argument, it does tend to recruit new followers with stylized Blue Pill Narratives of their behavior.


----------



## Icey181

Yeah, I know what a Strawman is, you are using it incorrectly here.

The original analogy was based on the Matrix because the Blue Pill represents _nothing_. It is not a coherent set of rules or values. It is simply a refusal to see the world as it is and forgetting about the possibility that you are not operating in reality.

The Red Pill predates the Blue Pill.

Ironically enough, the entire Blue Pill sub-reddit is a strawman. They caricature the anger-phase posters (low hanging fruit) in a clear and stated manner by which to shame them and their points of view.

There is no such thing as a "Blue Pill."

Basically, the Red Pill argument holds that American socio-cultural evolution since the advent of second wave feminism has served to emasculate a large population of men, dismantle their independent value to both society and in relationships, and have targeted them and their desires as inherently inferior and in some way more base than that of the "wonderful women" of the nation.

It is a commentary on where they see Western society stands on the fronts of socio-cultural gender politics and relationship dynamics.

That is not a Strawman, it is more or less social commentary.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MountainRunner said:


> *1. You care for your mate.
> 2. You share the intimate parts of your soul with her .
> 3. You respect her and treat her like a lady while respecting her sense of "self".
> 4. You build a future for her...and yourself....together.
> 5. When she hurts...you nurture her.
> 6. When she is happy, you revel in it with her.
> 7. You listen to her and acknowledge her*.


See I would call most of this *GOOD BETA*.. my husband swims in all of that.. but so would a nerdy guy with oneitis that the chick wasn't as into dreaming of Loverboy that got away...

When I think of ALPHA.. it's more on the rougher power / dominance / Excitement scale.. 

These are the definitions I have come to learn... but like anything else.. someone/ somewhere else will make ALL BETA sound puzzy whipped & pathetic.. so depending on who the conversation is with & their interpretation.. one could be thinking something entirely different !



> The *Alpha Traits* are those associated with classic “manly man” strengths. Power, dominance, physical ability, bravery, wealth, cool and confidence. Oh and good genes. These are the things that attract women and turn them on sexually. The Alpha Traits are linked to the dopamine response in women.
> 
> *Alpha *= attraction building = Dopamine = In Love = Excitement





> The *Beta Traits* are those associated with the strengths of being a nice guy / “family man”. Kindness, being a good listener, the ability to help with the children, dependability, thoughtfulness, compassion and patience. These all create a sense of comfort and safety for the woman, and relax her because she feels that if she became pregnant, the Beta Trait male isn’t going to abandon her and the baby.
> 
> *Beta *= comfort building = Oxytocin / Vasopressin = Pair Bond = Calm Enjoyment"


So Alpha Traits create attraction and that “in love” feeling, and Beta Traits create the pair bond and makes her feel relaxed enough to have sex. You need a balance of both Alpha and Beta in a marriage to maximize her desire to have sex with you..




> *MountainRunner said*: *And the most important part of being an "Alpha" is...
> 
> You don't "NEED" anyone or anything...but you do WANT and DESIRE your soulmate and you will do anything for her.
> 
> So much so that you would do anything for her to ensure and strengthen the bonds between that the two of you have together.
> 
> No exceptions.
> 
> Is that putting her on a pedestal? Maybe so, but that is my philosophy and guess what else? I have NEVER had a problem "getting" a woman with my "blue pill" ideology*.





> *My problem is that a lot of women like my ideology and I have a problem turning them away...at least I used to. I'm a work in progress at the moment.
> 
> I have fretted over saying this, but I will now...
> 
> I am not a "red pill/MMSL" guy and I'd venture a guess and say I've "had" more partners than most self avowed "alphas" here. All I ever had to do to attract them was...
> 
> "be myself"...What a concept, eh?*


 I am aware of your story...and have caught a # of your posts... .. I see plenty of BAD BOY.. an addiction to women.. which has surely devastated your wife.... but yet. so MUCH intensity - ROMANCE the way you speak here ...you have it in you to devote like a soul mate is destined, forever and TRUE...... she's given you another chance.. .. may you get this right and BE all she has believed you can be -just for her.


----------



## Icey181

SimplyAmorous said:


> So Alpha Traits create attraction and that “in love” feeling, and Beta Traits create the pair bond and makes her feel relaxed enough to have sex. You need a balance of both Alpha and Beta in a marriage to maximize her desire to have sex with you..


Exactly correct.

You need both sets of behaviors to create and sustain a long-term relationship.

That is a basic tenet of the Red Pill advice and one that is often thrown back into the faces of the deep-end anger phase ranters on the reddit by returning success stories.

EDIT: Also, 100% agreed with the dopamine/Oxytocin response analogy. Dead on.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Icey181 said:


> Yeah, I know what a Strawman is, you are using it incorrectly here.
> 
> The original analogy was based on the Matrix because the Blue Pill represents _nothing_. It is not a coherent set of rules or values. It is simply a refusal to see the world as it is and forgetting about the possibility that you are not operating in reality.
> 
> The Red Pill predates the Blue Pill.
> 
> Ironically enough, the entire Blue Pill sub-reddit is a strawman. They caricature the anger-phase posters (low hanging fruit) in a clear and stated manner by which to shame them and their points of view.
> 
> There is no such thing as a "Blue Pill."
> 
> Basically, the Red Pill argument holds that American socio-cultural evolution since the advent of second wave feminism has served to emasculate a large population of men, dismantle their independent value to both society and in relationships, and have targeted them and their desires as inherently inferior and in some way more base than that of the "wonderful women" of the nation.
> 
> It is a commentary on where they see Western society stands on the fronts of socio-cultural gender politics and relationship dynamics.
> 
> That is not a Strawman, it is more or less social commentary.



Blue pill is a false argument that no one made and no really believes in that Red pill uses as a proof. This is exactly a straw man.

While I agree with your telling of the history of red/blue pill, I am not new to this stuff, what matters in the straw man context is how Red pill uses Blue Pill concepts as a fallacious argument.


----------



## always_alone

I'm confused by blue pill too. In the OP, and in some posts, it's presented as bad advice, basically advice to men to agree with everything a woman says, supplicate himself to her every whim, and let her walk all over him while she cheats with an alpha who will give her sexier sons.

But in ScrambledEggs post, all of the blue pill traits seemed pretty positive to me. There were a few that would need to be tweaked, as they did seem to tread a bit too close to "be a doormat", but otherwise mostly positive.

It strikes me that red pill is basically convincing guys who just want a happy relationship, to be loved and cherished, that they can never have their desires unless they leap through all sorts of hoops to meet some artificial criteria for Sexual Market value and bend themselves into some dehumanized version of masculinity.

That they are by default destined to be frustrated and alone because women are evil feminists who will stomp on them at every turn and demand endless pandering and service.

And that blue pill is much like Scrambled Eggs says: a straw man, a foil to be shot down in order to make the red pill look appealing.


----------



## Mr. Nail

O K so now I know what the blue pill is.
So if we aren't supposed to take the red pill (reinvent ourselves to inspire jealousy) and we aren't supposed to take the blue pill (be your self and just wait and hope love will "happen"), what exactly would you suggest an unsuccessful man do?

Please don't say "just be a natural Alpha like my lucky husband is".

You're very good at saying what not to do, but you have no experience to tell us what to do.
MN


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Icey181 said:


> Items of Blue Pill advice tend to:
> 1) Tell you to "just be yourself," despite failing, as yourself, for years.
> 2) Assume that the woman in the relationship is always meeting all needs, and problems are the man's fault, by default.
> 3) Advocate for effeminate and emotionally effusive behaviors in men under the claim that "women like sensitive men."
> 4) Repeat the mantra of "Happy Wife, Happy Life."
> 5) Advocate men become more domesticated and assume traditionally feminine household chores
> 6) Delegitimize sex as a legitimate need in a relationship, when it comes from a man.
> 7) Argue in favor of defining intimacy in a primarily/traditionally feminine manner
> 8) Characterize sex as something men need to earn and something that women provide


I agree with 1 for the most part. I don't think you can build lasting relationships without being yourself. It's good to do things like gain confidence, learn new skills, adjust your expectations, but don't change or hide parts of yourself.

3- Yep, there are many, many women who need more of a deep emotional connection and empathy. Need to be listened to and not "fixed", need to hold hands and hug and to see emotions (other than happy and mad) from their husbands.

4- There's been a lot of talk about that phrase already. I think something like "happy spouse, happy house" would work a lot better. I don't think the focus should be only on the wife but I do think you should make each other happy.

5- Yep again. With more women working just as much as the men do, they have to step it up at home which includes some of those girly chores. There was 1 study in the 90's that suggested men get less sex if they do but there have been studies since that disagree. The problem comes in when men think they can do chores to earn a reward, he's doing it "for her" while she's looking at it as just a base responsibility that he's doing because he lives there and it's his job. So doing your chores might not have the kind of impact he is looking for, NOT doing them will cause problems. 

6- IMO the whole 'girl power' part of feminism that people seem to hate so much has actually helped women become more sexual and be able to say it's a need for them too! Not feeling shame for being a sexual person. I see these things improving with time/feminism, not getting worse. 

7- I agree that intimacy and sex are not always the same and that a marriage needs both to be at it's best. Non-sexual touching and connecting is just as important.

8- Again, like with 6. Look at your average sitcom from a decade-few decades ago. The man whines for sex, the women rolls her eyes and gives in. I think the whole girl power thing, think like SATC, are moving us more towards "sex is for us too!!" and not the other way around. We aren't slvts for wanting it, we don't have to be pure and virginal to be wanted. Sorry but I just don't see how feminism has made women less sexual. 

eh, so I guess I'd be blue pill overall. I also agreed with all of scrambledeggs blue pill examples.


----------



## samyeagar

MountainRunner said:


> Which is PRECISELY why I stated my definition of an "Alpha Male" because it seems to be anathema to what these "red pill" pussies are trying to sell.
> 
> And yes...I call them pussies because they come across to me as manipulative, weak, limp-****ed, males that are posturing/posing/lying to get their "weenies" wet and to hell with what "she" thinks and feels...because we all "know" that their nothing bu=t a bunch of manipulative *****s, yeah?


Still not finished getting caught up with the thread, but this got me thinking...

Are people approaching this backwards? Is "alpha" a better descriptor for the results as opposed to the behaviors that lead to the results? It's pretty clear that "alpha" results can be achieved with some women through "beta" behaviors...so then could we not say that with regards to that particular women, "beta" is actually "alpha", blue pill is actually red pill?


----------



## Brigit

samyeagar said:


> Still not finished getting caught up with the thread, but this got me thinking...
> 
> Are people approaching this backwards? Is "alpha" a better descriptor for the results as opposed to the behaviors that lead to the results? It's pretty clear that "alpha" results can be achieved with some women through "beta" behaviors...so then could we not say that with regards to that particular women, "beta" is actually "alpha", blue pill is actually red pill?


...now I'm really confused.:scratchhead:


----------



## Icey181

ScrambledEggs said:


> Blue pill is a false argument that no one made and no really believes in that Red pill uses as a proof. This is exactly a straw man.
> 
> While I agree with your telling of the history of red/blue pill, I am not new to this stuff, what matters in the straw man context is how Red pill uses Blue Pill concepts as a fallacious argument.


You are missing the major point here; there are no such thing as "Blue Pill arguments."

The attempt of this thread to characterize what would be Blue Pill is useful, I think, but the Red Pill did not come into being to oppose a "Blue Pill" mindset, nor does it point to a coherent concept of "Blue Pill" ideas as a strawman to then tackle.

Red Pill proceeds from a number of fundamental principles, some over-wrought and others more well grounded, and when an individual fails to follow them they are just generally referred to as "Blue Pill" for the lack of a better term.

Again…

There is no such thing as a "Blue Pill."

Basically, if you go to the forums or reddit where Red Pill stuff is talked about "Blue Pill" basically boils down to supplicating guys who do not have sex.

That is almost the entire definition of Blue Pill as far as they are concerned.


----------



## Marduk

ScrambledEggs said:


> The exact term is called a Straw Man Arguement.
> 
> It is worth noting that the act creating a bad argument as the counterpoint to the argument that one intends to promote is considered not a valid way to make a 'proof' or point. While not all Red Pill is a straw man argument, it does tend to recruit new followers with stylized Blue Pill Narratives of their behavior.


90% of 'the blue pill' can be summarized by being passive-aggressive and swallowing lines that you know in your heart are BS.

This is why the 'red pill' metaphor was so apt for me. The stuff I was being force fed at the time was like a splinter in my mind that I knew wasn't true.


----------



## samyeagar

The sheer number of internet meme's declaring in one way or another that women deserve to be treated like queens. How so called "real" men treat their woman, what so called "real" men do for their woman. Sorry, but aside from basic human respect, nobody deserves anything beyond that which they have earned.


----------



## ocotillo

technovelist said:


> I was referring to the evo-psych "sexy sons" hypothesis, which suggests that one of the attractions of being alpha is (sort of self-referentially, but not really) is that being alpha is somewhat inheritable, so women who have sons with alphas tend to have more descendents. Thus, their offspring would tend to represent an increasing proportion of the overall population.


For me, this hits the nail on the head. A lot of evo-psych is difficult to square with evolutionary theory itself.


----------



## samyeagar

technovelist said:


> Absolutely! In fact, I suspect many naturals are, to a fair extent anyway, because "being themselves" works for them. Unfortunately it doesn't work for a lot of men, and they're the ones who look for reasons why, especially if they are theoretical thinkers anyway...


For me, the whole "be yourself" thing has actually worked pretty well. I think the root of why is because I have always been very self aware, and I know who I am, but more importantly, accept who I am. What that self awareness has led to is me being able to devote my energy outwards, not having to think about this step or that step, and just trusting that I will be making the right steps for me. I guess that can be described as confidence.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> But it does really sound like you discount every example people give you of men who don't fit the alpha mold but who are good with women. We have several of these guys right here at TAM. It isn't that uncommon. It isn't just tall studly muffin jock mans. It is quite a wide range of types of guys.
> 
> So I'm just trying to bend you my way a tiny bit here...
> 
> Can you just be happy for those people for who are succesfully blue pill, and acknowledge them? Why do guys who feel they weren't lucky with the ladies seem to be a little scorned at the guys who were lucky with the ladies?
> 
> Some women are lucky with men, some are not...and it isn't as easy as "who was prettier".
> 
> There are natural talents such as, being a musician. It may be something someone does very easily, and they do not even pursue it. They may not even be that interested in their own talent.
> 
> But to someone who doesn't have that kind of talent, who is practicing, taking lessons, and really struggling...it would seem that the naturally talented musician has it so easy and they would wonder how could they not take advantage of that talent?
> 
> Again, the natural may never even play his or her instrument anymore....because they don't prioritize it the same way that the struggling person does.
> 
> *Is there any reason to be disdainful of people who have natural talent?
> 
> Especially when we actually do want to know how they got to where they are at?
> *
> 
> Men here are a little bit pushed back against if they are bold and talk about having had sexual success in their lives. Yet these guys are just normal guys, right here at TAM along with you. They are not unicorns.


I can't speak for everyone else, of course, but *this* is precisely the point of the red pill: figuring out how naturals do it, then imitating their behavior to get the same results they get. Red pill _theory_ is only a means to that end.

Of course it doesn't help to be disdainful of them; I don't know anyone who thinks it would help.


----------



## tech-novelist

MountainRunner said:


> And I'm going to say it...If any of you guys buy into this shyte...You don't deserve to get laid...PERIOD!
> 
> And another trait of an "alpha" that I've observed from the animal kingdom...
> 
> A "true alpha" will defend and fight for his mate....to the death.
> 
> All you guys that are eating this slop from the red pill/MMSL trough believing that the message of these sites that an "alpha" needs to treat a woman like she is a POS and you need to play the "doom game" on her to keep her? Think again...An alpha will literally die for his woman...Look to your true "alphas" in the animal kingdom (isn't that where we coined the phrase from anyway, yes?).
> 
> You guys that buy into this shyte are being played.


Really? Then why don't I see messages here, or anywhere else for that matter, in which *******s complain about the nerds getting all the women? Please provide some examples.


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I agree with 1 for the most part. I don't think you can build lasting relationships without being yourself. It's good to do things like *gain confidence, learn new skills, adjust your expectations, but don't change or hide parts of yourself.*


This is a piece of cognitive dissonance that continuously shows up here and elsewhere that I simply do not understand.

Gaining confidence, learning new skills, and adjusting your expectations _are all examples of changing yourself_.

This is one of those situations where people use the phrase "be yourself" and they mean something else entirely.

Doing all of the things you just mentioned require directed effort and produce _changes in personal behavior and social interaction_.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> 3- Yep, there are many, many women who need more of a deep emotional connection and empathy. Need to be listened to and not "fixed", need to hold hands and hug and to see emotions (other than happy and mad) from their husbands.


There is a difference between an emotionally available man who can be empathetic and an emotionally effusive man who is a whirlwind of emotional turmoil.

Look at your response. It is based on the _man being receptive of the women's emotional needs._

Which is exactly why the Red Pill advice advocates a degree of emotional stoicism, which means the man does not effusively demand empathy from his SO, and also emotional receptiveness, in the sense that he needs to listen and be the "rock" so to speak where his SO comes to for emotional support.

Red Pill advice argues, quite simply, that women like to see men with the _potential_ for effusive emotional outbursts ("he cried at this part in the movie!") but prefer that in actuality they serve as the empathetic and strong receptacle of _their_ effusive emotional needs. 



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> 4- There's been a lot of talk about that phrase already. I think something like "happy spouse, happy house" would work a lot better. I don't think the focus should be only on the wife but I do think you should make each other happy.


I agree.

But the phrase _is_, "Happy Wife, Happy Life."

And it is a bad idea. I just read a linked study last night where a man agreed to an experiment where he was to agree with everything his wife said, to see if letting her always be "right" would increase marital happiness.

He had to abandon the experiment within a few days because the marriage was about to fall apart…



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> 5- Yep again. With more women working just as much as the men do, they have to step it up at home which includes some of those girly chores. There was 1 study in the 90's that suggested men get less sex if they do but there have been studies since that disagree. The problem comes in when men think they can do chores to earn a reward, he's doing it "for her" while she's looking at it as just a base responsibility that he's doing because he lives there and it's his job. So doing your chores might not have the kind of impact he is looking for, NOT doing them will cause problems.


Actually, those studies have persisted into the 2000s and they find much the same thing every time.

Men who ignore "chores" and actually are lazy, do not get sex. No surprise here. Treat your wife like your mother and you will be seen as a child.

However, men who adopt the traditionally female chores around the household tend to see their sexual life come to a grinding halt as well.

Basically, it comes down to this: If men want to help out around the house to do their fair share, they should be out mowing the lawn or cleaning the gutters, and not dusting the china cabinet.

Also, I find it interesting when women presume that men do not recognize household chores as a responsibility and presume they are essentially children who only do them because "they have to" or they want a reward.

Yet another example of the "women are wonderful" assumption that presumes she, by virtue of being a women, must be providing sufficient and authentic effort, whereas he, by virtue of being a man, is not.

That is just raw sexism, pure and simple.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> 6- IMO the whole 'girl power' part of feminism that people seem to hate so much has actually helped women become more sexual and be able to say it's a need for them too! Not feeling shame for being a sexual person. I see these things improving with time/feminism, not getting worse.


The problem is that the "Girl Power" piece also came with shaming men for heterosexual desires, declaring the "Male Gaze" a tool of oppressive patriarchy, and telling men who have standards of attractive beauty that they are shallow.

It has also produced a generation of women in the hook-up culture who have varied sexual histories filled with non-emotionally satisfying relationships and tells men that they have no right to find those activities offensive or unacceptable.




SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> 7- I agree that intimacy and sex are not always the same and that a marriage needs both to be at it's best. Non-sexual touching and connecting is just as important.


Agreed.

But defining intimacy within a relationship based on the emotional needs and desires of just the woman and then rejecting the intimacy needs of the man (sex) as not important or legitimate "needs" (a common refrain in dead-bedroom reports) is unhealthy.

And I do not see many mainstream advice columns telling men that expecting to have sex with your wife is reasonable.

Instead I see columns which tell men that they need to understand sex is not that important and that if they want it here is a check-list of extra chores and date-night ideas you can do to _earn it_.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> 8- Again, like with 6. Look at your average sitcom from a decade-few decades ago. The man whines for sex, the women rolls her eyes and gives in. I think the whole girl power thing, think like SATC, are moving us more towards "sex is for us too!!" and not the other way around. We aren't slvts for wanting it, we don't have to be pure and virginal to be wanted. Sorry but I just don't see how feminism has made women less sexual.


How did you miss the part where those sitcoms of the last few decades are sexist garbage that basically present men as sex-starved children incapable of mature life without the guiding hand of the oh-so-always right female influence of his wife, mother, and daughters?

It is not about women being less "sexual."

It is about seeking to commodify sex within relationships and instruct men that, while women want it, it is still the man's responsibility to help her to a place to want to have it.

Ergo, despite all of the sex-positive rhetoric of the last 60-years, if a husband wants to have sex, it is still his responsibility to set the mood, do the work, and allow his wife to be the target of affection.

Where are the sex-positive articles instructing women on how to help out more around the house, take some of the stress off their husbands, and date them to create affection and earn his attention and attraction?

Oh right…we get to assume women do all of that already, because they are women.

_That_ is the Blue Pill, in a nutshell.

The assumption that women are wonderful and advice which serves to create supplicant men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mr. Nail said:


> You're very good at saying what not to do, but you have no experience to tell us what to do.
> MN


I'm working on a book, and yes I do have that experience.


----------



## Icey181

technovelist said:


> Really? Then why don't I see messages here, or anywhere else for that matter, in which *******s complain about the nerds getting all the women? Please provide some examples.


Considering the number of women who talk about how intelligent, shy, and sensitive men are apparently uber-sexy, I also have difficulty reconciling why it is the intelligent, shy, and sensitive men who find themselves single and virgins well into their late 20s.

Also, small point of clarification:
Alpha Behavior ~ Red Pill
Beta Behavior =/= Blue Pill

These are the best and fairest conceptions of these ideas I have seen here yet and bear repeating:



SimplyAmorous said:


> The Alpha Traits are those associated with classic “manly man” strengths. Power, dominance, physical ability, bravery, wealth, cool and confidence. Oh and good genes. These are the things that attract women and turn them on sexually. The Alpha Traits are linked to the dopamine response in women.
> 
> Alpha = attraction building = Dopamine = In Love = Excitement





SimplyAmorous said:


> The Beta Traits are those associated with the strengths of being a nice guy / “family man”. Kindness, being a good listener, the ability to help with the children, dependability, thoughtfulness, compassion and patience. These all create a sense of comfort and safety for the woman, and relax her because she feels that if she became pregnant, the Beta Trait male isn’t going to abandon her and the baby.
> 
> Beta = comfort building = Oxytocin / Vasopressin = Pair Bond = Calm Enjoyment"


What I find all too often is that when women complain about the term "Alpha," as FW has on a number of occasions, they are referring not to "Alpha behaviors" but to what my circle of friends refer to as the "Dude Bros."

An Alpha is not a "Dude Bro" who is a giant muscle bound ***hole who borderline harasses women in bars.

Just for clarification.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> I can't speak for everyone else, of course, but *this* is precisely the point of the red pill: figuring out how naturals do it, then imitating their behavior to get the same results they get. Red pill _theory_ is only a means to that end.
> 
> Of course it doesn't help to be disdainful of them; I don't know anyone who thinks it would help.


Ok but when I talk about my natural, you mock me.

When MR or samyeager or Personal talk about their natural talents, you dismiss them.

Why? Are you only able to accept some people saying they know the secrets of the alphas if they are behind a blog or book first? You can't accept it and learn from it if it is real people you have more direct access to?


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Really? Then why don't I see messages here, or anywhere else for that matter, in which *******s complain about the nerds getting all the women? Please provide some examples.


See right here, instead of being interested in his experiences as a natural, you are mocking him. Why?


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> See right here, instead of being interested in his experiences as a natural, you are mocking him. Why?


Jealousy.


----------



## tech-novelist

samyeagar said:


> For me, the whole "be yourself" thing has actually worked pretty well. I think the root of why is because I have always been very self aware, and I know who I am, but more importantly, accept who I am. What that self awareness has led to is me being able to devote my energy outwards, not having to think about this step or that step, and just trusting that I will be making the right steps for me. I guess that can be described as confidence.


Of course confidence is a primary, possibly *the *primary, alpha trait.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> For me, this hits the nail on the head. A lot of evo-psych is difficult to square with evolutionary theory itself.


QFT! 

Most of it makes no sense at all, and is merely ad hoc speculation masquerading as scientific theorizing.


----------



## Brigit

FYi

Study Finds That 'Happy Wife, Happy Life' Is Pretty Dead On

"A recent study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that men who are unhappily married may still be happy with their lives overall -- as long as their wives are satisfied with their marriages."


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok but when I talk about my natural, you mock me.
> 
> When MR or samyeager or Personal talk about their natural talents, you dismiss them.
> 
> Why? Are you only able to accept some people saying they know the secrets of the alphas if they are behind a blog or book first? You can't accept it and learn from it if it is real people you have more direct access to?


I would disagree.

It is not that you are mocked for talking about your "natural."

You are mocked for complaining and demonizing things like Red Pill advice and then turning around, explaining how your husband fits the molds _exactly_, and then declaring "it's different, because I like it when he does it."


----------



## Icey181

Brigit said:


> FYi
> 
> Study Finds That 'Happy Wife, Happy Life' Is Pretty Dead On
> 
> "A recent study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that men who are unhappily married may still be happy with their lives overall -- as long as their wives are satisfied with their marriages."


Think, for a moment, about the implications of this line:



> The inverse wasn't true for wives: Women's happiness didn't seem to be affected by husbands' satisfaction with their marriages.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok but when I talk about my natural, you mock me.
> 
> When MR or samyeager or Personal talk about their natural talents, you dismiss them.
> 
> Why? Are you only able to accept some people saying they know the secrets of the alphas if they are behind a blog or book first? You can't accept it and learn from it if it is real people you have more direct access to?


What I am mocking is the notion that because naturals get good results by "just being themselves", non-naturals should "just be themselves".

And as far as learning from real people I have access to, I have known several naturals, including one who is a good friend that I have frequent contact with.

He had *no idea* why women reacted the way they did to him, until I acquainted him with some of the red pill theory, to which his responses have pretty much all been "*Now* I understand what was going on there!"

In fact, even more astounding, he also had *no idea* that most men don't have women coming onto them constantly!


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> When I think of ALPHA.. it's more on the rougher power / dominance / Excitement scale..
> 
> These are the definitions I have come to learn... but like anything else.. someone/ somewhere else will make ALL BETA sound puzzy whipped & pathetic.. so depending on who the conversation is with & their interpretation.. one could be thinking something entirely different !
> 
> So Alpha Traits create attraction and that “in love” feeling, and Beta Traits create the pair bond and makes her feel relaxed enough to have sex. You need a balance of both Alpha and Beta in a marriage to maximize her desire to have sex with you..


:iagree: That is my problem with the alpha/beta label. Too often it seems assumed that alpha = dbag and beta = pu$sy whipped. Even the nice guy label gets equated to beta/passive.



technovelist said:


> Really? Then why don't I see messages here, or anywhere else for that matter, in which *******s complain about the nerds getting all the women? Please provide some examples.


I believe this movie made it pretty clear ...


----------



## Icey181

Counter-point: Marriage Experiment: Better to Be Right Than Happy | TIME.com



> Things went rapidly downhill for the couple. The man’s quality-of-life scores fell, from 7 to 3, over the course of the experiment. The wife’s scores rose modestly, from 8 to 8.5, before she became hostile to the idea of recording the scores. Rather than causing harmony, the husband’s agreeableness led to the wife becoming increasingly critical of what he did and said (in the husband’s opinion). After 12 days he broke down, made his wife a cup of tea (New Zealand is, after all, a Commonwealth country), and explained the experiment. At this point the Data Safety Monitoring Committee, as the researchers called it, stopped the study because of “severe adverse outcomes.”


With the caveat, of course, that it was a single married couple, but the results were quite interesting.


----------



## Brigit

Icey181 said:


> Think, for a moment, about the implications of this line:


Yes, the article states:

_One reason for this discrepancy in happiness, Carr explained, is that if a man is unhappy in the relationship but the wife is happy, she's more likely to provide him benefits that enhance his overall life -- she'll engage in sexual relations, provide emotional support and take on household chores._


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> See right here, instead of being interested in his experiences as a natural, you are mocking him. Why?


I'm not mocking him. I'm mocking his claims that men who don't behave the way he says they should behave aren't getting laid.

In fact, the ones who are nice and respectful, but NOT alpha, are the ones complaining about not getting laid.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> But the phrase _is_, "Happy Wife, Happy Life."
> 
> And it is a bad idea. I just read a linked study last night where a man agreed to an experiment where he was to agree with everything his wife said, to see if letting her always be "right" would increase marital happiness.


Serious question: Where would you, or anyone at all, get the idea that a "happy wife" is someone who gets to be always right? 

Personally, I've never even heard the expression "happy wife, happy life" at all, so don't really see this as common or necessarily good advice. But even if it were, why would that automatically translate to agreeing with whatever she says or being her supplicant?



Icey181 said:


> Where are the sex-positive articles instructing women on how to help out more around the house, take some of the stress off their husbands, and date them to create affection and earn his attention and attraction?
> 
> Oh right…we get to assume women do all of that already, because they are women.


Ummm, actually if you open any woman's magazine or look at any advice column directed at women, you will see that it is absolutely chock-filled with advice about how they need to be sexier, find new ways to date and please their men, and all the zillions of things we need to do to earn his attention and attraction.

I've never read anything ever that assumes that women are all wonderful and do everything right -- except, of course, red pill philosophy itself which starts with the premise that women's value is higher and all the poor frustrated chumps have to take them down to even the score.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok but when I talk about my natural, you mock me.
> 
> When MR or samyeager or Personal talk about their natural talents, you dismiss them.
> 
> Why? Are you only able to accept some people saying they know the secrets of the alphas if they are behind a blog or book first? You can't accept it and learn from it if it is real people you have more direct access to?


To clarify, the problem is that naturals don't necessarily know how they do it. But then, why should they? They haven't had the problem of not being able to attract women, so why should they worry about it or even think about it?


----------



## UMP

I tired the full on Red pill and the full on Blue pill. Both had their positives but ended up not working in totality. If I stayed Red pill or Blue pill for long periods of time it would start irritating my wife. What I found that works is taking the red pill and the blue pill, putting them in a blender and voila, you have the "magenta" pill.

A marriage is an art, not a science.

You chip away here, a brush stroke there, evaluate the results and act accordingly. The only aspect I had no control over was my wifes desire to WANT make things better. Thankfully, I know she is onboard and wants to make our sex life exciting for both of us.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> This is a piece of cognitive dissonance that continuously shows up here and elsewhere that I simply do not understand.
> 
> Gaining confidence, learning new skills, and adjusting your expectations _are all examples of changing yourself_.


I guess this depends on how you view yourself. I consider this striving to be my best self. That's attractive. Maybe the advice should be be your best self. Why is self static? Static self is unattractive. Good enough self is unattractive. Willingness to learn, grow, improve is attractive. 



> This is one of those situations where people use the phrase "be yourself" and they mean something else entirely.
> 
> Doing all of the things you just mentioned require directed effort and produce _changes in personal behavior and social interaction_.
> 
> 
> There is a difference between an emotionally available man who can be empathetic and an emotionally effusive man who is a whirlwind of emotional turmoil.
> 
> Look at your response. It is based on the _man being receptive of the women's emotional needs._
> 
> Which is exactly why the Red Pill advice advocates a degree of emotional stoicism, which means the man does not effusively demand empathy from his SO, and also emotional receptiveness, in the sense that he needs to listen and be the "rock" so to speak where his SO comes to for emotional support.
> 
> Red Pill advice argues, quite simply, that women like to see men with the _potential_ for effusive emotional outbursts ("he cried at this part in the movie!") but prefer that in actuality they serve as the empathetic and strong receptacle of _their_ effusive emotional needs.
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> But the phrase _is_, "Happy Wife, Happy Life."
> 
> And it is a bad idea. I just read a linked study last night where a man agreed to an experiment where he was to agree with everything his wife said, to see if letting her always be "right" would increase marital happiness.


The fault here is not that it is desirable for your wife to be happy. The opposite, unhappy wife, unhappy life is certainly true. The faulty thinking here is that agreeing with, yes manning, being a wuss, will make the wife happy!


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> To clarify, the problem is that naturals don't necessarily know how they do it. But then, why should they? They haven't had the problem of not being able to attract women, so why should they worry about it or even think about it?


So you want to learn about them but they don't even know how they are doing it. Therefore, you are only willing to listen to other non-natural red pill dudes who have studied naturals and give you THEIR opinions of how the natural is doing it? :scratchhead:

I can easily tell you why what my husband does works. But you have to be willing to hear something NEW and different than what you have heard before.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> I'm not mocking him. I'm mocking his claims that men who don't behave the way he says they should behave aren't getting laid.
> 
> In fact, the ones who are nice and respectful, but NOT alpha, are the ones complaining about not getting laid.


He's not saying they aren't getting laid, he is saying some of them are azzholes.


----------



## Brigit

UMP said:


> I tired the full on Red pill and the full on Blue pill. Both had their positives but ended up not working in totality. If I stayed Red pill or Blue pill for long periods of time it would start irritating my wife. What I found that works is taking the red pill and the blue pill, putting them in a blender and voila, you have the "magenta" pill.
> 
> A marriage is an art, not a science.
> 
> You chip away here, a brush stroke there, evaluate the results and act accordingly. The only aspect I had no control over was my wifes desire to WANT make things better. Thankfully, I know she is onboard and wants to make our sex life exciting for both of us.


The Red Pill
The Blue Pill

It's a way for people to make money. Here is a list from the APA:

Nine Psychological Tasks for a Good Marriage


----------



## Icey181

Brigit said:


> Yes, the article states:
> 
> _One reason for this discrepancy in happiness, Carr explained, is that if a man is unhappy in the relationship but the wife is happy, she's more likely to provide him benefits that enhance his overall life -- she'll engage in sexual relations, provide emotional support and take on household chores._


That is a hypothesis for why there is a discrepancy in reported happiness.

It does not explain this line:


> Women's happiness didn't seem to be affected by husbands' satisfaction with their marriages.


Keep reading.

The parts where Carr attempts to explain the results are _guesses_. When she starts to talk about how the wonderful women are giving more to their husbands, she is guessing.


> Carr said. But she also had another guess as to why men seem to be happier with marriage.
> "If a marriage is good, it often is due to the stuff the the wife is doing, the love and support that she's giving," Carr said. "Consequently, that means the husband gets more."


Once more, an assumption that women are the caretakers and givers within a marriage and that men are basically children who do not communicate well and have to be taken care of by mom.

Basically, completely ignoring that within a scientific study it was found that a man's satisfaction with his marriage seemingly has no bearing on his wife's happiness, whether she realized he was unsatisfied or not.

Personally, I find that morbidly interesting and think there is a major issue there that is being avoided.



always alone said:


> Serious question: Where would you, or anyone at all, get the idea that a "happy wife" is someone who gets to be always right?


Women.

And some men. But mostly women.

If the media and mainstream advice has offered anything on this point, it is that women are usually right anyways, because they are the mature ones in the household, and they should be paid attention to.



always alone said:


> *Personally, I've never even heard the expression "happy wife, happy life" at all, so don't really see this as common or necessarily good advice.* But even if it were, why would that automatically translate to agreeing with whatever she says or being her supplicant?


It is quite common advice, but I would agree, it is not good advice.

And it often boils down to following the wife's decisions because, as is often reminded of men, we are too immature and too lazy to see what needs to be done and take care of it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> The Red Pill
> The Blue Pill
> 
> It's a way for people to make money. Here is a list from the APA:
> 
> Nine Psychological Tasks for a Good Marriage


This list is not easy to achieve, and not everyone can do it. Which is what makes the reward even sweeter if you can.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> He had *no idea* why women reacted the way they did to him, until I acquainted him with some of the red pill theory, to which his responses have pretty much all been "*Now* I understand what was going on there!"


Yes, thinking about it more, this absolutely echoes my experience: When I was younger I was always told that I needed to dumb myself down, agree with everything a guy says, adopt his interests and mindset, don't challenge him, llet him win all the games, bet the expert, etc. and so on.

I always balked at this (what I thought to be terrible) advice, and could never play that game. I insisted on "being myself". 

Turns out, women who played by the "rules" were always infinitely more successful at the dating/mating game, and "my self" is pretty much the antithesis of what men find desirable/attractive.

Huh. Guess I should've taken all that bad advice and become someone I couldn't respect? 

Oh wait ....


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> *So you want to learn about them but they don't even know how they are doing it. Therefore, you are only willing to listen to other non-natural red pill dudes who have studied naturals and give you THEIR opinions of how the natural is doing it?* :scratchhead:
> 
> I can easily tell you why what my husband does works. But you have to be willing to hear something NEW and different than what you have heard before.


So far, *that* is the only place I have found useful advice and explanations.

However, I'm always looking for better approaches, and don't have any preconceived notion of where they must come from. So please do share your explanation of how your husband's approach works.


----------



## UMP

Brigit said:


> The Red Pill
> The Blue Pill
> 
> It's a way for people to make money. Here is a list from the APA:
> 
> Nine Psychological Tasks for a Good Marriage


That about says it all.
If everyone did that, this website would not exist and there would be no books to be sold.


----------



## Icey181

always alone said:


> Ummm, actually if you open any woman's magazine or look at any advice column directed at women, you will see that it is absolutely chock-filled with advice about how they need to be sexier, find new ways to date and please their men, and all the zillions of things we need to do to earn his attention and attraction.


Correct me if I am wrong, but those are the same women's magazines which basically tell women that men are simple creatures that only need food and sex.

And that if a man is not ready for sex at the drop of a hat there is either something wrong with him, or he is cheating on her.

And gives advice on sexual acts that often amount to light abuse and could be easily construed as sexual assault?

To be fair, I only ever read these Women's Magazines as a joke when I am waiting for my hair-dresser.



always alone said:


> I've never read anything ever that assumes that women are all wonderful and do everything right -- except, of course, red pill philosophy itself which starts with the premise that women's value is higher and all the poor frustrated chumps have to take them down to even the score.


The first principle of "Choreplay" and "Date Your Wife" advice columns is that the failings within the marriage are the province of the man and that he needs to put in the effort that his wife already is.

When you look to advice columns which presume:
1) Men are lazy and do not help around the house
2) Men only help due to covert contracts
3) Men do not help with the children
4) Men are not emotionally available for their wives
5) Men no longer appreciate or demonstrate their appreciation to their wives

They _all_ operate from a first principle that presumes the problem lies with the _man_.

Finding an advice column which tells men and women that a wife is hiding behind her children and failing to be a wife & a mother, and that she needs to put in effort to court her husband, are rare.

Seriously, do you really see tones of advice columns telling women they need to stop hiding behind chores and children and actually be a girlfriend to their husbands again?

Because if you do, I would love to see them. Would have helped me considerably.

When my wife looked for advice what she found was piles upon piles of women writing about how men need to get over the fact that things are changed and that sex is no longer important once "real life" begins…


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Lila said:


> _I'm not calling you out scrambled, just using your post to ask a question._
> 
> Of all of the points that red pillers make about blue pillers, this one boggles my mind. Why is thinking that relationships are a partnership considered blue pill? :scratchhead: Wouldn't a more appropriate blue pill ideal be "Women need to lead as they are the more emotional connected partners" or some such line of thinking?
> 
> If thinking that relationships should be partnerships is blue pill thinking, then count us as +2 under Happy Blue Piller


RP's probably still think of it as a partnership, but not egalitarian. 

RP is about accessing the underlying sexual triggers in women and the thought here is that excitement is sexy while fair and equitable seems weak, unattractive, and boring. RP challenges the value of emotional intimacy int he marriage in favor of playing a role that keeps the marriage interesting.


----------



## Icey181

Brigit said:


> The Red Pill
> The Blue Pill
> 
> It's a way for people to make money. Here is a list from the APA:
> 
> Nine Psychological Tasks for a Good Marriage


That is a great list.

My issue is how often this one:


> Establish a rich and pleasurable sexual relationship and protect it from the intrusions of the workplace and family obligations.


Seems to be the first to go.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> He's not saying they aren't getting laid, he is saying some of them are azzholes.


I went back, and you're right that he isn't saying they aren't getting laid. What he said is this:

"And I'm going to say it...If any of you guys buy into this shyte...You don't deserve to get laid...PERIOD!"

So maybe he doesn't mean to imply that they aren't getting laid, although that is the inference I made.

However, a man who isn't getting laid probably doesn't care very much, if at all, about whether he *deserves* to get laid. What he wants to know is *how to get laid*, and for that, the red pill works pretty well.


----------



## samyeagar

technovelist said:


> So far, *that* is the only place I have found useful advice and explanations.
> 
> However, I'm always looking for better approaches, and don't have any preconceived notion of where they must come from. So please do share *your explanation of how your husband's approach works*.


Deep mutual attraction.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

always_alone said:


> I'm confused by blue pill too. In the OP, and in some posts, it's presented as bad advice, basically advice to men to agree with everything a woman says, supplicate himself to her every whim, and let her walk all over him while she cheats with an alpha who will give her sexier sons.
> 
> But in ScrambledEggs post, all of the blue pill traits seemed pretty positive to me. There were a few that would need to be tweaked, as they did seem to tread a bit too close to "be a doormat", but otherwise mostly positive.


RP would say that these Blue Pill, or beta behaviors, are lies and while they sound good, do not hold a women sexual interest in a marriage. Excitement, security, emotion, and self centered outlook must be addressed and manipulated or a women seek out a man of high status than you.




always_alone said:


> It strikes me that red pill is basically convincing guys who just want a happy relationship, to be loved and cherished, that they can never have their desires unless they leap through all sorts of hoops to meet some artificial criteria for Sexual Market value and bend themselves into some dehumanized version of masculinity.


RP is all about sex. It is about telling guys that love, of men, is a myth pushed by women to align relationships to their interest. Man - love is all about getting sex and building the future with children, the basis of sex. A man does not love, they find a women who meets their standards that they commit to to build a future together, but him in charge, and on condition that he gets sex, and she gets security. It is a little more complicated than that but that is a good answer to your statment.

It is seductive because there is a lot of hard truths woven into the fabric of the whole philosophy.


----------



## Icey181

Also, just to reiterate this point.

Doing household chores may mean less sex for married men - CBS News



> She added that for couples where everything is equal and they share same interests and close friendships, they too have less sex on average.
> "There's a sibling-like tonality to the relationships," she said. "They're really good best friends, but the sexual charge is missing from the relationship."


----------



## Icey181

samyeagar said:


> Deep mutual attraction.


In her case built off of traditionally masculine Alpha traits in both social and sexual settings which borderline on a dominance/submissive relationship which is, by her own concession, what the relationship looks like from the outside looking in.


----------



## Fozzy

always_alone said:


> Yes, thinking about it more, this absolutely echoes my experience: When I was younger I was always told that I needed to dumb myself down, agree with everything a guy says, adopt his interests and mindset, don't challenge him, llet him win all the games, bet the expert, etc. and so on.
> 
> I always balked at this (what I thought to be terrible) advice, and could never play that game. I insisted on "being myself".
> 
> Turns out, women who played by the "rules" were always infinitely more successful at the dating/mating game, and "my self" is pretty much the antithesis of what men find desirable/attractive.
> 
> Huh. Guess I should've taken all that bad advice and become someone I couldn't respect?
> 
> Oh wait ....


See my signature.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Icey181 said:


> You are missing the major point here; there are no such thing as "Blue Pill arguments."
> 
> The attempt of this thread to characterize what would be Blue Pill is useful, I think, but the Red Pill did not come into being to oppose a "Blue Pill" mindset, nor does it point to a coherent concept of "Blue Pill" ideas as a strawman to then tackle.
> 
> Red Pill proceeds from a number of fundamental principles, some over-wrought and others more well grounded, and when an individual fails to follow them they are just generally referred to as "Blue Pill" for the lack of a better term.
> 
> Again…
> 
> There is no such thing as a "Blue Pill."


Hardly, in fact this is essential for a straw man argument. Where do you get that I think it is a real argument. If it was a real argument, it would not be straw man, even if it was otherwise wrong or illogical.


----------



## Icey181

ScrambledEggs said:


> RP would say that these Blue Pill, or beta behaviors, are lies and while they sound good, do not hold a women sexual interest in a marriage. Excitement, security, emotion, and self centered outlook must be addressed and manipulated or a women seek out a man of high status than you.


No, actually.

Red Pill advice would state that Beta behaviors are necessary to maintain a long-term relationship and that they must be moderated so as to achieve the appropriate balance between excitement/attraction and security/bonding.

Talk about strawmen….



ScrambledEggs said:


> RP is all about sex. It is about telling guys that love, of men, is a myth pushed by women to align relationships to their interest. Man - love is all about getting sex and building the future with children, the basis of sex. A man does not love, they find a women who meets their standards that they commit to to build a future together, but him in charge, and on condition that he gets sex, and she gets security. It is a little more complicated than that but that is a good answer to your statment.
> 
> It is seductive because there is a lot of hard truths woven into the fabric of the whole philosophy.


That sounds about right.

Not all of it is correct, but that is a fair assessment.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Yes, thinking about it more, this absolutely echoes my experience: When I was younger I was always told that I needed to dumb myself down, agree with everything a guy says, adopt his interests and mindset, don't challenge him, llet him win all the games, bet the expert, etc. and so on.
> 
> I always balked at this (what I thought to be terrible) advice, and could never play that game. I insisted on "being myself".
> 
> Turns out, women who played by the "rules" were always infinitely more successful at the dating/mating game, and "my self" is pretty much the antithesis of what men find desirable/attractive.
> 
> Huh. Guess I should've taken all that bad advice and become someone I couldn't respect?
> 
> Oh wait ....


I'm 100% behind you being true to yourself A_A.

The only caveat to that is to not be true to the parts of yourself that aren't really who you are, and hold you back.

If there are any of those.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> I went back, and you're right that he isn't saying they aren't getting laid. What he said is this:
> 
> "And I'm going to say it...If any of you guys buy into this shyte...You don't deserve to get laid...PERIOD!"
> 
> So maybe he doesn't mean to imply that they aren't getting laid, although that is the inference I made.
> 
> However, a man who isn't getting laid probably doesn't care very much, if at all, about whether he *deserves* to get laid. What he wants to know is *how to get laid*, and for that, the red pill works pretty well.


Yes, not caring if you deserve to get laid is a problem, for sure.

And he wasn't talking about naturals, he was talking about red pill wannabes not deserving to get laid if they buy into all this shyte. 

Really, no one deserves to get laid unless there is someone who is mutually attracted to them and wants to have sex with them, period.


----------



## Icey181

ScrambledEggs said:


> Hardly, in fact this is essential for a straw man argument. Where do you get that I think it is a real argument. If it was a real argument, it would not be straw man, even if it was otherwise wrong or illogical.


Again, you are misusing the phrase.

That you disagree with the first principle (the social commentary) of the Red Pill advice does not render it in communication with a strawman argument.

A strawman is a rhetorical logical fallacy used to avoid addressing the actual merits of an argument.

For instance, focusing on caricatured aspects of the anger phase instead of what the actual advice is.

The Red Pill is not built on a strawman, nor is it in conversation with one.

It is in conversation with a particular interpretation of socio-sexual dynamics which you may or may not agree with.


----------



## tech-novelist

samyeagar said:


> Deep mutual attraction.


That is wonderful, but it is not actionable advice.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScrambledEggs said:


> RP is all about sex. It is about telling guys that love, of men, is a myth pushed by women to align relationships to their interest. Man - love is all about getting sex and building the future with children, the basis of sex. A man does not love, they find a women who meets their standards that they commit to to build a future together, but him in charge, and on condition that he gets sex, and she gets security. It is a little more complicated than that but that is a good answer to your statement.
> 
> It is seductive because there is a lot of hard truths woven into the fabric of the whole philosophy.


I would like to know what you think the hard truths are.

But as for a man feeling love is only a vehicle to getting sex...do you personally believe this?


----------



## ScrambledEggs

marduk said:


> 90% of 'the blue pill' can be summarized by being passive-aggressive and swallowing lines that you know in your heart are BS.
> 
> This is why the 'red pill' metaphor was so apt for me. The stuff I was being force fed at the time was like a splinter in my mind that I knew wasn't true.


I agree, I think he fastest way to more subtle understanding of m/f relationship dynamics is to study the whole RP view and take it apart. Or engage is a sort of socratic dialogue about it with friends or on forums. There is wisdom there, but also I think great depravity. RP could liberate confused men or it could imprison them.

Humans need big ideas in order to contrast to the status quo and drive new and better ways of thinking. And though we might not all like RP's destination, it walks a road all men need to understand and yet most do not today.


----------



## Brigit

Icey181 said:


> That is a great list.
> 
> My issue is how often this one:
> 
> 
> Seems to be the first to go.



Yes. I agree:

"Establish a rich and pleasurable sexual relationship and protect it from the intrusions of the workplace and family obligations."

It is the first to go. And Sex is what binds a couple, it's fun, it feels good and it reestablishes connection.

That is why when the sex starts getting interrupted due to "work and family obligations" it causes the neglected spouse to look elsewhere for that fulfillment.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Icey181 said:


> This is a piece of cognitive dissonance that continuously shows up here and elsewhere that I simply do not understand.
> 
> Gaining confidence, learning new skills, and adjusting your expectations _are all examples of changing yourself_.
> 
> This is one of those situations where people use the phrase "be yourself" and they mean something else entirely.
> 
> Doing all of the things you just mentioned require directed effort and produce _changes in personal behavior and social interaction_.


Being the best of yourself you can be is different than imitating someone else. Look, women can't just roll out of bed, put on whatever they have thrown on the floor and walk around in a depressed slump of self-pity either. Finding confidence in yourself is different than changing who you are to get a better ranked girl. 



Icey181 said:


> There is a difference between an emotionally available man who can be empathetic and an emotionally effusive man who is a whirlwind of emotional turmoil.
> 
> Look at your response. It is based on the _man being receptive of the women's emotional needs._
> 
> Which is exactly why the Red Pill advice advocates a degree of emotional stoicism, which means the man does not effusively demand empathy from his SO, and also emotional receptiveness, in the sense that he needs to listen and be the "rock" so to speak where his SO comes to for emotional support.
> 
> Red Pill advice argues, quite simply, that women like to see men with the _potential_ for effusive emotional outbursts ("he cried at this part in the movie!") but prefer that in actuality they serve as the empathetic and strong receptacle of _their_ effusive emotional needs.


Many men also need the kind of emotional empathy and connection that I described. It's not just a woman's need. I was speaking of the women who DO have those needs. Redpill doesn't get to speak for them and tell them that they _think _they do.... but they really don't. If those are her needs, if those are his needs- meet them. Stop worrying about what you're supposed to do based on generalizations of gender. 




Icey181 said:


> I agree.
> 
> But the phrase _is_, "Happy Wife, Happy Life."
> 
> And it is a bad idea. I just read a linked study last night where a man agreed to an experiment where he was to agree with everything his wife said, to see if letting her always be "right" would increase marital happiness.
> 
> He had to abandon the experiment within a few days because the marriage was about to fall apart…


I agree with you here. I don't think anyone actually takes that phrase to mean giving her everything she wants, agreeing with everything and letting her always be right. 



Icey181 said:


> Actually, those studies have persisted into the 2000s and they find much the same thing every time.
> 
> Men who ignore "chores" and actually are lazy, do not get sex. No surprise here. Treat your wife like your mother and you will be seen as a child.
> 
> However, men who adopt the traditionally female chores around the household tend to see their sexual life come to a grinding halt as well.
> 
> Basically, it comes down to this: If men want to help out around the house to do their fair share, they should be out mowing the lawn or cleaning the gutters, and not dusting the china cabinet.
> 
> Also, I find it interesting when women presume that men do not recognize household chores as a responsibility and presume they are essentially children who only do them because "they have to" or they want a reward.
> 
> Yet another example of the "women are wonderful" assumption that presumes she, by virtue of being a women, must be providing sufficient and authentic effort, whereas he, by virtue of being a man, is not.
> 
> That is just raw sexism, pure and simple.


I've only ever seen the 1 study mentioned in articles over and over again but if you have more, I'd like to take a look. Mowing the lawn, cleaning the gutters, all that is fine if your wife is a SAHM or works less hours than you do. It doesn't work in a home where both spouses work equal hours or the wife works more. 

And I didn't presume that all men have that mindset, I know for a fact many don't- and they are sexy as hell BTW- but you can't deny that there are men who take the "I did more around the house and I didn't get sex" or the "I *helped her *with the cleaning" type of attitude. _Those _men in that situation are much less likely to get the results they were after because their attitude about it is wrong. Those types of men do not see the housework as their basic responsibility. It's helping her, it's doing something extra.



Icey181 said:


> The problem is that the "Girl Power" piece also came with shaming men for heterosexual desires, declaring the "Male Gaze" a tool of oppressive patriarchy, and telling men who have standards of attractive beauty that they are shallow.
> 
> It has also produced a generation of women in the hook-up culture who have varied sexual histories filled with non-emotionally satisfying relationships and tells men that they have no right to find those activities offensive or unacceptable.


I haven't seen this. Just the "I can do it too", not the "I can do it but you can't" It's wrong for men to feel that way and for women. 


Icey181 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> But defining intimacy within a relationship based on the emotional needs and desires of just the woman and then rejecting the intimacy needs of the man (sex) as not important or legitimate "needs" (a common refrain in dead-bedroom reports) is unhealthy.
> 
> And I do not see many mainstream advice columns telling men that expecting to have sex with your wife is reasonable.
> 
> Instead I see columns which tell men that they need to understand sex is not that important and that if they want it here is a check-list of extra chores and date-night ideas you can do to _earn it_.


Men and women can have different needs. Sometimes the woman's need for sex is higher than the mans, sometimes the man needs more non-sexual intimacy or conversation. Sex a valid need, so is the rest. I don't look at it as 'here's how you earn sex'. I look at it as 'Meeting her emotional needs will make her more likely to meet yours'. That advice is given to both genders in various ways. Women are also told to meet his sexual emotional needs to get their non-sexual emotional needs met.

Then there are the women who are the HD partner which is still a fairly new thing to talk about. They are getting their own set of advice. 



Icey181 said:


> How did you miss the part where those sitcoms of the last few decades are sexist garbage that basically present men as sex-starved children incapable of mature life without the guiding hand of the oh-so-always right female influence of his wife, mother, and daughters?
> 
> It is not about women being less "sexual."
> 
> It is about seeking to commodify sex within relationships and instruct men that, while women want it, it is still the man's responsibility to help her to a place to want to have it.
> 
> Ergo, despite all of the sex-positive rhetoric of the last 60-years, if a husband wants to have sex, it is still his responsibility to set the mood, do the work, and allow his wife to be the target of affection.
> 
> Where are the sex-positive articles instructing women on how to help out more around the house, take some of the stress off their husbands, and date them to create affection and earn his attention and attraction?
> 
> Oh right…we get to assume women do all of that already, because they are women.
> 
> _That_ is the Blue Pill, in a nutshell.
> 
> The assumption that women are wonderful and advice which serves to create supplicant men.


Have you ever googled "how to make your husband want you more"? How about "My husband doesn't want to have sex with me"? "How to turn on my husband"? There is a lot of advice for women in the same situation. 

The advice you are talking about is the advice giving to men about how they can their ENs met when their wife's need for sex is not as high as his. Part of that advice will be to make sure he is meeting her ENs. If you look at a woman asking the same question, you will see the same kind of answers. There are a lot of women who will ask about how they can get their husbands to spend more quality time with them and get asked about how much they have sex. 

You look at it as "do X to earn sex" I look at it as "Meeting the emotional needs of your partner will make you more likely to get your own emotional needs met" I don't assume she's already doing everything anymore than I assume a man posting has already tried everything. But I can't tell a wife to do something if she's not the one posting, so the advice would be based on what HE can do on his end.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> That is wonderful, but it is not actionable advice.


Yes, it is, between two people who both feel it.

What you are saying is "how do I make a woman be attracted to me if she isn't". 

THAT is what there is no actionable advice for.

If you do all your tricks and she becomes attracted to you again and it stays that way, it means she did have attraction to you to begin with.

But if she doesn't or it has gone and cannot come back, there's no action plan for that. People get to decide for themselves if they are attracted to you or not and if they are not, it doesn't really serve you or them well to try to dupe them into thinking they are.


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> Again, you are misusing the phrase.
> 
> That you disagree with the first principle (the social commentary) of the Red Pill advice does not render it in communication with a strawman argument.
> 
> A strawman is a rhetorical logical fallacy used to avoid addressing the actual merits of an argument.
> 
> For instance, focusing on caricatured aspects of the anger phase instead of what the actual advice is.
> 
> The Red Pill is not built on a strawman, nor is it in conversation with one.
> 
> It is in conversation with a particular interpretation of socio-sexual dynamics which you may or may not agree with.


I think you are misunderstanding what SE is saying. He is referring to the "blue pill", not the red pill, as the strawman argument.


----------



## Brigit

technovelist said:


> However, a man who isn't getting laid probably doesn't care very much, if at all, about whether he *deserves* to get laid. What he wants to know is *how to get laid*, and for that, the red pill works pretty well.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Oh and here you go, an article for women about how to make her husband want her again. Including pay attention to him complaints about her being messy or distant and romance him in his own way

Eight Ways to Make Your Husband Want You Again | Debra Macleod


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, it is, between two people who both feel it.
> 
> What you are saying is "how do I make a woman be attracted to me if she isn't".
> 
> THAT is what there is no actionable advice for.
> 
> If you do all your tricks and she becomes attracted to you again and it stays that way, it means she did have attraction to you to begin with.
> 
> But if she doesn't or it has gone and cannot come back, there's no action plan for that. People get to decide for themselves if they are attracted to you or not and if they are not, it doesn't really serve you or them well to try to dupe them into thinking they are.


Then you admit that your advice is useful only to those who already have that attraction? Okay, but why do those people even need advice at all? :scratchhead:

And furthermore, if a man isn't getting sex at all, and he "tricks" a woman into "thinking" that she is attracted to him, and she then is willing to have sex with him, I don't think he is likely to listen to your explanation of how that doesn't serve him well...


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScrambledEggs said:


> Humans need big ideas in order to contrast to the status quo and drive new and better ways of thinking. And though we might not all like RP's destination, it walks a road all men need to understand and yet most do not today.


I still disagree but I appreciate your points.

Some naturals have lived the sexual life you are implying that all men should want and should walk, except without the woman-hating and the whining about how women have ruined the world. The feeling of being a victim that many RP dudes have is totally missing in my husband's worldview. And he has been rejected, has been divorced once before, has lost love in his life, has faced huge personal disappointments, and has not been handed anything on a platter. 

So why does any guy need ALL of the red pill advice? The victimy and women hating stuff is irrelevant.


----------



## Brigit

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Oh and here you go, an article for women about how to make her husband want her again. Including pay attention to him complaints about her being messy or distant and romance him in his own way
> 
> Eight Ways to Make Your Husband Want You AgainÂ*|Â*Debra Macleod


It's a good article.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Then you admit that your advice is useful only to those who already have that attraction? Okay, but why do those people even need advice at all? :scratchhead:
> 
> And furthermore, if a man isn't getting sex at all, and he "tricks" a woman into "thinking" that she is attracted to him, and she then is willing to have sex with him, I don't think he is likely to listen to your explanation of how that doesn't serve him well...


Well he will find out on his own soon enough that her attraction to him isn't going to last, or he will realize that he actually wanted more than "just sex", as marduk has found. He actually wants emotional intimacy.

Don't you?

If you just "want sex" then why be married? Are you capable of more than "just sex"? Are you capable of real intimacy? Because if you aren't, the "just sex" part isn't going to last.


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> Well he will find out on his own soon enough that her attraction to him isn't going to last, or he will realize that he actually wanted more than "just sex", as marduk has found. He actually wants emotional intimacy.
> 
> Don't you?
> 
> If you just "want sex" then why be married? *Are you capable of more than "just sex"? Are you capable of real intimacy? Because if you aren't, the "just sex" part isn't going to last*.


truth


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Icey181 said:


> No, actually.
> 
> Red Pill advice would state that Beta behaviors are necessary to maintain a long-term relationship and that they must be moderated so as to achieve the appropriate balance between excitement/attraction and security/bonding.
> 
> Talk about strawmen….
> 
> 
> That sounds about right.
> 
> Not all of it is correct, but that is a fair assessment.


We are not in disagreement on this, only perhaps I miss-stated and should have said that the "overvaluation of beta behaviors is a lie" In context to my response I think my choice of words is OK, but agree it does not reflect the broader RP philosophy.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Well he will find out on his own soon enough that her attraction to him isn't going to last, or he will realize that he actually wanted more than "just sex", as marduk has found. He actually wants emotional intimacy.
> 
> Don't you?
> 
> If you just "want sex" then why be married? Are you capable of more than "just sex"? Are you capable of real intimacy? Because if you aren't, the "just sex" part isn't going to last.


I didn't say anything about just wanting sex. I said that if a man wants sex and isn't getting it, he is very interested in remedying that problem, and isn't likely to listen to explanations about how that isn't in his interest.

Yes, I want more than sex, including emotional intimacy. But without sex, I don't have that either. So if there is no sex, I have to find a way to remedy that problem. If there are negative side effects of the remedy, then those will have to be addressed too, but that doesn't mean I don't need a remedy.

If there is a working, useful, practical remedy that doesn't have those side effects, great; in fact, I'd be all ears if anyone had such a remedy. But if the only working one I have is the one with the side effects, I'll have to deal with them.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but those are the same women's magazines which basically tell women that men are simple creatures that only need food and sex.


The only time I read women's magazines is in the doc's or dentist's office as well, and so I won't pretend to be an expert.

But truthfully, the only time I have ever heard that men only want food and sex is from a man. I've never heard a woman say this. (Indeed, here on TAM I've seen many a man say this, and women arguing with them about it.)

I have heard women advise each other (indeed have been on the receiving end of this advice) to use his desire for sex as a tool to get what you want, to control and manipulate him, but never once have I heard a woman say that this is all that men want. 



Icey181 said:


> The first principle of "Choreplay" and "Date Your Wife" advice columns is that the failings within the marriage are the province of the man and that he needs to put in the effort that his wife already is.
> 
> When you look to advice columns which presume:
> 1) Men are lazy and do not help around the house
> 2) Men only help due to covert contracts
> 3) Men do not help with the children
> 4) Men are not emotionally available for their wives
> 5) Men no longer appreciate or demonstrate their appreciation to their wives
> 
> They _all_ operate from a first principle that presumes the problem lies with the _man_.


I think you are forgetting that sometimes the problem does lie with the man. This is not a first principle, just a common experience. Many women struggle in relationships with emotionally unavailable men, and also find themselves in situations where they are taken for granted, unappreciated, their needs unmet. 

Of course there is an abundance of advice for women who have these problems. But there is also an abundance of advice for women on how to be better mates for their men. Since you asked, here is a random selection compiled from a couple of seconds on Google:

Resentment in Marriage - Why Husbands Resent Wives

3 Things That Make Husbands Happy in Marriage : Brides

The Sex-Starved Marriage

What Your Husband Wants You to Know (But Isn't Telling You) | Parenting

What Men Really Want But Won't Tell You


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Icey181 said:


> Again, you are misusing the phrase.
> 
> That you disagree with the first principle (the social commentary) of the Red Pill advice does not render it in communication with a strawman argument.


Not sure what this means.



Icey181 said:


> A strawman is a rhetorical logical fallacy used to avoid addressing the actual merits of an argument.
> 
> For instance, focusing on caricatured aspects of the anger phase instead of what the actual advice is.


That could be a straw man argument. I don't think I understand your view on fallacies, but I am starting to question if this debate on what is a logical fallacy is at all helpful to this thread. Maybe we can just agree to disagree and move on.



Icey181 said:


> The Red Pill is not built on a strawman, nor is it in conversation with one.
> 
> It is in conversation with a particular interpretation of socio-sexual dynamics which you may or may not agree with.


Where did I say it was? My point is that Blue Pill is a straw man artiface.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> But truthfully, the only time I have ever heard that men only want food and sex is from a man. I've never heard a woman say this. (Indeed, here on TAM I've seen many a man say this, and women arguing with them about it.)


So what you are saying is that men don't know what they want, but women know what men want? :scratchhead:


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Faithful Wife said:


> I would like to know what you think the hard truths are.


Without getting too detailed, I think the "nice guy" critique that is part of RP is pretty well founded and is not controversial even on TAM. 

The critique that there is someone out there meant for you and you don't have to work to compete for the relationship you want is also accurate.

And while I do not accept the RP devaluation of emotional intimacy, I have yet to have a relationship in my life, now in my 40's, that does not appear to be heavily governed by the status and nice guy narratives in RP. I have never been dumped for a guy with a slide rule, but I have for a guy with a motorcycle.



Faithful Wife said:


> But as for a man feeling love is only a vehicle to getting sex...do you personally believe this?


No, but I acknowledge, as a guy, that it can be hard to divide love out from sex. I'd have to suffer a major and involuntary shift in my world view to settle on little or no sex and the idea of it horrifies me. However, I find the idea of a life without emotional intimacy a bit lonely but not the "end of the world". It just does not illicit the same sense of loss that I feel from the idea of never having sex again, in part because chasing emotional intimacy in my relationships has only brought me a lot of pain.


----------



## tech-novelist

ScrambledEggs said:


> Without getting too detailed, I think the "nice guy" critique that is part of RP is pretty well founded and is not controversial even on TAM.
> 
> The critique that there is someone out there meant for you and you don't have to work to compete for the relationship you want is also accurate.
> 
> And while I do not accept the RP devaluation of emotional intimacy, I have yet to have a relationship in my life, now in my 40's, that does not appear to be heavily governed by the status and nice guy narratives in RP. I have never been dumped for a guy with a slide rule, but I have for a guy with a motorcycle.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but I acknowledge, as a guy, that it can be hard to divide love out from sex. I'd have to suffer a major and involuntary shift in my world view to settle on little or no sex and the idea of it horrifies me. However, I find the idea of a life without emotional intimacy a bit lonely but not the "end of the world". It just does not illicit the same sense of loss that I feel from the idea of never having sex again, in part because chase emotional intimacy in my relationships has only brought me a lot of pain.


Actually, I have been the "guy with the (notional) slide rule" for which another man was dumped, so it can happen. But that scenario is definitely a lot less common.


----------



## NobodySpecial

technovelist said:


> I didn't say anything about just wanting sex. I said that if a man wants sex and isn't getting it, he is very interested in remedying that problem, and isn't likely to listen to explanations about how that isn't in his interest.


The thing that sticks in my craw about the red pill is the person on the other end of this sexual engagement is unimportant. Her desire for him being manufactured out of phoney balony is unimportant.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Faithful Wife said:


> I still disagree but I appreciate your points.
> 
> Some naturals have lived the sexual life you are implying that all men should want and should walk, except without the woman-hating and the whining about how women have ruined the world. The feeling of being a victim that many RP dudes have is totally missing in my husband's worldview. And he has been rejected, has been divorced once before, has lost love in his life, has faced huge personal disappointments, and has not been handed anything on a platter.
> 
> So why does any guy need ALL of the red pill advice? The victimy and women hating stuff is irrelevant.



I was unpacking some things in my head a few days ago and I hit on an epiphany. I focused in on how I could possibly be so competent professional, being an "alpha" at work and in my hobbies, but fail so hard in my personal life and relationships. 

I realized that all my success in life has been won by a process of failure and reapplying myself until I not only got it right but excelled at it. I then realized that I never went through that same process with personal relationships. I came into the marriage with a low emotional intelligence and I hung onto it so tight, through such stupid ****, I am sure half of you here on TAM here think I am completely out of my mind. If I allowed my marriage to fail 15 years ago, I would have learned from it, opened me up to more relationships and more learning and a path filled with growth rather then stubborn devotion.

I don't really feel like a victim but I do feel like I suck at getting what I want out of my love life.


----------



## ocotillo

ScrambledEggs said:


> Blue pill is a false argument that no one made and no really believes in that Red pill uses as a proof. This is exactly a straw man.


Deduction (Or the lack thereof) is the determining factor. Rhetorical devices like humor, sarcasm, etc. are not logical fallacies as long as they're not being used as premises in a syllogism.


----------



## samyeagar

The whole idea of vacuuming your way into a woman's pants is one of those things that I think is fundamentally misunderstood by both men and women. Vacuuming, housework does not build attraction at all. In the cases where it does appear to work, the attraction was always there and by working as a team to get things done, it does free up time and energy to explore that attraction. In cases where it not only doesn't appear to work, but appear to make things worse...the attraction is not there, and by freeing up the time and energy, it allows the lack of attraction to be even more obvious.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScrambledEggs said:


> No, but I acknowledge, as a guy, that it can be hard to divide love out from sex. I'd have to suffer a major and involuntary shift in my world view to settle on little or no sex and the idea of it horrifies me. However, I find the idea of a life without emotional intimacy a bit lonely but not the "end of the world". It just does not illicit the same sense of loss that I feel from the idea of never having sex again, in part because chase emotional intimacy in my relationships has only brought me a lot of pain.


I hear you, but chasing "just sex" has brought a lot of guys pain, too, because when they don't get it handed to them, they feel like victims.

Men could just "get sex" the same way they believe women could...by lowering your standards. 

But they don't want to "get sex" from just anyone...it has to be their dream girl or a 10. If they don't get this, they feel cheated in life.

This victim and entitlement mentality is uber non-sexy, and these guys can't figure out that it is part of their problem? (I'm not talking about your experience, I'm talking about random red pill dudes). 

When I read the words of hard core red pillers, it is really clear why they aren't having luck with women. Why would women want you if you blame women for you "not getting sex"? This is just sooooo unattractive.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

samyeagar said:


> The whole idea of vacuuming your way into a woman's pants is one of those things that I think is fundamentally misunderstood by both men and women. Vacuuming, housework does not build attraction at all. In the cases where it does appear to work, the attraction was always there and by working as a team to get things done, it does free up time and energy to explore that attraction. In cases where it not only doesn't appear to work, but appear to make things worse...the attraction is not there, and by freeing up the time and energy, it allows the lack of attraction to be even more obvious.


I don't know. Maybe with the right attachments on the vacuum cleaner it would work! 

:rofl:


----------



## tech-novelist

NobodySpecial said:


> The thing that sticks in my craw about the red pill is the person on the other end of this sexual engagement is unimportant. Her desire for him being manufactured out of phoney balony is unimportant.


I can't see how this objection to the red pill applies to its use in marriage.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> But they don't want to "get sex" from just anyone...it has to be their dream girl or a 10. If they don't get this, they feel cheated in life.


...and those same guys who want the attractive women hate them all the same referring to them as "entitled princesses" and other names because they spend lots of time and energy taking care of themselves to be the women they want to fu*k in the first place.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> So what you are saying is that men don't know what they want, but women know what men want? :scratchhead:


No, red pill men say THEY know what women want, but women do not know what they want themselves....and she is questioning this because it is nonsense.


----------



## EllisRedding

ScrambledEggs said:


> No, but I acknowledge, as a guy, that it can be hard to divide love out from sex. I'd have to suffer a major and involuntary shift in my world view to settle on little or no sex and the idea of it horrifies me. However, I find the idea of a life without emotional intimacy a bit lonely but not the "end of the world". It just does not illicit the same sense of loss that I feel from the idea of never having sex again, in part because chasing emotional intimacy in my relationships has only brought me a lot of pain.


I would tend to agree with you on this. Now keep in mind, I have had minimal relationship issues my entire life, and have been happily married for a while so that may somewhat alter my view. However, I can say that I feel closest emotionally to my wife when we have an active sex life. It is easier for me to accept losing that emotional connection than it is to accept losing sex.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> I hear you, but chasing "just sex" has brought a lot of guys pain, too, because when they don't get it handed to them, they feel like victims.
> 
> Men could just "get sex" the same way they believe women could...by lowering your standards.
> 
> *But they don't want to "get sex" from just anyone...it has to be their dream girl or a 10. If they don't get this, they feel cheated in life.*
> 
> This victim and entitlement mentality is uber non-sexy, and these guys can't figure out that it is part of their problem? (I'm not talking about your experience, I'm talking about random red pill dudes).
> 
> When I read the words of hard core red pillers, it is really clear why they aren't having luck with women. Why would women want you if you blame women for you "not getting sex"? This is just sooooo unattractive.


Sorry, but *this* is absurd. I don't know anyone who has this expectation.

And as far as this is concerned, a major thesis of the red pill is that men have to learn to act "outcome independent" rather than as needy victims with entitlement issues.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> No, red pill men say THEY know what women want, but women do not know what they want themselves....and she is questioning this because it is nonsense.


No, what she is saying is that only men say that men are happy if they get food and sex, and women are disagreeing with that.

So do men or women know more about what men want?


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScrambledEggs said:


> I was unpacking some things in my head a few days ago and I hit on an epiphany. I focused in on how I could possibly be so competent professional, being an "alpha" at work and in my hobbies, but fail so hard in my personal life and relationships.
> 
> I realized that all my success in life has been won by a process of failure and reapplying myself until I not only got it right but excelled at it. I then realized that I never went through that same process with personal relationships. I came into the marriage with a low emotional intelligence and I hung onto it so tight, through such stupid ****, I am sure half of you here on TAM here think I am completely out of my mind. If I allowed my marriage to fail 15 years ago, I would have learned from it, opened me up to more relationships and more learning and a path filled with growth rather then stubborn devotion.
> 
> *I don't really feel like a victim but I do feel like I suck at getting what I want out of my love life*.


A lot of women feel this way, too.

I honestly have the feeling that men who find red pill actually think they are MORE victims of love than women are.

But that's just silly.

The deal is a lot of people are not very good at relationships or intimacy, especially when they are young. So they hurt each other and themselves, reject each other or get rejected, and struggle to find their way.

The idea that women somehow get their pick of every man they want and men just have to wait to be picked and if they don't they deserve then to hate women for it....this is silly, unfair, and unkind.

Rejection, heart ache, divorce....sheesh, we are all prone to this. Why be haters to the other gender, pretending they have it better?

I have a female friend who has a horrible track record with men. All her own fault. She thinks it is all their fault.

Recently after yet another rejection and let down she sent me an email going off about how she hates all men now. And she sent some blog posts by some woman who also hates men and really, really goes off on them saying "THIS right here is how I feel now!" 

I told her I just won't listen to that nonsense, not even from her, and to call me when she was ready to be a grown up, because I don't have time to listen to her man bashing.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

technovelist said:


> Sorry, but *this* is absurd. I don't know anyone who has this expectation.
> 
> And as far as this is concerned, a major thesis of the red pill is that men have to learn to act "outcome independent" rather than as needy victims with entitlement issues.


And RP does tell you to marry at or below your "status" as a man, not above, lest you be cuckolded. But a lot of RP posters on those sites manifest as entitled and whiney. I certainly have seen that myself.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> So do men or women know more about what men want?


I would say each individual man and woman gets to decide for themselves what they want, and if they are not self aware enough to do so, they need to find out how to get there. Then once they are aware and can declare what they want, they get to go out and make that happen.


----------



## Marduk

I've often thought the useful bits - working out, being confident, being flirty and funny, being more assertive when initiating...

Was all just pretty much the same thing as my wife putting on lingerie. Or the little black dress when we go out.


----------



## NobodySpecial

technovelist said:


> I can't see how this objection to the red pill applies to its use in marriage.


Being married does not necessarily imply a specific intent. There are plenty of guys with the attitude that they showed up in the monkey suit on the wedding day so are owed sex on demand. Like the rest of their lives "should" allow them to just phone it in. Red pill manipulation to get that is just that, manipulation. Without care for the person on the other end of the manipulation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Sorry, but *this* is absurd. I don't know anyone who has this expectation.
> 
> And as far as this is concerned, a major thesis of the red pill is that men have to learn to act "outcome independent" rather than as needy victims with entitlement issues.


Funny, because red pill also goes around saying if you are hitting women who are lower than your sex rank, it "doesn't count". So please explain to me how the bold is absurd.

And as far as the underlined....I have yet to read the words of a true red piller that did NOT sound like a needy victim with entitlement issues.


----------



## tech-novelist

ScrambledEggs said:


> I was unpacking some things in my head a few days ago and I hit on an epiphany. I focused in on how I could possibly be so competent professional, being an "alpha" at work and in my hobbies, but fail so hard in my personal life and relationships.
> 
> I realized that all my success in life has been won by a process of failure and reapplying myself until I not only got it right but excelled at it. I then realized that I never went through that same process with personal relationships. I came into the marriage with a low emotional intelligence and I hung onto it so tight, through such stupid ****, I am sure half of you here on TAM here think I am completely out of my mind. If I allowed my marriage to fail 15 years ago, I would have learned from it, opened me up to more relationships and more learning and a path filled with growth rather then stubborn devotion.
> 
> I don't really feel like a victim but I do feel like I suck at getting what I want out of my love life.


Yes, the red pill is basically the result of nerds, who weren't getting laid, applying systems thinking to that problem.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I've often thought the useful bits - working out, being confident, being flirty and funny, being more assertive when initiating...
> 
> Was all just pretty much the same thing as my wife putting on lingerie. Or the little black dress when we go out.


Right, there's no question that men and women want to try to attract each other. This is natural and awesome.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> I would say each individual man and woman gets to decide for themselves what they want, and if they are not self aware enough to do so, they need to find out how to get there. Then once they are aware and can declare what they want, they get to go out and make that happen.


Yes, I agree with that. So the question is how they make that happen...


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Yes, the red pill is basically the result of nerds, who weren't getting laid, applying systems thinking to that problem.


And this is who you want to hear from for instructions on "how to be a natural"? :scratchhead:


----------



## Buddy400

technovelist said:


> please understand that i really wish the blue pill was reality. I don't like having to worry about whether i need to recalibrate my alpha/beta mix to keep things on an even keel.
> 
> Actually, i never was that much of a beta. I've had a fair number of sex partners, some of whom have been very attractive, and i am not known in general for kowtowing to anyone.* but i'd still rather be able to relax and assume that i can count on my wife's love even if i'm not planning and executing properly.*


this!


----------



## tech-novelist

NobodySpecial said:


> Being married does not necessarily imply a specific consent. There are plenty of guys with the attitude that they showed up in the monkey suit on the wedding day so are owed sex on demand. Like the rest of their lives "should" allow them to just phone it in. Red pill manipulation to get that is just that, manipulation. Without care for the person on the other end of the manipulation.


Red pill is precisely the opposite of phoning it in. It is taking active measures to keep the spark alive.

And do you actually believe that most men would get married if they didn't expect to get sex on a regular basis? I can assure you that is not true.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> this!


Well right, Buddy...his point was that it would be better if he didn't have to run red pill game forever to keep his wife's interest.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> And this is who you want to hear from for instructions on "how to be a natural"? :scratchhead:


Of course not. The only way to "be a natural" is, well, to be a natural.

However, that isn't actionable advice for those of us who AREN'T naturals, who need to learn how to behave so as to get the results that naturals get naturally.


----------



## NobodySpecial

technovelist said:


> Red pill is precisely the opposite of phoning it in. It is taking active measures to keep the spark alive.
> 
> And do you actually believe that most men would get married if they didn't expect to get sex on a regular basis? I can assure you that is not true.


I spoke specifically to intent. That is why someone like Marduk or MEM made it work. They took the good and tossed the rest, including the manipulative stuff in order to get yours at her expense.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Funny, because red pill also goes around saying if you are hitting women who are lower than your sex rank, it *"doesn't count"*. So please explain to me how the bold is absurd.
> 
> And as far as the underlined....I have yet to read the words of a true red piller that did NOT sound like a needy victim with entitlement issues.


Who says *this*? Maybe pickup artists do, but we are talking about married men.

That's very interesting. Please give me some examples of how I sound that way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Of course not. The only way to "be a natural" is, well, to be a natural.
> 
> However, that isn't actionable advice for those of us who AREN'T naturals, *who need to learn how to behave so as to get the results that naturals get naturally*.


But why would you consult nerds who developed a system for this information? That's my point.

I would not ask women who aren't good with men or sex or relationships to teach me how to be good with any of those. Even if they did develop a system, I would rather go to someone who is good at it naturally and can explain their processes to me.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Right, there's no question that men and women want to try to attract each other. This is natural and awesome.


As long as they don't have to *learn* how to do it, though, right? If they do, then that is manipulation, if I understand your position correctly.

So then women shouldn't learn how to apply makeup, or how to dress attractively, or any of those other manipulative behaviors!


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Who says *this*? Maybe pickup artists do, but we are talking about married men.
> 
> That's very interesting. Please give me some examples of how I sound that way.


I wish we were only talking about married men, but red pill is not just for married men....and you guys keep going back and forth on whether these concepts are about sex with "women" or about sex with "your wife".

For the second part...I don't want to insult you or make you feel defensive...but I appreciate you bravely asking for examples. I'm afraid if I actually give you some, it will not go over too well....I am enjoying our conversation now and don't want to hurt your feelings.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> As long as they don't have to *learn* how to do it, though, right? If they do, then that is manipulation, if I understand your position correctly.
> 
> So then women shouldn't learn how to apply makeup, or how to dress attractively, or any of those other manipulative behaviors!


No, you don't get my position then.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> But why would you consult nerds who developed a system for this information? That's my point.
> 
> I would not ask women who aren't good with men or sex or relationships to teach me how to be good with any of those. Even if they did develop a system, I would rather go to someone who is good at it naturally and can explain their processes to me.


illogical.

Naturals are naturals because they came by it naturally.

If he learned, he could explain. But then he wouldn't be a natural.

A non-natural could model his behaviour on a trial by error process to determine effectiveness.

Or develop a model for why it works, to make sense of it.

But natural's can't teach, because they don't know.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> But natural's can't teach, because they don't know.


Right, that's why I can translate as to what my natural is doing, why it works on me and so many other women, and I have already read all the other lists and books made by others who are attempting to explain it, so I can pull from that what I've observed is true and what isn't. Also I can point out where the others have got it wrong as far as what can pull long term sustained attraction, versus hitting it in the club with someone.

I have studied him, I've studied other men, I've studied myself, I've studied other women, I've also studied game. 

I am confident I can explain this, and do it in a way that actually makes sense and give ways for men and women both to improve their situation. 

But having said all of that....

A natural can teach they just typically don't have any reason to. But they can. They can't teach you how to be a natural, but they can teach you their game. The problem is most people can't emulate it, not that the natural can't teach it.


----------



## UMP

marduk said:


> illogical.
> 
> Naturals are naturals because they came by it naturally.
> 
> If he learned, he could explain. But then he wouldn't be a natural.
> 
> A non-natural could model his behaviour on a trial by error process to determine effectiveness.
> 
> Or develop a model for why it works, to make sense of it.
> 
> But natural's can't teach, because they don't know.


I would say there is no such thing as a "natural." Everything is learned. You may have a natural appeal that draws women toward you, as I did, however, knowing what to do when they are in your lap is a completely different story. It's all learned, one way or another. In fact, I was so bad I could not stay in a relationship long enough to "learn" anything. 

Even the great Aryton Senna who is universally known as one of the best, if not THE very best "natural" race car driver ever had to "learn" how to drive in the rain. He confessed that he was "horrible in the rain," yet because he was "horrible" every time it rained he went to the track to "learn" how to control his car. In time, he became the VERY best at racing in the rain and was known as the "rain master."


----------



## Buddy400

marduk said:


> 90% of 'the blue pill' can be summarized by being passive-aggressive and swallowing lines that you know in your heart are BS.
> 
> This is why the 'red pill' metaphor was so apt for me. The stuff I was being force fed at the time was like a* splinter in my mind *that I knew wasn't true.


Nice reference


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> But natural's can't teach, because they don't know.


Why do you assume this?

All it would take is a modicum of self-awareness. There are probably "naturals" without such self-awareness, but I'm sure there are also many that do have it.

Meanwhile, systems thinking is fine for computers, but it doesn't work that well on humans. Because, well, we aren't systems. We are human.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Faithful Wife said:


> Right, that's why I can translate as to what my natural is doing, why it works on me and so many other women, and I have already read all the other lists and books made by others who are attempting to explain it, so I can pull from that what I've observed is true and what isn't. Also I can point out where the others have got it wrong as far as what can pull long term sustained attraction, versus hitting it in the club with someone.
> 
> I have studied him, I've studied other men, I've studied myself, I've studied other women, I've also studied game.
> 
> I am confident I can explain this, and do it in a way that actually makes sense and give ways for men and women both to improve their situation.
> 
> But having said all of that....
> 
> A natural can teach they just typically don't have any reason to. But they can. They can't teach you how to be a natural, but they can teach you their game. The problem is most people can't emulate it, not that the natural can't teach it.


When do I get my signed copy of the book?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Right, that's why I can translate as to what my natural is doing, why it works on me and so many other women, and I have already read all the other lists and books made by others who are attempting to explain it, so I can pull from that what I've observed is true and what isn't. Also I can point out where the others have got it wrong as far as what can pull long term sustained attraction, versus hitting it in the club with someone.
> 
> I have studied him, I've studied other men, I've studied myself, I've studied other women, I've also studied game.
> 
> I am confident I can explain this, and do it in a way that actually makes sense and give ways for men and women both to improve their situation.
> 
> But having said all of that....
> 
> A natural can teach they just typically don't have any reason to. But they can. They can't teach you how to be a natural, but they can teach you their game. The problem is most people can't emulate it, not that the natural can't teach it.


Lol.

If he can teach it, it means he learned it.

And since the vast majority of human behaviour is learned, I believe that he did.

Which, of course, doesn't make him a natural to begin with.

Which also makes it ok for other people to learn it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Marduk....if you are just going to disagree with everything I say, then ok. I won't bother writing responses to you. I am not here just to debate things. I am here to openly express and exchange ideas.

Especially starting off with "lol", which is just mocking me. I'm not going to go there with you, and I am not mocking you.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Why do you assume this?
> 
> All it would take is a modicum of self-awareness. There are probably "naturals" without such self-awareness, but I'm sure there are also many that do have it.
> 
> Meanwhile, systems thinking is fine for computers, but it doesn't work that well on humans. Because, well, we aren't systems. We are human.


20 years of martial arts.

5 years of football, rugby, wrestling, track and field...

I've seen truly gifted people at work. That don't have to work at it at all. It just comes to them.

They have no idea why they are that way. They may come up with rationalizations, but they're just that -- rationalizations.

I remember watching a documentary on Mcenroe. He tried to explain what it is about his tennis style that made him a champion. He had all kinds of ideas about backspin, and how he hits the ball. And kept getting frustrated that nobody could replicate it -- they just 'didn't get it.'

And then they did the whole super-slo-mo analysis of what he was doing, and it was completely different than what he thought he was doing -- it was basically just being in the right place. Had nothing to do with spin, or his elbow, or whatever thing.

He was literally teaching people the wrong thing because he didn't know why he was good, rationalized why he was good, and tried to teach that. And it made people worse.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Lol.
> 
> If he can teach it, it means he learned it.
> 
> And since the vast majority of human behaviour is learned, I believe that he did.
> 
> Which, of course, doesn't make him a natural to begin with.
> 
> Which also makes it ok for other people to learn it.


Huh??

I'll admit I'm not huge fan of the language of "naturals" because it makes the rest of us sound like we might be artificial or unnatural, maybe alien, but at the same time, it seems pretty obvious to me both that some people will have innate talent, and that many people will learn skills.

No one's saying you can't have talent, or that you can't improve on whatever you have by learning. 

They're just saying that what is being learned is dehumanizing for both sides of the equation, and that there is a better way.

Instead of systems thinking which assumes that our ideals are forever prescribed, we can have, for example, human thinking, where we learn about ourselves and each other in a rich and thoughtful way.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Marduk....if you are just going to disagree with everything I say, then ok. I won't bother writing responses to you. I am not here just to debate things. I am here to openly express and exchange ideas.
> 
> Especially starting off with "lol", which is just mocking me. I'm not going to go there with you, and I am not mocking you.


The lol wasn't mocking, it was laughter.

And I've liked half the things you've said.

Why can I not agree with some and not some others? Must I agree with everything you've said?


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Huh??
> 
> I'll admit I'm not huge fan of the language of "naturals" because it makes the rest of us sound like we might be artificial or unnatural, maybe alien, but at the same time, it seems pretty obvious to me both that some people will have innate talent, and that many people will learn skills.
> 
> No one's saying you can't have talent, or that you can't improve on whatever you have by learning.
> 
> They're just saying that what is being learned is dehumanizing for both sides of the equation, and that there is a better way.
> 
> Instead of systems thinking which assumes that our ideals are forever prescribed, we can have, for example, human thinking, where we learn about ourselves and each other in a rich and thoughtful way.


My point is when a dude hears over and over again that some other guy that has no problem getting women is a 'natural' and trying to be like him is a 'game' and 'fake' and 'against women'...

Well, what's his way past that?


----------



## ocotillo

marduk said:


> But natural's can't teach, because they don't know.


I wonder if it's that or maybe like riding a bicycle or doing a two fingered whistle, there's just so many things going on at once that it's difficult to put into words?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Laughter AT ME is mocking, markduk. All I did was offer my opinion and it prompts you to laugh AT ME and then reply with your opinion that my opinion is wrong.

I am not doing this to you, and I wouldn't because it doesn't help anything or spread ideas.


----------



## Brigit

TBH the term "Natural" sounds strange. I think some men are more charismatic and charming than others.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Laughter AT ME is mocking, markduk. All I did was offer my opinion and it prompts you to laugh AT ME and then reply with your opinion that my opinion is wrong.
> 
> I am not doing this to you, and I wouldn't because it doesn't help anything or spread ideas.


Now we got a show. Popcorn anyone???


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Laughter AT ME is mocking, markduk. All I did was offer my opinion and it prompts you to laugh AT ME and then reply with your opinion that my opinion is wrong.
> 
> I am not doing this to you, and I wouldn't because it doesn't help anything or spread ideas.


Can I not laugh now?

I thought what you said was funny. Not because I thought it was stupid. It just struck me as funny.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> 20 years of martial arts.
> 
> 5 years of football, rugby, wrestling, track and field...
> 
> I've seen truly gifted people at work. That don't have to work at it at all. It just comes to them.
> 
> They have no idea why they are that way. They may come up with rationalizations, but they're just that -- rationalizations.
> 
> I remember watching a documentary on Mcenroe. He tried to explain what it is about his tennis style that made him a champion. He had all kinds of ideas about backspin, and how he hits the ball. And kept getting frustrated that nobody could replicate it -- they just 'didn't get it.'
> 
> And then they did the whole super-slo-mo analysis of what he was doing, and it was completely different than what he thought he was doing -- it was basically just being in the right place. Had nothing to do with spin, or his elbow, or whatever thing.
> 
> He was literally teaching people the wrong thing because he didn't know why he was good, rationalized why he was good, and tried to teach that. And it made people worse.



This is one example of one guy. And no doubt there are many people who are "good" who really don't understand why or how that happens, or who couldn't teach to save their lives. But I still see no reason to assume from the get go that someone with natural talent can't be a good teacher.

The analogy is an interesting one though. One thing that absolutely does make a person transcend from good to great is "being in the right place". There is quite a bit of work on this, the idea of presence and being in the moment, and how it significantly improves ones success in a number of fields (music, dance, sports).


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> *But why would you consult nerds who developed a system for this information? * That's my point.
> 
> I would not ask women who aren't good with men or sex or relationships to teach me how to be good with any of those. Even if they did develop a system, I would rather go to someone who is good at it naturally and can explain their processes to me.


Because they have developed a *system*. Telling people "just be a natural" is not a system.

Apparently you are assuming that people who are naturally good at it can explain their processes to you. That is not a valid assumption, since many people who are good at something cannot explain how they do it.

However, if you can indeed provide such an explanation, that is actionable for *people who are not naturals*, I'd be very interested in it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No Brigit, he wins already. I'm not going to fight back in that way and mock people. It just never goes anywhere and I'm actually trying to learn things here. I have learned a lot from marduk. But I just don't want to be mocked anymore and won't go there.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Because they have developed a *system*. Telling people "just be a natural" is not a system.
> 
> Apparently you are assuming that people who are naturally good at it can explain their processes to you. That is not a valid assumption, since many people who are good at something cannot explain how they do it.
> 
> However, if you can indeed provide such an explanation, that is actionable for *people who are not naturals*, I'd be very interested in it.


I never advocated telling anyone "just be a natural".

There will be more to come, I promise.


----------



## Marduk

ocotillo said:


> I wonder if it's that or maybe like riding a bicycle or doing a two fingered whistle, there's just so many things going on at once that it's difficult to put into words?


Maybe.

I know I've tried to teach some things I can do in the dojo and just... can't. It's a feeling.

How can you teach a feeling? 

I end up going to metaphors and people just don't usually get it. So I try a different one, and then a different one, and sometimes they get it and then they don't.

Or the get it for a second, and lose it.

I've found myself teaching something that I think works a certain way... and then one of the students taps me on the shoulder after class and says "sensei, you said you were doing this, but really you were doing that." And I'll try to do it again while paying attention... and they're usually right.


----------



## EllisRedding

technovelist said:


> Because they have developed a *system*. Telling people "just be a natural" is not a system.
> 
> Apparently you are assuming that people who are naturally good at it can explain their processes to you. That is not a valid assumption, since many people who are good at something cannot explain how they do it.
> 
> However, if you can indeed provide such an explanation, that is actionable for *people who are not naturals*, I'd be very interested in it.


I would think it important to have someone who can relate to the people they are "teaching" and how they overcame. In your example, how would someone who is a "natural" be able to truly relate to those who are not?


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> My point is when a dude hears over and over again that some other guy that has no problem getting women is a 'natural' and trying to be like him is a 'game' and 'fake' and 'against women'...
> 
> Well, what's his way past that?


Well, and this is one reason why I'm not a fan of the language of "natural". I mean, whatever. Some people are better at the popularity contest of life, and this can happen for a variety of reasons, not all of which are actually desirable or something you (a person) might want to emulate.

And what's more, ultimately there are probably more of those of us who are "unnatural" than there are those of us who are "natural". So really, what's "natural" here? Mostly we are muddling through, wishing life were easier when it's not.

But where the opposition to game and faking it comes in has nothing to do with the learning or the need for learning. It has to do with adopting a persona, a flat, two-dimensional one at that, in order to meet the "system" requirements.

Red-pill reduces humans, men and women alike, to systems and market value. It is dehumanizing, and its picture of masculinity is just as abhorrent (at least IMHO) as its picture of femininity.

This is where injunctions to "be yourself" come from. It has nothing to do with being static, stuck in a rut, refusing to learn or self improve, and has everything to do with not accepting wholesale an artificially limited version of yourself in the name of some stupid "system" that is supposedly designed for the sole purpose of having a line up of women outside your door waiting to spread their legs.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Well, and this is one reason why I'm not a fan of the language of "natural". I mean, whatever. Some people are better at the popularity contest of life, and this can happen for a variety of reasons, not all of which are actually desirable or something you (a person) might want to emulate.
> 
> And what's more, ultimately there are probably more of those of us who are "unnatural" than there are those of us who are "natural". So really, what's "natural" here? Mostly we are muddling through, wishing life were easier when it's not.
> 
> But where the opposition to game and faking it comes in has nothing to do with the learning or the need for learning. It has to do with adopting a persona, a flat, two-dimensional one at that, in order to meet the "system" requirements.
> 
> Red-pill reduces humans, men and women alike, to systems and market value. It is dehumanizing, and its picture of masculinity is just as abhorrent (at least IMHO) as its picture of femininity.
> 
> This is where injunctions to "be yourself" come from. It has nothing to do with being static, stuck in a rut, refusing to learn or self improve, and has everything to do with not accepting wholesale an artificially limited version of yourself in the name of some stupid "system" that is supposedly designed for the sole purpose of having a line up of women outside your door waiting to spread their legs.


How about figuring out what you really like about yourself, enhancing that, and what you really don't like about yourself, and trying to drop that?

Workable model all-round?


----------



## UMP

marduk said:


> How about figuring out what you really like about yourself, enhancing that, and what you really don't like about yourself, and trying to drop that?
> 
> Workable model all-round?


"My" official red pill mantra:

I'm through with standing in line
To clubs we'll never get in
It's like the bottom of the ninth
And I'm never gonna win
This life hasn't turned out
Quite the way I want it to be

(Tell me what you want)

I want a brand new house
On an episode of Cribs
And a bathroom I can play baseball in
And a king size tub big enough
For ten plus me

(So what you need?)

I'll need a credit card that's got no limit
And a big black jet with a bedroom in it
Gonna join the mile high club at thirty-seven thousand feet

(Been there, done that)

I want a new tour bus full of old guitars
My own star on Hollywood Boulevard
Somewhere between Cher and James Dean is fine for me

(So how you gonna do it?)

I'm gonna trade this life for fortune and fame
I'd even cut my hair and change my name

[Chorus:]
'Cause we all just wanna be big rockstars
And live in hilltop houses driving fifteen cars
The girls come easy and the drugs come cheap
We'll all stay skinny 'cause we just won't eat
And we'll hang out in the coolest bars
In the VIP with the movie stars
Every good gold digger's gonna wind up there
Every Playboy Bunny with her bleached blond hair, and well

Hey hey I wanna be a rockstar
Hey hey I wanna be a rockstar

I wanna be great like Elvis without the tassels
Hire eight body guards that love to beat up *******s
Sign a couple autographs so I can eat my meals for free

(I'll have the quesadilla, ha, ha)

I'm gonna dress my ass with the latest fashion
Get a front door key to the Playboy mansion
Gonna date a centerfold that loves to blow my money for me

(So how you gonna do it?)

I'm gonna trade this life for fortune and fame
I'd even cut my hair and change my name

[Chorus]
'Cause we all just wanna be big rockstars
And live in hilltop houses driving fifteen cars
The girls come easy and the drugs come cheap
We'll all stay skinny 'cause we just won't eat
And we'll hang out in the coolest bars
In the VIP with the movie stars
Every good gold digger's gonna wind up there
Every Playboy Bunny with her bleached blond hair

And we'll hide out in the private rooms
With the latest dictionary and today's who's who
They'll get you anything with that evil smile
Everybody's got a drug dealer on speed dial, well

Hey hey I wanna be a rockstar

I'm gonna sing those songs that offend the censors
Gonna pop my pills from a pez dispenser
I'll get washed-up singers writing all my songs
Lip sync 'em every night so I don't get 'em wrong

[Chorus:]
Well, we all just wanna be big rockstars
And live in hilltop houses driving fifteen cars
The girls come easy and the drugs come cheap
We'll all stay skinny 'cause we just won't eat
And we'll hang out in the coolest bars
In the VIP with the movie stars
Every good gold digger's gonna wind up there
Every Playboy Bunny with her bleached blond hair

And we'll hide out in the private rooms
With the latest dictionary and today's who's who
They'll get you anything with that evil smile
Everybody's got a drug dealer on speed dial, well

Hey hey I wanna be a rockstar
Hey hey I wanna be a rockstar


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> So you want to learn about them but they don't even know how they are doing it. Therefore, you are only willing to listen to other non-natural red pill dudes who have studied naturals and give you THEIR opinions of how the natural is doing it? :scratchhead:


This is not unusual. Many people who are naturals (hitting a baseball, dancing, compelling conversationalists... etc) are usually terrible coaches for the untrained. It just comes naturally to them and so it's hard to explain to the uninitiated how they do what they do.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> This is not unusual. Many people who are naturals (hitting a baseball, dancing, compelling conversationalists... etc) are usually terrible coaches for the untrained. It just comes naturally to them and so it's hard to explain to the uninitiated how they do what they do.


Ok, I guess I am just silly to think my husband and I can do this then.

(But I know we aren't).


----------



## Faithful Wife

UMP said:


> Hey hey I wanna be a rockstar
> Hey hey I wanna be a rockstar


I freaking love that song, it is hysterical. :smthumbup:


----------



## UMP

Faithful Wife said:


> I freaking love that song, it is hysterical. :smthumbup:


I do to, and if you think about it, it's very red pill "want to be."


----------



## Faithful Wife

UMP said:


> I do to, and if you think about it, it's very red pill "want to be."


I thought it was just making fun of Americans in general.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, I guess I am just silly to think my husband and I can do this then.
> 
> (But I know we aren't).


Oh, I think you can.

I just think you may need to experiment using guys who can't to verify. And be very careful. 

He may be doing things that both of you don't realize. And it's very easy to take his word for it, especially if it makes sense.

All I'm saying.


----------



## UMP

Faithful Wife said:


> I thought it was just making fun of Americans in general.


Never thought of that, interesting.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Yes, thinking about it more, this absolutely echoes my experience: When I was younger I was always told that I needed to dumb myself down, agree with everything a guy says, adopt his interests and mindset, don't challenge him, llet him win all the games, bet the expert, etc. and so on.
> 
> I always balked at this (what I thought to be terrible) advice, and could never play that game. I insisted on "being myself".
> 
> Turns out, women who played by the "rules" were always infinitely more successful at the dating/mating game, and "my self" is pretty much the antithesis of what men find desirable/attractive.
> 
> Huh. Guess I should've taken all that bad advice and become someone I couldn't respect?
> 
> Oh wait ....


So you understood the rules, weren't willing to play and understood that you'd made a conscious choice that if that's what it took to "win", you'd rather not play.

Congratulations! To a large degree I made the same calls (after the age of 30) and decided if that's what it takes to have sex with most women, I could do without. I retained my self respect and was fortunate enough to find a women that I didn't have to "game" into being attracted to me. Happily ever after.

The trick is knowing how the game works. Then you can decide if you want to play or not. What's frustrating is playing the game while not understanding the rules (or when what you believe to be the rules don't lead to success).


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife;12715506
Men here are a little bit pushed back against if they are bold and talk about having had sexual success in their lives. Yet these guys are just normal guys said:


> I am way too horny to be a unicorn.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Buddy400 said:


> This is not unusual. Many people who are naturals (hitting a baseball, dancing, compelling conversationalists... etc) are usually terrible coaches for the untrained. It just comes naturally to them and so it's hard to explain to the uninitiated how they do what they do.


This whole natural concept is being taken too far. Though I get it, mostly agree with it, and have seen it in action, this is also true:

Naturals start high functioning, but because of early success do not develop systematic learning skills into later and then can later fall behind their peers that do. I have seen this plenty, especially in athletics.

Naturals have what works but if they don't take the time to understand it, it can't be adapted or built on. 

My experience is that teaching helps naturals a great deal because it forces them to understand better what they do which open the door for conscious adaptation and improvement.

Despite what Goerge Thorogood might say, no one leaves the womb an "alpha" and some learning process has taken place.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScrambledEggs said:


> This whole natural concept is being taken too far. Though I get it, mostly agree with it, and have seen it in action, this is also true:
> 
> Naturals start high functioning, but because of early success do not develop systematic learning skills into later and then can later fall behind their peers that do. I have seen this plenty, especially in athletics.
> 
> Naturals have what works but if they don't take the time to understand it, it can't be adapted or built on.
> 
> My experience is that teaching helps naturals a great deal because it forces them to understand better what they do which open the door for conscious adaptation and improvement.
> 
> Despite what Goerge Thorogood might say, no one leaves the womb an "alpha" and some learning process has taken place.


There's no reason someone can't be a natural musician, then learn all the techniques behind it, then teach it. He can't teach them to be naturals but he can teach them skills they can use to play an instrument. 

But this is still much different than being a natural at attracting women....or a woman attracting men....or people being naturally attracted to each other.

I'm going to teach some mad skillz, I promise ya. 

Yet the bottom line is this: Some marriages are still going to fail, because you can't MAKE someone love you, be attracted to you, respect you, or be into you.


----------



## Buddy400

A fast moving thread like this is tough. Every time I think of something I want to say, it turns out some one else has said it a few pages later.

Probably all for the best. Someone else also always says it better than I could have anyway. It's easier to click "like" than type.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> This is one example of one guy. And no doubt there are many people who are "good" who really don't understand why or how that happens, or who couldn't teach to save their lives. But I still see no reason to assume from the get go that someone with natural talent can't be a good teacher.
> 
> The analogy is an interesting one though. One thing that absolutely does make a person transcend from good to great is "being in the right place". There is quite a bit of work on this, the idea of presence and being in the moment, and how it significantly improves ones success in a number of fields (music, dance, sports).


My old sensei told me that if I was ever going to be truly great, not just good, I had to go find someone that used to not be good and now was really good.

Because fighting just comes naturally to some people. And people flock to those people, trying to figure out why, but those people themselves don't know why.

Find the guy that used to suck and get his take.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No, I hope you will say things anyway Buddy....even if someone has said them, they may not have the same nuance you do.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

marduk said:


> My old sensei told me that if I was ever going to be truly great, not just good, I had to go find someone that used to not be good and now was really good.
> 
> Because fighting just comes naturally to some people. And people flock to those people, trying to figure out why, but those people themselves don't know why.
> 
> Find the guy that used to suck and get his take.


I actually have 25 years in martial arts, full contact sparring with gear, not just learning Katas and hitting a dummy or breaking boards. 

I know many teachers and many "naturals". Most naturals are natural due to some gift like being strong as an ox, fast as lightning, or almost seven feet tall. You can't teach someone to be seven feet tall of course.

The Naturals that are natural because of of relative skill do not exist past the Journeyman level. In my forms no-one progresses into "mastery" without understanding themselves and what they do, but a really tall or strong guy can still kick your ass because he is tall or strong.


----------



## pidge70

God, when I was younger, I was always trying to play the part of the "dumb blonde." Guys don't like smart women....don't ya know? 

I was in the gifted program from 1st grade and up. I played sax in the marching band, spelling bee champ, traveling scholar bowl team member, library asst....the nerd list goes on. Suffice it to say, I was not a dude magnet. When I ended up developing a 38C chest at age 12, then I was considered possible dating material. 

Sometimes I despise being a female.


----------



## pidge70

FrenchFry said:


> :lol: I used to, sometimes still do.
> 
> I look forward to being 30, 35 and older. The less sexual attention I get, the happier I seem to be. I keep getting mentally sharper though, that's really nice.


Omg! You aren't even 30 yet? I am mega depressed now......


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> So you understood the rules, weren't willing to play and understood that you'd made a conscious choice that if that's what it took to "win", you'd rather not play.


Umm, no. I never understood the rules, and still don't understand the game. I didn't even realize it *was* a game until I came to TAM. 

Basically I'm just clueless, but it really pissed me off to be told that I was supposed to be dumb, agreeable, submissive and that all I had to offer was a pair of tits and a functional vagina. So I rebelled instead.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Scrambled Eggs...have you read this book, and do you think it would be considered red pill?

Models: Attract Women Through Honesty - Mark Manson


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry said:


> :lol: I used to, sometimes still do.
> 
> I look forward to being 30, 35 and older. The less sexual attention I get, the happier I seem to be. I keep getting mentally sharper though, that's really nice.


Hate to tell ya....it doesn't stop.


----------



## always_alone

pidge70 said:


> Sometimes I despise being a female.


Oh, I can so relate to this!

And FrenchFry's comment that it gets better the more invisible I am. So nice not to be just a walking pair of tits.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Oh, I can so relate to this!
> 
> And FrenchFry's comment that it gets better the more invisible I am. So nice not to be just a walking pair of tits.


This is where men will argue with you because some of them wish they were seen as a walking c*ck (of the type that is desired).

And I do understand the disconnect for these guys, because they feel that there is no harm in just seeing someone as purely attractive and not looking deeper. 

I also agree there is sometimes no harm in seeing someone that way...it is just how we treat people that makes the difference.

There are people who are so physically attractive to me that I am blinded to everything else going on for a moment, and I have to struggle not to objectify them. This is a process, and it isn't always easy. But I think it matters what we think about (including these types of private thoughts) so I tend to my mind accordingly.

I think that the natural lust that is constantly rising from my body is the source of these thoughts...but where I go with those thoughts is up to me and the responsibility falls on me. I can't be a pig and then blame it on my nature...because my nature also includes the ability to be kind and rational.

If I didn't have that natural lust rising up within me, I would not feel it for my husband either, and I definitely LOVE feeling lusty about him.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry said:


> I seem to be aging out of the hardcore phase.


You're probably just better at deflecting and ignoring.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I'm going to quibble over the word MAKE.

If I go out dressed like a slob and have poor social skills I'm going to be less attractive than if I dressed well and am socially adept. If that's true, then couldn't it be said that someone who wasn't attracted to you as a slob with poor social skills, but is attracted to you as a well dressed socialite, was MADE to be attracted to you?

TBH, I don't like the word "MAKE" used in this context. It's a poor fit. No one is MADE to do anything. The seeker simply adjusts non-intrinsic traits that get in the way of attraction or otherwise foster attraction according to what the majority find attractive. It's nothing more than improving the odds that someone finds you attractive. It's mostly marketing/presentation, not building a fake person, becoming someone else, or making anyone do anything. Once you're presenting yourself better, and adopt attitudes that tend to be more appealing, they like you or they don't. No one is "made" to be attracted... but they are more likely to be than prior, and often this is the difference between a guy being able to attract women he feels only so-so about, and women he's really interested in... or going from "no one is interested", to "someone is".

Also, this whole idea of "naturals" is questionable. For the most part, I don't think anyone is born with it. Excepting being more desirable in appearance, there aren't any naturals. These people are still a product of their experience, interest level and the reactions of others too. Their experience just leads them toward one set of behaviors rather than another. "Natural", at best, is simply not being aware of the traits behind one's attractiveness. Even the most alpha-inclined child can be conditioned by experience to be hyper-beta, and vice versa. A lot of times the difference maker may simply the presence of a strong male role model. The ranks of Nice Guys seems heavily populated by men who were raised by single mothers or domineering women. No men, weak men, or absent fathers.

Perhaps its a form of damage or baggage related to poor father figures. The male version is becoming a Nice Guy to appeal to women, while the female version is using sex to appeal to men. I strongly associate both with the absence of a healthy male in their lives. No data to back it up, just my intuition. A place to start and conceive a study perhaps.


----------



## Mark72

TL : DR 
Did Red pill/Blue pill get redefined after the first page?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mark72 said:


> TL : DR
> Did Red pill/Blue pill get redefined after the first page?


Not sure what you mean. "Blue pill" is and always was a term created by the red pill guys. They use it to mean all bad advice that ends up making me unattractive to women.

But some people do live blue pill lives (meaning they follow and live the advice the red pill guys say are blue pill) and are happy that way. Which doesn't mean there are not happy red pill people, there are.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Faithful Wife said:


> Scrambled Eggs...have you read this book, and do you think it would be considered red pill?
> 
> Models: Attract Women Through Honesty - Mark Manson


I have not read it, but it looks like it is a twist on RP to some extent. He is self published so I'd probably not buy the book, but I expect most of his angle is on his blog which I will check out.


----------



## Mark72

Faithful Wife said:


> Not sure what you mean. "Blue pill" is and always was a term created by the red pill guys. They use it to mean all bad advice that ends up making me unattractive to women.
> 
> But some people do live blue pill lives (meaning they follow and live the advice the red pill guys say are blue pill) and are happy that way. Which doesn't mean there are not happy red pill people, there are.


Ok, I've always understood Blue Pill to be doing the comfortable thing and pretending it's going to work. Typically this is describing codependent guys that continue to live in codependency and pretend that it is going to work, and they can just be so nice that she stays in love with him. 

I've understood red pill to be the tough road, and the truth that codependency is not attractive to most women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScrambledEggs said:


> I have not read it, but it looks like it is a twist on RP to some extent. He is self published so I'd probably not buy the book, but I expect most of his angle is on his blog which I will check out.


MMSL is also self published.

MMSL amazon ranking # 87,393

Models amazon ranking # 7,000...and # 8 in dating section


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mark72 said:


> Ok, I've always understood Blue Pill to be doing the comfortable thing and pretending it's going to work. Typically this is describing codependent guys that continue to live in codependency and pretend that it is going to work, and they can just be so nice that she stays in love with him.
> 
> I've understood red pill to be the tough road, and the truth that codependency is not attractive to most women.


There's a lot more to it than that...but maybe you were just putting it into the simplest form possible.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's one by a guy who says he had "no women" and then learned game and is now a natural. A few of you had said this is the angle you'd want to see, so I'm linking it here in case it is of interest to any of you.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Natural-E..._sim_14_8?ie=UTF8&refRID=1Z4ZDR78Y8PG1SZK5D7G


----------



## Mark72

Faithful Wife said:


> MMSL is also self published.
> 
> MMSL amazon ranking # 87,393
> 
> Models amazon ranking # 7,000...and # 8 in dating section


I've read the MAP from Athol. Enjoyed it thoroughly.
It's loaded with good info. I'm also on the forum over there.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok well....let me say upfront that you may find some posts on this thread are anti-red pill or anti-MMSL. I hope it won't offend you. I have posted on that forum before, too.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's one by a guy who says he had "no women" and then learned game and is now a natural. A few of you had said this is the angle you'd want to see, so I'm linking it here in case it is of interest to any of you.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Natural-E..._sim_14_8?ie=UTF8&refRID=1Z4ZDR78Y8PG1SZK5D7G


As am stepping back into dating again in the next year I have given some thought to how to approach it. I think I want to be as authentic as possible. I mean if there has to be "game" in it I want it to be "my" game and not some lines I memorized from a book. 

I don't want to know how to approach women, I want to improve myself and my awareness so I approach women in the right way on my own.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's one by a guy who says he had "no women" and then learned game and is now a natural. A few of you had said this is the angle you'd want to see, so I'm linking it here in case it is of interest to any of you.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Natural-E..._sim_14_8?ie=UTF8&refRID=1Z4ZDR78Y8PG1SZK5D7G


I'm not sure how one can learn to be a natural. :scratchhead:
Not that his book might not have some useful tips, but that seems like an odd notion.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> I'm not sure how one can learn to be a natural. :scratchhead:
> Not that his book might not have some useful tips, but that seems like an odd notion.


I thought it was an odd notion too, but someone else had said they would prefer reading from a man who had none and then learned to get some game.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScrambledEggs said:


> As am stepping back into dating again in the next year I have given some thought to how to approach it. I think I want to be as authentic as possible. I mean if there has to be "game" in it I want it to be "my" game and not some lines I memorized from a book.
> 
> I don't want to know how to approach women, I want to improve myself and my awareness so I approach women in the right way on my own.


:smnotworthy:


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Faithful Wife said:


> Not sure what you mean. "Blue pill" is and always was a term created by the red pill guys. They use it to mean all bad advice that ends up making me unattractive to women.
> 
> But some people do live blue pill lives (meaning they follow and live the advice the red pill guys say are blue pill) and are happy that way. Which doesn't mean there are not happy red pill people, there are.


Come now, I'm sure lots of women find you attractive


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> I thought it was an odd notion too, but someone else had said they would prefer reading from a man who had none and then learned to get some game.


Absolutely.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Julius Beastcavern said:


> Come now, I'm sure lots of women find you attractive


Of course they do. Never said they didn't.

ETA: Sorry, now I see my typo in there.

Didn't mean to confuse you. Yes, of course they do find me attractive...but only the ones whom my natural game works on....which is not blue pill.


----------



## Brigit

technovelist said:


> I'm not sure how one can learn to be a natural. :scratchhead:
> Not that his book might not have some useful tips, but that seems like an odd notion.


I cannot believe people actually buy those books.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> I cannot believe people actually buy those books.


It makes sense. People also buy get rich quick books and lose weight without dieting books.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Faithful Wife said:


> Of course they do. Never said they didn't.
> 
> ETA: Sorry, now I see my typo in there.
> 
> Didn't mean to confuse you. Yes, of course they do find me attractive...but only the ones whom my natural game works on....which is not blue pill.


:smthumbup:


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> It makes sense. People also buy get rich quick books and lose weight without dieting books.


I know. People are gullible always looking for a quick fix.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> This is where men will argue with you because some of them wish they were seen as a walking c*ck (of the type that is desired).
> 
> And I do understand the disconnect for these guys, because they feel that there is no harm in just seeing someone as purely attractive and not looking deeper.
> .


Yes, I've seen many say this, but I think it's because they've never really had the experience.

Men are (typically) used to having people look them in the eyes and care about what they say. They are (typically) believed to have thoughts and opinions that other people might care about. I think a lot of them can't even fathom what it feels like to be a singular body part with absolutely nothing else of interest to offer.

Maybe this has something to do with lust, I don't know. Me, I've always lusted after whole people, and that includes more than just body parts.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Yes, I've seen many say this, but I think it's because they've never really had the experience.
> 
> Men are (typically) used to having people look them in the eyes and care about what they say. They are (typically) believed to have thoughts and opinions that other people might care about. I think a lot of them can't even fathom what it feels like to be a singular body part with absolutely nothing else of interest to offer.
> 
> Maybe this has something to do with lust, I don't know. Me, I've always lusted after whole people, and that includes more than just body parts.


Sometimes I feel like people only care about one body part.
It happens to be my brain, but it's still only one body part!


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Yes, I've seen many say this, but I think it's because they've never really had the experience.
> 
> Men are (typically) used to having people look them in the eyes and care about what they say. They are (typically) believed to have thoughts and opinions that other people might care about. I think a lot of them can't even fathom what it feels like to be a singular body part with absolutely nothing else of interest to offer.
> 
> Maybe this has something to do with lust, I don't know. Me, I've always lusted after whole people, and that includes more than just body parts.


Some still think they would enjoy it, but without the actual experience of it, I don't think there's anyway they would know that.

I read an article once by a gay dude who was single and dating, and about how he felt that he was always reduced to just a penis by other guys and he was tired of it. He wanted more, to be been as a human being with a mind...I commented on his article and said "funny that sounds just like what a lot of women say" and he was like "really, I had never thought of that". 

It was kind of cute, actually. He has probably never considered what women like or don't like.

I have also heard other gay men wishing they could attract that type of attention that women can....but they mean they wish they could attract it from straight guys.

And when straight guys say they wish women would look at them the way they look at women, they only mean the women they WOULD look at that way...yet plenty of gay dudes would be happy to objectify them.

I guess everyone wants what they don't have, is the moral?

I'm pretty happy with what I have. Though there was a time when that wasn't true, so I fall into that, too.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Sometimes I feel like people only care about one body part.
> It happens to be my brain, but it's still only one body part!


tech....Can you give me a short bullet point list of your history or marriage or where ever you are at with that? Or link me to your story (as long as I can suss out where you are now).


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> tech....Can you give me a short bullet point list of your history or marriage or where ever you are at with that? Or link me to your story (as long as I can suss out where you are now).


I haven't posted my story here before, but I guess this is as good a time as any.

But it is very unusual and may trigger some people who have (understandably) been hurt very badly by infidelity. So maybe I should start another thread about it? I'm not sure what the correct protocol is in such a case...


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech, feel free to either share here or start a new thread. Or give us the quick and dirty here, and also start a new thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Maybe this has something to do with lust, I don't know. Me, I've always lusted after whole people, and that includes more than just body parts.


I do that, too. Later, after I know someone, a new type of lust can take over. Mental lust. Also I think you are probably a sapiosexual (had mentioned that before). I'm just wh*resexual. (shrug)

But do you ever feel that visceral sexual pull? That involuntary jab in your loins, or maybe a flush to the face, or some other type of physical response? Upon just seeing a beautiful specimen of a human being, I mean. Whether out of the blue, in a photo, or a real person you loved.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I do that, too. Later, after I know someone, a new type of lust can take over. Mental lust. Also I think you are probably a sapiosexual (had mentioned that before). I'm just wh*resexual. (shrug)
> 
> But do you ever feel that visceral sexual pull? That involuntary jab in your loins, or maybe a flush to the face, or some other type of physical response? Upon just seeing a beautiful specimen of a human being, I mean. Whether out of the blue, in a photo, or a real person you loved.


Never from a photo, but definitely yes out of the blue. Pure, raw, physical. I've experienced it as trembling, a magnetic pull, a complete inability to function. But I still don't believe it's just body parts. Even if I don't know them at all, it's also about their way of being. 

I mean, it's possible it's just pheromones, but I'm pretty sure it's more than that. Some people you just click with, KWIM?


----------



## Faithful Wife

No, don't really KWYM, have never felt it in that visceral way from just clicking with someone. I mean, I might feel something visceral from that, but not in my sex organs. 

For instance, I still get butterflies when seeing my husband after a short absense. This is not under my control. It is because we click, and for so many other reasons. It is not sexual. My lusty feelings for him are totally separate.

The sexual lust feelings, never had that from just clicking. Because I click with so many people I have no lust for, I suppose. I meet and talk to a lot of people.


----------



## tech-novelist

Ok, here goes.

My wife S and I met online. I wasn't looking for anything personal, just someone to help me by acting as a "test reader" for a technical book I was writing. 

We spent about 6 months on that project, and for the first 3 months or so, I was enormously careful not to get into any personal discussions, since both of us were married and I took my vows seriously.

However, at some point in the project, S got annoyed at the fact that she was doing all this work for someone who wrote "like a robot", as she described it. She knew I had a pretty good sense of humor because I had used it in an apparently fairly successful attempt to keep the very technical material from being as dry as dust. So why was I being so "robotic" with her?

The answer, of course, is as I said before: I was being careful not to get into personal discussions because I was married and wanted to remain faithful.

But her sister egged her on to get some personal reaction to me, including getting her to send me a (perfectly safe for work) picture of her, and asking for some personal interaction with me.

So I sent her an essay that I had written about a college reunion, which was full of emotional reactions that I had experienced during the reunion. This made it clear to her that I was far from robotic, but nothing further developed for another month or so.

Then one night, I was having chest pains, and my wife said "Don't wake me up if you have to drive yourself to the hospital."

S is an RN, so I called her for advice, and after describing my symptoms, she said "It doesn't sound like a heart attack, but if you need anything, call me."

After I hung up the phone, it occurred to me that I was married to the wrong person.

So I called her back and asked her "If we were both single, would you be interested in a more personal relationship with me?"

There was a long silence, and I said "If that was the wrong question, forget I asked it." She said "No, it's okay. Yes, I would."

Then I went into the other room and told my wife I wanted a divorce. I proposed marriage to S the next day, if I recall correctly.

This probably seems a bit risky, especially considering that we had not met yet, although we had spoken on the phone a few times.

She said, "We have to meet first before I can answer that." So we made plans to meet, which were a bit complicated by the fact that she hadn't told her husband about this situation, although he knew about the book project.

We met a couple of months later, and things went very well. She wanted to wait to initiate her divorce until her daughter graduated from high school the next summer, but I didn't want to wait, and talked her into starting it right away, which I probably should not have done.

My divorce took about a year, as there was a waiting period and I got some resistance from my wife, although I didn't try to get any of her assets, which were much greater than mine. S also bent over backwards to be fair to her husband, with my complete support, since after all it wasn't his idea to get divorced. Why should it be worse for him than it had to be?

All this started 20 years ago, and we have been married for 18 years, at least as happily as anyone else I know.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> No, don't really KWYM, have never felt it in that visceral way from just clicking with someone. I mean, I might feel something visceral from that, but not in my sex organs.
> 
> For instance, I still get butterflies when seeing my husband after a short absense. This is not under my control. It is because we click, and for so many other reasons. It is not sexual. My lusty feelings for him are totally separate.
> 
> The sexual lust feelings, never had that from just clicking. Because I click with so many people I have no lust for, I suppose. I meet and talk to a lot of people.


Oh, yeah, agreed, not all "clicking" is sexual in nature. But some is distinctly sexual, at least for me. Maybe I'm not explaining it well?

I can be drawn to someone sexually before I could possibly know that I click with them intellectually or emotionally. Indeed, I can and have been drawn to a couple of guys that I had nothing in common with at all, except that magnetic pull. 

But even so, I'm still convinced it wasn"t just body parts, at least not for me. 

But maybe I'm not making any sense.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech...wow, what a story.

So how did you find the red pill, and why?

Why do you make a lot of things sound like you were bludgeoned with a blue pill bat?


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Oh, yeah, agreed, not all "clicking" is sexual in nature. But some is distinctly sexual, at least for me. Maybe I'm not explaining it well?
> 
> I can be drawn to someone sexually before I could possibly know that I click with them intellectually or emotionally. Indeed, I can and have been drawn to a couple of guys that I had nothing in common with at all, except that magnetic pull.
> 
> But even so, I'm still convinced it wasn"t just body parts, at least not for me.
> 
> But maybe I'm not making any sense.


No, I get ya...I think what you mean is that you have a filter that processes just a tad further before you feel that pull. Some people have no filter, some have so much that they never feel lust. Most of us are in the middle. Yours is probably higher than mine.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> tech...wow, what a story.
> 
> So how did you find the red pill, and why?
> 
> Why do you make a lot of things sound like you were bludgeoned with a blue pill bat?


The latter, because I was, earlier in life. Not as badly as some, of course, but looking back, I would have done much better if I had known then what I know now.

As to why I went looking for the red pill, things started cooling off. At first, just a little bit, but enough for me to worry that if it continued, I would have a big problem on my hands.

Now things are going much better.


----------



## toolforgrowth

FW, I'm glad you're continuing the conversation, although I'm kinda bummed you closed your original thread. I found it highly enjoyable and informative.

The whole red/blue pill theory can be applicable in certain aspects, but I don't think it's an either/or situation. I tend to think that everything in life falls on a spectrum. In some situations, the red pill can cure what ails a man. In other instances, a blue pill can do the same thing. Rather like vitamins, to continue the pill analogy. Sure, it's good to take vitamin C every day, but we can't neglect D, A, B, etc.

The red pill keeps a guy strong, independent, and integrated. The blue pill can keep him honest, compassionate, and humble. Too much of either one is unhealthy; moderation is key, along with a daily dietary regimen of both to keep a man well rounded.

IMO, the problem is we have a plethora of men gorging on blue pills, and completely forgoing red pills. They're completely missing out on another necessary supplement. Too much one thing is unhealthy. A little bit of both is where it's at.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

tool...we can make this thread just as enjoyable and informative. Welcome back!

I'm not sure there is a way to measure all these men gorging on blue pills and definitively say they are unhappy or unhealthy. I mean, how many happy marriages are there, and how many are blue pill or at least, not red pill? If we don't know this, then how can we measure? We all have our own confirmation bias. Is there any actual statistics that prove nothing other than red pill or a mix of it can be happy?


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> The latter, because I was, earlier in life. Not as badly as some, of course, but looking back, I would have done much better if I had known then what I know now.
> 
> As to why I went looking for the red pill, things started cooling off. At first, just a little bit, but enough for me to worry that if it continued, I would have a big problem on my hands.
> 
> Now things are going much better.


I am glad to know your story, because I had made a lot of incorrect assumptions about you based on your posts. (Or at least I think they were incorrect). The things you say sometimes make you sound like you have been totally screwed over by a woman or more than one, or that you dislike women, or that you think women want a free ride while they should be giving up sex to get that free ride. Stuff like that. But your story doesn't sound like that so it is confusing. Anyway, thank you for sharing more.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Perhaps its a form of damage or baggage related to poor father figures. The male version is becoming a Nice Guy to appeal to women, while the female version is using sex to appeal to men. I strongly associate both with the absence of a healthy male in their lives. No data to back it up, just my intuition. A place to start and conceive a study perhaps.


FYI -

Associations Between Father Absence and Age of First Sexual Intercourse

_Father absence is seen as the linchpin in a set of detrimental early childhood experiences that determine whether an individual’s future mating and child-rearing will be oriented toward a “quality or a quantity pattern” (p. 650). Because children from father-absent homes observe unstable, conflicted, or stressed parental relationships, they learn that resources are scarce, people untrustworthy, and relationships opportunistic. They mature in such a way that reproduction is geared toward mating rather than parenting, tending to have accelerated sexual onset, multiple sexual partners, and erratic relationships. In contrast, children from more secure two-parent family environments allocate reproductive effort to a single partnership, later onset of sexual behavior, and greater investment in fewer offspring._


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> I am glad to know your story, because I had made a lot of incorrect assumptions about you based on your posts. (Or at least I think they were incorrect). The things you say sometimes make you sound like you have been totally screwed over by a woman or more than one, or that you dislike women, or that you think women want a free ride while they should be giving up sex to get that free ride. Stuff like that. But your story doesn't sound like that so it is confusing. Anyway, thank you for sharing more.


Perhaps it would be less confusing if I mention that this was not the first time I was mistreated by my first wife, and she also tried to take me to the cleaners in the divorce, but was unsuccessful because her assets were much higher than mine. As it happens, after the divorce she apologized to me for having been so mean to me, and even asked me for relationship advice.

Also, to answer your other implied questions:

1. No, I don't dislike women, although I'm not crazy about how a lot of them behave. 

2. Should women have the choice to "give up" sex in exchange for being supported without having to work? I'm not sure why that is exploitative, as it doesn't sound like too bad a deal to me, assuming of course that it is their choice to do so.

So would it have helped me to take the red pill before I got involved with her? It seems likely that it would. Because in that case I would probably have had better luck with women, and not have been so happy to have someone willing to marry me that I overlooked a lot of red flags.

Of course, if someone posted a story here that was just like mine up to the point of that fateful phone call, and said "Should I go ahead with this plan?", I would respond as I imagine (almost) everyone else here would also do, with "Are you insane? You haven't even met her!". I know the statistics indicate that our happy outcome is VERY rare. So in a way, I'm a lottery winner too...


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> 2. Should women have the choice to "give up" sex in exchange for being supported without having to work? I'm not sure why that is exploitative, as it doesn't sound like too bad a deal to me, assuming of course that it is their choice to do so.


So are you still talking about your first wife, over 20 years ago here? Or your current wife? Because it sounds like your first wife didn't need your support without having to work. 

In my opinion though, no one should have sex with a person for any reason other than that they want to have sex with that person. So I'd assume a wife who stops having sex, stopped _wanting_ to have sex with her husband.  If you have to "pay" her to light her fire to begin with, she doesn't want to have sex with you, period.

Are you saying you would want someone to pretend they wanted to have sex with you, just because you are supporting them financially? Why would anyone be ok with this on either side? He should just admit all he wants is a bang maid and she should just admit she doesn't want to have sex with him or be a bang maid.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> tool...we can make this thread just as enjoyable and informative. Welcome back!
> 
> I'm not sure there is a way to measure all these men gorging on blue pills and definitively say they are unhappy or unhealthy. I mean, how many happy marriages are there, and how many are blue pill or at least, not red pill? If we don't know this, then how can we measure? We all have our own confirmation bias. Is there any actual statistics that prove nothing other than red pill or a mix of it can be happy?


To my knowledge, there are no statistics. I'm forced to admit that my evidence is anecdotal, from men who exhibit a high degree of blue pill characteristics who all seem to experience similar negative outcomes in their relationships and/or marriages. My own personal experience reflects it as well, which for me, lends credence to the theory.

One day my GF messaged me while I was at work. She said she had such a bad migraine that she was vomiting at her internship. She doesn't have a car, and she asked if I could pick her up, as her brother and father weren't responding. She reached out to them first because she didn't want to be a bother. I understood. But in the end, I came through and took hey to my house. I got her situated, then went and picked her up some migraine pills and made her tea. After she woke up from her nap, she felt much better. Those are blue pill characteristics; nurturing, caring, and dependability.

On the flip side, we don't talk every day. Sometimes we'll go two or three gays without texting or speaking. Not a big deal to me; we both lead our own lives, and I am a very independent person, as is she. She has told me numerous times that a lot of the women she knows complain that their men are clingy, freak out if they don't communicate all the time, and cause drama, and that I'm the complete opposite. She's right; I don't need to be clingy to demonstrate my love and affection. That's a red pill characteristic, one that she has said many times that she appreciates in me.

This is by far the most successful relationship I've ever had. The sex is amazing, she is highly attracted to me, and we support each other. Interesting side note: she has told me that she's never really enjoyed sex, but with me, she finds it fantastic. Based on her physical and emotional responses to ny touch, I believe her when she says that. Truthfully, I don't do anything special. The only difference I can think of is that with her, I'm more confident and not self conscious. I believe it translates into our sex life.

In a nutshell, red pill traits has led to the most satisfying relationship and sex life I've ever had.

I can't quantify that in terms of a scientific study. All I can do is share what my experience has shown me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

I hear you. But there are some people who have had the same wonderful and enriching experiences that you are having even though they are what you would call blue pill.

So is it fair to say red pill is better than blue pill?

It is hard to put it that simply anyway since both red pill and blue pill are too broad, undefined and have different meanings for different people anyway.

This is why to some people it sounds like my husband is red pill but to others he sounds blue pill. In reality, he is just himself and expects me to be myself, too. 

I understand why some people feel they must do the opposite of what they were doing before if they end up getting hurt. But that doesn't mean other people need to do the opposite as well.

I bet if you really think about it and do more research of the people you know, you do know more happy blue pill people than you think you do.

And keep in mind that not all blue pillers have crappy sex lives, and not all red pillers have good sex lives.

As I've said a few times now, mutual attraction and the ability to handle intimacy are the things that keep a long term relationship strong. To me it sounds like that's what you have in your current relationship. Which could explain your gf's being more into sex with you than with previous partners.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> I hear you. But there are some people who have had the same wonderful and enriching experiences that you are having even though they are what you would call blue pill.
> 
> So is it fair to say red pill is better than blue pill?
> 
> It is hard to put it that simply anyway since both red pill and blue pill are too broad, undefined and have different meanings for different people anyway.
> 
> This is why to some people it sounds like my husband is red pill but to others he sounds blue pill. In reality, he is just himself and expects me to be myself, too.
> 
> I understand why some people feel they must do the opposite of what they were doing before if they end up getting hurt. But that doesn't mean other people need to do the opposite as well.
> 
> I bet if you really think about it and do more research of the people you know, you do know more happy blue pill people than you think you do.
> 
> And keep in mind that not all blue pillers have crappy sex lives, and not all red pillers have good sex lives.
> 
> As I've said a few times now, mutual attraction and the ability to handle intimacy are the things that keep a long term relationship strong. To me it sounds like that's what you have in your current relationship. Which could explain your gf's being more into sex with you than with previous partners.


Not necessarily better, no. That'd be like saying one vitamin is better than another, when in reality they're all equally good but with different beneficial effects.

I don't claim that red pill is necessarily better, or that it applies to everyone. I'm speaking for a specific subset of men: those who have failing relationships or marriages due to a loss of attraction from their women due to specific behavioral characteristics on the man's part that is directly related to an abundance of blue pill behavior. If a relationship is working already, there's no need to fix it. But if something's wrong, and it's clearly identifiable as a result of an excess of blue pill, then I think it becomes highly relevant.

I'm not speaking in broad general terms of all men. I'm speaking for a targeted group of men who all exhibit the same behavior and experience the same difficulties.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

Want more of my friendly, and brilliant input?

You are trying to make this discussion binary.

It isn't.


Save for the extremists like Roissy and guys at places like Return of Kings, any author focused on LTR's, including Mr. Kay, or even Gottman and virtually every man on TAM that has ever posted in this kind of thread quite CLEARLY, says fostering attraction requires both traits.

Hell I don't even want to use the pill analogy anymore.

An attractive man is confident, self aware, secure and firm in his beliefs and conduct.

That same man is also compassionate, considerate, and nurturing of those to whom he has given his heart.

He would lay down his life for yours. But it's something he's going to DO.

Not something he's going to pledge to you and get all blubbery about while asking you to just 'hold him' ... and repeat every other day.

Blue Pill aka Beta is not bad. Too much of it is.

Red Pill aka Alpha is not bad. Too much of it is.

It's not an on/off switch. 

It's a rheostat.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tool...Ok but you do know that the red pill crew do say that red pill is better, that it is based on science (that can't be backed up), and that blue pill and even "love" are useless to all men except beta wussies (and then they would go on to say that women have snowed and duped all those wussies anyway or else they wouldnt be blue pill.)
Right?

So it is really hard (for me personally) to take anything red pill seriously because I know many happy blue pill people who are deeply in love and have great sex lives.

I do respect you and the other individuals here who are red pill. But when you talk about it as if it is The One and Only Truth, I just can't listen past that because, it just isn't.

Not saying you are saying that, but you are aligning yourself with a group that does.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> Want more of my friendly, and brilliant input?
> 
> You are trying to make this discussion binary.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> 
> Save for the extremists like Roissy and guys at places like Return of Kings, any author focused on LTR's, including Mr. Kay, or even Gottman and virtually every man on TAM that has ever posted in this kind of thread quite CLEARLY, says fostering attraction requires both traits.
> 
> Hell I don't even want to use the pill analogy anymore.
> 
> An attractive man is confident, self aware, secure and firm in his beliefs and conduct.
> 
> That same man is also compassionate, considerate, and nurturing of those to whom he has given his heart.
> 
> He would lay down his life for yours. But it's something he's going to DO.
> 
> Not something he's going to pledge to you and get all blubbery about while asking you to just 'hold him' ... and repeat every other day.
> 
> Blue Pill aka Beta is not bad. Too much of it is.
> 
> Red Pill aka Alpha is not bad. Too much of it is.
> 
> It's not an on/off switch.
> 
> It's a rheostat.


If only it were that easy.

Sorry I just don't think you are tuned in to what I'm saying because you are still too focused on this being about self improvement.

Calling women chubby screechtards is not red pill. It is not alpha. It is not self improvement. It is just meanness. And it isn't ok. And I'm not going to let that go, as if you hadn't noticed that yet.

Again....if a girl game book or blog uses mean spirited self entitled name calling to make its points, I will put it down, leave a bad review, and speak out against it in circles I belong to.

But you keep wanting to over look that stuff.

I am not willing to do that. It actually makes men look bad when they are willing to overlook mean spirited stuff and align with it anyway. Ugly speech makes the speaker and their supporters look ugly.


----------



## MarriedDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, it is, between two people who both feel it.
> 
> What you are saying is "how do I make a woman be attracted to me if she isn't".
> 
> THAT is what there is no actionable advice for.
> 
> If you do all your tricks and she becomes attracted to you again and it stays that way, it means she did have attraction to you to begin with.
> 
> *But if she doesn't or it has gone and cannot come back, there's no action plan for that. People get to decide for themselves if they are attracted to you or not and if they are not, it doesn't really serve you or them well to try to dupe them into thinking they are.*


That is interesting -I somewhat agree. But it sure doesn't look good for the BS.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> If only it were that easy.
> 
> Sorry I just don't think you are tuned in to what I'm saying because you are still too focused on this being about self improvement.
> 
> Calling women chubby screechtards is not red pill. It is not alpha. It is not self improvement. It is just meanness. And it isn't ok. And I'm not going to let that go, as if you hadn't noticed that yet.
> 
> Again....if a girl game book or blog uses mean spirited self entitled name calling to make its points, I will put it down, leave a bad review, and speak out against it in circles I belong to.
> 
> But you keep wanting to over look that stuff.
> 
> I am not willing to do that. It actually makes men look bad when they are willing to overlook mean spirited stuff and align with it anyway. Ugly speech makes the speaker and their supporters look ugly.


I humbly suggest that we don't travel down the path of "if a woman says this it's bad, but if a man says this it's ok". There is much feminist rhetoric that is blatantly misandric. Does that mean I dislike feminism as an aggregate? Not in the slightest. I'm simply aware of when a human takes their philosophy to an extreme and disregard it.

As an example, I approve of the message that women are just as capable as men. I do not approve of the message that men should be reduced to 10% of the human population ("The Future - if there is one - is Female", Sally Miller Gearhart, 1981). I would suggest that we do not travel the path of which gender has the monopoly on sexist rhetoric. For all their faults, I don't hear red pill men calling for matricide.

By all means, disagree with their philosophy. But I would humbly advise a person to clean their own house before crying foul at someone else's dirty laundry. And if I can overlook mean spirited feminists while acknowledging sensible ones, I must question why you are not able to do the same.

I agree with Deejo. You are still viewing it as binary, rather than a spectrum.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Except we aren't here discussing feminism. We are discussing the red pill.

I'm not a feminist. I don't know why I cannot disagree with hateful speech specific to one male author without the topic of feminism coming up. Are you aware that this smoke screen is what most red pillers say to deflect from this point? Do you really have to pull in an unrelated topic as a counter point? It doesn't make any sense and dilutes your entire argument. 

Men can say things like chubby screechtard because feminism? Really it doesn't work.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> Tool...Ok but you do know that the red pill crew do say that red pill is better, that it is based on science (that can't be backed up), and that blue pill and even "love" are useless to all men except beta wussies (and then they would go on to say that women have snowed and duped all those wussies anyway or else they wouldnt be blue pill.)
> Right?
> 
> So it is really hard (for me personally) to take anything red pill seriously because I know many happy blue pill people who are deeply in love and have great sex lives.
> 
> I do respect you and the other individuals here who are red pill. But when you talk about it as if it is The One and Only Truth, I just can't listen past that because, it just isn't.
> 
> Not saying you are saying that, but you are aligning yourself with a group that does.


I accept what is useful, and discard what is useless. I have many feminist friends. Should I call them out for aligning with the same group as Sally Miller Gearhart? Or should I simply acknowledge that they're accepting what is useful and discarding what is not?

Another example. I am an atheist, and a pretty militant one at that. With that being said, I have many Christian friends. These friends embody what is good about Christianity. Does that mean I should call them out for aligning with the same religion that gave us the Crusades, witch burning, slave trade, and the Westboro Baptist Church? Or should I simply accept that while they may have the same label, their core beliefs are vastly different?

I choose the latter.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> Except we aren't here discussing feminism. We are discussing the red pill.
> 
> I'm not a feminist. I don't know why I cannot disagree with hateful speech specific to one male author without the topic of feminism coming up. Are you aware that this smoke screen is what most red pillers say to deflect from this point? Do you really have to pull in an unrelated topic as a counter point? It doesn't make any sense and dilutes your entire argument.
> 
> Men can say things like chubby screechtard because feminism? Really it doesn't work.


Red pillism is a reaction to radical feminism, a counterpoint to its gynocentric philosophy.

I never said you were a feminist. But if we're discussing the severity of one's rhetoric (which you are by using misogynistic words spoken by hardcore red pillers as your primary example), then I'm simply comparing the severity of one group's rhetoric to another. And the weight is far greater in the feminist camp?

Women are screechtards? Mean spirited, but ultimately harmless; nothing worse than playground name-calling. Calling for near patricide? Very dangerous, and potentially evil. I don't see how that rhetoric is any better than calling for the extermination of the Jews.

As I said, you are welcome to disagree with red pillism. But there is no comparison of which group has the most severe rhetoric and philosophy. If you are going to use the rhetoric used as the basis for societal harm, I'm stating that you're looking in the wrong direction.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

Chubby screechtards are HOT!!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Brigit

This thread is getting scary. 

(I hope I never see a chubby screechtard...sounds like something from Penny Dreadful.)


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok I guess this makes sense then. Since red pill is some men's response to feminism and not actually relationship advice then of course it is ok to just let 'er rip. It doesn't require common decency.


----------



## ConanHub

Brigit said:


> This thread is getting scary.
> 
> (I hope I never see a chubby screechtard...sounds like something from Penny Dreadful.)


Hahaha!! LOL! I'd probably still try to jump one! Time to get home and jump my chubby!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok I guess this makes sense then. Since red pill is some men's response to feminism and not actually relationship advice then of course it is ok to just let 'er rip. It doesn't require common decency.


The reality is that not all people are decent.

Philosophy is a tool. In the right hands, a tool can be used to build something great. In the wrong hands, it can be used to destroy something great. The tool itself is not inherently good or evil; judgment can only be rendered upon the actions of the person wielding it.

I don't look down upon women who use feminism in a constructive way. I find that to be a good thing. Same with red pill men. But some women and men use their philosophies in a destructive way as well. I don't attack the philosophy; I attack the person wielding it.

Your threads judge the philosophy by the actions of those who wield it negatively, while completely overlooking those who wield it positively. Your conviction is that red pillism cannot ever be used positively. I disagree, simply because I am living proof to the contrary. Rather than accept that, you are trying to create a situation by which you can force me into your box. The bottom line is you can't fit a square peg into a round hole.

Again, people lie across a spectrum. It is not binary. Until you grasp that concept, you will not be able to separate men who use red pill to tear down women from those who use it to uplift themselves.

I do not believe the red pill is a holy grail. It is simply a tool...nothing more.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Fozzy

ConanHub said:


> Hahaha!! LOL! I'd probably still try to jump one! Time to get home and jump my chubby!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm not even sure exactly what this means, but i can't wait to work this phrase into conversation some day.

:rofl:


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> So are you still talking about your first wife, over 20 years ago here? Or your current wife? Because it sounds like your first wife didn't need your support without having to work.
> 
> In my opinion though, no one should have sex with a person for any reason other than that they want to have sex with that person. So I'd assume a wife who stops having sex, stopped _wanting_ to have sex with her husband. If you have to "pay" her to light her fire to begin with, she doesn't want to have sex with you, period.
> 
> Are you saying you would want someone to pretend they wanted to have sex with you, just because you are supporting them financially? Why would anyone be ok with this on either side? He should just admit all he wants is a bang maid and she should just admit she doesn't want to have sex with him or be a bang maid.


I'm not talking about anyone in particular. However, MOST men have higher drive than MOST women, although of course there are exceptions to this rule. As a consequence of this disparity of drives, every culture has had arrangements by which men would, in effect, trade resources for sex (and children, if applicable in a given situation), and marriage is one of those arrangements.

As we have seen here on numerous occasions, a woman may not be nearly as interested in sex as her husband is (and of course vice-versa, but I'm not likely to wind up in that position, so I don't worry about it). Many times, this ends up in a sexless marriage, which in my opinion is a lot worse than an arrangement in which she is willing to make the effort to please her husband on a mutually agreeable basis, assuming of course that it is a case of relative LD rather than something worse such as abuse. In such a situation, as I have said on other threads on that topic, I think both of them should make the best of things, even if he would prefer someone who was as HD as he is.


----------



## tech-novelist

FrenchFry said:


> Eliot Rodgers. Tough to act like extremism is more dangerous on one side or another when people have actually been killed.


I don't know why people try to use Eliot Rodgers as an example of the harm caused by the red pill. He contributed to a site called something like "PUA Hate", where the members complained bitterly about what liars and scum all "pickup artists" are. He was as far from taking the red pill as it is possible to get.

Maybe if he *had* taken the red pill, he would have been able to have more constructive relationships with women. Maybe not, too, but certainly blaming the red pill for his insane homicidal actions is ridiculous.


----------



## tech-novelist

FrenchFry said:


> I actually read PUA Hate for awhile. Stopped because I value my sanity.
> 
> PUA hate is multi-facted. PUA hate was (is?) a misogynist hell-pit of fury. They called PUA's liars and scum when they weren't being hateful or misogynistc enough.
> 
> They loved some aspects of red-pill for sure though. Hypergamy, women are stupid, vapid *****s, women are simple and easy to manipulate.
> 
> PUA hate actually just mostly hated the guys for ripping them off.


Did you read what Rodger's "pickup approach" was? He sat at a table and waited for women to hit on him, then got enraged when they didn't.

Again, this is about as far from the red pill as can be imagined; you might as well blame Jews for the Holocaust.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> In such a situation, as I have said on other threads on that topic, I think both of them should make the best of things, even if he would prefer someone who was as HD as he is.


Ok well, no woman anywhere has any obligation to do what you are saying...so I guess we will just have to disagree. Because I feel the man should just leave her if she doesn't want to have sex with him. I don't think she should just do it anyway. Though any wives who choose for themselves to do it anyway, I'm behind their choice.

Keep in mind though that I know many wives who wish their husbands would put out, and there ain't nothing those wives can do about it, either.


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> The reality is that not all people are decent.
> 
> Philosophy is a tool. In the right hands, a tool can be used to build something great. In the wrong hands, it can be used to destroy something great. The tool itself is not inherently good or evil; judgment can only be rendered upon the actions of the person wielding it.
> 
> I don't look down upon women who use feminism in a constructive way. I find that to be a good thing. Same with red pill men. But some women and men use their philosophies in a destructive way as well. I don't attack the philosophy; I attack the person wielding it.
> 
> *Your threads judge the philosophy by the actions of those who wield it negatively, while completely overlooking those who wield it positively. Your conviction is that red pillism cannot ever be used positively. I disagree, simply because I am living proof to the contrary. Rather than accept that, you are trying to create a situation by which you can force me into your box. The bottom line is you can't fit a square peg into a round hole*.
> 
> Again, people lie across a spectrum. It is not binary. Until you grasp that concept, you will not be able to separate men who use red pill to tear down women from those who use it to uplift themselves.
> 
> I do not believe the red pill is a holy grail. It is simply a tool...nothing more.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


As to the bolded part....no, you see, I finally just now got it. You think you understand MY philosophy, but up until now I did not realize we were talking about an entire philosophical belief system. Because no man has said it quite this way before when I've been talking about it at TAM.

I understand it now finally, and it is what I assumed it was at first....but what people at TAM told me it was not.

Red pill = men's answer to feminism.

It is a philosophy.

It is not marriage advice.

I get it now.

You are right, not all people are decent. (Nothing is implied about you here, I am just repeating you). Rest assured, I am not trying to cram you into a box you don't fit in. I am grateful to you for saying what I've been needing to hear.

Red pill is not relationship advice. It is a philosophy, and a system for some men to live by, and an ideal for some. I get it. And actually, that's what I thought it was at first....but then people yelled at me "no, it is SCIENCE!!!!!" So I went and read up on this "science" and found only some paltry college kids studies, nothing large scale, all loosely pulled together by one certain group of people....nothing but some theories have been presented. Nothing compelling. So many things that red pill guys said were a thing, are not in fact, a thing. If they were a thing, there would be so much more than one college kid study. It would be clear and obvious and quantifiable if these things were really things. But nope, nothing like that out there. So I'm scratching my head about this because for this being supposedly SCIENCE, there sure isn't much science behind it.

Then I was told that it doesn't matter that it isn't science, it is still true and works in relationships. So I say "well if MMSL is actually a marriage book, why is there nothing about love in it and why is it attempting to stir up men's contempt for women?" And red pill guys say "because it works it is ok that MMSL stirs up our contempt for women, some men need that".

At this time, I'm still buying that this is about relationships.

So I keep pushing on that door. How can a relationship book be good for people if it is so hateful toward one gender, isn't that what you guys are all against?

Then I keep having feminism thrown in my face. Because feminism we should be able to call women chubby screechtards.

OK....now we are getting somewhere.

I get it finally.

Red pill is the backlash. It isn't science and it isn't relationship advice. It is the backlash. I am glad I get it.

I am glad to gain some rounded out understanding tonight.


----------



## OnTheFly

Faithful Wife said:


> It is not marriage advice.


Aspects of it are, my experience bears witness to it.



Faithful Wife said:


> I get it now.


Honestly, I don't think you do. Your posts in the nearly 300 pages from this thread and the red pill thread show it. After all this time, if your conclusion is merely that the red pill is a backlash, you need to keep learning.


----------



## Colonel Angus

You seemed stressed Mrs FW. Would you like a cup of hot cocoa?


----------



## Faithful Wife

On the fly.....No, what I "get" is my piece in all of this. And I get why there has been a disconnect.

I am learning all the time, though.

Probably not quite in the way you think.

I hope to spread some learning back to some of you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Colonel Angus said:


> You seemed stressed Mrs FW. Would you like a cup of hot cocoa?


Why thank you, Colonel Angus!

(slurps cocoa)

Hey....wait a minute....are you trying to GAME me or something? 

Oh well, I still want the cocoa.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> As to the bolded part....no, you see, I finally just now got it. You think you understand MY philosophy, but up until now I did not realize we were talking about an entire philosophical belief system. Because no man has said it quite this way before when I've been talking about it at TAM.
> 
> I understand it now finally, and it is what I assumed it was at first....but what people at TAM told me it was not.
> 
> Red pill = men's answer to feminism.
> 
> It is a philosophy.
> 
> It is not marriage advice.
> 
> I get it now.
> 
> You are right, not all people are decent. (Nothing is implied about you here, I am just repeating you). Rest assured, I am not trying to cram you into a box you don't fit in. I am grateful to you for saying what I've been needing to hear.
> 
> Red pill is not relationship advice. It is a philosophy, and a system for some men to live by, and an ideal for some. I get it. And actually, that's what I thought it was at first....but then people yelled at me "no, it is SCIENCE!!!!!" So I went and read up on this "science" and found only some paltry college kids studies, nothing large scale, all loosely pulled together by one certain group of people....nothing but some theories have been presented. Nothing compelling. So many things that red pill guys said were a thing, are not in fact, a thing. If they were a thing, there would be so much more than one college kid study. It would be clear and obvious and quantifiable if these things were really things. But nope, nothing like that out there. So I'm scratching my head about this because for this being supposedly SCIENCE, there sure isn't much science behind it.
> 
> Then I was told that it doesn't matter that it isn't science, it is still true and works in relationships. So I say "well if MMSL is actually a marriage book, why is there nothing about love in it and why is it attempting to stir up men's contempt for women?" And red pill guys say "because it works it is ok that MMSL stirs up our contempt for women, some men need that".
> 
> At this time, I'm still buying that this is about relationships.
> 
> So I keep pushing on that door. How can a relationship book be good for people if it is so hateful toward one gender, isn't that what you guys are all against?
> 
> Then I keep having feminism thrown in my face. Because feminism we should be able to call women chubby screechtards.
> 
> OK....now we are getting somewhere.
> 
> I get it finally.
> 
> Red pill is the backlash. It isn't science and it isn't relationship advice. It is the backlash. I am glad I get it.
> 
> I am glad to gain some rounded out understanding tonight.


This is a great post.

I wouldn't call it science, no. I would definitely call it a philosophy. I think some ardent red pill men try to find a scientific basis to justify their beliefs because they don't want to admit it's metaphysical, but isn't every mode of thought metaphysical? I'm all for science, but even my belief that science is better than faith has a degree of metaphysicality to it. I can point to all of the benefits science and technology have given us, but I'm forced to admit the elation I feel when looking at awe inspiring photos taken by the Hubble space telescope is based entirely upon metaphysical philosophy. Sure, they're aesthetically beautiful in their own right, but to me...there's just MORE to it than that. It makes me feel insignificant and precious all at the same time.

Metaphysical, baby.

This might be red pill heresy (I'm honestly not sure), but I've never thought of it as science or relationship advice. Feminism isn't science or relationship advice for women...it's a philosophy. A way of life. A mode of thinking.

Red pill is the very same, but for men. At least, that's how I view it.

I think some red pillers play the science card to give it more credence, and to make it harder to argue against. I find that to be lazy thinking, because it's easier to justify science than an idea. But as much as I love science, I see nothing scientific about it. It's an idea, and all ideas should be able to stand up to scrutiny. Ideas should be discussed, debated, and fully fleshed out.

Again, this is just how I see it. I can't speak for other red pill men. But as far as I'm concerned, your initial feeling that it was a philosophy was dead on accurate.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thanks, tech.


----------



## toolforgrowth

OnTheFly said:


> Aspects of it are, my experience bears witness to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don't think you do. Your posts in the nearly 300 pages from this thread and the red pill thread show it. After all this time, if your conclusion is merely that the red pill is a backlash, you need to keep learning.


I think the philosophy can be applicable to certain men in a certain type of marriage. But it's definitely a philosophy. The statement "keep your man's stomach full and balls empty" could be considered relationship advice for women, but no one can deny it's a philosophical statement. The reason why is because not all women subscribe to it, because they have different ideas as to what a woman's role in a relationship is. As such, they live their life by a different philosophical model. That model may specifically apply to relationships, but it's a philosophy nonetheless.

Red pill is definitely backlash. It's a direct response to the gynocentric society in which we live today. The idea is to elevate men to the same social status as women, and to teach men they have the same value as women in relationships as well. Fathers are equal to mothers. Husbands are equal to wives. While there is scientific evidence available that demonstrates a father's influence is just as important as a mother's, to say husbands have equal value to wives is purely metaphysical and philosophical. It had no scientific basis whatsoever; it's merely a reflection of the values our society has.

I see red pill as a means to effectively change our society's value system in order to give men equal status. I don't see it as a means of getting into a woman's panties. Some men do see it that way, and use it as such. But I think it's a perversion of what the red pill is supposed to stand for.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm sorry you guys feel that you are lower class citizens than women. That must suck. (this is not sarcasm)


----------



## Marduk

toolforgrowth said:


> I think the philosophy can be applicable to certain men in a certain type of marriage. But it's definitely a philosophy. The statement "keep your man's stomach full and balls empty" could be considered relationship advice for women, but no one can deny it's a philosophical statement. The reason why is because not all women subscribe to it, because they have different ideas as to what a woman's role in a relationship is. As such, they live their life by a different philosophical model. That model may specifically apply to relationships, but it's a philosophy nonetheless.
> 
> Red pill is definitely backlash. It's a direct response to the gynocentric society in which we live today. The idea is to elevate men to the same social status as women, and to teach men they have the same value as women in relationships as well. Fathers are equal to mothers. Husbands are equal to wives. While there is scientific evidence available that demonstrates a father's influence is just as important as a mother's, to say husbands have equal value to wives is purely metaphysical and philosophical. It had no scientific basis whatsoever; it's merely a reflection of the values our society has.
> 
> I see red pill as a means to effectively change our society's value system in order to give men equal status. I don't see it as a means of getting into a woman's panties. Some men do see it that way, and use it as such. But I think it's a perversion of what the red pill is supposed to stand for.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Actually, I think the red pill is an artefact of the post-industrial romantic revolution. Valentine's day, the perfect gentleman, the rise of the diamond industry, and marrying for love.

It's created a social construct of 'the perfect man' that is somehow simultaneously sensitive and strong, caring and cunning, ambitious and artful. All these things and more wrapped up into one.

And many guys, like me, fall into this muddled thinking that when you get married, your job is to provide, parent your children, and be a good guy. And it is -- just don't think that that necessarly guarantees lighting her fire forever. A ring does not mean a turned on wife for the rest of her life.

The pick up artist stuff is merely guys trying to get laid. Who rejected the romanticized notion, created a framework, and just went for it. Because they weren't getting women's sexual attention, and wanted it.

There's a common theme to both -- a disempowered man.

And what better way to 'explain' his disempowerment than blaming the rise of the post-modern feminist? 

How many times has that guy felt like he heard he should push down his sexuality, his aggressive impulses, his thrill of the chase?

Radical feminists are to feminism what the extreme red pill head cases are to guys that encourage other guys to stand up for themselves.

I don't think it's a backlash against feminism. I think it's an easy way to explain why they feel powerless. Just like I did. I was angry at feminists, too. Now I'm not, because I realize that the radical feminist element is as rejected by most women as is the radical red pill element is by men.

It's just a convenient target.


----------



## Colonel Angus

Faithful Wife said:


> Why thank you, Colonel Angus!
> 
> (slurps cocoa)
> 
> Hey....wait a minute....are you trying to GAME me or something?


Oh heaven forbid dear lady no, no, no. Colonel Angus never "game"'s a married lady. I am a true gentlemen who values personal honor and integrity. Believe me when I say to you that the bottom of my boot has provided swift justice to countless rakes trying to entice and charm married ladies. Though I must admit that lately my aim has not been what it was in my prime and my boot has missed the target . Your poor, humble servant has landed on his posterior.



> Oh well, I still want the cocoa.


Not to worry, I will fill your cup once more.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I hope you're staying for dinner, Colonel Angus.


----------



## toolforgrowth

marduk said:


> Actually, I think the red pill is an artefact of the post-industrial romantic revolution. Valentine's day, the perfect gentleman, the rise of the diamond industry, and marrying for love.
> 
> It's created a social construct of 'the perfect man' that is somehow simultaneously sensitive and strong, caring and cunning, ambitious and artful. All these things and more wrapped up into one.
> 
> And many guys, like me, fall into this muddled thinking that when you get married, your job is to provide, parent your children, and be a good guy. And it is -- just don't think that that necessarly guarantees lighting her fire forever. A ring does not mean a turned on wife for the rest of her life.
> 
> The pick up artist stuff is merely guys trying to get laid. Who rejected the romanticized notion, created a framework, and just went for it. Because they weren't getting women's sexual attention, and wanted it.
> 
> There's a common theme to both -- a disempowered man.
> 
> And what better way to 'explain' his disempowerment than blaming the rise of the post-modern feminist?
> 
> How many times has that guy felt like he heard he should push down his sexuality, his aggressive impulses, his thrill of the chase?
> 
> Radical feminists are to feminism what the extreme red pill head cases are to guys that encourage other guys to stand up for themselves.
> 
> I don't think it's a backlash against feminism. I think it's an easy way to explain why they feel powerless. Just like I did. I was angry at feminists, too. Now I'm not, because I realize that the radical feminist element is as rejected by most women as is the radical red pill element is by men.
> 
> It's just a convenient target.


Excellent assessment.

"Backlash" is not the word I should have chosen. Perhaps "response" would have been better.

I think men are looking at the massive success the feminist model has had, and they're trying to emulate it. Women can be sexually liberated because feminism. Men can be sexually liberated because red pill. And red pillers behave as though feminism is a target, when really they're using as a justification. "If you can do it, so can I".

I can't say I can argue against that very much, even if I do find it distasteful.
_Posted via Mobile Device_

ETA: What I find distasteful are PUA's, not the MRA as an aggregate. I would definitely call myself an MRA. I would never call myself a PUA, and have never had a desire to subscribe to that model.

But I do think it's essential for men to adopt the male version of the feminist model. Men haven't had an equivalent philosophy before. It's high time we got one.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well sh*t, there goes my plan of world domination where I was going to dress all the men up like ponies and then have them haul me around in a chariot.

Dammit!

How dare you take my dream away!?!!!


----------



## Marduk

I think it's a backlash against this holdover into modern times from fuedal europe:

"Behaviorally, the manner in which a knight was to regard himself towards a lady, was with a transcendence of premeditated thought; his virtue ingrained within his character. A chevalier was to conduct himself always graciously, bestowing upon her the utmost courtesy and attentiveness. He was to echo shades of this to all women, regardless of class, age, or status.[13] Over time, the concept of chivalry and the notion of the courtly gentleman became synonymous with the ideal of how love and romance should exist between the sexes. Through the timeless popularization in art and literature of tales of knights and princesses, kings and queens, a formative and long standing (sub)consciousness helped to shape relationships between men and women."
Romance (love) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's an ideal. Itself a romanticized notion. Locks men (and women) into a cultural norm...

And you can't really blame womankind for a 12th century notion of the ideal male that was thought up and popularized by males. Hell, even in modern times, the 'knight in shining armour' was re-invigorated by Walt Disney.

That denies in both men and woman the fact that all that sounds like a pretty raw deal. 

Look at how f'd up romantic ideals are in Japan -- they went directly from feudal to industrial. Have you ever dated a Japanease girl?

That's an emotional minefield.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> Well sh*t, there goes my plan of world domination where I was going to dress all the men up like ponies and then have them haul me around in a chariot.
> 
> Dammit!
> 
> How dare you take my dream away!?!!!


Don't worry. I shattered my xWW's dreams too. Why do you think she cheated on me?? Lol
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Colonel Angus

Faithful Wife said:


> I hope you're staying for dinner, Colonel Angus.


It would be my pleasure dear lady. If I overstay my welcome, just tap me on the head.


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> Don't worry. I shattered my xWW's dreams too. Why do you think she cheated on me?? Lol
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Obvi because you did not put on your pony suit and pull the chariot.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Colonel Angus said:


> It would be my pleasure dear lady. If I overstay my welcome, just tap me on the head.


In my house we just stop filling your cup, sir. 

Now are you blue pill or red pill, and don't lie, as we have ways of knowing.


----------



## Wolf1974

Ok you asked me over FW so I read the opening post. Blue Pill being bad advice being given to men about women and relationships. 

Probably the most prolific advice I found untrue it this "happy wife happy life nonsense". In the Midwest, where I grew up, it is the single most common advice given from father to sons on how to make a marriage work. It goes beyond simple "just doing nice things" for your spouse. This loosely translates into do whatever it takes to make your wife happy, even at your own expense, and if you do she may throw so of that happiness back at you. Never seen it work out that way and certainly didn't for me.

If I had sons I would never tell them this. I would tell them treat lovingly and kindly but always make sure that is equally being returned


----------



## TiggyBlue

Personal said:


> Since I got no advice from anyone I had to find my own way.


yh I'm kind of glad I wasn't given relationship advice.


----------



## Brigit

FrenchFry said:


> They loved some aspects of red-pill for sure though. Hypergamy, women are stupid, vapid *****s, women are simple and easy to manipulate.


Sometimes women are simple and sometimes they shoot their husbands. 

(Black and white thinking never works.)


----------



## jld

Personal said:


> Since I got no advice from anyone I had to find my own way.


Totally agree. I just knew I was going to be totally honest. If it were too much for him, we would know we were not meant to be together.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> On this thread though, I'd love to hear what you (anyone) considers bad relationship advice. For instance, some women were told when young to act stupid around men, because "men don't like it when you are smarter than them". Stuff like that is crappy advice, period.


I was never given relationship advice. I think my parents tried to show respect by letting me live and learn for myself. The problem is we aren't supposed to learn everything on our own. Parents who have made mistakes tend to keep quite rather than talk to their kids IMO. Maybe they feel hypocritical giving advice. Relationship books should remind parents to pass on what they've learned as sincere and humble advice to their grown and married kids.


----------



## Colonel Angus

Faithful Wife said:


> In my house we just stop filling your cup, sir.
> 
> Now are you blue pill or red pill, and don't lie, as we have ways of knowing.


Oh dear. I am not sure it would be proper to discuss these pills in public. 

But let's just say that the "blue pill" sent me to the hospital for what the good doctors said it was a mild form of priapism.

Blue pill? Never again dear lady, never again.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

marduk said:


> Actually, I think the red pill is an artefact of the post-industrial romantic revolution. Valentine's day, the perfect gentleman, the rise of the diamond industry, and *marrying for love*.
> 
> *It's created a social construct of 'the perfect man' that is somehow simultaneously sensitive and strong, caring and cunning, ambitious and artful. All these things and more wrapped up into one.
> *
> And many guys, like me, fall into this muddled thinking that when you get married, your job is to provide, parent your children, and be a good guy. And it is -- just don't think that that necessarly guarantees lighting her fire forever. A ring does not mean a turned on wife for the rest of her life.


 I just want to interject something.. I find it pretty sad if this model is going by the wayside. .. that THIS is now dinosaur thinking.... I am getting older so maybe I no longer count ....but I would think our daughter would want the same in a man ...the model she has seen in her father... and I know we have raised our sons  this way...

These are our tenants ....what we feel being a MAN is all about..and a Good Father.. that marriage is something important.. loving your family....when a man has ALL THIS.. he will rise above the majority, she will RESPECT him.. how could she not!....with *respect *comes *admiration *. with all that should come GOOD Loving.. and good sex.. it just goes hand in hand.. that makes sense to me.. 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-c...thy-praise-honor-minus-alpha-beta-debate.html


----------



## Marduk

SimplyAmorous said:


> I just want to interject something.. I find it pretty sad if this model is going by the wayside. .. that THIS is now dinosaur thinking.... I am getting older so maybe I no longer count ....but I would think our daughter would want the same in a man ...the model she has seen in her father... and I know we have raised our sons  this way...
> 
> These are our tenants ....what we feel being a MAN is all about..and a Good Father.. that marriage is something important.. loving your family....when a man has ALL THIS.. he will rise above the majority, she will RESPECT him.. how could she not!....with *respect *comes *admiration *. with all that should come GOOD Loving.. and good sex.. it just goes hand in hand.. that makes sense to me..
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-c...thy-praise-honor-minus-alpha-beta-debate.html


I'm not saying it's good or bad as an ideal.

Just that it's an artificially created ideal. A 12th century idea trying to find it's home in the modern world. It's why some women want chivalry and equality together. While some others think chivalry is an insult. 

Taken too far, a chivalrous man is uncomfortably close to a 'nice guy' that for some women, is going to show up as passive-aggressiveness or weakness or stuff like that. And the guy is locked into it, too.

And because it's artificial, such things are very difficult to attain, maintain, and don't always intersect with our sexual response.

They may set it up as possibility. But it doesn't mean it's enough to keep the home fires burning.

I try to live by a similar, though different set of ideals. Those ideas guide my life and make me do certain things even though they are uncomfortable for me. But it's artificial, and a choice. That would be uncomfortable or distasteful for some.

And please, please don't forget that the chivalrous ideal in medieval times was reserved for platonic love of women, not sexual love of women. It was a decidedly non-sexual ideal, that pretty quickly devolved into nonsense -- read Pope's "The Rape of the Lock" for what I read as mocking the whole notion... 300 years ago.

Yet we maintain it. Like the protestant work ethic. Even when it's flawed, or outright broken for some.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> It's why some women want chivalry and equality together. While some others think chivalry is an insult.


I have no idea why a woman would find chivalry insulting. In fact, if a man doesn't hold a door open for me I find him low class.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Brigit said:


> I have no idea why a woman would find chivalry insulting. In fact, if a man doesn't hold a door open for me I find him low class.


Our expectations are born out of our adopted philosophy. Some interpret feminism to mean that it's a man's duty to be chivalrous to her. Others interpret it to mean that they are capable of opening doors themselves. It's all open to interpretation of the individual in question.

This illustrates the confusion that men face in dating today. If I hold the door for her, will she believe I don't think she's capable? If I don't open for her, will she interpret that as I'm low class?

They're very difficult waters to navigate in today's society. I don't blame any man for choosing to not navigate them all together, or at least to navigate them on his own terms. Often, the rewards aren't worth the effort.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

toolforgrowth said:


> Our expectations are born out of our adopted philosophy. Some interpret feminism to mean that it's a man's duty to be chivalrous to her. Others interpret it to mean that they are capable of opening doors themselves. It's all open to interpretation of the individual in question.
> 
> This illustrates the confusion that men face in dating today. If I hold the door for her, will she believe I don't think she's capable? If I don't open for her, will she interpret that as I'm low class?
> 
> They're very difficult waters to navigate in today's society. I don't blame any man for choosing to not navigate them all together, or at least to navigate them on his own terms. Often, the rewards aren't worth the effort.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Why not just be yourself and do what you think best?


----------



## toolforgrowth

jld said:


> Why not just be yourself and do what you think best?


That's exactly what I do. I'm chivalrous by nature, so that's who I choose to be. My point is that when women say that, and we do exactly that, our actions can be negatively interpreted even though our intentions are honorable. If I hold the door open out of respect, one type of feminist will interpret that as I think she's weak, when nothing could be further from the truth. If I don't hold the door, another type of feminist will interpret that as I'm low class, when I'm merely trying to respect that she's just as much of a capable human being as I am.

In addition, if a man is being himself and that is to be a PUA, he's looked down upon. While I disagree with that philosophy, I don't attack men who adopt that model, if they feel that's what's best for them.

I do what I choose and hope for the best. But the fact that feminism can be interpreted to mean opposing modes of thought depending upon the specific female's chosen interpretation makes it more difficult. That's not a lamentation, merely an observation.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Brigit

toolforgrowth said:


> Our expectations are born out of our adopted philosophy. Some interpret feminism to mean that it's a man's duty to be chivalrous to her. Others interpret it to mean that they are capable of opening doors themselves. It's all open to interpretation of the individual in question.
> 
> This illustrates the confusion that men face in dating today. If I hold the door for her, will she believe I don't think she's capable? If I don't open for her, will she interpret that as I'm low class?
> 
> They're very difficult waters to navigate in today's society. I don't blame any man for choosing to not navigate them all together, or at least to navigate them on his own terms. Often, the rewards aren't worth the effort.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That is so sad. Dating must be drag now. However, don't most people talk on the phone first before they go out on a date? I'd think you can get a pretty good idea what a person is like from what they disclose on just a few verbal interactions. In fact, don't people make it a point to let the other person know their MO? Subtle hints?


----------



## toolforgrowth

Brigit said:


> That is so sad. Dating must be drag now. However, don't most people talk on the phone first before they go out on a date? I'd think you can get a pretty good idea what a person is like from what they disclose on just a few verbal interactions. In fact, don't people make it a point to let the other person know their MO? Subtle hints?


Not necessarily. In this world of OLD, many people shoot a few messages back and forth and decide whether or not to meet. Most young people don't actually talk on the phone anymore. Personally, I detest talking on the phone, but that's because I worked in soul crushing call center jobs for years in my youth, and I've never shed my ultimate distaste for phone conversations.

As for hints, I think it depends on the man's intentions. If all he wants is sex, he'll probably play along to her perceived sensibilities just to get laid. A man seeking a relationship probably won't compromise as much since he's looking for a more compatible partner. I personally couldn't be with a woman who would be insulted if I opened doors for her. More power to her for her beliefs, and I wouldn't attack her for them, but I know that I'm a tad old fashioned by nature over that regard, and I couldn't "be myself" with her.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Brigit

toolforgrowth said:


> Not necessarily. In this world of OLD, many people shoot a few messages back and forth and decide whether or not to meet. Most young people don't actually talk on the phone anymore. Personally, I detest talking on the phone, but that's because I worked in soul crushing call center jobs for years in my youth, and I've never shed my ultimate distaste for phone conversations.
> 
> As for hints, I think it depends on the man's intentions. If all he wants is sex, he'll probably play along to her perceived sensibilities just to get laid. A man seeking a relationship probably won't compromise as much since he's looking for a more compatible partner. I personally couldn't be with a woman who would be insulted if I opened doors for her. More power to her for her beliefs, and I wouldn't attack her for them, but I know that I'm a tad old fashioned by nature over that regard, and I couldn't "be myself" with her.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sorry about your past work history. You shouldn't allow this to scare you away from the phone. I've never done OLD so I just have no idea what that is all about personally. I've taken pictures of my friend to post on Match.com and she had long conversations with potential dates. 

I don't know the ages of the women you're attempting to date either. Maybe girls in their 20's don't want to talk. IDK. If I was single again I'd make it a point to talk on the phone and then Skype prior to the date. I wouldn't want any surprises.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Brigit said:


> Sorry about your past work history. You shouldn't allow this to scare you away from the phone. I've never done OLD so I just have no idea what that is all about personally. I've taken pictures of my friend to post on Match.com and she had long conversations with potential dates.
> 
> I don't know the ages of the women you're attempting to date either. Maybe girls in their 20's don't want to talk. IDK. If I was single again I'd make it a point to talk on the phone and then Skype prior to the date. I wouldn't want any surprises.


Talking on the phone doesn't scare me, it's just not my personal preference. I much prefer texting. That's not too say that I never talk on the phone, I just don't particularly care for it. Texting is usually short and to the point. Phone conversations can get long and boring.

My GF sent me a message on Facebook, that's how she introduced herself to me (mutual friends told us about each other). We chatted here and there for a few days, then I asked her out to sushi, and we totally hit it off. Have been together ever since.

I personally detest OLD. Yeesh. Lol
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

toolforgrowth said:


> That's exactly what I do. I'm chivalrous by nature, so that's who I choose to be. My point is that when women say that, and we do exactly that, our actions can be negatively interpreted even though our intentions are honorable. If I hold the door open out of respect, one type of feminist will interpret that as I think she's weak, when nothing could be further from the truth. If I don't hold the door, another type of feminist will interpret that as I'm low class, when I'm merely trying to respect that she's just as much of a capable human being as I am.
> 
> In addition, if a man is being himself and that is to be a PUA, he's looked down upon. While I disagree with that philosophy, I don't attack men who adopt that model, if they feel that's what's best for them.
> 
> I do what I choose and hope for the best. But the fact that feminism can be interpreted to mean opposing modes of thought depending upon the specific female's chosen interpretation makes it more difficult. That's not a lamentation, merely an observation.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well, I think there is a world of difference between a gentleman and a PUA.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> I have no idea why a woman would find chivalry insulting. In fact, if a man doesn't hold a door open for me I find him low class.


Chivalry Must Die: On Women's Expectations and Men's Obligations — Everyday Feminism


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Why not just be yourself and do what you think best?


You're missing the point jld.

If he plays by the rules of sexual sensitivity, he's trapped.

If he opens the door for her, she might be insulted if she's this brand of feminism.

If he doesn't, she might be insulted because he's expected to do it.

It creates a rift in one's mind. A no-win scenario, and one of the ways out of it is to blame feminism.

We are in an interstitial time: between two cultural norms. We haven't made our mind up yet what the 'norm' is to be. Hence, anxiety, fear... and anger.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Chivalry Must Die: On Women's Expectations and Men's Obligations — Everyday Feminism


The person who wrote that article has way too much time on her hands.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> You're missing the point jld.
> 
> If he plays by the rules of sexual sensitivity, he's trapped.
> 
> If he opens the door for her, she might be insulted if she's this brand of feminism.
> 
> If he doesn't, she might be insulted because he's expected to do it.
> 
> It creates a rift in one's mind. A no-win scenario, and one of the ways out of it is to blame feminism.
> 
> We are in an interstitial time: between two cultural norms. We haven't made our mind up yet what the 'norm' is to be. Hence, anxiety, fear... and anger.


He has a GF and states his relationship is wonderful so I guess he muddled through the nonsense.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

toolforgrowth said:


> As for hints, I think it depends on the man's intentions. If all he wants is sex, he'll probably play along to her perceived sensibilities just to get laid. A man seeking a relationship probably won't compromise as much since he's looking for a more compatible partner. *I personally couldn't be with a woman who would be insulted if I opened doors for her. More power to her for her beliefs, and I wouldn't attack her for them, but I know that I'm a tad old fashioned by nature over that regard, and I couldn't "be myself" with her.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 I  when I read another poster here is a bit old fashioned .... I did a thread on Chivalry not too long ago.. 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...r-modern-world-your-thoughts-experiences.html...so you probably fit all of these - I laid out in my opening post...

From the responses given... it's wrong to be chivalrous.. this needs to be destroyed due to it's orgins.... it has to be for both sexes (equally of course) and it's called "BEING NICE" or considerate.. nothing more..


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> He has a GF and states his relationship is wonderful so I guess he muddled through the nonsense.


Oh, we all muddle our way through.

My point is it can cause anxiety.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Brigit said:


> He has a GF and states his relationship is wonderful so I guess he muddled through the nonsense.


Only after a two year hiatus on all dating. I had a FWB during that time and a couple hook ups, but I refused to get serious. I wasn't a PUA, but neither was I looking for commitment. I flat out said it was going to take a very special lady to make me want to give up my single status.

I'm very fortunate in that I met a really great lady. She's independent and doesn't need me, per se, but she is also appreciative when I hold doors for her and pay her way on dates. She's really the best of both worlds.

I better not get started, or else I'll start gushing about her, and that'll get pretty gross pretty quick. Lol

My point is that I chose not to muddle. I chose to make my life awesome and not navigate through the mud. By doing so, I naturally attracted a like-minded woman who is very compatible with my sensibilities.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Oh, we all muddle our way through.
> 
> My point is it can cause anxiety.


Sure. Nothing is perfect.


----------



## toolforgrowth

SimplyAmorous said:


> I  when I read another poster here is a bit old fashioned .... I did a thread on Chivalry not too long ago..
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...r-modern-world-your-thoughts-experiences.html...so you probably fit all of these - I laid out in my opening post...
> 
> From the responses given... it's wrong to be chivalrous.. this needs to be destroyed due to it's orgins.... it has to be for both sexes (equally of course) and it's called "BEING NICE" or considerate.. nothing more..


Chivalry doesn't have to be a one way street. My GF does plenty of sweet things for me. I don't do it out of a societal expectation; I do it because it's a way for me to show my affection. It pleases me to demonstrate it through actions such as those.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Brigit

toolforgrowth said:


> Only after a two year hiatus on all dating. I had a FWB during that time and a couple hook ups, but I refused to get serious. I wasn't a PUA, but neither was I looking for commitment. I flat out said it was going to take a very special lady to make me want to give up my single status.
> 
> I'm very fortunate in that I met a really great lady. She's independent and doesn't need me, per se, but she is also appreciative when I hold doors for her and pay her way on dates. She's really the best of both worlds.
> 
> I better not get started, or else I'll start gushing about her, and that'll get pretty gross pretty quick. Lol
> 
> My point is that I chose not to muddle. I chose to make my life awesome and not navigate through the mud. By doing so, I naturally attracted a like-minded woman who is very compatible with my sensibilities.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Awww  You can gush. You've earned it!


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> Sure. Nothing is perfect.


That anxiety -- not understanding your role, mixed with feeling like a failure with women, topped off with percieving yourself as powerless...

Red pill.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> That anxiety -- not understanding your role, mixed with feeling like a failure with women, topped off with percieving yourself as powerless...
> 
> Red pill.


The "Red Pill" makes you feel powerful?


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> The "Red Pill" makes you feel powerful?


It can. It really, really can.

When you go from getting 'meh' attention from your wife and zero attention from other women, to having your wife fixated on you sexually and other women hitting on you all the time...

You go from feeling sexually powerless to powerful, sure. 

It's addictive.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> It can. It really, really can.
> 
> When you go from getting 'meh' attention from your wife and zero attention from other women, to having your wife fixated on you sexually and other women hitting on you all the time...
> 
> You go from feeling sexually powerless to powerful, sure.
> 
> It's addictive.


I *do* understand the addictive quality of receiving sexual attention from the opposite sex that you find attractive. But that is because I really like men. I like their deep voices and when they tower over me and their scent. I've always liked men. 

What I've read here about the Red Pill stuff and AK's propaganda is not that at all. In fact, AK does seem to _hate_ women with a passion. 

I wouldn't be surprised if one day he does a talk show and reveals that he's actually gay.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> I *do* understand the addictive quality of receiving sexual attention from the opposite sex that you find attractive. But that is because I really like men. I like their deep voices and when they tower over me and their scent. I've always liked men.
> 
> What I've read here about the Red Pill stuff and AK's propaganda is not that at all. In fact, AK does seem to _hate_ women with a passion.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if one day he does a talk show and reveals that he's actually gay.


I don't think he hates women. I think he loves them.

They're his #1 source for income -- his 'coaching' clientele is mainly women. And his recent work does a lot to turn his back on the guys that were looking for support to begin with.

I think he's just convinced that he's right. As in, smarter.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> It creates a rift in one's mind. A no-win scenario, and one of the ways out of it is to blame feminism.
> 
> We are in an interstitial time: between two cultural norms. We haven't made our mind up yet what the 'norm' is to be. Hence, anxiety, fear... and anger.


Oh, dear! That's a bit absurd isn't it? Why not just accept that you can't please everyone? You're (anyone) is doomed to feeling powerless if they try to be everything to everyone, no matter the cultural norms.

And, just as jld suggested, be yourself and do what's best for you.


----------



## Muse1976

FrenchFry said:


> Eliot Rodgers. Tough to act like extremism is more dangerous on one side or another when people have actually been killed.


You are absolutely right. And for your consideration I respectfully submit this as an 3xample as well. 

Valerie Jean Solanas

"On June 3, 1968, she sought out Girodias, who was gone for the weekend. She then went to The Factory, where she found Warhol. She shot at Warhol three times, with the first two shots missing and the final wounding Warhol. She also shot art critic Mario Amaya, and attempted to shoot Warhol's manager, Fred Hughes, point blank, but the gun jammed. Solanas then turned herself in to the police. She was charged with attempted murder, assault, and illegal possession of a gun. "

Valerie Solanas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Oh, dear! That's a bit absurd isn't it? Why not just accept that you can't please everyone? You're (anyone) is doomed to feeling powerless if they try to be everything to everyone, no matter the cultural norms.
> 
> And, just as jld suggested, be yourself and do what's best for you.


Oh, I have no angst about it whatsoever. I hold the door for her.

How else am I going to check out her ass?


----------



## sidney2718

Faithful Wife said:


> Would you walk through the door if a woman was holding it or go up and hold it open yourself and let her walk through?
> 
> I have tried holding the door for men who literally refuse to go through it before I do.


Some of us were brought up in the dark ages and have had that message so firmly burned into us by our mothers that there is no hope for it.

Same with the message about leaving the toilet seat down.


----------



## toolforgrowth

marduk said:


> Oh, I have no angst about it whatsoever. I hold the door for her.
> 
> How else am I going to check out her ass?


Or give it a loving squeeze as she goes by? There are benefits for men too. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

I personally find the red pill amusing. It is interesting that it is seen as a response to feminism.

A response to women being able to earn a living ...

A response to women gaining some independence and not having to rely on getting a good husband ...

This would ruffle some men's feathers, after all, all their grandfathers had to do was work and bring home the bacon and not beat his wife to be considered a good husband worthy of a lifetime of love and care from the wife.

Now, times have changed and women are expecting more than the bare necessities of the past. Some men seem to be out of sorts about this, this muddled the playing field for them. Enter the red pill. " we need to save the men who are expected to do more in marriage". Poor men.

Red pill men are the ones who want to return things back to the way they used to be. Because if the wife was happy and dispensing sex on a regular basis the dude would not be seeking it in the first place. This is what it is based on, not relationship saving advice but sex saving advice.

I constantly state that if the sex is good in a relationship despite everything else the man would be happy. The wife can complain about whatever, it is just white noise to him. He wants the sex, children taken care of and a meal on the table.

I thank god that not all men are like this, some men actually want companionship with women beyond sex and maid service.


----------



## Buddy400

sidney2718 said:


> Some of us were brought up in the dark ages and have had that message so firmly burned into us by our mothers that there is no hope for it.
> 
> Same with the message about leaving the toilet seat down.


In our house the males leave the toilet seat up. 

Resist the feminarchy!


----------



## Brigit

Buddy400 said:


> In our house the males leave the toilet seat up.
> 
> Resist the feminarchy!


Now that is just insane. The lid is there to cover the water don't you know?

My husband knows nothing of a Red Pill. He is painting our laundry room white and has agreed to put in a pink accent wall. 

....But then again I do all the laundry and he's painting it for me so I have a pretty room to do the laundry in so...

IDK...I'm just happy he's painting the room.


----------



## Holland

Buddy400 said:


> In our house the males leave the toilet seat up.
> 
> Resist the feminarchy!


Sounds very passive aggressive.


----------



## Muse1976

techmom said:


> I personally find the red pill amusing. It is interesting that it is seen as a response to feminism.
> 
> *By whom is it seen as a response to feminism? The people who oppose it? So what exactly do you call men going their own way? Because my impression of that is "a person does not need another person in their life to make them happy." Personally, I have no skin in this game I'm strictly playing devil's advocate here. *
> 
> A response to women being able to earn a living ...
> 
> A response to women gaining some independence and not having to rely on getting a good husband ...
> 
> *"Well ya know, if us men weren't holding you all down then life would be so much easier." Sorry, but I fully believe a woman should work. It does my heart good on the rare occasion that I see a woman out on a road construction crew. I fully believe in equality. That means that they get to partake in the smelly manual labor jobs too. Not to mention, that's usually where the money is. Equal opportunity not equality of outcome. *
> 
> This would ruffle some men's feathers, after all, all their grandfathers had to do was work and bring home the bacon and not beat his wife to be considered a good husband worthy of a lifetime of love and care from the wife.
> 
> Now, times have changed and women are expecting more than the bare necessities of the past. Some men seem to be out of sorts about this, this muddled the playing field for them. Enter the red pill. " we need to save the men who are expected to do more in marriage". Poor men.
> 
> *"So, seeing as you are the official spokeswoman for all women, pray tell, what is it that women want? That's fine, I can wait for the answer. And by the way, marriage is not a requirement in this day and age, but you better believe that each state a local government sure want to stick their nose into personal situations by way of common law marriage. In some places its scary the amount of interference there is.*
> 
> Red pill men are the ones who want to return things back to the way they used to be. Because if the wife was happy and dispensing sex on a regular basis the dude would not be seeking it in the first place. This is what it is based on, not relationship saving advice but sex saving advice.
> 
> *Strictly your opinion. *
> 
> I constantly state that if the sex is good in a relationship despite everything else the man would be happy. The wife can complain about whatever, it is just white noise to him. He wants the sex, children taken care of and a meal on the table.
> 
> *Ah, I see. "A full belly and empty balls" Thanks for being insulting. 1.The sex is not an end all be all, if it's that great to start with. 2.She is the one that wanted the children in 7 out of 10 situations, maybe even higher, but "by [email protected] it's all his fault for getting me pregnant." 3. I make a far better [email protected] sandwich than she does. *
> 
> I thank god that not all men are like this, some men actually want companionship with women beyond sex and maid service.


Thanks for more stereotyping and degrading. It's much appreciated.


----------



## Muse1976

Brigit said:


> Now that is just insane. The lid is there to cover the water don't you know?


What's the point if as long as the toilet is clean? I mean, if it's clean then you're just covering water. :scratchhead:


----------



## techmom

Muse1976 said:


> Thanks for more stereotyping and degrading. It's much appreciated.


Thanks for demonstrating what type of red pill man I was taking about.:rofl:


----------



## ScrambledEggs

toolforgrowth said:


> This is a great post.
> 
> I wouldn't call it science, no. I would definitely call it a philosophy. I think some ardent red pill men try to find a scientific basis to justify their beliefs because they don't want to admit it's metaphysical, but isn't every mode of thought metaphysical? I'm all for science, but even my belief that science is better than faith has a degree of metaphysicality to it. I can point to all of the benefits science and technology have given us, but I'm forced to admit the elation I feel when looking at awe inspiring photos taken by the Hubble space telescope is based entirely upon metaphysical philosophy. Sure, they're aesthetically beautiful in their own right, but to me...there's just MORE to it than that. It makes me feel insignificant and precious all at the same time.
> 
> Metaphysical, baby.
> 
> This might be red pill heresy (I'm honestly not sure), but I've never thought of it as science or relationship advice. Feminism isn't science or relationship advice for women...it's a philosophy. A way of life. A mode of thinking.
> 
> Red pill is the very same, but for men. At least, that's how I view it.
> 
> I think some red pillers play the science card to give it more credence, and to make it harder to argue against. I find that to be lazy thinking, because it's easier to justify science than an idea. But as much as I love science, I see nothing scientific about it. It's an idea, and all ideas should be able to stand up to scrutiny. Ideas should be discussed, debated, and fully fleshed out.
> 
> Again, this is just how I see it. I can't speak for other red pill men. But as far as I'm concerned, your initial feeling that it was a philosophy was dead on accurate.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But if it is all Meta, and I tend to agree that it is, why not promote a more egalitarian relationship between the sexes? Something between Red Pill and 4th wave feminism. Why can't there be a third alliterative where people, regardless of sex, make their own truths by themselves and with each-other? 

That means respecting a women that wants to be strong and even a man that wants to be weak. RP seems to need to discredit men and women that want to break traditional roles suggesting that alternate forms of relationship are flimsy at best. Those not based on traditional roles are held in skepticism that the male and female are both losing out in the deal. 

This is one big mouthful but is the biggest ugliest thing about RP.


----------



## Holland

ScrambledEggs said:


> But if it is all Meta, and I tend to agree that it is, why not promote a more egalitarian relationship between the sexes? Something between Red Pill and 4th wave feminism. *Why can't there be a third alliterative where people, regardless of sex, make their own truths by themselves and with each-other? *
> 
> That means respecting a women that want to be strong and even a man that want to be weak. RP seems to need to discredit men and women that want to break transitional roles suggesting that alternate forms of relationship are flimsy at best. Those not based on traditional roles are held in skepticism that the male and female are both losing out in the deal.
> 
> This is one big mouthful is the biggest ugliest thing about RP.


Fortunately there is an alternative: those of us that simply get along, have great mutually satisfying lives, deep emotional and sexual connections. We respect our partners, do not game them, be our best for ourselves our partner and our children. We learn by our mistakes and communicate maturely with our partners as to how best nurture our relationship for the great good of all involved.

It is a simple formula but it would not appeal to many. Simply be a good, decent loving person and find a compatible partner that also shares the same goals and values. 

Like finds like it does not get simpler than that.


----------



## Muse1976

techmom said:


> Thanks for demonstrating what type of red pill man I was taking about.:rofl:


Sorry, not a red pill man. I don't buy that philosophy or idealology or what ever it is you want to call it. And for the record, I do find it just as distasteful as feminism. You have the same extremist nut jobs on both sides. 

I simply questioned all of the points presented in your post. Again, the same answer stands. Who made you spokeswoman for all women? It's not a personal attack. It's a simple question because of the stated goals of "independent women" in your post.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok well, no woman anywhere has any obligation to do what you are saying...so I guess we will just have to disagree. Because I feel the man should just leave her if she doesn't want to have sex with him. I don't think she should just do it anyway. Though any wives who choose for themselves to do it anyway, I'm behind their choice.
> 
> Keep in mind though that I know many wives who wish their husbands would put out, and there ain't nothing those wives can do about it, either.


Of course no one, woman or man, has any obligation to do what I say, other than if they agree to do so of their own free will. And while it is always possible to leave, that doesn't mean that leaving is the optimal solution in the situation under discussion, always assuming that the parties can come to a mutually acceptable solution that doesn't involve one person leaving.

And I have already said that I know the converse is true, that many wives are in the analogous position. I don't have any advice for them, not that they are asking for advice from me.


----------



## techmom

Muse1976 said:


> Sorry, not a red pill man. I don't buy that philosophy or idealology or what ever it is you want to call it. And for the record, I do find it just as distasteful as feminism. You have the same extremist nut jobs on both sides.
> 
> I simply questioned all of the points presented in your post. Again, the same answer stands. *Who made you spokeswoman for all women? *It's not a personal attack. It's a simple question because of the stated goals of "independent women" in your post.


There are women who are doing a great job of speaking for themselves. As far as I know, nobody made me a spokeswoman for women lol. Just stating my opinion like all others are doing on this thread.

Hope I didn't disturb you too much with my strong opinions, I will try to stay meek and lady like ....:rofl:


----------



## tech-novelist

Brigit said:


> I *do* understand the addictive quality of receiving sexual attention from the opposite sex that you find attractive. But that is because I really like men. I like their deep voices and when they tower over me and their scent. I've always liked men.
> 
> What I've read here about the Red Pill stuff and AK's propaganda is not that at all. In fact, AK does seem to _hate_ women with a passion.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if one day he does a talk show and reveals that he's actually gay.


What you've read here is not representative of AK's writing. I cannot imagine anyone with an open mind reading a representative sample of his blogging, or his books, and concluding that he hates women.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Thanks, tech.


You're welcome, but for what exactly?


----------



## Muse1976

techmom said:


> There are women who are doing a great job of speaking for themselves. As far as I know, nobody made me a spokeswoman for women lol. Just stating my opinion like all others are doing on this thread.
> 
> Hope I didn't disturb you too much with my strong opinions, I will try to stay meek and lady like ....:rofl:


OK. Simple enough. 

I noticed you didn't bother to spend time to bother responding to any of the other points. Of course that would require you to be less condescending. Lol :rofl:

You be what you want. It's no sweat off my back. Im not married to you.


----------



## Holland

Muse1976 said:


> Sorry, not a red pill man. I don't buy that philosophy or idealology or what ever it is you want to call it. *And for the record, I do find it just as distasteful as feminism. You have the same extremist nut jobs on both sides.
> *
> I simply questioned all of the points presented in your post. Again, the same answer stands. Who made you spokeswoman for all women? It's not a personal attack. It's a simple question because of the stated goals of "independent women" in your post.


Absolutely there are extremists in all parts of life. What I am not making the connect with though is RP being an answer or opposition to Feminism.

From wiki


> Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.[3]
> Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women's rights, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to work, to fair wages or equal pay, to own property, to education, to enter contracts, to have equal rights within marriage, and to have maternity leave. Feminists have also worked to promote bodily autonomy and integrity, and to protect women and girls from rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.[4]


I was raised by a mum with a great Feminist POV and the above definition is what I have always understood Feminism to be, about equality, bring women to a place of having equal rights as men.

Feminism is about equal rights as human, it is not about taking men down to the unequal rights standards women have had, it is about bringing women up to have equal standards with men. Rightly so, woman should have equal opportunity to employment, education, wages, voting etc. I can see how that makes some men fearful, they think it is about taking away their rights when in fact it has nothing to do with that. 

RP is not about equality, in fact it is the opposite, it appears to be about taking women back to the bad old days. A man that does not have much self esteem buys into RP because it is an easier option for him to put all the blame on women.


----------



## tech-novelist

Holland said:


> Absolutely there are extremists in all parts of life. What I am not making the connect with though is RP being an answer or opposition to Feminism.
> 
> From wiki
> 
> 
> I was raised by a mum with a great Feminist POV and the above definition is what I have always understood Feminism to be, about equality, bring women to a place of having equal rights as men.
> 
> Feminism is about equal rights as human, it is not about taking men down to the unequal rights standards women have had, it is about bringing women up to have equal standards with men. Rightly so, woman should have equal opportunity to employment, education, wages, voting etc. I can see how that makes some men fearful, they think it is about taking away their rights when in fact it has nothing to do with that.
> 
> RP is not about equality, in fact it is the opposite, it appears to be about taking women back to the bad old days. A man that does not have much self esteem buys into RP because it is an easier option for him to put all the blame on women.


So I assume you would be in favor of rectifying the extreme bias against men in the family court system, including the reintroduction of debtor's prison for the crime of not paying court-ordered child support, even if it is impossible to do so?

And you are also against so-called "affirmative action" that forces employers to hire women in preference to men to avoid severe fines and government harassment?

And you are against the similar rules applying to colleges, as well as the "kangaroo courts" that colleges use to punish real or imagined sexual harassment without the accused's right to counsel, to face his accuser, or any other procedural rights?

And of course VAWA and IMBRA should be repealed immediately, as they are laws that favor women at the expense of men.

Those are all results of feminism.

Also, for some reason, I haven't heard feminists take the obviously fair position that women should be forced to register for the draft on the same basis as men, and should be punished in exactly the same way for committing the same legal infractions. I wonder why not?


----------



## toolforgrowth

As a RP man, I have no desire to return to the "old ways". I absolutely have no desire to pay a woman's way through this world. She's got two hands and legs, she can get out there and take care of herself. I wasn't born to provide any woman with a better quality of life. Again, that's her responsibility.

I also have no issue with a strong woman. A strong woman isn't looking for a man to take care of her; she doesn't need that. She's strong enough to navigate life on her own recognizance.

I'm flabbergasted at the notion that RP men would want that. As men who want to go their own way, why would they ever want to voluntarily place the shackles of marriage and financial dependence upon their shoulders? That completely defeats the purpose.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

toolforgrowth said:


> As a RP man, I have no desire to return to the "old ways". I absolutely have no desire to pay a woman's way through this world. She's got two hands and legs, she can get out there and take care of herself. I wasn't born to provide any woman with a better quality of life. Again, that's her responsibility.
> 
> I also have no issue with a strong woman. A strong woman isn't looking for a man to take care of her; she doesn't need that. She's strong enough to navigate life on her own recognizance.
> 
> I'm flabbergasted at the notion that RP men would want that. As men who want to go their own way, why would they ever want to voluntarily place the shackles of marriage and financial dependence upon their shoulders? That completely defeats the purpose.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Obviously you have a point, but there are indeed red pill men who are willing to undertake that burden, or who have already undertaken it and want to make the best of it.

It is widely recognized that married "game" is the hardest type of all, because you give up a lot of maneuvering room compared to single "game".


----------



## Muse1976

Holland said:


> Absolutely there are extremists in all parts of life. What I am not making the connect with though is RP being an answer or opposition to Feminism.


Well that would be two of us not making the connection, because I don't understand it either. I dislike both ideologies. I believe in egalitarianism. That means equal. Period. In all things. 




FrenchFry said:


> You should close the toilet seat and lid because of fecal spray.
> 
> Nobody, red pill or blue should be for fecal spray.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I had to look that one up. I will concede that one. 

(although if a lid make a air tight seal then wouldn't..... Walks off mumbling)


----------



## Holland

technovelist said:


> So I assume you would be in favor of rectifying the extreme bias against men in the family court system, including the reintroduction of debtor's prison for the crime of not paying court-ordered child support, even if it is impossible to do so?
> 
> And you are also against so-called "affirmative action" that forces employers to hire women in preference to men to avoid severe fines and government harassment?
> 
> And you are against the similar rules applying to colleges, as well as the "kangaroo courts" that colleges use to punish real or imagined sexual harassment without the accused's right to counsel, to face his accuser, or any other procedural rights?
> 
> And of course VAWA and IMBRA should be repealed immediately, as they are laws that favor women at the expense of men.
> 
> Those are all results of feminism.
> 
> Also, for some reason, I haven't heard feminists take the obviously fair position that women should be forced to register for the draft on the same basis as men, and should be punished in exactly the same way for committing the same legal infractions. I wonder why not?


Well I live in Australia so none of this is relevant here. The courts here have a "what is in the best interests of the child" based policy. We do not have alimony or national service. Our legal system punishes people based on the crime not the gender.

However women here still do more house work than men, they are killed by their partners at an alarming rate as domestic violence is on the increase.
There is still pay inequality.

As I said I was raised in a household that embraces Feminism in it's truest form, equality. I believe in equality of rights and responsibilities as well as opportunities. If you don't then so be it but is this what you teach your daughters if any? That because they are female they should have lesser rights?


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry said:


> I will try and avoid this in the future...but this isn't a feminism debate. Feel free to start one but a big part of why this is so hard to talk about is it always circles back to feminism. Which is odd, but not really the point I think.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No, they explained earlier that red pill *IS* the response to feminism. So discussing anything red pill (which includes my blue pill thread here) is actually discussing feminism (or more precisely, why feminism ruined everything for men).


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> What you've read here is not representative of AK's writing. I cannot imagine anyone with an open mind reading a representative sample of his blogging, or his books, and concluding that he hates women.


tech...I cannot imagine anyone with an open mind reading a sample of MMSL or the blog and NOT concluding that he hates women. 

Hate is a word that means different things to different people, but that's the only word I would use to describe what AK sounds like he feels for women. Contempt is probably more accurate, but to get to a contemptuous position he likely had to hate them first.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

toolforgrowth said:


> As a RP man, I have no desire to return to the "old ways". I absolutely have no desire to pay a woman's way through this world. She's got two hands and legs, she can get out there and take care of herself. I wasn't born to provide any woman with a better quality of life. Again, that's her responsibility.
> 
> I also have no issue with a strong woman. A strong woman isn't looking for a man to take care of her; she doesn't need that. She's strong enough to navigate life on her own recognizance.
> 
> I'm flabbergasted at the notion that RP men would want that. As men who want to go their own way, why would they ever want to voluntarily place the shackles of marriage and financial dependence upon their shoulders? That completely defeats the purpose.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Apparently RP is, in a way, whatever the person that follows RP says it is. I have seen "mainstream" RP websites bleed all over the loss of the "traditional women" and advocate marriage only through mail order from the 3rd world, because you know, "those women know their place." (ROK for example).

I can only assume you mean what you say and it seems likely that are aligning with the "Puerarchy" of RP and intend to stay single but you their is the Married RP guys and aligning to traditional roles is right at its core.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScrambledEggs said:


> But if it is all Meta, and I tend to agree that it is, why not promote a more egalitarian relationship between the sexes? Something between Red Pill and 4th wave feminism. Why can't there be a third alliterative where people, regardless of sex, make their own truths by themselves and with each-other?
> 
> *That means respecting a women that wants to be strong and even a man that wants to be weak.* RP seems to need to discredit men and women that want to break traditional roles suggesting that alternate forms of relationship are flimsy at best. Those not based on traditional roles are held in skepticism that the male and female are both losing out in the deal.
> 
> This is one big mouthful but is the biggest ugliest thing about RP.


This is why I can't get behind RP, either, even if we took out some of the contempt for women....there are gay men, there are submissive men, and there are dominant and gay women. But RP just completely disregards them. There is far too much "this is the only way it can be" rhetoric in RP and this "way" they are talking about is an extremely limited portion of the vast array of "ways" people actually ARE.

Plus...there's so much racism in RP, too. 

So we've got white (so called) dominant men as the ones who think they can tell everyone else "the way it is" for everyone. There is no variation at all in RP (and if you dare go opposite to "the way" you are called names and disregarded).

I'm glad I get it now though, that this really is just some men's response to feminism. It makes me sad that some men feel they are lower class citizens. But if RP is the "answer" then you are just trying to make lower class citizens out of other people rather than finding your own power within.

But I am glad to understand this, because I will never consider RP as relationship advice again, just as feminism isn't relationship advice in itself. Got it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> As a RP man, I have no desire to return to the "old ways". I absolutely have no desire to pay a woman's way through this world. She's got two hands and legs, she can get out there and take care of herself. *I wasn't born to provide any woman with a better quality of life. Again, that's her responsibility.*
> 
> I also have no issue with a strong woman. A strong woman isn't looking for a man to take care of her; she doesn't need that. She's strong enough to navigate life on her own recognizance.
> 
> I'm flabbergasted at the notion that RP men would want that. As men who want to go their own way, why would they ever want to voluntarily place the shackles of marriage and financial dependence upon their shoulders? That completely defeats the purpose.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This kind of stuff confuses me because I've never been financially supported by anyone else and have never expected anyone to support me. None of my friends have ever been looking for a man just to support them so they wouldn't have to work....I hear so many men here saying this kind of thing and have to wonder, where are all these women who are demanding a man support them? :scratchhead:

Everyone I know, man or woman, has wanted to meet, mate and merge because they love the opposite gender and just want to be happy, in love and build a life together. Not to "use" another human being in some way. (Though I am still all about dressing men up as ponies to pull my chariot).


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Faithful Wife said:


> This is why I can't get behind RP, either, even if we took out some of the contempt for women....there are gay men, there are submissive men, and there are dominant and gay women. But RP just completely disregards them. There is far too much "this is the only way it can be" rhetoric in RP and this "way" they are talking about is an extremely limited portion of the vast array of "ways" people actually ARE.
> 
> Plus...there's so much racism in RP, too.
> 
> So we've got white (so called) dominant men as the ones who think they can tell everyone else "the way it is" for everyone. There is no variation at all in RP (and if you dare go opposite to "the way" you are called names and disregarded).
> 
> I'm glad I get it now though, that this really is just some men's response to feminism. It makes me sad that some men feel they are lower class citizens. But if RP is the "answer" then you are just trying to make lower class citizens out of other people rather than finding your own power within.
> 
> But I am glad to understand this, because I will never consider RP as relationship advice again, just as feminism isn't relationship advice in itself. Got it.


But back you what you started this thread with is the fact that RP gets its strength from realities and perspectives that are not taught our emphasized to young men unless they have an exceptional self aware father. And even then there is tons of re-enforcement in culture that confuses the hell of out young men. After all "I just want a nice guy" is not a lie, but its barely half the truth.

RP gets all its power from the shortcomings of modern feminism. A statement which sounds awful RP-like even as it is reductive of it.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Faithful Wife said:


> This kind of stuff confuses me because I've never been financially supported by anyone else and have never expected anyone to support me. None of my friends have ever been looking for a man just to support them so they wouldn't have to work....I hear so many men here saying this kind of thing and have to wonder, where are all these women who are demanding a man support them? :scratchhead:
> 
> Everyone I know, man or woman, has wanted to meet, mate and merge because they love the opposite gender and just want to be happy, in love and build a life together. Not to "use" another human being in some way. (Though I am still all about dressing men up as ponies to pull my chariot).


Lots of people, men and women alike, will take a free ride through life if they can get it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScrambledEggs said:


> But back you what you started this thread with is the fact that RP gets its strength from realities and perspectives that are not taught our emphasized to young men unless they have an exceptional self aware father. And even then there is tons of re-enforcement in culture that confuses the hell of out young men. After all "I just want a nice guy" is not a lie, but its barely half the truth.
> 
> RP gets all its power from the shortcomings of modern feminism. A statement which sounds awful RP-like even as it is reductive of it.


Do you realize that young girls are completely confused also?

And that all young people throughout time will always be confused, because it is a very confusing age?

And that as parents (I have one boy and one girl, both now adults) it is up to us to do our best, but even if we don't do so well.....they must find their way through life, just as we did even though we were all confused as well. The world we are leaving to them is flawed, just as the one we inherited was flawed. And yet....nature really will take her course, and we will always meet, mate and merge. In fact, the crazy crap we do to each other should make us not want to merge, however, nature ain't having none of that....we are drawn like magnets and steel to each other, and we always will be. No matter how bad we keep f*cking it up.


----------



## toolforgrowth

ScrambledEggs said:


> Apparently RP is, in a way, whatever the person that follows RP says it is. I have seen "mainstream" RP websites bleed all over the loss of the "traditional women" and advocate marriage only through mail order from the 3rd world, because you know, "those women know their place." (ROK for example).
> 
> I can only assume you mean what you say and it seems likely that are aligning with the "Puerarchy" of RP and intend to stay single but you their is the Married RP guys and aligning to traditional roles is right at its core.


Feminism is no different. There are so many different schools of thought that it bears down to what it means to each individual feminist. Religion is a good analogy. To say one is Christian is not enough; does that mean Catholic? Baptist? Lutheran? Presbyterian? Mormon? Nazarene?

Feminism and RP are no different. So many different schools of thought.

I will say that if feminists ask men to ignore it's radical elements, then I would ask women to do the same for RP.

I don't blame younger men for searching overseas for potential mates. I've encountered my share of entitled, selfish, narcissistic women in my day. I don't claim that all women are like that by any means, but there's a substantial number out there. After all, we're the ones who are viewing them through the lens of sex and relationships, and interacting with them on those levels. It provides a different perspective than what other women could relate to.

I'm in a committed relationship, but I will never marry again. After getting financially raped in divorce and only about 35% time with my daughter as a result of a cheating wife, I've directly encountered the misandric family justice system. It's a joke. I got a vasectomy and will never marry again. No more void support (until my 7 year old graduates college.. whenever that will be), and my assets remain my own until I die. Only a fool would gamble his financial livelihood on a relationship outcome. I was a fool once; I learned my lesson.

My GF knows this and completely agrees. She has never been married and has never wanted to get married. Her exact words: "why can't we just live together?"

Boy, do I love that woman.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScrambledEggs said:


> Lots of people, men and women alike, will take a free ride through life if they can get it.


Which is why I don't understand all the talk about how women are trying to get one on the backs of men....men will do this, too....it is human nature to take advantage. Yet it is always framed as if women do this exclusively when we're talking about RP.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

toolforgrowth said:


> Feminism is no different. There are so many different schools of thought that it bears down to what it means to each individual feminist. Religion is a good analogy. To say one is Christian is not enough; does that mean Catholic? Baptist? Lutheran? Presbyterian? Mormon? Nazarene?
> 
> Feminism and RP are no different. So many different schools of thought.
> 
> I will say that if feminists ask men to ignore it's radical elements, then I would ask women to do the same for RP.
> 
> I don't blame younger men for searching overseas for potential mates. I've encountered my share of entitled, selfish, narcissistic women in my day. I don't claim that all women are like that by any means, but there's a substantial number out there. After all, we're the ones who are viewing them through the lens of sex and relationships, and interacting with them on those levels. It provides a different perspective than what other women could relate to.
> 
> I'm in a committed relationship, but I will never marry again. After getting financially raped in divorce and only about 35% time with my daughter as a result of a cheating wife, I've directly encountered the misandric family justice system. It's a joke. I got a vasectomy and will never marry again. No more void support (until my 7 year old graduates college.. whenever that will be), and my assets remain my own until I die. Only a fool would gamble his financial livelihood on a relationship outcome. I was a fool once; I learned my lesson.
> 
> My GF knows this and completely agrees. She has never been married and has never wanted to get married. Her exact words: "why can't we just live together?"
> 
> Boy, do I love that woman.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Traditional gender roles is core RP theory, not some offshoot.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> This kind of stuff confuses me because I've never been financially supported by anyone else and have never expected anyone to support me. None of my friends have ever been looking for a man just to support them so they wouldn't have to work....I hear so many men here saying this kind of thing and have to wonder, where are all these women who are demanding a man support them? :scratchhead:
> 
> Everyone I know, man or woman, has wanted to meet, mate and merge because they love the opposite gender and just want to be happy, in love and build a life together. Not to "use" another human being in some way. (Though I am still all about dressing men up as ponies to pull my chariot).


My xWW wanted to be a SAHM for a while, then she wanted to try real estate for a while, then she wanted to only work part time for a while...guess who picked up all the financial slack during that time?

It happens...more so than you think, is my guess.

That is something I will never do again. No woman will ever be able to lean on me financially. That is a huge boundary of mine. My money is all mine; I earned it, and I'll do with it as I please, which does not include providing for another human being, with the obvious exception of my daughter.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toolforgrowth

ScrambledEggs said:


> Traditional gender roles is core RP theory, not some offshoot.


I disagree. Red pill, to me, is male independence. Especially MGTOW. A man can't go his own way if he's got a wifey at home who is financially dependent on him.

Traditional gender roles enslave men, not free them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> My xWW wanted to be a SAHM for a while, then she wanted to try real estate for a while, then she wanted to only work part time for a while...guess who picked up all the financial slack during that time?
> 
> It happens...more so than you think, is my guess.
> 
> *That is something I will never do again. No woman will ever be able to lean on me financially. That is a huge boundary of mine. My money is all mine; I earned it, and I'll do with it as I please, which does not include providing for another human being, with the obvious exception of my daughter*.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Yes, I heard you the first several times you said it. Clearly you got burned and it is normal to run completely away from something that burned you. I get it and understand it.

But just human to human here, if you are also going to be bitter about it and have contempt for women in general, then that's on you.

I don't mean you should like it, I just mean that YOU picked the wrong woman and YOU made the wrong choices. It wasn't "women" who did this to you.

I am the one who was financially burned in my divorce. I also thought I would never marry again, what was the point. I did get married again, but I am not saying anyone else should nor am I saying that ANY man should support a woman unless they really want to for their own reasons. Otherwise, I'm all about everyone supporting themselves.

So when you and other men go on about the misery behind getting burned and supporting someone else, it just makes you sound like you don't really understand what happened in your own life.

Again...I understand it is normal and expected to be really hurt and changed forever after a divorce. But if it also makes you have contempt for an entire gender, again, that's on you.

I am not saying you are, I am just saying that is how some of your words sound here in this context.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I heard you the first several times you said it. Clearly you got burned and it is normal to run completely away from something that burned you. I get it and understand it.
> 
> But just human to human here, if you are also going to be bitter about it and have contempt for women in general, then that's on you.
> 
> I don't mean you should like it, I just mean that YOU picked the wrong woman and YOU made the wrong choices. It wasn't "women" who did this to you.
> 
> I am the one who was financially burned in my divorce. I also thought I would never marry again, what was the point. I did get married again, but I am not saying anyone else should nor am I saying that ANY man should support a woman unless they really want to for their own reasons. Otherwise, I'm all about everyone supporting themselves.
> 
> So when you and other men go on about the misery behind getting burned and supporting someone else, it just makes you sound like you don't really understand what happened in your own life.
> 
> Again...I understand it is normal and expected to be really hurt and changed forever after a divorce. But if it also makes you have contempt for an entire gender, again, that's on you.
> 
> I am not saying you are, I am just saying that is how some of your words sound here in this context.


I honestly have no idea how you could infer I have contempt for an entire gender out of that. If I did, there is no way I could be in a successful relationship at this moment. I have no contempt for her, and I'm friends with many, many women. My project manager at work is a woman who is so smart she can practically levitate objects with her mind, and I'm really happy to work for her.

I never said it was women who did it. I said it was the farce of a family justice system. Two totally different things.

I completely understand what happened. I allowed myself to be a doormat. I chose to marry the wrong woman. I chose to financially support her. All bad decisions. The misandric family justice system was icing on the cake.

You are choosing to interpret my words as bitter, when in reality, they are a natural response to the poor decisions I've made.

To err is human. To repeat mistakes expecting different results is insanity.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

For those who may not know what MGTOW is...it is a blog/website full of typical RP stuff. Here's a sample article:

The Sexodus - Part 1 | MGTOW

Quote from the article:

“My generation of boys is f**ked.”, says Rupert, a young German video game enthusiast I’ve been getting to know over the past few months. “Marriage is dead. Divorce means you’re screwed for life. Women have given up on monogamy, which makes them uninteresting to us for any serious relationship or raising a family. That’s just the way it is. Even if we take the risk, chances are the kids won’t be ours. In France, we even have to pay for the kids a wife has through adulterous affairs. 

“In school, boys are screwed over time and again. Schools are engineered for women. In the US, they force-feed boys Ritalin like Skittles to shut them up. And while girls are favoured to fulfil quotas, men are slipping into distant second place.

“Nobody in my generation believes they’re going to get a meaningful retirement. We have a third or a quarter of the wealth previous generations had, and everyone’s fleeing to higher education to stave off unemployment and poverty because there are no jobs. 

“All that wouldn’t be so bad if we could at least dull the pain with girls. But we’re treated like paedophiles and potential rapists just for showing interest. My generation are the beautiful ones,” he sighs, referring to a 1960s experiment on mice that supposedly predicted a grim future for the human race. 

After overpopulation ran out of control, the female mice in John Calhoun’s “mouse universe” experiment stopped breeding, and the male mice withdrew from the company of others entirely, eating, sleeping, feeding and grooming themselves but doing little else. They had shiny coats, but empty lives.

“The parallels are astounding,” says Rupert.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Sorry just couldn't resist


----------



## Muse1976

toolforgrowth said:


> To err is human. To repeat mistakes expecting different results is insanity.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm not religious, but AMEN!


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> I honestly have no idea how you could infer I have contempt for an entire gender out of that. If I did, there is no way I could be in a successful relationship at this moment. I have no contempt for her, and I'm friends with many, many women. My project manager at work is a woman who is so smart she can practically levitate objects with her mind, and I'm really happy to work for her.
> 
> I never said it was women who did it. I said it was the farce of a family justice system. Two totally different things.
> 
> I completely understand what happened. I allowed myself to be a doormat. I chose to marry the wrong woman. I chose to financially support her. All bad decisions. The misandric family justice system was icing on the cake.
> 
> You are choosing to interpret my words as bitter, when in reality, they are a natural response to the poor decisions I've made.
> 
> To err is human. To repeat mistakes expecting different results is insanity.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I understand you don't see or understand how and why you sound bitter. But it does sound bitter. The bolded part in my last quote of yours is what sounds bitter. To proclaim to the world "I will NEVER support a woman again" etc. sounds bitter, because no one else brought it up first.

Again, I am not saying you are bitter, just that it sounds bitter.

It is normal to be bitter for a time after a divorce.

But all red pill guys sound bitter to me. And they all sound bitter about women in general as well as a specific woman who burned them. After all, if their lives had turned out as planned, they would probably be happy blue pill people and never felt bitter about anything, right?

It is just surprising to me that so many guys don't seem to understand that LOVE will BURN YOUR ASS, no matter who you are, no matter your gender. You guys blaming your own bad choices on feminism...it just doesn't make any sense. To me, that is all just bitterness talking.

There were never any promises in life for any of us. I know so many people who have been burned by love...why point any fingers to one gender?

I am not getting down on you, I am just reflecting what you sound like on the screen, ok? I'm sure you may come back and say this is just me and how I am reading it...but do you guys know how much bad press red pill gets and how even lots of men say you all sound like a bunch of bitter angry people? It isn't just me, I promise you. And every time someone points out how bitter RP dudes sound, an RP dudes screams "but feminism!" It is just plain bizarre.


----------



## toolforgrowth

TiggyBlue said:


> Sorry just couldn't resist


I actually completely agree with this. I've had women who I wasn't interested in try to be really nice to me to get me to like them. It didn't work. I wasn't attracted to them, plain and simple. Either physically or mentally.

I had better luck with women when I stopped trying so hard. On the flip side, I also viewed every female as a potential sex partner, and behaved that way. Sex wasn't scary or taboo to me. Women picked up on it.

Nice Guys are afraid of sex, for all their talk about wanting it so much. I'd be turned off by that too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Muse1976

Faithful Wife said:


> For those who may not know what MGTOW is...it is a blog/website full of typical RP stuff. Here's a sample article:
> 
> The Sexodus - Part 1 | MGTOW
> 
> Quote from the article:
> 
> “My generation of boys is f**ked.”, says Rupert, a young German video game enthusiast I’ve been getting to know over the past few months. “Marriage is dead. Divorce means you’re screwed for life. Women have given up on monogamy, which makes them uninteresting to us for any serious relationship or raising a family. That’s just the way it is. Even if we take the risk, chances are the kids won’t be ours. In France, we even have to pay for the kids a wife has through adulterous affairs.
> 
> “In school, boys are screwed over time and again. Schools are engineered for women. In the US, they force-feed boys Ritalin like Skittles to shut them up. And while girls are favoured to fulfil quotas, men are slipping into distant second place.
> 
> “Nobody in my generation believes they’re going to get a meaningful retirement. We have a third or a quarter of the wealth previous generations had, and everyone’s fleeing to higher education to stave off unemployment and poverty because there are no jobs.
> 
> “All that wouldn’t be so bad if we could at least dull the pain with girls. But we’re treated like paedophiles and potential rapists just for showing interest. My generation are the beautiful ones,” he sighs, referring to a 1960s experiment on mice that supposedly predicted a grim future for the human race.
> 
> After overpopulation ran out of control, the female mice in John Calhoun’s “mouse universe” experiment stopped breeding, and the male mice withdrew from the company of others entirely, eating, sleeping, feeding and grooming themselves but doing little else. They had shiny coats, but empty lives.
> 
> “The parallels are astounding,” says Rupert.


Not directed at you FW. 


Great, so this article has another nitwit that thinks because guys don't get sex that their lives are somehow less. Aka-"empty lives"

Sorry, not buying it. Maybe they should put more importance on self worth instead of mindless validation from external sources.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> I understand you don't see or understand how and why you sound bitter. But it does sound bitter. The bolded part in my last quote of yours is what sounds bitter. To proclaim to the world "I will NEVER support a woman again" etc. sounds bitter, because no one else brought it up first.
> 
> Again, I am not saying you are bitter, just that it sounds bitter.
> 
> It is normal to be bitter for a time after a divorce.
> 
> But all red pill guys sound bitter to me. And they all sound bitter about women in general as well as a specific woman who burned them. After all, if their lives had turned out as planned, they would probably be happy blue pill people and never felt bitter about anything, right?
> 
> It is just surprising to me that so many guys don't seem to understand that LOVE will BURN YOUR ASS, no matter who you are, no matter your gender. You guys blaming your own bad choices on feminism...it just doesn't make any sense. To me, that is all just bitterness talking.
> 
> There were never any promises in life for any of us. I know so many people who have been burned by love...why point any fingers to one gender?
> 
> I am not getting down on you, I am just reflecting what you sound like on the screen, ok? I'm sure you may come back and say this is just me and how I am reading it...but do you guys know how much bad press red pill gets and how even lots of men say you all sound like a bunch of bitter angry people? It isn't just me, I promise you. And every time someone points out how bitter RP dudes sound, an RP dudes screams "but feminism!" It is just plain bizarre.


Here's the rub: we don't care if we get bad press. That means nothing to us. We aren't seeking approval from anyone except ourselves.

I'm not trying to change your opinion of RP. You stated an opinion, I stated mine. Feel free to disagree. Feel free to say I sound bitter. That's okay, they're your opinions.

Doesn't change anything. I'm not going to say, "well, since one woman on TAM says I sound bitter, I'd better start taking the blue pill instead". It will never happen.

The parallel to feminism is that feminists can say what they want without caring if they pi$$ off men. Likewise, we can say what we want without caring if we pi$$ off women.

We just don't care.

What we do care about is legal social injustice. Why participate in a system that is rigged against you? Feminists didn't when women had less social value. Now that the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, men are creating their own philosophies and living by them.

I never once spoke of love. I spoke of my poor decisions and legal enslavement to which men are subjugated in divorce today. The word love was never mentioned by me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> Here's the rub: we don't care if we get bad press. That means nothing to us. We aren't seeking approval from anyone except ourselves.
> 
> I'm not trying to change your opinion of RP. You stated an opinion, I stated mine. Feel free to disagree. Feel free to say I sound bitter. That's okay, they're your opinions.
> 
> Doesn't change anything. I'm not going to say, *"well, since one woman on TAM says I sound bitter, I'd better start taking the blue pill instead".* It will never happen.
> 
> The parallel to feminism is that feminists can say what they want without caring if they pi$$ off men. Likewise, we can say what we want without caring if we pi$$ off women.
> 
> We just don't care.
> 
> What we do care about is legal social injustice. Why participate in a system that is rigged against you? Feminists didn't when women had less social value. Now that the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, men are creating their own philosophies and living by them.
> 
> I never once spoke of love. I spoke of my poor decisions and legal enslavement to which men are subjugated in divorce today. The word love was never mentioned by me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


See again, the bolded part is simply absurd and childish. No one here suggested you should take the blue pill nor that it is "the right thing to do". But you guys act like blue pills are being shoved down your throats at every turn. This is why it sound bitter.

I'm simply confused by it all.

But I'm glad to go forward with my plans now without even considering this stuff. I don't need to as most people have never even heard of it. For a long time I actually thought there was something here I could use, but now, nah.

By asking if you knew about the bad press, I was honestly asking if you knew this, not asking if you cared. "We don't care as we aren't seeking approval from anyone" also just sounds absurd and childish.

I am learning a lot here, though. About how some men feel so powerless and broken and how they blame feminism and women for their problems. It really does make me sad for you guys. Though I'm the enemy anyway, so even if I try to be empathetic or compassionate to you, I will be disregarded and it will be assumed that I'm a blue pill shoving feminist who wants a man to support me. It is really hard to hear that over and over and over and so I have mostly given up when I hear a guy is RP, I know I'm his enemy and not to even try.

Yet I honestly do feel bad for you guys.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> See again, the bolded part is simply absurd and childish. No one here suggested you should take the blue pill nor that it is "the right thing to do". But you guys act like blue pills are being shoved down your throats at every turn. This is why it sound bitter.
> 
> I'm simply confused by it all.
> 
> But I'm glad to go forward with my plans now without even considering this stuff. I don't need to as most people have never even heard of it. For a long time I actually thought there was something here I could use, but now, nah.
> 
> By asking if you knew about the bad press, I was honestly asking if you knew this, not asking if you cared. "We don't care as we aren't seeking approval from anyone" also just sounds absurd and childish.
> 
> I am learning a lot here, though. About how some men feel so powerless and broken and how they blame feminism and women for their problems. It really does make me sad for you guys. Though I'm the enemy anyway, so even if I try to be empathetic or compassionate to you, I will be disregarded and it will be assumed that I'm a blue pill shoving feminist who wants a man to support me. It is really hard to hear that over and over and over and so I have mostly given up when I hear a guy is RP, I know I'm his enemy and not to even try.
> 
> Yet I honestly do feel bad for you guys.


Now you're resorting to shaming to prove your point.

Come on, FW. I honestly don't see how you can become so righteously indignant over the fact that you're telling us you think we're childish and bitter, and I'm saying "that's okay, you're entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't mean I have to change my mind because of it".

Of course I knew about the bad press. I've seen many feminist articles that completely degrade it. That's fine with me. They can say whatever they want; it's a free country, and they have freedom of speech. It's their right. I can respect their rights without agreeing to their opinions.

I never once said you're the enemy. Please quote where I said such a thing and correct me if I'm wrong.

You can think it sounds childish, but it's the truth. We don't care. Do you think feminists care if hardcore RP men dislike them? Of course not. They couldn't care less.

Why is it okay for them, but childish for us?

I'm detecting some double standards here.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## morituri

One can almost cut the condescension with a knife every time the words "absurd" and "childish" are bandied about.


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> Now you're resorting to shaming to prove your point.
> 
> Come on, FW. I honestly don't see how you can become so righteously indignant over the fact that you're telling us you think we're childish and bitter, and I'm saying "that's okay, you're entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't mean I have to change my mind because of it".
> 
> Of course I knew about the bad press. I've seen many feminist articles that completely degrade it. That's fine with me. They can say whatever they want; it's a free country, and they have freedom of speech. It's their right. I can respect their rights without agreeing to their opinions.
> 
> I never once said you're the enemy. Please quote where I said such a thing and correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> You can think it sounds childish, but it's the truth. We don't care. Do you think feminists care if hardcore RP men dislike them? Of course not. They couldn't care less.
> 
> Why is it okay for them, but childish for us?
> 
> I'm detecting some double standards here.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


See, I don't read feminist materials or books or blogs...so I don't even know what this means. Again, it is assumed that I'm all for feminism and girl power and womyn...and RP guys always shame and mock women for everything having to do with feminism....even when we aren't going there or on that team and even when nothing related to feminism is in the conversation.

I was talking to you person to person and about your sitch and how you specifically are coming across, but you have kept going back to feminism. :scratchhead:

Anyway...I honestly mean it when I'm saying I feel bad for you guys. I realize I will not be heard though, because feminism. I get it.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> See, I don't read feminist materials or books or blogs...so I don't even know what this means. Again, it is assumed that I'm all for feminism and girl power and womyn...and RP guys always shame and mock women for everything having to do with feminism....even when we aren't going there or on that team and even when nothing related to feminism is in the conversation.
> 
> I was talking to you person to person and about your sitch and how you specifically are coming across, but you have kept going back to feminism. :scratchhead:
> 
> Anyway...I honestly mean it when I'm saying I feel bad for you guys. I realize I will not be heard though, because feminism. I get it.


I hear you. You are saying you feel bad for us. Okay, that's fine. Your emotions are result of your experience based on your perceptions.

But I don't see why you would feel bad for me. I make great money. I'm sitting on a substantial savings. My career is taking off, and I do something I love. I have a wonderful woman in my life who takes care of herself and desires me greatly. I own my house. I have the sweetest, smartest, cutest little girl I dad could possibly ask for. I have wonderful friends and an amazing family.

In short, my life is awesome.

You feel bad for me because I'm not willing to risk it in marriage a second time?

Okay...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> You feel bad for me because I'm not willing to risk it in marriage a second time?
> 
> Okay...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:scratchhead:

Because I'm a woman you think I feel you should get married again? Where did you even get that? :scratchhead:

I feel bad for you because as you and many other men have stated, many men feel powerless and feel that their rights have been compromised or lost entirely, and they are lower class citizens. I feel bad for all of you guys who feel that way because it must suck and be frustrating to feel that way.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> Because I'm a woman you think I feel you should get married again? Where did you even get that? :scratchhead:
> 
> I feel bad for you because as you and many other men have stated, many men feel powerless and feel that their rights have been compromised or lost entirely, and they are lower class citizens. I feel bad for all of you guys who feel that way because it must suck and be frustrating to feel that way.


But we're also childish because we think that way...right?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ScrambledEggs

toolforgrowth said:


> I disagree. Red pill, to me, is male independence. Especially MGTOW. A man can't go his own way if he's got a wifey at home who is financially dependent on him.
> 
> Traditional gender roles enslave men, not free them.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I get it you find some wisdom in RP, so do I in fact. But RP is loaded full reductive bull****-like the advocacy of traditional gender roles as an imperitive. 

I suggest that what you adhere to is far enough from the idealogical center of gravity of RP that its a stretch to color you a RP advocate at all...except for the fact you defend it like you are one while disowning at least some of its core stuff. 

I got nothing else here. The gender role stuff is foundational.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Faithful Wife said:


> For those who may not know what MGTOW is...it is a blog/website full of typical RP stuff. Here's a sample article:
> 
> The Sexodus - Part 1 | MGTOW
> 
> Quote from the article:
> 
> “My generation of boys is f**ked.”, says Rupert, a young German video game enthusiast I’ve been getting to know over the past few months. “Marriage is dead. Divorce means you’re screwed for life. Women have given up on monogamy, which makes them uninteresting to us for any serious relationship or raising a family. That’s just the way it is. Even if we take the risk, chances are the kids won’t be ours. In France, we even have to pay for the kids a wife has through adulterous affairs.
> 
> “In school, boys are screwed over time and again. Schools are engineered for women. In the US, they force-feed boys Ritalin like Skittles to shut them up. And while girls are favoured to fulfil quotas, men are slipping into distant second place.
> 
> “Nobody in my generation believes they’re going to get a meaningful retirement. We have a third or a quarter of the wealth previous generations had, and everyone’s fleeing to higher education to stave off unemployment and poverty because there are no jobs.
> 
> “All that wouldn’t be so bad if we could at least dull the pain with girls. But we’re treated like paedophiles and potential rapists just for showing interest. My generation are the beautiful ones,” he sighs, referring to a 1960s experiment on mice that supposedly predicted a grim future for the human race.
> 
> After overpopulation ran out of control, the female mice in John Calhoun’s “mouse universe” experiment stopped breeding, and the male mice withdrew from the company of others entirely, eating, sleeping, feeding and grooming themselves but doing little else. They had shiny coats, but empty lives.
> 
> “The parallels are astounding,” says Rupert.



The horrible of evil of this lie, and that is exactly what it is, is that it encourages young people to not to even try.

There are jobs out there. There is is opportunity and there are arguments that the world is about to enter into the greatest period of prosperity yet as soon as the magic number of Chinese and Indians break over into the middle class. When that happens they will stop saving and start spending opening up an unprecedented level of demand in the global economy. The magic threshold is about 20%, is modeled by numerous examples through history and is due in five years in China and 10 years in India.

Moreover, the world is not a perfect meritocracy, but it is close enough and anyone that applies themselves, regardless of the hardware between their thighs is probably going to make it short of being very unlucky--like getting cancer when your 23.

The same is true of women. There are women out there are better than what this story paints--a lot of them,but maybe not a majority. Does that mean we do not try? Where we would be today if our ancestors simply gave up because it was hard. And believe me they had it much harder than we do today. 

These spoiled miscreants have been handed a golden world filled with prosperity and opportunity and free of most of the horror that was common in centuries past and all they can do is complain because there is no one there to helicopter them into a job and a servant wife. Give me a break. 

But back to the point. The real evil here is a lot of kids are reading this and it makes it easier to not try to work hard, or find a partner. So in 10-15 years they will emerge from a fog and realize they could have had it better sooner if they just believed they could and tried.

/rant


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> But we're also childish because we think that way...right?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No. And this is exactly what I mean when I say, even if I try to show compassion, it is not received.


----------



## toolforgrowth

ScrambledEggs said:


> I get it you find some wisdom in RP, so do I in fact. But RP is loaded full reductive bull****-like the advocacy of traditional gender roles as an imperitive.
> 
> I suggest that what you adhere to is far enough from the idealogical center of gravity of RP that its a stretch to color you a RP advocate at all...except for the fact you defend it like you are one while disowning at least some of its core stuff.
> 
> I got nothing else here. The gender role stuff is foundational.


I can see how you think that I don't come across like a full on red piller. I honestly wouldn't call myself one either. I agree with some of the core tenets: men don't have to feel bad for being masculine, our assets are our own and we reject the historical paradigm that we are the breadwinner, marriage is a calculated risk, and legal female preferential treatment is a detriment to both genders.

But I don't think women are the enemy. I don't hate them either (hell, I LIKE them! They're sexy, soft, smell nice, birth our children, and can make wonderful companions). I have no issue with female firemen or police officers or managers or CEO's. I don't view them as the weaker sex, and I believe that working women not only benefit themselves, but also men. After all, a working woman doesn't need my money to support her.

Yes, I do reject misogynistic rhetoric. I reject the notion that women are slaves to their hormones; that they like being treated badly; that they are less intelligent; and that they are to be avoided as a result.

I value independence, both for men as well as women.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ScrambledEggs

toolforgrowth said:


> But we're also childish because we think that way...right?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



“Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet you can't win.”


― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> No. And this is exactly what I mean when I say, even if I try to show compassion, it is not received.


Calling someone childish sounds like condescension, not compassion.

I have a philosophy. It suits me and has had a positive effect on my life, and I don't care if other people disagree with me.

That's the real issue. I don't care that you disagree, and that's what makes me childish. I think you're mistakenly interpreting my apathy to your disagreement as misogyny. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Here's the bottom line. You disagree with me. Okay, now what? What expectation do you have of be as a result of your disagreement?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> Calling someone childish sounds like condescension, not compassion.
> 
> I have a philosophy. It suits me and has had a positive effect on my life, and I don't care if other people disagree with me.
> 
> That's the real issue. I don't care that you disagree, and that's what makes me childish. I think you're mistakenly interpreting my apathy to your disagreement as misogyny. Nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> Here's the bottom line. You disagree with me. Okay, now what? What expectation do you have of be as a result of your disagreement?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I said some of the things you were saying in previous posts sounded childish. You have interpreted this to mean I think YOU are entirely childish and everything you say and do is childish, _but I did not mean this_.

I'm not sure what you think I disagree with you about. I was talking about your situation. There is nothing for me to disagree with.

If you mean red pill in general, I do disagree with a lot of that, but probably not in the way or for the reasons you think I do.

I have no expectations of you at all.


----------



## toolforgrowth

ScrambledEggs said:


> “Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet you can't win.”
> 
> 
> ― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love


Touchy feely horse$h!t.

I have no problem risking my heart. I have a major problem with risking my livelihood and offspring. My heart isn't too high of a price. The means to support myself and my child for potentially the rest of my life is.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## morituri

toolforgrowth said:


> Touchy feely horse$h!t.
> 
> I have no problem risking my heart. I have a major problem with risking my livelihood and offspring. My heart isn't too high of a price. The means to support myself and my child for potentially the rest of my life is.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Robert Heinlein touchy feely? :rofl:


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> I said some of the things you were saying in previous posts sounded childish. You have interpreted this to mean I think YOU are entirely childish and everything you say and do is childish, _but I did not mean this_.
> 
> I'm not sure what you think I disagree with you about. I was talking about your situation. There is nothing for me to disagree with.
> 
> If you mean red pill in general, I do disagree with a lot of that, but probably not in the way or for the reasons you think I do.
> 
> I have no expectations of you at all.


Okay. Then we simply disagree.

These are statements of fact: You disagree with RP. RP men don't care. You can think that's childish, but the prior fact remains. They don't care.

Is it because you feel we should care?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toolforgrowth

morituri said:


> Robert Heinlein touchy feely? :rofl:


That particular quote struck me as such based upon the context in which out was presented. That's not a blanket assessment of the individual.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ScrambledEggs

toolforgrowth said:


> Touchy feely horse$h!t.
> 
> I have no problem risking my heart. I have a major problem with risking my livelihood and offspring. My heart isn't too high of a price. The means to support myself and my child for potentially the rest of my life is.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Hardly, touchy feely. It is a very rational message about risk management. But risk only makes sense when compared against what you value. 

This is a counterpoint more to the people out there whining about how unfair life is. It is always unfair, but thats no reason not to live it.


----------



## toolforgrowth

ScrambledEggs said:


> Hardly, touchy feely. It is a very rational message about risk management. But risk only makes sense when compared against what you value.
> 
> This is a counterpoint more to the people out there whining about how unfair life is. It is always unfair, but thats no reason not to live it.


Agreed. But only a fool would live life by taking excessive risks. Thus, risk management.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ScrambledEggs

morituri said:


> Robert Heinlein touchy feely? :rofl:


Yea, RAH was the original RP'er

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” 
― Robert A. Heinlein


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> Okay. Then we simply disagree.
> 
> These are statements of fact: You disagree with RP. RP men don't care. You can think that's childish, but the prior fact remains. They don't care.
> 
> Is it because you feel we should care?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No, I get that RP guys don't care what anyone thinks of them. I don't feel anyone should care what anyone else thinks.

But as an individual I was trying to talk to you a little bit more...not to change your mind on anything but for my own perspective to be broadened, which is has. 

I am not out to change the minds of RP guys or even try to.

Though I know some RP guys will change their own minds in time, and some blue pill guys will end up RP guys. That's why none of this actually matters that much to me for my purposes (though it is all very interesting to me and I will keep reading and posting about it for as long as I am at TAM).

In the end, men and women are always going to be drawn to each other and will have love, kids, marriage sometimes, and sex. And men and women will always get burned in this process, yet they will turn around and head right back into the fire, of their own free will. So no matter how bleak it gets for some individuals, they will muddle through and find their way.

I also no longer care if anyone thinks my husband sounds like the RP King, or the BP King. Either way, I'll take it as a compliment. He's really very amazing and is nothing like so much of what I read around here...but then, I'm pretty amazing too and we deserve each other. 

I'm glad you have found a wonderful woman, too.


----------



## toolforgrowth

If I misinterpreted the context in which the post was made, I apologize. I interpreted that as "participate in a rigged system anyway because love". I find such a notion utterly ludicrous.

If I came to the wrong conclusion, that's my bad.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScrambledEggs said:


> Yea, RAH was the original RP'er
> 
> “I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
> ― Robert A. Heinlein


Stranger in a Strange Land is my favorite book ever...but I've never been able to get through any of his other books. I keep trying, but just can't do it.

I got a kiss mark tattoo as a secret little nod to the book...I pretend Valentine Michael Smith has kissed me there.


----------



## morituri

Faithful Wife said:


> I also no longer care if anyone thinks my husband sounds like the RP King, or the BP King.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> No, I get that RP guys don't care what anyone thinks of them. I don't feel anyone should care what anyone else thinks.
> 
> But as an individual I was trying to talk to you a little bit more...not to change your mind on anything but for my own perspective to be broadened, which is has.
> 
> I am not out to change the minds of RP guys or even try to.
> 
> Though I know some RP guys will change their own minds in time, and some blue pill guys will end up RP guys. That's why none of this actually matters that much to me for my purposes (though it is all very interesting to me and I will keep reading and posting about it for as long as I am at TAM).
> 
> In the end, men and women are always going to be drawn to each other and will have love, kids, marriage sometimes, and sex. And men and women will always get burned in this process, yet they will turn around and head right back into the fire, of their own free will. So no matter how bleak it gets for some individuals, they will muddle through and find their way.
> 
> I also no longer care if anyone thinks my husband sounds like the RP King, or the BP King. Either way, I'll take it as a compliment. He's really very amazing and is nothing like so much of what I read around here...but then, I'm pretty amazing too and we deserve each other.
> 
> I'm glad you have found a wonderful woman, too.


I appreciate that. But I'm still lost on your childish claim. I was trying to flesh that out.

But your claim that you weren't trying to change anyone's mind is false. Your original thread was titled "Don't take the red pill". You've been actively arguing against it for quite a while now. I think that's okay, there's nothing wrong with differing points of view. But your intention from the start has been to illustrate your perceptions as to why it's bad in order to change our minds, or at least prevent other men from believing as we do. Again, I don't take issue with that. But at least be honest about your intentions.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toolforgrowth

morituri said:


>


Have it your way...a double whopper with a side of Monty Python.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> I appreciate that. But I'm still lost on your childish claim. I was trying to flesh that out.
> 
> But your claim that you weren't trying to change anyone's mind is false. Your original thread was titled "Don't take the red pill". You've been actively arguing against it for quite a while now. I think that's okay, there's nothing wrong with differing points of view. But your intention from the start has been to illustrate your perceptions as to why it's bad in order to change our minds, or at least prevent other men from believing as we do. Again, I don't take issue with that. But at least be honest about your intentions.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That is true, it was my original intent to hopefully shed light on some of the issues with RP writings...some people really had not seen the dark underbelly of RP and I wanted it to be seen and discussed here at TAM because it is not understood by everyone. You haven't been here long, but there's a history here about it. I only hoped to maybe sway those who haven't taken the RP yet. However, I knew then and I know now that no one who is fully RP is going to listen to me or consider what I was saying. I don't expect them to. People are going to be drawn to ideals and philosophies that appeal to them.

I have not thought for even a moment that I could change the mind of a full on RP guy. Other people who are on the fence, maybe. The rest? It has all just been an entertaining and enlightening discussion, which I appreciate everyone who has been involved with.

I have definitely had MY view change here in the past couple of days...so maybe it was me all along who needed to change the way they see the RP. And I have. And I am glad for that. Your post was the one that tipped me over the edge. I thank you specifically for that.


----------



## morituri

toolforgrowth said:


> But your intention from the start has been to illustrate your perceptions as to why it's bad in order to change our minds, or at least prevent other men from believing as we do. Again, I don't take issue with that. But at least be honest about your intentions.


Maybe it's just me but that was not how I perceived FW's comments. I saw her concern was with the radical element of the RP that tries to blame women as a whole for the ills that befall us men. That is a valid point and one she wanted to address and share with everybody. Maybe I'm wrong but that is how I view it.


----------



## Brigit

Holland said:


> However women here still do more house work than men, they are killed by their partners at an alarming rate as domestic violence is on the increase.
> There is still pay inequality.


True enough. When I worked outside the home I made little money and felt as if I had two full time jobs. This is why being a SAHW works for me.


----------



## Mark72

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok well....let me say upfront that you may find some posts on this thread are anti-red pill or anti-MMSL. I hope it won't offend you. I have posted on that forum before, too.


Doesn't bother me. I've had help from both forums, but it seems more of my issues have had uniform advice there. I've had lots of help here, but much of it was conflicting. I wouldn't try to dissuade anyone from participating in either forum.


----------



## Mark72

When I read more in this thread, it seems my definitions (at least how I understand them) are different than yours, hence why I was so confused about what I read.


ETA: I am finding myself disagreeing with much of what I am reading, but I'll respectfully bow out.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I have definitely had MY view change here in the past couple of days...so maybe it was me all along who needed to change the way they see the RP. And I have. And I am glad for that. Your post was the one that tipped me over the edge. I thank you specifically for that.


I too have found this discussion quite illuminating. Red pill is most certainly marketed as relationship (that is, sex!) advice, and it is most certainly pointed to here frequently as the absolutely only and best solution for men who want to have a better relationship (aka more sex). 

"Oh, but it works", they exclaim with glee jumping up and down with excitement. "Every woman, bar none, will be racing to yank off her clothes to please you if you but swallow this pill."

So, I too, thought of it as relationship advice, and as such, found it highly implausible. Yes, sure, it may appeal to some who hold the same values, have the same expectations for a relationship, and for particular gender roles. But what about the rest of us?

But, seeing it as more of a worldview that is a reaction against feminism, against feelings of loss of power for men, and that strives to regain that power by insisting that a relationship *must* subscribe to traditional gender roles, where men *must* be dominant and women submissive ... 

... well it just makes a whole lot more sense why so many are drawn to it.


----------



## tech-novelist

Holland said:


> Well I live in Australia so none of this is relevant here. The courts here have a "what is in the best interests of the child" based policy. We do not have alimony or national service. Our legal system punishes people based on the crime not the gender.
> 
> However women here still do more house work than men, they are killed by their partners at an alarming rate as domestic violence is on the increase.
> There is still pay inequality.
> 
> As I said I was raised in a household that embraces Feminism in it's truest form, equality. I believe in equality of rights and responsibilities as well as opportunities. If you don't then so be it but is this what you teach your daughters if any? That because they are female they should have lesser rights?


Obviously the legal environment varies from country to country, so I can't comment on what it may be in Australia.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> tech...I cannot imagine anyone with an open mind reading a sample of MMSL or the blog and NOT concluding that he hates women.
> 
> Hate is a word that means different things to different people, but that's the only word I would use to describe what AK sounds like he feels for women. Contempt is probably more accurate, but to get to a contemptuous position he likely had to hate them first.


Then we will have to agree to disagree, because I can't imagine anyone coming up with that conclusion after reading a representative sample of his writing.


----------



## tech-novelist

toolforgrowth said:


> My xWW wanted to be a SAHM for a while, then she wanted to try real estate for a while, then she wanted to only work part time for a while...guess who picked up all the financial slack during that time?
> 
> It happens...more so than you think, is my guess.
> 
> That is something I will never do again. No woman will ever be able to lean on me financially. That is a huge boundary of mine. My money is all mine; I earned it, and I'll do with it as I please, which does not include providing for another human being, with the obvious exception of my daughter.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My wife is a SAHW, and that's fine with me. I can afford to support her, and can quit my "day job" anytime I want to, if it becomes overly burdensome. We will have to tighten up our budget a little, but we'll be fine, thanks to my lifetime of saving and investing, and reasonably low overhead costs where we live.

I'll still work on my own project(s) though; in fact, that's the main reason I'm very likely to retire next year, so I have all that time back to work on what I want to work on.

So I guess I'm just old-fashioned? :scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Then we will have to agree to disagree, because I can't imagine anyone coming up with that conclusion after reading a representative sample of his writing.


So I go to his blog, and he basically is all about how women are slaves to our biology, how all a man needs to do is learn a few tricks and he can "manage" our terrible irrational moodiness and have his way.

How is this not contempt? :scratchhead:

I guess we have a different definition of what that means?


----------



## always_alone

Further to my above thought:




> The advice is that bad.The Blue Pill is what women say they want from a man.
> 
> You’ve been fed the Blue Pill from birth and you’ve never had a proper chance to win at love because you’ve been told the lie about how the game is played.
> 
> The Red Pill is the truth.
> 
> I do have one word of warning about all this… you can’t unlearn the truth.


And then from there proceeds to talk about how all women are irrational slaves to their biology, should not be listened to, and need an alpha dude to come along and punch the right codes into her limbic system and he will have full control.

Again, how is this *not* contempt?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I guess because they actually BELIEVE it...they don't see it as just some guy's opinion. They believe this is like reading a science book, as it is TRUTH to them. Same as reading about how women have menstruation (quite an obvious fact), they believe that women being hypergamous wh*res is the same type of fact. 

I know that most men have never even heard of that stuff though. And I have talked to plenty who read a few lines and then balked at it and never went back. (of course they would be considered beta wuss bags...but gee that's not contemptuous either right, just a "fact")


----------



## Runs like Dog

You all worry way way too much about motivation. Motivation is a black box you can't possibly understand. It's about behavior.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> I too have found this discussion quite illuminating. Red pill is most certainly marketed as relationship (that is, sex!) advice, and it is most certainly pointed to here frequently as the absolutely only and best solution for men who want to have a better relationship (aka more sex).
> 
> *"Oh, but it works", they exclaim with glee jumping up and down with excitement. "Every woman, bar none, will be racing to yank off her clothes to please you if you but swallow this pill."*
> 
> So, I too, thought of it as relationship advice, and as such, found it highly implausible. Yes, sure, it may appeal to some who hold the same values, have the same expectations for a relationship, and for particular gender roles. But what about the rest of us?
> 
> But, seeing it as more of a worldview that is a reaction against feminism, against feelings of loss of power for men, and that strives to regain that power by insisting that a relationship *must* subscribe to traditional gender roles, where men *must* be dominant and women submissive ...
> 
> ... well it just makes a whole lot more sense why so many are drawn to it.


Please cite a source for *this*. I have never seen such a claim on Athol's site, or anywhere else for that matter.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Further to my above thought:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then from there *proceeds to talk about how all women are irrational slaves to their biology, should not be listened to, and need an alpha dude to come along and punch the right codes into her limbic system and he will have full control.*
> 
> Again, how is this *not* contempt?


Please provide citations for *this* claim. I have read a lot of his writing and have never seen him claim anything of the sort.

What he does say is that women (and men) have limbic responses that are often below the level of consciousness, and that understanding these responses, especially the female ones, can make it possible for a man to improve his relationship with his wife, especially with regard to sex. He then provides a number of possible ways to use this new understanding, with the caveat that most things you try will not work with any particular woman.

Yes, he does say that you should pay more attention to what a women does than to what she says, as her actions are a better guide to what works with her than her words are. This is also true of men in many cases, by the way, but that is irrelevant to what he is attempting to do.

How you get from there to contempt is beyond me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

From the front page of his website:

I’M ATHOL KAY
Dangerously Monogamous Professional Married Guy
Here to help you have the life and marriage you thought you were going to have.

Also one of his books is titled "How to answer the question do these pants make me look fat....and get laid like tile".


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Please provide citations for *this* claim. I have read a lot of his writing and have never seen him claim anything of the sort..


Common Warning Signs Women Give of a Relationship Decline | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life

From the link:

Actually that’s a trick post title, there aren’t any common warning signs, there’s only one.

The sex starts to go away.

That’s it. That’s all you have to go on. *You can fairly safely ignore all the words coming out of her mouth about the state of the relationship and simply focus on whether or not the sex is crappy/gone, or hot/frequent.*

(snip)

If this is all news to you and you want a good sexual relationship, you gotta buy the MMSL Primer and get the whole story.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's another gem.

Relationship Power vs Give and Take | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life

From the article:

Power. The MAP is about putting yourself in a situation where you no longer need your partner. So you aren’t weak toward them.

For example, I could if I liked, dump Jennifer and basically walk right now. I’d find someone new relatively quickly and my life would continue on. She could try the same thing… and it’s not going to go quite as well for her as it would for me. I don’t mean that to sound full of myself, it’s just how the Sexual Marketplace is slanted in women’s favor for the young and men’s favor for the older.

*The takeaway is that in relationship terms, I have power over her and thus control the relationship.*


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> From the front page of his website:
> 
> I’M ATHOL KAY
> Dangerously Monogamous Professional Married Guy
> Here to help you have the life and marriage you thought you were going to have.
> 
> Also one of his books is titled "How to answer the question do these pants make me look fat....and get laid like tile".


I don't see any contempt or hatred for women there. Maybe you should reconsider that appraisal?


----------



## Faithful Wife

There is No Female Action Plan | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life

From the article:

The only difference between what a man needs to be doing and what a woman needs to be doing is what creates a dopamine response in the opposite sex.

Male Alpha = more dominance, power, strength

Female Alpha = more flirty, girly appearance

That’s about it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> I don't see any contempt or hatred for women there. Maybe you should reconsider that appraisal?


That one was in response to your post # 457.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Common Warning Signs Women Give of a Relationship Decline | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life
> 
> From the link:
> 
> Actually that’s a trick post title, there aren’t any common warning signs, there’s only one.
> 
> The sex starts to go away.
> 
> That’s it. That’s all you have to go on. *You can fairly safely ignore all the words coming out of her mouth about the state of the relationship and simply focus on whether or not the sex is crappy/gone, or hot/frequent.*
> 
> (snip)
> 
> If this is all news to you and you want a good sexual relationship, you gotta buy the MMSL Primer and get the whole story.


If someone posts on TAM saying "the sex with my wife is crappy or gone", what is one of the first things people say?

Find out if she is cheating on you.

(Yes, of course the same advice is given in the other direction, but he is writing primarily for men.)

So I guess TAM's advice is misogynistic too? :scratchhead:


----------



## Muse1976

Faithful Wife said:


> I guess because they actually BELIEVE it...they don't see it as just some guy's opinion. They believe this is like reading a science book, as it is TRUTH to them. Same as reading about how women have menstruation (quite an obvious fact), they believe that women being hypergamous wh*res is the same type of fact.
> 
> I know that most men have never even heard of that stuff though. And I have talked to plenty who read a few lines and then balked at it and never went back. (of course they would be considered beta wuss bags...but gee that's not contemptuous either right, just a "fact")



I can't even begin to understand the totality of why you started this thread, and I'm not about to try and put words in your mouth about it either. I do believe that I understood why you started the" red pill" thread. 

I do believe that there has been some progress in understanding the why behind the "red pill". I have to admit that now that it has been described as a ideology, that it makes more sense in that way. In that case it really is no different than radical feminism. Two sides that very much share the same hate. 

Why is it, that we people are asked to accept feminism, they are also asked to ignore it's radical parts as well?

I don't ask this out of anything other than trying to understand the fight around "red pill" and how it is the response to feminism? 

I mean, I don't always agree with everything you say. And I'm sure that there are things that I say you don't agree with. I mean, your perspective as a liberal/progressive from the west coast (based solely from your posts) and my mid-west libertarian perspective will never fully see eye to eye, but we have been pretty cordial? 

That being said, why do you think that feminism ask people to not put radical feminism in with the rest of it. They share a lot of the same philosophy,and they share many of the same goals.

Disclaimer : I know your not a feminist. Just looking for perspective. 


For your consideration :
https://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/radical-perspectives-lots-of-links/

I see a lot of the same words and parts of these perspectives thrown around here.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's another gem.
> 
> Relationship Power vs Give and Take | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life
> 
> From the article:
> 
> Power. The MAP is about putting yourself in a situation where you no longer need your partner. So you aren’t weak toward them.
> 
> For example, I could if I liked, dump Jennifer and basically walk right now. I’d find someone new relatively quickly and my life would continue on. She could try the same thing… and it’s not going to go quite as well for her as it would for me. I don’t mean that to sound full of myself, it’s just how the Sexual Marketplace is slanted in women’s favor for the young and men’s favor for the older.
> 
> *The takeaway is that in relationship terms, I have power over her and thus control the relationship.*


Is this true or isn't it true? If it is true, does that make the truth misogynistic?


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> If someone posts on TAM saying "the sex with my wife is crappy or gone", what is one of the first things people say?
> 
> Find out if she is cheating on you.
> 
> (Yes, of course the same advice is given in the other direction, but he is writing primarily for men.)
> 
> So I guess TAM's advice is misogynistic too? :scratchhead:


That one was in response to your post number #458, one of the bolded parts was "should not be listened to".


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> There is No Female Action Plan | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life
> 
> From the article:
> 
> The only difference between what a man needs to be doing and what a woman needs to be doing is what creates a dopamine response in the opposite sex.
> 
> Male Alpha = more dominance, power, strength
> 
> Female Alpha = more flirty, girly appearance
> 
> That’s about it.


How does that indicate hatred of women?


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> That one was in response to your post # 457.


If I write a book called "How to get a job", does that mean that I'm claiming you can get any job after you read my book? I don't think so.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> That one was in response to your post number #458, one of the bolded parts was "should not be listened to".


Right, and if someone comes on here and says "I know my wife isn't cheating on me because I asked her if she was, and she said no.", what would the response to that be?

"Don't listen to what she says; check up on her without letting her know you are doing it."

So should men believe what women say? Obviously not always. When the sex is drying up, is it a good idea to assume she knows why and is telling the truth about it? Cheating is an obvious case in which it would be a bad idea to listen to her, but there could be others as well.


----------



## Muse1976

technovelist said:


> How does that indicate hatred of women?


Read this article. Just read the words. Take out all the things and phrases that you wouldn't say to your mother/girlfriend/wife/stranger on the street. 

It shows a hatred towards women. At the very least it shows a lack of consideration and contempt. While it's definitely not the worst thing out there, it could be much better. 

I'm not dogging anything but the words printed. I don't buy the "put her on a pedestal and bow down and kiss her @ss" theory either, but surely there's a better way.


----------



## Muse1976

technovelist said:


> Right, and if someone comes on here and says "I know my wife isn't cheating on me because I asked her if she was, and she said no.", what would the response to that be?
> 
> "Don't listen to what she says; check up on her without letting her know you are doing it."
> 
> So should men believe what women say? Obviously not always. When the sex is drying up, is it a good idea to assume she knows why and is telling the truth about it? Cheating is an obvious case in which it would be a bad idea to listen to her, but there could be others as well.



Simple. "Trust, but verify". It's preached here plenty. It's also not red pill. The phrase come from Reagan.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Muse1976 said:


> Read this article. Just read the words. Take out all the things and phrases that you wouldn't say to your mother/girlfriend/wife/stranger on the street.
> 
> It shows a hatred towards women. At the very least it shows a lack of consideration and contempt. While it's definitely not the worst thing out there, it could be much better.
> 
> I'm not dogging anything but the words printed. I don't buy the "put her on a pedestal and bow down and kiss her @ss" theory either, but surely there's a better way.


I definitely agree that a subset of RP men hate women. I think they feel powerless in relationships and are sex starved, attention starved, and feel deficient as masculine creatures. So they lash out. I don't condone it, but I understand how those feelings can fester into what they've become. Men are aggressive by nature; I think it's a bi-product of testosterone. Even I can get that way sometimes, and I try to be level headed as much as I can. But sometimes I can't help it and I start throwing out testosterone like a monkey flinging poo.

I reject their attitude even though I understand it on some level, simply because I can identify with their struggles, for I used to struggle with the same things.

My personal pet peeve is that feminists can be clearly man hating and yet the only group of people who talk about it and try to shed light on it are MRA's. I've only encountered one woman who speaks out against radical feminism. All others acknowledge it but sweep it under the rug.

I think misogynistic, as is true misogynistic, rhetoric should be called out. That's why I don't identify with hardcore RP'ers. But I would take threads like this one a lot more seriously if they illuminated not just misogynistic rhetoric but also misandric rhetoric as well, and gave them equal negative weight.

Would you agree that there is a better way for feminists to promote female equality than to say the male population should be reduced to 10% of the human race? It's been said...34 years ago. That is the social climate in which I, as a 35 year old male, was born and raised in.

As such, while I don't agree with hardcore RP men, I do understand their backlash and anger because I see the social environment from which it was born.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

TFG do you actually think most women think that the population of males should be reduced to 10% of the population?

Or even many? Or even... approaching 1%? Meaning, roughly 3M women in the US think this?

Or .1%? Or .01%? Or even less?

I think it's more likely it's a handful of very angry women saying this. Just very loudly and very controversially.

Fixating on this small group as a lifestyle strategy is probably pretty flawed, and at any rate is based on fear. Fear as a lifestyle I just can't get behind.


----------



## toolforgrowth

marduk said:


> TFG do you actually think most women think that the population of males should be reduced to 10% of the population?
> 
> Or even many? Or even... approaching 1%? Meaning, roughly 3M women in the US think this?
> 
> Or .1%? Or .01%? Or even less?
> 
> I think it's more likely it's a handful of very angry women saying this. Just very loudly and very controversially.
> 
> Fixating on this small group as a lifestyle strategy is probably pretty flawed, and at any rate is based on fear. Fear as a lifestyle I just can't get behind.


Turn it around, and ask the same of RP men. How many do you think there are out of all the men? 1%? 0.1%?

You're starting to get it. This thread is focusing on such a small population of men, so small that it's statistically insignificant. In other words, "a handful of very angry men".

You're almost there...just apply the same attitude to the hardcore RP men and the issue is resolved.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toolforgrowth

Bugged said:


> everything that's not mysoginistic in the red pill boils down to the following statement:
> 
> don't become a doormat,achieve something in life and don't let people walk all over you.
> 
> This is something I had to learn in *high school*..why is someone assuming it's a red pill idea? It's absurd.
> 
> I also don't understand why the other 3d was closed as this one is turning into a copycat.:scratchhead::scratchhead:


Completely agree.

Personally, I ignore the hardcore RP'ers. They can't actually do anything. If they want to sit and complain on the internet and be single the rest of their lives, so be it. That's their choice, and I don't lose any sleep over it.

Neither do I lose any sleep over the call to eliminate almost every man, although I do find it highly disturbing.

I personally think that most RP men don't waste time on the internet. They're out living their lives, on their terms.

I just don't see a negative social impact as a result of their decisions, or even their words. I think most women just brush it off. That's what I would do, anyway.

FW, I guess all I can say is that most RP men, like me, don't hate women. We like them very much. We just aren't blind to the world in which we live. Life isn't fair, and we take actions to mitigate that. Prudency is a virtue, not a flaw. Mitigating risk while maximizing reward is the essence of survival. I'm sorry if male independence and freedom of choice comes across as misogynistic, but that was never my personal intent, nor do I think it was the intent of most men like me. We just see the world for what it is; imperfect and unfair. I still choose to live in it, but on my terms. I just can't say that it's my problem if that offends the sensibilities of others.

I can't please everyone, nor would I ever try. But I can please myself. That's my ultimate goal.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Is this true or isn't it true? If it is true, does that make the truth misogynistic?


:banghead:

I see. So you routinely tell yourself (and maybe your wife) that you have power over her in the relationship because she has no value to other men, but you of course are just what all women have been waiting for?

And this doesn't at all indicate any contempt on your part?


----------



## tech-novelist

Bugged said:


> I've already said this once..It's ludicrous..women, in my experience, after menopause, don't give a damn about sex, which is usually a nuisance so this is completely false that men can control anything .before menopause it's false as well.


Really? How interesting.
I assume you have scientific proof for these rather extreme statements. :scratchhead:


----------



## Muse1976

Bugged said:


> I've already said this once..It's ludicrous..women, in my experience, after menopause, don't give a damn about sex, which is usually a nuisance so this is completely false that men can control anything .before menopause it's false as well.


Oh there are things that are ludicrous alright. 

All I can say is that "your experience" is not the only one and defining aspect of female sexuality. All I have to do is look at some of the threads here to tell that. I think thou dost project to much. 

And anybody who think that they can control another person is fooling themselves. Period. Influence maybe. Control never!


----------



## always_alone

toolforgrowth said:


> My personal pet peeve is that feminists can be clearly man hating and yet the only group of people who talk about it and try to shed light on it are MRA's. I've only encountered one woman who speaks out against radical feminism. All others acknowledge it but sweep it under the rug.
> 
> I think misogynistic, as is true misogynistic, rhetoric should be called out. That's why I don't identify with hardcore RP'ers. But I would take threads like this one a lot more seriously if they illuminated not just misogynistic rhetoric but also misandric rhetoric as well, and gave them equal negative weight.
> 
> Would you agree that there is a better way for feminists to promote female equality than to say the male population should be reduced to 10% of the human race? It's been said...34 years ago. That is the social climate in which I, as a 35 year old male, was born and raised in.


I take your point, but radical feminism pretty much died in the early 1980s. Mostly we don't talk about it because it isn't current, isn't relevant, and isn't actually how anyone thinks any more. We thought we had moved past it, and didn't need to bother with it any more, just leave it in the dust bins of history. 

But the MRA haven't gotten over it yet, I suppose, and they keep bringing up these quotes from like 1981 to prove what a bunch of haters feminists are. :scratchhead:


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> I take your point, but radical feminism pretty much died in the early 1980s. Mostly we don't talk about it because it isn't current, isn't relevant, and isn't actually how anyone thinks any more. We thought we had moved past it, and didn't need to bother with it any more, just leave it in the dust bins of history.
> 
> But the MRA haven't gotten over it yet, I suppose, and they keep bringing up these quotes from like 1981 to prove what a bunch of haters feminists are. :scratchhead:


So all the anti-male laws like VAWA and IMBRA have expired, and debtor's prison is no longer used against men who are behind on child support payments? Yippee!

You wouldn't have a citation for that, would you?


----------



## always_alone

toolforgrowth said:


> I'm sorry if male independence and freedom of choice comes across as misogynistic, but that was never my personal intent, nor do I think it was the intent of most men like me. We just see the world for what it is; imperfect and unfair.


Male independence and freedom of choice doesn't come across as misogynistic at all. It's all the denigration of women that comes off that way.


----------



## toolforgrowth

always_alone said:


> I take your point, but radical feminism pretty much died in the early 1980s. Mostly we don't talk about it because it isn't current, isn't relevant, and isn't actually how anyone thinks any more. We thought we had moved past it, and didn't need to bother with it any more, just leave it in the dust bins of history.
> 
> But the MRA haven't gotten over it yet, I suppose, and they keep bringing up these quotes from like 1981 to prove what a bunch of haters feminists are. :scratchhead:


Really? Do most women think that? That's not sarcasm at all, and I'm genuinely curious.

I think being on the opposite end may give me a different perspective, but I'm highly interested in hearing about it from a female point of view.

May I ask how old you are? That's not meant to be contemptuous, I think difference of thought tends to be generational.

You really piqued my curiosity. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toolforgrowth

always_alone said:


> Male independence and freedom of choice doesn't come across as misogynistic at all. It's all the denigration of women that comes off that way.


Okay, gotcha. No argument here.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> :banghead:
> 
> I see. So you routinely tell yourself (and maybe your wife) that you have power over her in the relationship because she has no value to other men, but you of course are just what all women have been waiting for?
> 
> And this doesn't at all indicate any contempt on your part?


I don't tell her that. Why would I? It would just upset her for no reason.

In fact, I generally don't think about power that much because everything is going along pretty well.


----------



## Muse1976

Bugged said:


> everything that's not misogynistic in the red pill boils down to the following statement:
> 
> don't become a doormat,achieve something in life and don't let people walk all over you.
> 
> This is something I had to learn in *high school*..why is someone assuming it's a red pill idea? It's absurd.
> 
> I also don't understand why the other 3d was closed as this one is turning into a copycat.:scratchhead::scratchhead:


Once again I will see your absurdity and raise you some more absurdity. 

You might have learned your "doormat" lesson in high school, but if everyone did then there wouldn't be a need for books like "NMMNG", now would there? Still projecting.


----------



## tech-novelist

Bugged said:


> do you want to make a survey on this site to ask men what happened once their wives hit menopause? Go ahead.
> That is a pretty well known fact in biology and medicine. It's AK truths that have no scientific ground whatsoever


It's not a well-known fact at all; in fact, it isn't a fact of any kind.
Certainly there are women for whom it is true, but equally certainly it is not true for all women.

And as for men on this site, there are plenty of men complaining about women who are well before menopause as well. This site is not representative of anything, other than (MAYBE) people who are having relationship problems.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> So all the anti-male laws like VAWA and IMBRA have expired, and debtor's prison is no longer used against men who are behind on child support payments? Yippee!
> 
> You wouldn't have a citation for that, would you?


Well, I'm not American, and so your political system is different than mine. I fail to see how IMBRA is anti-male, though, as it specifically applies to both genders.

As for VAWA, you may have a point as men most assuredly do suffer from domestic violence and sexual abuse, and the legal system really should be acknowledging and addressing this. From what I gather, though, VAWA came about as a response to the World Conference on Human Rights, and is an attempt to harmonize American with other laws. Maybe I'm wrong about this?

As for child support, etc., this is jurisdictional. In my area, a woman friend of mine ended up paying child support for children who were not her own after her divorce. Astonishingly, this hasn't made her a bitter hater who screams injustice at the courts. 

I have to say, I don't really see what any of this has to do with anti-male radical feminism. I mean, I'm sure there are flaws in the system that need to be corrected, but it's not like this is all designed to keep down the males.


----------



## Muse1976

Bugged said:


> do you want to make a survey on this site to ask men what happened once their wives hit menopause? Go ahead.
> That is a pretty well known fact in biology and medicine. It's AK truths that have no scientific ground whatsoever


Gladly. Let's do. And let's start with the women who are high drive and have already went through menopause. I don't give two sh1ts what the men have to say. I want to hear it from the horses mouth so to speak. Please provide proof that women after menopause think sex is a "PITA". It may be a generality, but it's not a universal truth. If so, I would think that you would see a mass of divorces after menopause. It would be an exodus. 

Lol. 
I never said AK stuff was based on scientific fact. I also don't buy what he says, so that point is mute with me. 

Projecting again. All I have to do is read your signature and read your posts to see your perspective. It colors everything you say.


----------



## always_alone

toolforgrowth said:


> Really? Do most women think that? That's not sarcasm at all, and I'm genuinely curious.
> 
> I think being on the opposite end may give me a different perspective, but I'm highly interested in hearing about it from a female point of view.
> 
> May I ask how old you are? That's not meant to be contemptuous, I think difference of thought tends to be generational.
> 
> You really piqued my curiosity.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm old enough to have witnessed at least some of the radical feminism of the late 70s and early 80s, and to have seen the impact it had, particularly on men. 

And I get why men have a problem with it. Honestly, I do. It was bad enough that men were seen as incapable of helping or supporting women; they were, by their nature, oppressors.

To be clear, this was never a view I held, just one that I saw play out. I managed to get myself declared persona non grata at a women's centre for having the audacity to suggest that men could actually support women's causes. After that, I wasn't welcome any more.

This, however, was a short phase in the history of feminism. Most woman do not and never have supported this level of radicalism. And many that did grew out of it.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> I don't tell her that. Why would I? It would just upset her for no reason.
> 
> In fact, I generally don't think about power that much because everything is going along pretty well.


Right, but to your mind it is still a "fact" that you hold all the power, and that she is worth nothing because she isn't young and hot. And you just don't tell her because you don't want to hurt her feelings.

And you still don't see this as contempt?


----------



## Muse1976

Bugged said:


> I'm saying a different thing: the 'doormat' lesson IS NOT a red pill lesson. It's that women are replaceable schreechtards that can be easily manipulated if you **** them like their rented that is red pill idea.


OK. I never said it was a "red pill" thing either. But I will contend that it's a "blue pill" teaching. Aka-pedastaling. 


Sorry I got bad news for you. But women are replaceable schreechtards as much as men are replaceable fat balding lazy [email protected] No one is irreplaceable. No one. 

And for the record, women can be c0ckwipped as much as men can be pu55ywhipped. It all depends on how much you let it happen.


----------



## Muse1976

always_alone said:


> I take your point, but *radical feminism pretty much died in the early 1980s. *Mostly we don't talk about it because it isn't current, isn't relevant, and isn't actually how anyone thinks any more. We thought we had moved past it, and didn't need to bother with it any more, just leave it in the dust bins of history.
> 
> But the MRA haven't gotten over it yet, I suppose, and they keep bringing up these quotes from like 1981 to prove what a bunch of haters feminists are. :scratchhead:



BULLSH1T!

All a person has to do is look. It's still there and alive and kicking. I can make you a list of sites that probably 50 long and never break a sweat. Or would you like to take a spin at it? It's quite main stream in certain places.


----------



## tech-novelist

Bugged said:


> why would you call yourself a RP men? As I've said all the good part of the red pill* IS NOT a red pill idea*. *The misogynistic part is.*


And who gets to decide which part is misogynistic?

Probably you. How convenient!


----------



## Marduk

toolforgrowth said:


> Turn it around, and ask the same of RP men. How many do you think there are out of all the men? 1%? 0.1%?
> 
> You're starting to get it. This thread is focusing on such a small population of men, so small that it's statistically insignificant. In other words, "a handful of very angry men".
> 
> You're almost there...just apply the same attitude to the hardcore RP men and the issue is resolved.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I've thought that from the very beginining.

Which is why I also don't think radical feminisim for a justification to the RP is justifiable. Or radical feminism as a justification to the RP.

There will always be loonies.


----------



## morituri

always_alone said:


> I take your point, but radical feminism pretty much died in the early 1980s. Mostly we don't talk about it because it isn't current, isn't relevant, and isn't actually how anyone thinks any more. We thought we had moved past it, and didn't need to bother with it any more, just leave it in the dust bins of history.
> 
> But the MRA haven't gotten over it yet, I suppose, and they keep bringing up these quotes from like 1981 to prove what a bunch of haters feminists are. :scratchhead:


Hate to break it to you, but we are living with the consequences of radical feminism. Have you ever seen how men are portrayed in tv shows, movies and commercials? If you have a problem with AK, you would have a field day IF such treatment was bestowed on today's women and girls.

Years ago I was appalled at the shows that my daughters and my son were watching from the children's cable network Nickelodeon. The shows were so blatantly anti-male (boys are idiots, girls are smart), I had to sit them down and tell them why these shows were bad for them. And it doesn't stop there, go and watch adult tv shows, movies and you will find the same characterization of men and boys.

As most men here, I reject the misogynistic statements made by AK and other radical elements of the so called RP or MRA movement. Just like their radical feminist counterparts from the past and present, they are vile.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I'm old enough to have witnessed at least some of the radical feminism of the late 70s and early 80s, and to have seen the impact it had, particularly on men.
> 
> And I get why men have a problem with it. Honestly, I do. It was bad enough that men were seen as incapable of helping or supporting women; they were, by their nature, oppressors.
> 
> To be clear, this was never a view I held, just one that I saw play out. I managed to get myself declared persona non grata at a women's centre for having the audacity to suggest that men could actually support women's causes. After that, I wasn't welcome any more.
> 
> This, however, was a short phase in the history of feminism. Most woman do not and never have supported this level of radicalism. And many that did grew out of it.


I wonder if there's a connection between those of us that were born or came of age in the 70's and 80's and the RP guys now?


----------



## always_alone

Muse1976 said:


> BULLSH1T!
> 
> All a person has to do is look. It's still there and alive and kicking. I can make you a list of sites that probably 50 long and never break a sweat. Or would you like to take a spin at it? It's quite main stream in certain places.


Okay, a quick tour through Google, and I get things like the following:

Radical feminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radical feminism: what it is and why we're afraid of it | Jonathan Dean | Comment is free | The Guardian

All of which place radical feminism as a short period in the 60s, 70s, and ending around 1984.

I came across a Facebook page called Radical Feminists, but didn't see any evidence of the anti-male messages that typically characterize that movement. It was mostly drawing attention to women's issues around the world. 

And, of course, there are a ton of sites created by MRA to spread their anti-feminist message.

So, no, not seeing any evidence of radical feminism retaining its currency.

Your turn.


----------



## Muse1976

Bugged said:


> ok, THIS colors everything *YOU *say.I know you don't gaf but I feel for you.



1.i wasn't attacking you. I was attacking what you said. It came across as a universal truth, which it is not. So many times I have heard it said "it's not what you say, but how you say it". In this case it was precisely what was said. 

2. I fail to see the problem with acknowledging the fact that SO's are replaceable. It's a fact of life. Many many people go on to get divorced and have much happier lives with someone else. Fact is, both members usually go on the lead happier lives. It's not a universal truth, but I think a very common one. It does not hurt a person to acknowledge that fact. A person should recognize that far the that they are replaceable in almost every aspect of their lives. 

No, I don't pine after lost loves or past jobs or anything else. Why would I? When I'm done I'm done. There is no going back. I know what the aspects of the particular relationship was, and if I was interested I would still be in it.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> I wonder if there's a connection between those of us that were born or came of age in the 70's and 80's and the RP guys now?


Not sure about that. I do know that the radical feminists traumatized a lot of men, and I've seen a fair bit of holdover from that. Quite tragic!

The red pill crew, though, strikes me as younger by and large. But I have no evidence or data to back that up ... just an impression.


----------



## always_alone

morituri said:


> Hate to break it to you, but we are living with the consequences of radical feminism. Have you ever seen how men are portrayed in tv shows, movies and commercials? If you have a problem with AK, you would have a field day IF such treatment was bestowed on today's women and girls.
> 
> Years ago I was appalled at the shows that my daughters and my son were watching from the children's cable network Nickelodeon. The shows were so blatantly anti-male (boys are idiots, girls are smart), I had to sit them down and tell them why these shows were bad for them. And it doesn't stop there, go and watch adult tv shows, movies and you will find the same characterization of men and boys.
> 
> As most men here, I reject the misogynistic statements made by AK and other radical elements of the so called RP or MRA movement. Just like their radical feminist counterparts from the past and present, they are vile.


If you think the media is only sending harmful messages to men, I got news for ya.

Sure, the sit-coms may be saying that girls are smart, but there's a whole world of media saying that women are nothing but sex objects, and if they don't measure up in looks, we have no value at all. 

Indeed, this is one of the main tenets of red pill: women have no value except their looks, but men on the other hand are worth so much more.

I will say, though, that I'm rather grateful that it's now becoming common knowledge that the awful messages spread by the media do have a real impact on us, and on how we feel about ourselves. Hopefully we can use this insight to start sending out more balanced messages that treat people as people and not caricatures or objects.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Not sure about that. I do know that the radical feminists traumatized a lot of men, and I've seen a fair bit of holdover from that. Quite tragic!
> 
> The red pill crew, though, strikes me as younger by and large. But I have no evidence or data to back that up ... just an impression.


Just something that hit home for me.

Was raised by a single mom that was quite the bra-burner, if you know what I mean. Was simultaneously taught to defer to women and yet they are equal. Men were somewhat considered as instant victimizers.

It was a strange time. Miniskirts were liberation. Promiscuity was liberation. Anti-chauvinism was liberation. I was taught that what would be good was the rise of the 'sensitive' male. 

Some of this was quite good. Seeing women as human beings rather than just gender. Empathy. Compassion. All good.

Where it fell down for me of course was that when the men acted just like the women they were somehow victimizing them. 

Which I had to reject because I saw women as human beings. Which meant that I wasn't victimizing them any more than they were victimizing me if we both consented to sex, right?

For me, that was liberating. And I wonder if there wasn't something there that tweaked on the red pill.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Just something that hit home for me.
> 
> Was raised by a single mom that was quite the bra-burner, if you know what I mean. Was simultaneously taught to defer to women and yet they are equal. Men were somewhat considered as instant victimizers.
> 
> It was a strange time. Miniskirts were liberation. Promiscuity was liberation. Anti-chauvinism was liberation. I was taught that what would be good was the rise of the 'sensitive' male.
> 
> Some of this was quite good. Seeing women as human beings rather than just gender. Empathy. Compassion. All good.
> 
> Where it fell down for me of course was that when the men acted just like the women they were somehow victimizing them.
> 
> Which I had to reject because I saw women as human beings. Which meant that I wasn't victimizing them any more than they were victimizing me if we both consented to sex, right?
> 
> For me, that was liberating. And I wonder if there wasn't something there that tweaked on the red pill.


Certainly part of the radical feminist philosophy was the idea that penetration is itself a form of rape. Never really quite got that one myself, but it was in vogue for a while. Lots of women crossed over to the other team at that point, to liberate themselves, but I think a lot of it was short-lived phase rather than a true change in sexual preference.

That said, there is a part of this double standard that I do get: that is, women are brought up both to be sexually repressed and also to be docile. So feminism was aiming to help on two different fronts: one was to relieve women of sexual shame and fears of being a slvt, the other was to give them the power of self-determination, the ability to say no.

I'm a bit reluctant to go to far into this, as this line of conversation usually results in a bunch of people going ballistic and calling women perpetual victims who want to be treated like children, and need to learn to put on their big girl panties (and so on and so forth). But suffice to say, that issues like date rape and sexual pressure were a problem for women because they didn't really have the tools or practice in having their voices heard. And this was an issue that needed also to be addressed.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Certainly part of the radical feminist philosophy was the idea that penetration is itself a form of rape. Never really quite got that one myself, but it was in vogue for a while. Lots of women crossed over to the other team at that point, to liberate themselves, but I think a lot of it was short-lived phase rather than a true change in sexual preference.


This made me laugh, not at you, and not because it was wrong, but because I had a sudden flashback to taking a poetry class in uni.

The teacher was a radical feminist lesbian (her words) who one day came out with the statement "all men are potential rapists."

To which I stood up and demanded she take that back because it was bull ****.

She said something to the effect that "no it isn't, because you have the equipment that makes it possible, and M/F sex is fundamentally a dominant/submissive act and therefore part of 'the patriarchy.'

At this point the class population was split... the boys were pretty much in shock, and the girls were laughing at her. Even the other gay girls in the class.

Again I said "bull ****. You're just attempting to play a victim even in the abscence of a victimizer and trying to play on some embedded guilt to use for power. Like humans born with a penis are somehow embued with an original sin."

To which she said 'rape stats! men victimize women on an astounding scale!'

To which I replied "fine. If I'm a potential rapist, than you're a potential baby murderer. Most babies are killed by women. I'll accept that title if you accept mine."

At which time I was summarily thrown out of the class.

She left the school soon after. Drummed out, I'm told, by the females in the class.


> That said, there is a part of this double standard that I do get: that is, women are brought up both to be sexually repressed and also to be docile. So feminism was aiming to help on two different fronts: one was to relieve women of sexual shame and fears of being a slvt, the other was to give them the power of self-determination, the ability to say no.
> 
> I'm a bit reluctant to go to far into this, as this line of conversation usually results in a bunch of people going ballistic and calling women perpetual victims who want to be treated like children, and need to learn to put on their big girl panties (and so on and so forth). But suffice to say, that issues like date rape and sexual pressure were a problem for women because they didn't really have the tools or practice in having their voices heard. And this was an issue that needed also to be addressed.


I think that everybody needs to put their big girl/boy underwear on. Myself included.

Thanks for this, A_A.


----------



## Muse1976

always_alone said:


> Okay, a quick tour through Google, and I get things like the following:
> 
> Radical feminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Radical feminism: what it is and why we're afraid of it | Jonathan Dean | Comment is free | The Guardian
> 
> All of which place radical feminism as a short period in the 60s, 70s, and ending around 1984.
> 
> I came across a Facebook page called Radical Feminists, but didn't see any evidence of the anti-male messages that typically characterize that movement. It was mostly drawing attention to women's issues around the world.
> 
> And, of course, there are a ton of sites created by MRA to spread their anti-feminist message.
> 
> So, no, not seeing any evidence of radical feminism retaining its currency.
> 
> Your turn.


Why thank you. 
Although, I have a tendency to believe that you are highly disingenuous, based off of the first page alone. I mean you cherry picked two links, but didn't bother to include two other links on the very same page. And absolutely nothing on the first page of my Google search for "radical feminism" came back with anything from an MRA site at all. 

TERF Wars: 'Radical Feminists' Are Going After Transgender Activists, But Why?

Radical Feminism Frequently Asked Questions | Deep Green Resistance

On to the meat of this post. 2nd page of same search.

https://radtransfem.wordpress.com

The TERFs

This is the first site that appears to be MRA. It's on the 2nd page of the search. 
Feminism Is a Hate Group

Back on topic. 

Sell a rad fem book. Radical Feminism - Finn Mackay - Palgrave Macmillan

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-1a/cores-women/part-2.htm

The hate group masquerading as feminists - Salon.com

Of course her tweets are private. We wouldn't want anyone to see all the hate. 
https://mobile.twitter.com/radicalfeminist

Radical Feminist Archives |

https://m.reddit.com/r/RadicalFeminism

Radical feminism » Feminist Current

https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/radical-feminism

And so on. 
https://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/radical-perspectives-lots-of-links/

This is just scraping the surface. 
If you want to go further, we can. 

Hashtag killallmen

https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/killallmen

Sorry. I don't see this sh1t as a joke. 
And just for fun. A SCUM video from 2011

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9tQSOlF9ZZM


Your turn! Sorry, I got tired of looking at all the hate.


----------



## Marduk

Some men hate women and think that they're simultaneously victimized and superior.

Those guys, I think, need a strong woman in their life to open their eyes. Not even as a sexual partner, just in their ife.

Some women hate men and think that they're simultaneously victimized and superior.

Those gals, I think, need a strong man in their life to open their eyes. Not even as a sexual partner, just in their life.

I don't know why we focus on the polarizing opposites. There will always be extremes.

I think it's a combination of insecurity, a need to be listened to, a martyr complex, and the illusion that it brings them power.


----------



## Muse1976

marduk said:


> This made me laugh, not at you, and not because it was wrong, but because I had a sudden flashback to taking a poetry class in uni.
> 
> The teacher was a radical feminist lesbian (her words) who one day came out with the statement "all men are potential rapists."
> 
> To which I stood up and demanded she take that back because it was bull ****.
> 
> She said something to the effect that "no it isn't, because you have the equipment that makes it possible, and M/F sex is fundamentally a dominant/submissive act and therefore part of 'the patriarchy.'
> 
> At this point the class population was split... the boys were pretty much in shock, and the girls were laughing at her. Even the other gay girls in the class.
> 
> Again I said "bull ****. You're just attempting to play a victim even in the abscence of a victimizer and trying to play on some embedded guilt to use for power. Like humans born with a penis are somehow embued with an original sin."
> 
> To which she said 'rape stats! men victimize women on an astounding scale!'
> 
> To which I replied "fine. If I'm a potential rapist, than you're a potential baby murderer. Most babies are killed by women. I'll accept that title if you accept mine."
> 
> At which time I was summarily thrown out of the class.
> 
> She left the school soon after. Drummed out, I'm told, by the females in the class.
> 
> 
> I think that everybody needs to put their big girl/boy underwear on. Myself included.
> 
> Thanks for this, A_A.


Probably going to catch he11 for this, but that because "rape" is defined as penetration. And that should not be it's sole definition.

Disclaimer : Rape is a horrible act that ranks right up there with murder as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of the perpetrators and victims.


----------



## Muse1976

marduk said:


> Some men hate women and think that they're simultaneously victimized and superior.
> 
> Those guys, I think, need a strong woman in their life to open their eyes. Not even as a sexual partner, just in their ife.
> 
> Some women hate men and think that they're simultaneously victimized and superior.
> 
> Those gals, I think, need a strong man in their life to open their eyes. Not even as a sexual partner, just in their life.
> 
> I don't know why we focus on the polarizing opposites. There will always be extremes.
> 
> I think it's a combination of insecurity, a need to be listened to, a martyr complex, and the illusion that it brings them power.


Hmm. Maybe, just maybe, people should try and find worth in themselves instead of trying to blame everyone else for their problems. Find resolve and determination and worth through yourself. Let's leave the strong woman/man part out of the equation, and focus on that point first. 

Not totally disagreeing with you, just a slightly different perspective.


----------



## Marduk

Muse1976 said:


> Probably going to catch he11 for this, but that because "rape" is defined as penetration. And that should not be it's sole definition.
> 
> Disclaimer : Rape is a horrible act that ranks right up there with murder as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of the perpetrators and victims.


Rape:
unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.
Rape | Define Rape at Dictionary.com


----------



## Marduk

Muse1976 said:


> Hmm. Maybe, just maybe, people should try and find worth in themselves instead of trying to blame everyone else for their problems. Find resolve and determination and worth through yourself. Let's leave the strong woman/man part out of the equation, and focus on that point first.
> 
> Not totally disagreeing with you, just a slightly different perspective.


I agree with what you just said.

How does it make the radical feminst angle a valid excuse for anything?


----------



## morituri

always_alone said:


> If you think the media is only sending harmful messages to men, I got news for ya.
> 
> Sure, the sit-coms may be saying that girls are smart, but there's a whole world of media saying that women are nothing but sex objects, and if they don't measure up in looks, we have no value at all


If by that "whole world of media" you mean the porn media, then you get no argument from me (I am a father of two young women you know). But that media is not given the blessing that the mainstream media anti-male tv shows and movies are given. THAT is a big difference. 



> Indeed, this is one of the main tenets of red pill: women have no value except their looks, but men on the other hand are worth so much more.


Sounds a lot what the radical feminists have been preaching throughout the decades, except in reverse. Should we then call out the TAM members who call themselves feminists because of their radical sisters?



> I will say, though, that I'm rather grateful that it's now becoming common knowledge that the awful messages spread by the media do have a real impact on us, and on how we feel about ourselves. Hopefully we can use this insight to start sending out more balanced messages that treat people as people and not caricatures or objects.


One can only hope, but I doubt it.


----------



## always_alone

Muse1976 said:


> Why thank you.
> Although, I have a tendency to believe that you are highly disingenuous, based off of the first page alone.


Okay, well I'm very glad to see that you are such a supporter of the transgender community! I too think there has been too much marginalization and mistreatment of this group.

I confess, though, I did leave those links out of the radical feminist list because I thought they might be a bit of a red-herring. Discriminating, no doubt, but not against men, but the transgender community. 

That of course does not justify it, and I was unhappy to see that rejection of their sisters (and brothers).

Other links -- I will go through them, I promise. Can we agree, though, that just because the words "radical" and "feminism" exist together that they are not necessarily spewing hatred and man-bashing? 

I did notice, for example that one of your links pointed to a list of books on a variety of issues, some of then written and/or edited by men.

And, I mean, really, an article about women being tortured and executed in India (for example) isn't exactly hatred of men.

That said, I did see some things that were certainly not anything I would stand behind: I wouldn't agree, for example, that gender is nothing more than the structure of woman's oppression.


----------



## always_alone

morituri said:


> If by that "whole world of media" you mean the porn media, then you get no argument from me (I am a father of two young women you know). But that media is not given the blessing that the mainstream media anti-male tv shows and movies are given. THAT is a big difference.


Not just porn: women are hypersexualized almost every where you look. And it absolutely is given blessing, even entitlement. Women who complain about hypersexualization in the gaming community, for example, have received actual death threats for having the audacity to suggest that perhaps we don't need to cater to male sexual fantasy in (practically) every depiction of women that there is. 



morituri said:


> Sounds a lot what the radical feminists have been preaching throughout the decades, except in reverse. Should we then call out the TAM members who call themselves feminists because of their radical sisters?



I don't know what you mean here. The very basis of red pill is all about sexual market value and how women only matter for their looks, and as they age the become completely valueless, while men, of course, have so much more to offer, and only get better with time.

If I had a nickel for every time I saw these sentiments repeated here on TAM, I would have a fair shake of cash.

However, I have not yet seen one single woman here stand behind radical feminism. And a goodly proportion of them don't even stand behind feminism at all, in any of its forms, period.


----------



## Muse1976

marduk said:


> Rape:
> unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.
> Rape | Define Rape at Dictionary.com


Is that how the law is defined on the books in all 50 States? If so then there has been progress, if not then, not so much. 



marduk said:


> I agree with what you just said.
> 
> How does it make the radical feminst angle a valid excuse for anything?



It doesn't. But neither does it provide a valid angle of excuse for RP either. It's not a matter of either or or. It's a matter of neither are appropriate.


----------



## EllisRedding

technovelist said:


> My wife is a SAHW, and that's fine with me. I can afford to support her, and can quit my "day job" anytime I want to, if it becomes overly burdensome. We will have to tighten up our budget a little, but we'll be fine, thanks to my lifetime of saving and investing, and reasonably low overhead costs where we live.
> 
> I'll still work on my own project(s) though; in fact, that's the main reason I'm very likely to retire next year, so I have all that time back to work on what I want to work on.
> 
> So I guess I'm just old-fashioned? :scratchhead:


Same here. She did work when we first got married (actually did very well). As we had each kid she worked less. She is now officially a SAHM, in part b/c it would actually cost us more for her to work b/w having to hire some sort of nanny, daycare, etc... Aside from that though, we don't need her to work at all to be comfortable financially right now, we have both been very good with our finances and have minimal debt. 

I have read some women comment (not here) that SAHMs are considered weak b/c they must depend on their husband. Oh the horror... I figure these ladies are just bitter about their situation and want to project it onto everyone else (misery loves company)... 

Oh well, just another one of those old-fashioned traditional guys here as well ...


----------



## Muse1976

always_alone said:


> Okay, well I'm very glad to see that you are such a supporter of the transgender community! I too think there has been too much marginalization and mistreatment of this group.
> 
> I confess, though, I did leave those links out of the radical feminist list because I thought they might be a bit of a red-herring. Discriminating, no doubt, but not against men, but the transgender community.
> 
> That of course does not justify it, and I was unhappy to see that rejection of their sisters (and brothers).
> 
> Other links -- I will go through them, I promise. Can we agree, though, that just because the words "radical" and "feminism" exist together that they are not necessarily spewing hatred and man-bashing?
> 
> I did notice, for example that one of your links pointed to a list of books on a variety of issues, some of then written and/or edited by men.
> 
> And, I mean, really, an article about women being tortured and executed in India (for example) isn't exactly hatred of men.
> 
> That said, I did see some things that were certainly not anything I would stand behind: I wouldn't agree, for example, that gender is nothing more than the structure of woman's oppression.


I was not picky about the links that I grabbed. If some of them turn out to not be pushing the "radicalized" side of feminism then so be it. Their are plenty more out their depending on the search term used. Just as finding MRA site will get different results based to the terminology used. 

I appreciate your candidness in stating your reasoning behind why you grabbed some links and not others. I really did not read all of them. I did quickly scan them and it's possible that I may have missed something. 

My point was and is and always will be that "radical" feminism is alive and well and it has not went anywhere. Nothing more. As much as feminism would love for it to be in the past, it's not. I fully believe in holding each person accountable for what they say when they spread hate. 

Anyone who proclaims to hate or kill or marginalize any group is someone I have no need for. And for the record, I have no problem with trans folks. They have a very unique set of problems to face in this world as much as any group that is considered out of the range of normal in a general sense. They also have their fair share of haters as well. Hashtag: Die cis scum. 

On a side note, I tend to agree with you that RP is a much younger movement. It does not make it any less hateful and surly doesn't make to any more tasteful. I stand firmly opposed to both. Two side to the same hateful coin.


----------



## Brigit

always_alone said:


> However, I have not yet seen one single woman here stand behind radical feminism. And a goodly proportion of them don't even stand behind feminism at all, in any of its forms, period.


I wouldn't say I'm not a feminist but to say I am one would be questionable. 

How can I be a feminist if I like being feminine?


----------



## Marduk

Muse1976 said:


> Is that how the law is defined on the books in all 50 States? If so then there has been progress, if not then, not so much.


I'm not a lawyer. That definition is from dictionary.com and cited.

The key point seems to be that it is non-consensual. 


> It doesn't. But neither does it provide a valid angle of excuse for RP either. It's not a matter of either or or. It's a matter of neither are appropriate.


100% agree.


----------



## always_alone

Brigit said:


> I wouldn't say I'm not a feminist but to say I am one would be questionable.
> 
> How can I be a feminist if I like being feminine?


Many feminists pride themselves on their femininity. There is no contradiction there.

What's important for feminism is to believe that women are entitled to same rights and privileges as men (voting, human rights, education, self-determination, equal pay, etc).

That said, you fully get to choose whether you identify with feminists or not. Many women I know do not.

I do, mostly because I feel I owe a great debt to the women who fought so that I would have rights to vote, to be educated, to be self-determining and independent. 

Interestingly, many of the men I know also self-identify as feminists. I see no contradiction with that either.


----------



## Marduk

Now, this was way back in my university days, but yes, I've seen women shamed and called non-feminists because they wore make up, skirts, heels, etc.

There's a whole lotta shaming going on.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Muse1976 said:


> Why thank you.
> Although, I have a tendency to believe that you are highly disingenuous, based off of the first page alone. I mean you cherry picked two links, but didn't bother to include two other links on the very same page. And absolutely nothing on the first page of my Google search for "radical feminism" came back with anything from an MRA site at all.
> 
> TERF Wars: 'Radical Feminists' Are Going After Transgender Activists, But Why?
> 
> Radical Feminism Frequently Asked Questions | Deep Green Resistance
> 
> On to the meat of this post. 2nd page of same search.
> 
> https://radtransfem.wordpress.com
> 
> The TERFs
> 
> This is the first site that appears to be MRA. It's on the 2nd page of the search.
> Feminism Is a Hate Group
> 
> Back on topic.
> 
> Sell a rad fem book. Radical Feminism - Finn Mackay - Palgrave Macmillan
> 
> https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-1a/cores-women/part-2.htm
> 
> The hate group masquerading as feminists - Salon.com
> 
> Of course her tweets are private. We wouldn't want anyone to see all the hate.
> https://mobile.twitter.com/radicalfeminist
> 
> Radical Feminist Archives |
> 
> https://m.reddit.com/r/RadicalFeminism
> 
> Radical feminism » Feminist Current
> 
> https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/radical-feminism
> 
> And so on.
> https://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/radical-perspectives-lots-of-links/
> 
> This is just scraping the surface.
> If you want to go further, we can.
> 
> Hashtag killallmen
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/killallmen
> 
> Sorry. I don't see this sh1t as a joke.
> And just for fun. A SCUM video from 2011
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9tQSOlF9ZZM
> 
> 
> Your turn! Sorry, I got tired of looking at all the hate.


This touches on something that I think RP has right. The suggestion that men, by their very nature, are something shameful has negative consequences for young men. And while this might be a more radical notion of the feminism spectrum, we can see the this notion play out in colleges today as they grapple with gender issues.

The future of gender relations has to be a positive sum game. You can't liberate women by making men feel they are flawed.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> I'm not a lawyer. That definition is from dictionary.com and cited.
> 
> The key point seems to be that it is non-consensual.
> .


The legal definition of rape is connected to penetration, by either bodily part or object. It was recently revised in the US to account for male rape victims, but without penetration, it gets classified as sexual assault, rather than rape.

There are some rumblings that the definition should be further revised to include "made to penetrate" as part of the definition so that women who rape men are held properly accountable for it. 

FBI â€” UCR Program Changes Definition of Rape


----------



## always_alone

ScrambledEggs said:


> This touches on something that I think RP has right. The suggestion that men, by their very nature, are something shameful has negative consequences for young men. And while this might be a more radical notion of the feminism spectrum, we can see the this notion play out in colleges today as they grapple with gender issues.


Who exactly is suggesting this? :scratchhead:


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Who exactly is suggesting this? :scratchhead:


Just my perspective:
- the radical end of RP thinking seeks male power through reducing female's power, while the more moderate end advocates a more self-affirmation angle.

- radical feminism does the same thing, just substitute it for 'RP' and female for 'male.'


----------



## ScrambledEggs

always_alone said:


> Who exactly is suggesting this? :scratchhead:


Well two minutes on Google and I found this all very academic and "sciencey" shaming of men:



> Men, by and large, have a rape switch. All men are capable of rape. Most men are enculturated in a way that reduces rape, and in some societies it is probably true that most violent rape is carried out by individuals who are reasonably labeled as pathological. In other societies, this is not so true. In post war societies such as those described in some of these links, or any society in a state of war, rape becomes routine. The rape switch is flipped to the on position as a matter of course. Most men who were in combat in Viet Nam raped. Similar circumstances have been documented for other wars. I mention this not only to emphasize the depth and breadth of this problem, but to avoid what I fear will be an assumption as Silence Is the Enemy progresses that this is a problem exclusive to the dark skinned of the third world. This is a pan-human problem. None of us, none of our societies, are immune.


A rape in progress – Greg Laden's Blog


----------



## morituri

always_alone said:


> However, I have not yet seen one single woman here stand behind radical feminism. And a goodly proportion of them don't even stand behind feminism at all, in any of its forms, period.


Silence is neither a sign of condoning nor condemning.


----------



## always_alone

ScrambledEggs said:


> Well two minutes on Google and I found this all very academic and "sciencey" shaming of men:
> 
> 
> 
> A rape in progress – Greg Laden's Blog


OMFG, what a shocking story! 

Yes, I too would be loathe to think that men have "rape switches" that the need to "turn off" to stop themselves from behaving the way the men in this story did.

I'd also be loathe to condone rape as "just a cultural norm" as this author seems to think is the alternative.

That said, I don't really see this as an example of shaming men for their normal selves. I mean presumably we all agree that rape is heinous and shouldn't be condoned, no matter what culture you're in?


----------



## always_alone

morituri said:


> Silence is neither a sign of condoning nor condemning.


I have seen many women criticize feminism explicitly on this forum many times. And I have seen many women explicitly disavow any affinity for feminism or desire to promote the philosophy


----------



## Muse1976

always_alone said:


> There are some rumblings that the definition should be further revised to include "made to penetrate" as part of the definition so that women who rape men are held properly accountable for it.
> 
> FBI â€” UCR Program Changes Definition of Rape


That is exactly the definition as I remember it to be. Obviously there has been a few changes, but it still remains a man's crime. A man can not be raped as the law now stands. He can only be abused. "made to penetrate" and "rape by enveloping" would both be good items to add to the existing definition. 

As far as I'm concerned there needs to be more than rumblings about this. When it comes to positions of power over another person, consent is a tenuous thing at best and an abuse of power at worst. 

We need look no further than at the news headlines at all the teachers having sex with their students. Many will probably call me a stick in the mud or a prude, but I don't care. When you apply laws, you apply them across the board regardless of gender. Period.


----------



## morituri

Muse1976 said:


> That is exactly the definition as I remember it to be. Obviously there has been a few changes, but it still remains a man's crime. A man can not be raped as the law now stands. He can only be abused. "made to penetrate" and "rape by enveloping" would both be good items to add to the existing definition.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned there needs to be more than rumblings about this. When it comes to positions of power over another person, consent is a tenuous thing at best and an abuse of power at worst.
> 
> We need look no further than at the news headlines at all the teachers having sex with their students. Many will probably call me a stick in the mud or a prude, but I don't care. When you apply laws, you apply them across the board regardless of gender. Period.



I'm afraid that we may see "the law of unintended consequences" rear its ugly head if the murder rate of rape victims actually increases after this change in the definition of Rape. I pray to God that it doesn't.


----------



## Muse1976

always_alone said:


> Many feminists pride themselves on their femininity. There is no contradiction there.
> 
> What's important for feminism is to believe that women are entitled to same rights and privileges as men (voting, human rights, education, self-determination, equal pay, etc).
> 
> That said, you fully get to choose whether you identify with feminists or not. Many women I know do not.
> 
> I do, mostly because I feel I owe a great debt to the women who fought so that I would have rights to vote, to be educated, to be self-determining and independent.
> 
> Interestingly, many of the men I know also self-identify as feminists. I see no contradiction with that either.



There is no contradiction in what a person believes, as long as they believe in equality. I fully support your decision to identify as feminist. I myself used to identify as feminist. I have since changed my thoughts on that. I now identify as egalitarian. The reason behind that is that every single human being deserves basic human rights and equality. It does not matter if they are man, woman, child. Regardless of age sex region or sexual orientation or persuasion. Every one is equal. Period.


----------



## Muse1976

morituri said:


> I'm afraid that we may see "the law of unintended consequences" rear its ugly head if the murder rate of rape victims actually increases after this change in the definition of Rape. I pray to God that it doesn't.


I'm familiar "the law of unintended consequences". I am just confused as to what you mean by this in regards to the the topic at hand. 

Could you please explain?


----------



## morituri

Muse1976 said:


> I'm familiar "the law of unintended consequences". I am just confused as to what you mean by this in regards to the the topic at hand.
> 
> Could you please explain?


Rapists just might find it safer to kill their victims rather than simply leaving them.


----------



## Deejo

The Biology Bias

Rhetorical tautologies? You'll never hear one on TAM.

Heh ...


----------



## Muse1976

morituri said:


> Rapists just might find it safer to kill their victims rather than simply leaving them.


While I can understand you concern wouldn't you think that would have already happened as the rape laws have gotten tougher with passing time.


----------



## Muse1976

Deejo said:


> The Biology Bias
> 
> Rhetorical tautologies? You'll never hear one on TAM.
> 
> Heh ...


Interesting post. Thanks for the reading material. I will have to read more.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

always_alone said:


> OMFG, what a shocking story!
> 
> Yes, I too would be loathe to think that men have "rape switches" that the need to "turn off" to stop themselves from behaving the way the men in this story did.
> 
> I'd also be loathe to condone rape as "just a cultural norm" as this author seems to think is the alternative.
> 
> That said, I don't really see this as an example of shaming men for their normal selves. I mean presumably we all agree that rape is heinous and shouldn't be condoned, no matter what culture you're in?


Imagine a 13 year old boy being told this crap. That basically they are natural rapist and only through the helpful conditioning of culture are they prevented from being a monster. This is practicality the very definition of shaming.


----------



## Deejo

Muse1976 said:


> Interesting post. Thanks for the reading material. I will have to read more.


He doesn't talk about red pill or blue pill. His book is the only dating or relationship 'how to' guide I recommend.

Not saying he's a guru, or that I'm a groupie. Bottom line. I've read his stuff and the dude sounds reasonable.

When I talk about having a goal of being an 'integrated male', I simply believe this guy talks the talk, and walks the walk, and he doesn't do it by shouting from the roof-tops or by marginalizing others.

The Confidence Conundrum


----------



## Muse1976

Deejo said:


> He doesn't talk about red pill or blue pill. His book is the only dating or relationship 'how to' guide I recommend.
> 
> Not saying he's a guru, or that I'm a groupie. Bottom line. I've read his stuff and the dude sounds reasonable.
> 
> When I talk about having a goal of being an 'integrated male', I simply believe this guy talks the talk, and walks the walk, and he doesn't do it by shouting from the roof-tops or by marginalizing others.
> 
> The Confidence Conundrum


No,"red pill" or "blue pill" and doesn't trash other people sounds like an excellent start to me. Much appreciated for the link.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScrambledEggs said:


> Imagine a 13 year old boy being told this crap. That basically they are natural rapist and only through the helpful conditioning of culture are they prevented from being a monster. This is practicality the very definition of shaming.


True, and it is sad...but there are ways this same idea (ie: kids, you need to understand what consent means) without shaming or blaming or calling anyone a rapist. Having raised two now adult kids, I know these issues are something the parents can and need to influence. The kids should be able to speak to rational adults who are egalitarian with their questions about sex. As age appropriate, boys and girls both should be told about rape, but not that MEN rape. Just that it exists...because every child is at risk (and not just men rape). It is a safety issue for the child. They have somewhat of a chance to escape or avoid situations if they know what is about to occur. They also need to know that the world is that dark, because it is.

The way to do this without shaming and blaming men, is to educate boys and girls that a person of any gender can rape, and a person of any gender can be raped. Period. See what I mean? 

So I can imagine my own son at 13 and the way we handled sex education, and because I know it was fair and balanced I don't worry about the "poor thing" the way you are painting in the quote above. I have just as much or little, however you want to look at it, empathy for the awkward 13 year old girl who is full of craptastic misinformation via friends and the internet and porn. Both boys and girls should be addressed equally (as appropriate) on these matters from young ages. And then we could wipe out this gender divide.

Instead of imagining the victim 13 year old boy, I imagine him healthy instead. Change the future this way along with me. I know it can be done.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Just something that hit home for me.
> 
> Was raised by a single mom that was quite the bra-burner, if you know what I mean. Was simultaneously taught to defer to women and yet they are equal. Men were somewhat considered as instant victimizers.
> 
> It was a strange time. Miniskirts were liberation. Promiscuity was liberation. Anti-chauvinism was liberation. I was taught that what would be good was the rise of the 'sensitive' male.
> 
> Some of this was quite good. Seeing women as human beings rather than just gender. Empathy. Compassion. All good.
> 
> Where it fell down for me of course was that when the men acted just like the women they were somehow victimizing them.
> 
> Which I had to reject because I saw women as human beings. Which meant that I wasn't victimizing them any more than they were victimizing me if we both consented to sex, right?
> 
> For me, that was liberating. And I wonder if there wasn't something there that tweaked on the red pill.


Thanks for sharing this, I found it very interesting and it helps us to know each other to get a tidbit like this, I think. I am going to start a thread about mothers based on your post. I think there was a post about fathers in the men's room but I didn't read it, maybe I should. I just never got around to it.

For just a quick and dirty to describe my mother...she is a true egalitarian, and has always been a confident very petite and pixie like person who never talked about "patriarchy" or feminist issues. I had to ask what all these things were about on my own as an adult, because none of it mattered at all in my home. She was and is extremely feminine, very pretty but not really sexy. She is classy, never wore jeans because they were farmer ware, always wears heels and is 5'2" without them. 

She has lead and organized giant groups of people and events throughout my life. She has two masters, always worked during my childhood, and was married 4 times over 30 years, twice to my father. She is extremely intelligent and our house was full of amazing people quite often...artists, teachers, intellectuals of the day in our small town...some were hippies, but not the pot smoking kind. More like urban farmers and people who made their own clothes and went camping every weekend. Others were the city government members and people on that level in the city. She was and is a spit fire.

I had no idea what misogyny even meant until I was an adult and did some of my own studies...also, I never heard the words "male entitlement" and didn't know what that meant either until someone explained it to me, and I was literally in my 30's. I am grateful to my mother for this. Because now when I hear how some of these things affected people around me, I feel I was sheltered from these ideas that caused such a gender divide. 

I knew the gender divide was was going on, various uprisings with men and women's issues while growing up in the 70's, and I asked a lot of questions about the things I saw on TV and in the news. But my mom always had a fair and lovely egalitarian answer to my questions. Things that made me not even worry about it. So the "but feminism!" feelings of men like you are a new thing for me to grasp. I had literally no idea. I'm glad to know and understand. Maybe you understand now why I seem clueless sometimes? 

I was exposed to another adult woman who was what she self identified as a feminist...but the extent of it was just that she wanted to be taken seriously in the workplace. She never beat a drum, so I was never around anyone who was a true activist like that and had no idea some people went so far with these ideas. Very small town, pre-internet, didn't really know what was really going on.


----------



## always_alone

Muse1976 said:


> That is exactly the definition as I remember it to be. Obviously there has been a few changes, but it still remains a man's crime. A man can not be raped as the law now stands. He can only be abused. "made to penetrate" and "rape by enveloping" would both be good items to add to the existing definition.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned there needs to be more than rumblings about this. When it comes to positions of power over another person, consent is a tenuous thing at best and an abuse of power at worst.
> 
> We need look no further than at the news headlines at all the teachers having sex with their students. Many will probably call me a stick in the mud or a prude, but I don't care. When you apply laws, you apply them across the board regardless of gender. Period.



The previous definition quite literally made it so that only women could be raped. This definition broadened that to include unwilling penetration of anus and oral, which did indeed encompass most male rapes (which are also most commonly perpetrated by men).

I do agree, though, that women can also rape men and that should be reflected. As it stands "made to penetrate" is downgraded to sexual assault.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Some men hate women and think that they're simultaneously victimized and superior.
> 
> Those guys, I think, need a strong woman in their life to open their eyes. Not even as a sexual partner, just in their ife.
> 
> Some women hate men and think that they're simultaneously victimized and superior.
> 
> Those gals, I think, need a strong man in their life to open their eyes. Not even as a sexual partner, just in their life.
> 
> I don't know why we focus on the polarizing opposites. There will always be extremes.
> 
> I think it's a combination of insecurity, a need to be listened to, a martyr complex, and the illusion that it brings them power.


How misogynistic of you to think that a fish needs a bicycle! :lol:


----------



## tech-novelist

Muse1976 said:


> That is exactly the definition as I remember it to be. Obviously there has been a few changes, but it still remains a man's crime. A man can not be raped as the law now stands. He can only be abused. "made to penetrate" and "rape by enveloping" would both be good items to add to the existing definition.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned there needs to be more than rumblings about this. When it comes to positions of power over another person, consent is a tenuous thing at best and an abuse of power at worst.
> 
> We need look no further than at the news headlines at all the teachers having sex with their students. Many will probably call me a stick in the mud or a prude, but I don't care. When you apply laws, you apply them across the board regardless of gender. Period.


Well, a man can be raped... but only by another man. Anything else would be misogynistic! 

Now back to reality. Do you know what happens in these two cases?

1. Female teacher subjects male student to statutory rape. Teacher gets pregnant. Who pays child support, and who goes to jail for a long time?
2. Male teacher subjects female student to statutory rape. Student gets pregnant. Who pays child support, and who goes to jail for a long time?

Answer to 1: The *boy* pays child support, and the woman gets little or no jail time. Yes, the rape victim is forced to pay the rapist!
Answer to 2: The man pays child support and/or gets sent to jail for a long time.

I don't think it's necessary to provide citations, but it's pretty easy to find them if anyone doubts my account.


----------



## tech-novelist

morituri said:


> I'm afraid that we may see "the law of unintended consequences" rear its ugly head if the murder rate of rape victims actually increases after this change in the definition of Rape. I pray to God that it doesn't.


I have no idea why that would happen. Could you clarify your concerns about this?


----------



## tech-novelist

Muse1976 said:


> There is no contradiction in what a person believes, as long as they believe in equality. I fully support your decision to identify as feminist. I myself used to identify as feminist. I have since changed my thoughts on that. I now identify as egalitarian. The reason behind that is that every single human being deserves basic human rights and equality. It does not matter if they are man, woman, child. Regardless of age sex region or sexual orientation or persuasion. Every one is equal. Period.


Sounds good, and as soon as all the misandrist laws and administrative rules are abolished, that will be the case. Right now it isn't, unfortunately.


----------



## Muse1976

technovelist said:


> Well, a man can be raped... but only by another man. Anything else would be misogynistic!
> 
> Now back to reality. Do you know what happens in these two cases?
> 
> 1. Female teacher subjects male student to statutory rape. Teacher gets pregnant. Who pays child support, and who goes to jail for a long time?
> 2. Male teacher subjects female student to statutory rape. Student gets pregnant. Who pays child support, and who goes to jail for a long time?
> 
> Answer to 1: The *boy* pays child support, and the woman gets little or no jail time. Yes, the rape victim is forced to pay the rapist!
> Answer to 2: The man pays child support and/or gets sent to jail for a long time.
> 
> I don't think it's necessary to provide citations, but it's pretty easy to find them if anyone doubts my account.



I know the case to which you are referring and it's a travesty of justice. That the only way I can think to describe it. But the best we can do at this moment is push for changes in the law. If you have better suggestions then I'm sure most all rational people would be glad to discuss them. 




technovelist said:


> Sounds good, and as soon as all the misandrist laws and administrative rules are abolished, that will be the case. Right now it isn't, unfortunately.


Well as much as I agree with you to a point, to treat anyone as anything less than equal means that we treat them as second class citizen. When you take politics and laws out of the scenario, how does treating people as second class citizens accomplish anything. 

Men have in the past received the sh1t sandwich in family courts, but things are changing. Hopefully they change a lot more. It starts as the bottom. H3ll, there are several things I would love to see changed. First thing would be mandatory dna testing of every birth in this country. I know that's going to p1ss a lot of people off, but so be it. As far as I'm concerned, paternity fraud is very near the equivalent of rape. 

Disclaimer : I'm not saying that every birth is illegitimate. What I am doing is simply acknowledging that paternity fraud happens. I don't have statistics to provide either. I would not dare try to say rape does not happen, because it does, just a paternity fraud happens. 

We the people need to hold these law makers accountable. I don't have a definitive answer, but I'm always open to suggestions.


----------



## Icey181

It was a long and very active weekend…and apparently a very busy thread too!

One of the issues I have always had when dealing with the whole Feminist/MRA debate is the legalistic reality of men in this country.

I work on a College Campus, likely will for the next half-century of my life.

Where I work feminists who demand "equal rights," because as we all know America is an oppressive patriarchy, have no issue with passing University rules which presume men are sexual criminals and are fully responsible for seeking and attaining consent in all sexual interactions.

Enthusiastic consent to boot. 

Those are the moments where I bite my tongue and remind myself I need not engage with the politics of my students and I simply shake my head at the stupid.

There are a number of things that I would personally demand to be changed when it comes to legal realities and (as I tell my students) the more important arena of legal enforcement.

Considering where I work it is not surprising…but I have never met a feminist who had an issue with holding men to higher legal standards than women when it comes to alleged sexual violence or applying different legal standards to men when it comes to birth control.

Just a post-midnight aside from a very tired me…:soapbox:


----------



## toolforgrowth

Icey181 said:


> It was a long and very active weekend…and apparently a very busy thread too!
> 
> One of the issues I have always had when dealing with the whole Feminist/MRA debate is the legalistic reality of men in this country.
> 
> I work on a College Campus, likely will for the next half-century of my life.
> 
> Where I work feminists who demand "equal rights," because as we all know America is an oppressive patriarchy, have no issue with passing University rules which presume men are sexual criminals and are fully responsible for seeking and attaining consent in all sexual interactions.
> 
> Enthusiastic consent to boot.
> 
> Those are the moments where I bite my tongue and remind myself I need not engage with the politics of my students and I simply shake my head at the stupid.
> 
> There are a number of things that I would personally demand to be changed when it comes to legal realities and (as I tell my students) the more important arena of legal enforcement.
> 
> Considering where I work it is not surprising…but I have never met a feminist who had an issue with holding men to higher legal standards than women when it comes to alleged sexual violence or applying different legal standards to men when it comes to birth control.
> 
> Just a post-midnight aside from a very tired me…:soapbox:


This is why I think the typical RP demographic is younger men. This is the type of oppression they are facing. Deep disc they don't believe that there is anything inherently wrong with being male, but they're constantly being force fed propaganda to the contrary.

It's no wonder why they're lashing out. It's also no wonder why they're debasing women to breathing masturbatory objects. By no means do I condone it, but the social environment that is creating it is clearly evident. What's their invective to invest in relationships with a group of people who believe they're nothing more than rapists?

I thoroughly despise the term "rape culture".
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland

Brigit said:


> I wouldn't say I'm not a feminist but to say I am one would be questionable.
> 
> *How can I be a feminist if I like being feminine*?


Being a Feminist has nothing to do with outward appearance or dress style, sorry B but maybe some reading on what Feminism is and how it has help all women in Western cultures to start to gain equality might be worth doing.

I am very feminine, love the whole hair nails and beauty stuff. I also enjoy falling into what would be considered traditional gender roles at times. I like my men big and strong.
But I am a Feminist in the true sense of the word in that I believe in equality and basic human rights to equal opportunities. I do not understand women that belittle Feminism as without our brave ancestors we would still be without the right to vote, to work or seek the opportunities that so many women choose to seek.

I am a Feminist but I adore men (good men). I do not believe that women are superior, I believe that they are not inferior. I consider people based on merit, not gender but I believe that ALL people regardless of gender should have an equal opportunity to be free and to seek the opportunities they wish to.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Where I work feminists who demand "equal rights," because as we all know America is an oppressive patriarchy, have no issue with passing University rules which presume men are sexual criminals and are fully responsible for seeking and attaining consent in all sexual interactions.
> 
> Enthusiastic consent to boot.


The widespread hostility to the concept of enthusiastic consent is baffling to me. What could possibly be wrong with only having sex with people who are enthusiastically consenting?

The policies on university campuses are not about presuming men are sexual criminals, they are about fostering awareness of safe and healthy practices of sex. *Enthusiastic consent applies equally to both genders*. 

The following is a good article on the topic: 

Getting A Yes (Instead of Avoiding A No) - The Standard of Enthusiastic Consent

Lots of young people don't really know what's right and what's wrong, and so many are now educated by porn, where basically they learn that sex is about pleasing men, that all a man has to do is show up with an erection, and women should expect that sex comes with at least some pain and little pleasure for them.

Is this the message you would rather send? What alternative do you propose? 



Icey181 said:


> Considering where I work it is not surprising…but I have never met a feminist who had an issue with holding men to higher legal standards than women when it comes to alleged sexual violence or applying different legal standards to men when it comes to birth control.
> 
> Just a post-midnight aside from a very tired me…:soapbox:


What is interesting about this is that most of the resistance to "fair treatment" in these legal standards comes from men. Because, after all, when a young man "scores" with the hot teacher, he is congratulated, told what a lucky fellow he is, etc., and so on. A man who files a complaint about being raped by a woman is often humiliated and ridiculed. It is only now that people are starting to take a step back and see this stuff for what it really is. 

Blaming feminists for this is way, way off target. If anything, feminists will be your allies in this fight.


----------



## naiveonedave

MountainRunner said:


> You don't get out much, do you?
> 
> My "right hand man" at work happens to be one of my best friends. George and I got hired 6 months apart at my company about 15 years ago. George is about 5'6" with a very pleasant disposition. As long as he and I have known each other, he has been w/ Rose his SO. Rose used to work at the same company and was in accounting (George is one of my techs). I like Rose. She is professional and an all around "good person".
> 
> Rose attracted the attention of the VP of the company. The VP, John, happens to be the owner's son. John is also married. John is about 6' 5" and VERY wealthy. He stands to inherit the company along with his mother's wealth once she passes on.
> 
> John expressed his undying love to Rose. I suppose we can overlook the fact that he's been married for over 30 years and the family knows of his desire for Rose. She chose to leave the company as opposed to suing and eventually owning the company...but that's another story.
> 
> Red pill guys would look at George and laugh. They would look at John's position, wealth, and place in life and say he's an "alpha"...Guess which one Rose has chosen to be with?


here lies the problem with 'anti-red pillers'. None of this stuff is absolute and some people have morals and some women are happy with the beta man they currently have. If she was never with beta boy, but had to choose between the two, how would she pick?


----------



## Muse1976

always_alone said:


> What is interesting about this is that most of the resistance to "fair treatment" in these legal standards comes from men. Because, after all, when a young man "scores" with the hot teacher, he is congratulated, told what a lucky fellow he is, etc., and so on. A man who files a complaint about being raped by a woman is often humiliated and ridiculed. It is only now that people are starting to take a step back and see this stuff for what it really is.
> 
> Blaming feminists for this is way, way off target. If anything, feminists will be your allies in this fight.


The only trouble I have with this whole thing is how do you separate the good from the bad. I have read enough of your posts to get a good idea of how you think, and from what I have seen you are very very consistent in your thoughts and beliefs. The problem that I have is that you need to be able to determine the straight and honorable feminist from the hypocritical ones. One only needs to look as far as Jezebel - Jezebel: Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for Women. Without Airbrushing. to see exactly what I am talking about. 

So, yes the straight and honorable ones might likely be allies in this fight. How do you tell though.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Because feminism we should be able to call women chubby screechtards.


I've said many times before that such language is about destroying the image of women as goddesses. Yep, it's insensitive. Yep, it's mean. It's specifically for the kind of guy who has no problem calling another guy an @sshole, but would never call a woman a b***h. To him, she's something that should be revered. He has an over developed sense of chivalry. That idea gets dispelled with all this "mean" talk.

But what happens to this guy after he's read it? Does he run around with dismissive attitudes about women? Does he insult and berate women from here on out? NO.

Excepting a few young men posting on forums (speaking amongst themselves), I've never known anyone to read these books and suddenly run around name calling. We have many men here who have read some and we don't see that behavior from any of them.

The most common result isn't a man who insults women, or thinks them less than men. Surely though, he does think less of her - less than a goddess. She becomes a crude, un-revered human being like the rest of us, and he's able to start treating her the same way he treats men - equal and irreverent. He begins to not care what she thinks of him.

I know of no other thing that breaks excessively "nice" patterns so quickly and effectively. And as much as women will claim they want many of these "nice" behaviors, that want is only within the context of a guy who isn't completely selling himself out for you. These books are quite effective at changing that mindset even if you think them "mean". Boo hoo.


----------



## Muse1976

Bugged said:


> The concept of _feminine _is a social construction, like most things.
> It varied a lot through history .
> I always liked men with make up for instance.
> It was quite common in the 80's. Today the so called 'emo boys' wear make up.
> Scottish men wear kilt on special occasions..wich is basically a skirt...I find it hilarious, but they take that tradition *very *seriously..


Yes and no. At one point in time all humans wore dresses (sorry, ROBES. Lol). Before that they wore bed sheets tied around them. And throughout history long hair on a man has been very common. There were obviously ways to tell one gender from another, so while it may be a social construct to a point, it's definitely not the full case.


----------



## toolforgrowth

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I've said many times before that such language is about destroying the image of women as goddesses. Yep, it's insensitive. Yep, it's mean. It's specifically for the kind of guy who has no problem calling another guy an @sshole, but would never call a woman a b***h. To him, she's something that should be revered. He has an over developed sense of chivalry. That idea gets dispelled with all this "mean" talk.
> 
> But what happens to this guy after he's read it? Does he run around with dismissive attitudes about women? Does he insult and berate women from here on out? NO.
> 
> Excepting a few young men posting on forums (speaking amongst themselves), I've never known anyone to read these books and suddenly run around name calling. We have many men here who have read some and we don't see that behavior from any of them.
> 
> The most common result isn't a man who insults women, or thinks them less than men. Surely though, he does think less of her - less than a goddess. She becomes a crude, un-revered human being like the rest of us, and he's able to start treating her the same way he treats men - equal and irreverent. He begins to not care what she thinks of him.
> 
> I know of no other thing that breaks excessively "nice" patterns so quickly and effectively. And as much as women will claim they want many of these "nice" behaviors, that want is only within the context of a guy who isn't completely selling himself out for you. These books are quite effective at changing that mindset even if you think them "mean". Boo hoo.


This is an excellent summation, and aligns with my prior arguments I've made.

I've maintained that women are people, just like men. They are flawed, imperfect, and fallible, just like men are. No human is perfect. That assessment includes women as well. This is not misogyny, nor is it saying women are less than men. It's saying that women are like every other human being; flawed, imperfect, fallible people.

To begin to understand this is to begin to shed the aptitude some men have for placing women upon a pedestal. It is not intended to "put women in their place". It is intended to give these men a dose of reality.

What I find interesting is the resistance we are encountering to this philosophical shift in the collective male psyche. No longer are men willing to worship at the gynocentric altar. We are expecting women to offer more than just their presence in a relationship; we expect contribution. This is not directed at any specific woman in this thread; I am speaking generally.

I don't see how any of this could be considered misogynistic. How can it be wrong for men to have standards?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Brigit

toolforgrowth said:


> What I find interesting is the resistance we are encountering to this philosophical shift in the collective male psyche. No longer are men willing to worship at the gynocentric altar. We are expecting women to offer more than just their presence in a relationship; we expect contribution. This is not directed at any specific woman in this thread; I am speaking generally.
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So you are saying prior to recent thinking women were worshipped and treated like goddesses? 

I don't think so. The world would be a much better place if this was true.


----------



## Muse1976

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I've said many times before that such language is about destroying the image of women as goddesses. Yep, it's insensitive. Yep, it's mean. It's specifically for the kind of guy who has no problem calling another guy an @sshole, but would never call a woman a b***h. To him, she's something that should be revered. He has an over developed sense of chivalry. That idea gets dispelled with all this "mean" talk.
> 
> But what happens to this guy after he's read it? Does he run around with dismissive attitudes about women? Does he insult and berate women from here on out? NO.
> 
> Excepting a few young men posting on forums (speaking amongst themselves), I've never known anyone to read these books and suddenly run around name calling. We have many men here who have read some and we don't see that behavior from any of them.
> 
> The most common result isn't a man who insults women, or thinks them less than men. Surely though, he does think less of her - less than a goddess. She becomes a crude, un-revered human being like the rest of us, and he's able to start treating her the same way he treats men - equal and irreverent. He begins to not care what she thinks of him.
> 
> I know of no other thing that breaks excessively "nice" patterns so quickly and effectively. And as much as women will claim they want many of these "nice" behaviors, that want is only within the context of a guy who isn't completely selling himself out for you. These books are quite effective at changing that mindset even if you think them "mean". Boo hoo.


I agree with you basic premise. Demeaning language? No, the sole purpose behind that is superiority. Nothing more. The point is, if there is a better solution, why not use it. How many men are you willing to sacrifice for the greater good? Those sacrificed, they become d1cktards like RooshV and his ilk.

Deejo dropped a link just recently. Check it out. So far it has been pretty good reading.


----------



## Muse1976

toolforgrowth said:


> This is an excellent summation, and aligns with my prior arguments I've made.
> 
> I've maintained that women are people, just like men. They are flawed, imperfect, and fallible, just like men are. No human is perfect. That assessment includes women as well. This is not misogyny, nor is it saying women are less than men. It's saying that women are like every other human being; flawed, imperfect, fallible people.
> 
> To begin to understand this is to begin to shed the aptitude some men have for placing women upon a pedestal. It is not intended to "put women in their place". It is intended to give these men a dose of reality.
> 
> What I find interesting is the resistance we are encountering to this philosophical shift in the collective male psyche. No longer are men willing to worship at the gynocentric altar. We are expecting women to offer more than just their presence in a relationship; we expect contribution. This is not directed at any specific woman in this thread; I am speaking generally.
> 
> I don't see how any of this could be considered misogynistic. How can it be wrong for men to have standards?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_





Brigit said:


> So you are saying prior to recent thinking women were worshipped and treated like goddesses?
> 
> I don't think so. The world would be a much better place if this was true.


Proclaimed falsehoods by both genders does not make for the truth. Their are truths in both statements, but they are generalities. From 50,000 feet you can see both the trees and the forest. There again, objectivity is sometimes hard to come by.


----------



## Marduk

I like to worship women like the goddesses they are.

I just expect to be worshiped like the god I am in return.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Brigit said:


> So you are saying prior to recent thinking women were worshipped and treated like goddesses?
> 
> I don't think so. The world would be a much better place if this was true.


The world would be a better place for women, but not for men. That's the entire point we've been trying to make.

Men who place women on pedestals are generally unhappy and unsuccessful in relationships. They are having less sex, less fulfilling relationships, and even less dating options.

At the end of the day, we will do what is in our best interests. Equalizing the value if both genders is in our best interest.

The fact that you believe the world would be better if we worshipped you is the source of your resistance.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Lots of young people don't really know what's right and what's wrong, and so many are now educated by porn, where basically they learn that sex is about pleasing men, that all a man has to do is show up with an erection, and women should expect that sex comes with at least some pain and little pleasure for them.
> 
> Is this the message you would rather send? What alternative do you propose?


I have so many problems with what you've said I scarcely know where to start. Nobody is educated about right and wrong by porn, and the vast majority of women in porn ARE enthusiastic. Female enthusiasm for sex and pleasure is generally a huge turn on for most men, and it is reflected in porn. Women should expect little pleasure?? Is that what you get from video after video showing eager women whooping it up in exaggerated ecstasy? You're changing the facts to suit the case. You can argue on the facts that it is poor at teaching how to pleasure a woman, but you can't argue on the facts that it disregards female pleasure. Women in porn sure *look* to be having a grand time, and this is in fact part of it's appeal. Her enjoyment IS important to men, hence the reason her enjoyment is so exaggerated in porn.

Inability to give consent while unconscious or stupid drunk is already covered without "enthusiastic consent". Enthusiastic consent is driven by women who desire to blame their choices on men. It's a demand that men become submissive to your hesitance, rather than advancing their own want. BS. You're responsible for your wants. He's responsible for his. He wants to have sex. You don't. It's not his job to maintain your boundaries. If you don't like his continued influence, ditch him.

Enthusiastic consent bs is just about making men's very pursuit of sex in the face of hesitance illegal because women can't be trusted to maintain their own interests in the face of his. It is the worst kind of babysitting law that disrespects women by saying they must be "protected" from their own inability to keep their boundaries.

It's dumb. The capacity to say no, and will to keep saying no, is more than enough. You don't get to blame him for your lack of will, and while he must respect explicit refusal, he shouldn't have to stop trying. He pursues his interests. You pursue your interests. Without force or incapacity, there can be no rape in such circumstances.

If you're not drunk or incapacitated, not forced, but end up persuaded into having sex when you didn't want to, that's your own damn fault. Stop blaming men for women's inability to keep their own boundaries.


----------



## NobodySpecial

toolforgrowth said:


> The world would be a better place for women, but not for men. That's the entire point we've been trying to make.


I don't think it would be better for anyone!


----------



## Wolf1974

toolforgrowth said:


> This is an excellent summation, and aligns with my prior arguments I've made.
> 
> I've maintained that women are people, just like men. They are flawed, imperfect, and fallible, just like men are. No human is perfect. That assessment includes women as well. This is not misogyny, nor is it saying women are less than men. It's saying that women are like every other human being; flawed, imperfect, fallible people.
> 
> *To begin to understand this is to begin to shed the aptitude some men have for placing women upon a pedestal. It is not intended to "put women in their place". It is intended to give these men a dose of reality.*
> 
> What I find interesting is the resistance we are encountering to this philosophical shift in the collective male psyche. No longer are men willing to worship at the gynocentric altar. We are expecting women to offer more than just their presence in a relationship; we expect contribution. This is not directed at any specific woman in this thread; I am speaking generally.
> 
> I don't see how any of this could be considered misogynistic. How can it be wrong for men to have standards?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This has been my experience as well. Was told my whole life to put women and wives on a pedestal ( certainly most don't want to be there anyway). I did and it didn't work out so well for me So I had a shift in thinking. A notion of women rule the relationship, know what's best for the man and the family, should always have the final say on things is, at best, ridiculous. That whole thinking now seems so old fashioned to me I can't believe it still exists. 

Once I came to the conclusion that my relationship partner WILL equally meet me 1/2 way in a relationship everything made much more sense.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Muse1976 said:


> I agree with you basic premise. Demeaning language? No, the sole purpose behind that is superiority.


It's easy to come to that conclusion if you start in the middle context - men and women being equial. If you start from the premise that the man reading it feels submissive and powerless to goddesses, this sort of language is very useful in knocking her off the pedestal she shouldn't be on. Turning goddesses into lowly human beings.

IMO, "soft" language, or clinical/psychological language is far less effective. From what I've seen, weenie men go read the more clinical and PC books and still tend to end up acting like weenie men who cater and defer to women.


----------



## Brigit

toolforgrowth said:


> The world would be a better place for women, but not for men. That's the entire point we've been trying to make.
> 
> Men who place women on pedestals are generally unhappy and unsuccessful in relationships. They are having less sex, less fulfilling relationships, and even less dating options.
> 
> At the end of the day, we will do what is in our best interests. Equalizing the value if both genders is in our best interest.
> 
> The fact that you believe the world would be better if we worshipped you is the source of your resistance.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


From what I've seen on both this thread and the Red Pill thread there are lots of men who are trying to prove that they're not angry and bitter anymore now that they've found Saint AK. To me, they've proved the opposite.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> I like to worship women like the goddesses they are.
> 
> I just expect to be worshiped like the god I am in return.


Of course. 

Marduk, I think you're the only male on this thread that took the Red Pill, learned a little bit of stuff and spit it out in time before you became a terrible bore.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Brigit said:


> From what I've seen on both this thread and the Red Pill thread there are lots of men who are trying to prove that they're not angry and bitter anymore now that they've found Saint AK. To me, they've proved the opposite.


Okay. As I've already told FW earlier in this thread, you're entitled to your opinions. But the fact that you think we're bitter isn't going to change our minds. In short, we don't care what you think.

And why should we? What does it matter? How does your opinion affect me, or any other man posting in this thread, in any way?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Muse1976

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It's easy to come to that conclusion if you start in the middle context - men and women being equial. If you start from the premise that the man reading it feels submissive and powerless to goddesses, this sort of language is very useful in knocking her off the pedestal she shouldn't be on. Turning goddesses into lowly human beings.
> 
> IMO, "soft" language, or clinical/psychological language is far less effective. From what I've seen, weenie men go read the more clinical and PC books and still tend to end up acting like weenie men who cater and defer to women.


Even "weenie men, really? " know that I don't have to tear you down to build myself up.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Muse1976

Brigit said:


> Of course.
> 
> Marduk, I think you're the only male on this thread that took the Red Pill, learned a little bit of stuff and spit it out in time before you became a terrible bore.


Keep that up, and he won't be able to get his head through the front door. :grin2:
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

Muse1976 said:


> I know the case to which you are referring and it's a travesty of justice. That the only way I can think to describe it. But the best we can do at this moment is push for changes in the law. If you have better suggestions then I'm sure most all rational people would be glad to discuss them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well as much as I agree with you to a point, to treat anyone as anything less than equal means that we treat them as second class citizen. When you take politics and laws out of the scenario, how does treating people as second class citizens accomplish anything.
> 
> Men have in the past received the sh1t sandwich in family courts, but things are changing. Hopefully they change a lot more. It starts as the bottom. H3ll, there are several things I would love to see changed. First thing would be mandatory dna testing of every birth in this country. I know that's going to p1ss a lot of people off, but so be it. As far as I'm concerned, paternity fraud is very near the equivalent of rape.
> 
> Disclaimer : I'm not saying that every birth is illegitimate. What I am doing is simply acknowledging that paternity fraud happens. I don't have statistics to provide either. I would not dare try to say rape does not happen, because it does, just a paternity fraud happens.
> 
> We the people need to hold these law makers accountable. I don't have a definitive answer, but I'm always open to suggestions.


I'm not saying anyone should be considered second-class citizens; to the contrary, everyone should be treated equally.

Accordingly, I agree with mandatory paternity testing, since paternity fraud is as serious as rape. It is also obvious to me that since the woman has absolute discretion over whether she has the baby or aborts, and if she has the baby, whether she keeps it or gives it up for adoption, that the man should have absolute discretion over whether to pay child support or to terminate his parental rights. Fair is fair.


----------



## Brigit

toolforgrowth said:


> Okay. As I've already told FW earlier in this thread, you're entitled to your opinions. But the fact that you think we're bitter isn't going to change our minds. In short, we don't care what you think.
> 
> And why should we? What does it matter? How does your opinion affect me, or any other man posting in this thread, in any way?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It doesn't.


----------



## NobodySpecial

technovelist said:


> I'm not saying anyone should be considered second-class citizens; to the contrary, everyone should be treated equally.
> 
> Accordingly, I agree with mandatory paternity testing, since paternity fraud is as serious as rape. It is also obvious to me that since the woman has absolute discretion over whether she has the baby or aborts, and if she has the baby, whether she keeps it or gives it up for adoption, that the man should have absolute discretion over whether to pay child support or to terminate his parental rights. Fair is fair.


I am not sure how screwing the kid over is "fair". I think that any father should be able to get a paternity test. I am not sure what is stopping them. The idea that someone is going to choose not to support their child, that they helped create, makes them just a complete loser of a human being in my book. There is literally nothing preventing a man for taking reproduction into his own hands.


----------



## Muse1976

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not sure how screwing the kid over is "fair". I think that any father should be able to get a paternity test. I am not sure what is stopping them. The idea that someone is going to choose not to support their child, that they helped create, makes them just a complete loser of a human being in my book. There is literally nothing preventing a man for taking reproduction into his own hands.


Agreed with everything you said. 

Voluntary testing and mandatory testing are two totally different things. It just makes for hapeless and unknowing dupes to be, well, less duped.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

OK.

I'm a guy.

I've been divorced with no kids.

I've almost been divorced with kids. I've talked to lawyers, I know the scoop. I live in Canada, and our laws are heavily skewed to women, too. 

However, here's the thing: I agree with that. When it comes to kids, for as long as the kids are in the house. When I had kids, my right to my money being my own ended. Sure, my wife might take a bunch of that for her and I'd be pissed off about that.

But at the end of the day what I have and what she has doesn't matter. It's having the kids stay comfortable that matters. My wife, even at the best of times, could ever hope to make 10% of what I make. Ever. My kids couldn't live off that 10%. My kids would be with her half the time.

This is one of those cases that I think what I want doesn't matter. It's what the kids need.

Maybe it's because my biological dad died when I was very young after divorcing my mom. So we had nothing and lived in near poverty for years.

But when my kids took their first breath, what I wanted for myself took a big back seat to that.


----------



## toolforgrowth

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not sure how screwing the kid over is "fair". I think that any father should be able to get a paternity test. I am not sure what is stopping them. The idea that someone is going to choose not to support their child, that they helped create, makes them just a complete loser of a human being in my book. There is literally nothing preventing a man for taking reproduction into his own hands.


The issue is the child being created under false pretenses. If the woman says she is on birth control when she really isn't, the man has been duped into creating a child against his will.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge supporter of male birth control. Men need access to a pill of their own. As it stands, the only really reliable option men have is to freeze sperm and get a vasectomy. That can be very spendy if he doesn't have health insurance that covers it.

I personally got a vasectomy. It was literally the best decision I've ever made. But as long as the majority of birth control options are in the hands of women (the pill, IUD, the shot, etc.), then men are at the mercy of their whims. The only option men have are condoms, and they are the least reliable option out of all the others.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not sure how screwing the kid over is "fair". I think that any father should be able to get a paternity test. I am not sure what is stopping them. The idea that someone is going to choose not to support their child, that they helped create, makes them just a complete loser of a human being in my book. There is literally nothing preventing a man for taking reproduction into his own hands.


For a father and his own kids, sure. But certainly not manditory.

I can think of lots of situations where a husband "knows but doesn't acknowledge" his wife's indescretions. Life is complex. Imagine having what you suspected was true and didn't want to know suddenly forced out in the open. 

And take a giant step back and look at society in general. Who does that serve? What happens to that kid in a now broken home and no financial support from the husband? Where's that kid in 20 years?

And, besides, most of those numbers of "misattributed paternity" are overblown. Here's some data for you:
Misattributed paternity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, looks to be... around 1-3% of _kids that were DNA tested_. That includes sick kids, and what looks to be kids that were suspected not to be biologically the husbands.

If you're not sure, have your kid tested. If it's really what you want. And you can live with yourself not supporting that kid that you would have loved as a result of that.


----------



## NobodySpecial

toolforgrowth said:


> The issue is the child being created under false pretenses. If the woman says she is on birth control when she really isn't, the man has been duped into creating a child against his will.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge supporter of male birth control. Men need access to a pill of their own. As it stands, the only really reliable option men have is to freeze sperm and get a vasectomy.


[
Of fer Christ sake, use condoms and get over it. I would be all over a pill for guys. But they don't exist today.

Boo hoo. Not everything is fuel in the fires of the gender wars.


----------



## toolforgrowth

NobodySpecial said:


> [
> Of fer Christ sake, use condoms and get over it. I would be all over a pill for guys. But they don't exist today.
> 
> Boo hoo. Not everything is fuel in the fires of the gender wars.


I particularly enjoy how you snipped out the part of my post where I specifically mention condoms.

My ex girlfriend had a latex allergy, btw. If I hadn't had a vasectomy, I would have been completely at her reproductive mercy because condoms were out of the question.

Life isn't black and white.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

toolforgrowth said:


> I particularly enjoy how you snipped out the part of my post where I specifically mention condoms.
> 
> My ex girlfriend had a latex allergy, btw. If I hadn't had a vasectomy, I would have been completely at her reproductive mercy because condoms were out of the question.
> 
> Life isn't black and white.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Is there a birth control method that is actually 100% effective (that doesn't involve any snipping or tying)?


----------



## Marduk

toolforgrowth said:


> I particularly enjoy how you snipped out the part of my post where I specifically mention condoms.
> 
> My ex girlfriend had a latex allergy, btw. If I hadn't had a vasectomy, I would have been completely at her reproductive mercy because condoms were out of the question.
> 
> Life isn't black and white.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You can get non-latex condoms.

There are other options than a vasectomy, although it was my choice, too.

My take is that if you're not ready to roll the dice, don't insert your parts into hers.


----------



## Brigit

toolforgrowth said:


> My ex girlfriend had a latex allergy, btw. If I hadn't had a vasectomy, I would have been completely at her reproductive mercy because condoms were out of the question.
> 
> Life isn't black and white.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Your *ex* girlfriend had a latex allergy and therefore, you had a vasectomy.

I know I shouldn't make a joke...so..um...I won't.


----------



## toolforgrowth

EllisRedding said:


> Is there a birth control method that is actually 100% effective (that doesn't involve any snipping or tying)?


No. But the fact that most of the birth control options are under female control is the issue. Men need more options besides condoms and a vasectomy. The first isn't always an option due to allergic reactions, and the other is an expensive medical procedure.

It's very easy to say men need to take control of their reproduction when they have an extremely small amount of options. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the statement wholeheartedly. But it's not quite as easy to implement as a result of the lack of choices available for men. Women have a far greater number of options available. There's nothing wrong with them having plenty of options, medical science just needs to catch up for men too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toolforgrowth

Brigit said:


> Your *ex* girlfriend had a latex allergy and therefore, you had a vasectomy.
> 
> I know I shouldn't make a joke...so..um...I won't.


Incorrect. I had a vasectomy when I was married. This ex GF was after I divorced.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

toolforgrowth said:


> I particularly enjoy how you snipped out the part of my post where I specifically mention condoms.


17% failure rate with misuse being the primary factor. Men have FEWER options, but they have options.



> My ex girlfriend had a latex allergy, btw. If I hadn't had a vasectomy, I would have been completely at her reproductive mercy because condoms were out of the question.


There is such a thing as non latex condoms.




> Life isn't black and white.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I get tired of the blame whiners on here who like to make everything a gender war issue. Life is not fair either. Grow up and get that. Women aren't out to get you. Are not out get to get impregnated by you. You aren't all that.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> The widespread hostility to the concept of enthusiastic consent is baffling to me. What could possibly be wrong with only having sex with people who are enthusiastically consenting?
> 
> The policies on university campuses are not about presuming men are sexual criminals, they are about fostering awareness of safe and healthy practices of sex. *Enthusiastic consent applies equally to both genders*.


No. It does not.

First, as it is utilized on the campus, enthusiastic consent is still targeted at _men_ and was specifically designed to counteract the classic male-rejoinder of "But I was drunk too." Enthusiastic consent discussions revolve, yet again, on men needing to ensure the drunk girl they are with is enthusiastically consenting to sexual intercourse.

Second, "enthusiastic consent" if applied as a legal standard effectively defaults to a "Guilty until proven innocent" doctrine of sexual interaction and shifts the burden of proof upon the accused.

I have serious problems with that, period.



always_alone said:


> Lots of young people don't really know what's right and what's wrong, and so many are now educated by porn, where basically they learn that sex is about pleasing men, that all a man has to do is show up with an erection, and women should expect that sex comes with at least some pain and little pleasure for them.
> 
> Is this the message you would rather send? What alternative do you propose?


True, a lot of young men only know about sex via pornography.

Much like how a lot of young women only know about sex via their own equally unrealistic media interactions.

My solution would be to hold everyone to the standard of being an adult, apply all rules equally and fairly, while never presuming guilt and requiring all individuals to be held accountable for their actions.



always_alone said:


> What is interesting about this is that most of the resistance to "fair treatment" in these legal standards comes from men. Because, after all, when a young man "scores" with the hot teacher, he is congratulated, told what a lucky fellow he is, etc., and so on. A man who files a complaint about being raped by a woman is often humiliated and ridiculed. It is only now that people are starting to take a step back and see this stuff for what it really is.
> 
> Blaming feminists for this is way, way off target. If anything, feminists will be your allies in this fight.


Are you kidding me?

Feminists look at the "teacher sex" example you just offered and use it to prove just how evil men truly are.

Because while they argue that the teacher should be allowed to receive mental health "help" and that imprisonment would do no good for anyone, said feminists turn around and explain how the situation is an example of American patriarchical control, how men are basically responsible for the culture that allowed said sexual interaction to happen, and then explain how the minor should be held accountable legally and financially if the rapist-teacher becomes pregnant from the encounter.

Feminists are never interested in fair treatment laws.

They are the ones who push for consent rules on college campuses that would hold men immediately accountable and have them banned from school at the drop of an accusation.

They are the ones who advocate for garbage laws based on the incredibly sexist Duluth Model.

They are the ones who argue against alterations to divorce law and child support laws that would remove the court-biases in favor of women.

Etc etc.

Third Wave Feminists claim to be about "equal rights."

The issue is they come from a first principle that is incredibly sexist that targets men as enemies that need to be beaten down for fairness.

That is another reason the Red Pill exists.

It is a component to the backlash of modern feminism's extreme turn into misandry.


----------



## toolforgrowth

marduk said:


> You can get non-latex condoms.
> 
> There are other options than a vasectomy, although it was my choice, too.
> 
> My take is that if you're not ready to roll the dice, don't insert your parts into hers.


Agreed. And I've turned down sex because I didn't trust the person enough to take that risk.

Condoms are the least effective form of birth control. My niece made it through one. Having that and a vasectomy as our only options isn't enough. I'll gladly wrap it up, don't get me wrong. But men need better, more varied options as well.

This isn't a gender war thing...I'm not trying to make it one either.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

EllisRedding said:


> Is there a birth control method that is actually 100% effective (that doesn't involve any snipping or tying)?


Snipping and tying is not even 100% effective.


----------



## Icey181

technovelist said:


> I'm not saying anyone should be considered second-class citizens; to the contrary, everyone should be treated equally.
> 
> Accordingly, I agree with mandatory paternity testing, since paternity fraud is as serious as rape. It is also obvious to me that since the woman has absolute discretion over whether she has the baby or aborts, and if she has the baby, whether she keeps it or gives it up for adoption, that the man should have absolute discretion over whether to pay child support or to terminate his parental rights. Fair is fair.


For the ladies reading this, _termination of parental rights_ would be legal equality for men and women when it comes to birth control.

How many feminists would support _that_?


----------



## toolforgrowth

NobodySpecial said:


> 17% failure rate with misuse being the primary factor. Men have FEWER options, but they have options.
> 
> 
> There is such a thing as non latex condoms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get tired of the blame whiners on here who like to make everything a gender war issue. Life is not fair either. Grow up and get that. Women aren't out to get you. Are not out get to get impregnated by you. You aren't all that.


This isn't gender war issue. And I never said that I was all that. Please quote where I said that and prove me wrong.

You can think I'm whining. That's perfectly fine by me. And I agree. Men do have options. I never said they didn't. My point was that they have fewer, which you freely acknowledged.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> For the ladies reading this, _termination of parental rights_ would be legal equality for men and women when it comes to birth control.
> 
> How many feminists would support _that_?


I would.


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not sure how screwing the kid over is "fair". I think that any father should be able to get a paternity test. I am not sure what is stopping them. The idea that someone is going to choose not to support their child, that they helped create, makes them just a complete loser of a human being in my book. *There is literally nothing preventing a man for taking reproduction into his own hands.*


So, basically, either a man is fully abstinent or else every time he has sex he is entering into an 18-year contract of full financial support and legal guardianship?

Whereas, apparently, a women can decide whether or not to get an abortion right on through to birth.

How lovely.

This is the issue.

Women and feminists know that there is an inherent legal bias in favor of women when it comes to child birth. The entire debate over Roe v. Wade is based on securing for women a specialized legal authority that is unassailable by men concerning birth vs. abortion.

Women in these cases are the complete agents and they get to decide whether or not a man is tied to this child for the next two decades or not.

I find that to be ludicrous and a gross violation of Men's Equal Protection Under the Law.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> So, basically, either a man is fully abstinent or else every time he has sex he is entering into an 18-year contract of full financial support and legal guardianship?
> 
> Whereas, apparently, a women can decide whether or not to get an abortion right on through to birth.


So on matters of equality, this one is not fixable. The fact is that in order to have a baby, the mother's body is inextricably involved. 

From a legal standpoint, I don't think either parent should be able to unilaterally acquire an abortion, but I don't think a mother should be required to carry either.

There is plenty wrong with our legal system, so even if such a thing was legislated, it would be unenforceable. Not sure what the right remedy is for that.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Icey181 said:


> So, basically, either a man is fully abstinent or else every time he has sex he is entering into an 18-year contract of full financial support and legal guardianship?
> 
> Whereas, apparently, a women can decide whether or not to get an abortion right on through to birth.
> 
> How lovely.
> 
> This is the issue.
> 
> Women and feminists know that there is an inherent legal bias in favor of women when it comes to child birth. The entire debate over Roe v. Wade is based on securing for women a specialized legal authority that is unassailable by men concerning birth vs. abortion.
> 
> Women in these cases are the complete agents and they get to decide whether or not a man is tied to this child for the next two decades or not.
> 
> I find that to be ludicrous and a gross violation of Men's Equal Protection Under the Law.


Thank you for finding the words I was unable to articulate.

This is precisely why I have never regretted my vasectomy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Brigit

Icey181 said:


> So, basically, either a man is fully abstinent or else every time he has sex he is entering into an 18-year contract of full financial support and legal guardianship?
> 
> Whereas, apparently, a women can decide whether or not to get an abortion right on through to birth.
> 
> How lovely.
> 
> This is the issue.
> 
> Women and feminists know that there is an inherent legal bias in favor of women when it comes to child birth. The entire debate over Roe v. Wade is based on securing for women a specialized legal authority that is unassailable by men concerning birth vs. abortion.
> 
> Women in these cases are the complete agents and they get to decide whether or not a man is tied to this child for the next two decades or not.
> 
> I find that to be ludicrous and a gross violation of Men's Equal Protection Under the Law.


I agree with you. I wish men would start getting pregnant already...I mean..WTF


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> So, basically, either a man is fully abstinent or else every time he has sex he is entering into an 18-year contract of full financial support and legal guardianship?


The FACT of nature is that YES, every single solitary time a mammal has sex, the risk of impregnation is present. Male, female, chimp or chow. This is the fact of life. Boo Hoo.


----------



## Icey181

FrenchFry said:


> I would be interested to know your solution.


Simple:

Provide men with the ability to file for a irrevocable termination of parental rights within a reasonable time of being informed he has helped to impregnate a woman.

It would surrender all rights and responsibilities on his part and would require he inform the mother of his decision immediately upon making it.

That allows her to make an informed decision of her own considering whether or not to carry the child to term.

That way everyone has the same options under the law and the same legal protections.


----------



## Anon1111

Blue pill is the worst because it not only is phony, but weak phony. It's like the perverted slave morality that Nietzsche describes.

It is equally as manipulative as red pill, but from a cynical supplicating position.

The end goal is to overwhelm a woman with pity.


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> The FACT of nature is that YES, every single solitary time a mammal has sex, the risk of impregnation is present. Male, female, chimp or chow. This is the fact of life. Boo Hoo.


Actually, no.

The fact of nature and science is that if a women gets pregnant she can either carry the child to term or she can abort it.

There is no natural requirement in nature for the father to be around and support either the mother or child and there exists only a social standard enforced by law which makes that happen today.

If a women is provided the ability to unilaterally determine her parental responsibilities then I would demand, and I hold that the United States Constitution demands, equal rights to the man in said position as well.


----------



## EllisRedding

NobodySpecial said:


> Snipping and tying is not even 100% effective.


I think with snipping some of the older methods allowed for your body to heal itself, effectively reversing the snip.

All I know, when I got snipped, that first month without protection, some of the scariest (and enjoyable :grin2 times in my life lol. Adding to the fun, my wife got her period a week or so later than normal of course ...


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> Actually, no.
> 
> The fact of nature and science is that if a women gets pregnant she can either carry the child to term or she can abort it.


So having gotten here, she gets to choose between a risky medical procedure and a not risky medical procedure? So that a guy does not have to think about birth control?

That sounds great!


----------



## NobodySpecial

EllisRedding said:


> I think with snipping some of the older methods allowed for your body to heal itself, effectively reversing the snip.
> 
> All I know, when I got snipped, that first month without protection, some of the scariest (and enjoyable :grin2 times in my life lol. Adding to the fun, my wife got her period a week or so later than normal of course ...


I have the one and only sure fire, 100% certain BC. No uterus. Lovin' it.


----------



## BradWesley

An interesting story about the state of New Jersey considering a law that would make deception, regarding obtaining sex from a person, a punishable offense.

Call it a truth in lending law for the cupid crowd.Watch out, lovers who lie! Sexual assault by deception could become a criminal offense


----------



## EllisRedding

NobodySpecial said:


> I have the one and only sure fire, 100% certain BC. No uterus. Lovin' it.


Well, we have that in common since I don't have one either :grin2:


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Icey181 said:


> Simple:
> 
> Provide men with the ability to file for a irrevocable termination of parental rights within a reasonable time of being informed he has helped to impregnate a woman.
> 
> It would surrender all rights and responsibilities on his part and would require he inform the mother of his decision immediately upon making it.
> 
> That allows her to make an informed decision of her own considering whether or not to carry the child to term.
> 
> That way everyone has the same options under the law and the same legal protections.


Interesting solution and I think it would work. 

But the Political Right would oppose this from the standpoint it encourages abortion and the Left would oppose it as a part of the "war on women". So you are left with pragmatic libertarians to support you in this, but they can't even get a proper candidate in the senate. Interesting idea.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ScrambledEggs said:


> Interesting solution and I think it would work.
> 
> But the Political Right would oppose this from the standpoint it encourages abortion and the Left would oppose it as a part of the "war on women". So you are left with pragmatic libertarians to support you in this, but they can't even get a proper candidate in the senate. Interesting idea.



Do you guys think that abortion is a non-issue simple thing? I am trying to understand how this would be the correct legal remedy. And I am thinking that you think termination is as simple as eating an ice cream cone.


----------



## Anon1111

Another thought regarding the red pill / blue pill debate.

anything calculating fails.

the disconnect between FW's "natural sex god" and all of the red pill components he seems to possess is the failure to properly value the intuitive integration of these components that the natural possesses.

the components themselves are of limited value and are somewhat interchangeable (e.g., you can be good looking, or rich, or have high status, or be intelligent, or be aggressive, etc.).

There are many different paths to "alphahood," but all of them require fluid integration of your "thing" into your personality.

This is what is meant by "being yourself."

If you don't know what your "thing" is and why it rocks, then the being yourself approach does not work. Another way of looking at it is that you are never really yourself.

I know this sounds lame to a lot of guys who just want to run a program. I get that perspective. But it's like trying to explain to someone how to have great court awareness in basketball or taste or something aesthetic like that. You can apply a formula, but the formula has to integrate within you fully until it is intuitive. Until then, it is just a bunch of parts.


----------



## toolforgrowth

NobodySpecial said:


> So having gotten here, she gets to choose between a risky medical procedure and a not risky medical procedure? So that a guy does not have to think about birth control?
> 
> That sounds great!


As a willing participant in the act that conceived said child, she also bears her share of responsibility for the consequences of choosing to engage in said act.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> So having gotten here, she gets to choose between a risky medical procedure and a not risky medical procedure? So that a guy does not have to think about birth control?
> 
> That sounds great!


If you are concerned about getting pregnant and not having someone willing to dedicate his life to supporting you and your child, here is an idea.

Do not have sex.

And abortion is a pretty standard medical procedure in 2015 which can be accomplished via something as simple as a morning after pill or an actual clinical abortion.

Basically, it boils down to this.
Abortion is a method to avoid the long-term consequences of pregnancy. It provides an additional protection, under the law, for women that men do not have access to.

I do not accept the "women are special because they get pregnant" argument.

Every "birth control" argument directed at men can be equally applied to women, plus some additional ones that men lack access to (Birth Control Pill, Morning After Pills, Abortion).

Legal termination of parental rights would simply end the issue of a legalistic imbalance that effectively reduces a man to a women's wage-slave for 18-years because she made a personal decision to bring a child to term, regardless of his wishes.

If you advocate for women to be free of those consequences I would argue that men are required the same degree of protection under the law.

Unless you actually think women should be allowed to decide whether or not a man becomes a father without his input?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Muse1976 said:


> Even "weenie men, really? " know that I don't have to tear you down to build myself up.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Do you have a better single word term to describe it?

I've probably read a lot more of this material than you have. I admit to having had a LOT of these weenie behaviors in my late teens. That you had/have them, or that I had them, doesn't make them any less weenie, woman deferring behaviors. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... calling it a duck isn't an insult.


----------



## NobodySpecial

toolforgrowth said:


> As a willing participant in the act that conceived said child, she also bears* her share *of responsibility for the consequences of choosing to engage in said act.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


A hell of a lot more than her fair share, I would say, whether we are talking termination OR carrying to term.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> If you are concerned about getting pregnant and having to dedicate your life to supporting a HUMAN CHILD.
> 
> Do not have sex.


Ex****ingActly.


----------



## toolforgrowth

NobodySpecial said:


> A hell of a lot more than her fair share, I would say, whether we are talking termination OR carrying to term.


Then simply do not have sex unless you are willing to accept those consequences.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

toolforgrowth said:


> Then simply do not have sex unless you are willing to accept those consequences.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Takes two to tango.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> I would be interested to know your solution.


How about, if he doesn't want the baby, and she refuses to abort, she is accepting the responsibility as solely hers and he is not responsible for child support?

He certainly doesn't get any say the other way around. She gets a choice. He doesn't.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

NobodySpecial said:


> Do you guys think that abortion is a non-issue simple thing? I am trying to understand how this would be the correct legal remedy. And I am thinking that you think termination is as simple as eating an ice cream cone.



Giving birth is almost 15 times more likely to result in the death of the mother than an abortion. There is going to be a medical procure either way--birth or an abortion.

The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. - PubMed - NCBI

I acknowledge there is a special emotional burden for the mother to bear in this decision. Thats just the way it works and such a law would put economic pressure on a women to choose abortion. The extent that this is a problem goes back to the extent that you have a problem with abortion which, as you say, is not a trivial issue in our socieity.


----------



## toolforgrowth

NobodySpecial said:


> Takes two to tango.


True. And you are exactly half of that equation.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Icey181

ScrambledEggs said:


> Interesting solution and I think it would work.
> 
> But the Political Right would oppose this from the standpoint it encourages abortion and the Left would oppose it as a part of the "war on women". So you are left with pragmatic libertarians to support you in this, but they can't even get a proper candidate in the senate. Interesting idea.


Actually, as an active member of the "Political Right" I would say you have it backwards. Even Rush Limbaugh has joked that this idea (termination of parental rights) is the logical endpoint of a liberal-pro-choice legal agenda and would represent a blow against Federal Abortion politics and would serve to protect men.

The issue is that liberals would absolutely argue that it is part of the "war on women," complete with discussions of "dead beat dads" who are oh-so morally repugnant…unlike strong women exercising abortion rights!

Mainly because I think the left is concerned with something other than legal-equality on this issue. 

Overall, I do not think such a doctrine would be employed all that often.
In my personal experience I only know of one individual who would have considered it and I doubt he would have pulled the trigger.

It would be a niche doctrine primarily reserved for those uncomfortable cases.


----------



## NobodySpecial

I guess where I stand on this is:

- Medication decisions and the pros and cons of the varied choices are AND SHOULD REMAIN between a patient and his or her physician. It definitely does NOT belong in a court of law.

- Terminating pregnancy is ending a life in the view of some people. Not me. I have no compunctions there. But I have a BIG problem with a court of law being able to make decisions contrary to someone's ethics in place of them making them themselves.

- Once a baby is in the picture, the legal question is no longer simply about the mother and the father. The interests of the itty bitty defenseless human is part of the equation, like it or not.

For my part, the best place for the decision to parent or not to parent remains prior to belong is prior to conception. I am personally very happy for the advancements in BC and abortion technology. May science give us advancements for men to be able to take the choice to royally **** with their hormones, moods and weight into their own hands! But I don't see the proposed legal remedies to this biological difference as being right.


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> I guess where I stand on this is:
> 
> - Medication decisions and the pros and cons of the varied choices are AND SHOULD REMAIN between a patient and his or her physician. It definitely does NOT belong in a court of law.
> 
> - Terminating pregnancy is ending a life in the view of some people. Not me. I have no compunctions there. But I have a BIG problem with a court of law being able to make decisions contrary to someone's ethics in place of them making them themselves.
> 
> - Once a baby is in the picture, the legal question is no longer simply about the mother and the father. The interests of the itty bitty defenseless human is part of the equation, like it or not.
> 
> For my part, the best place for the decision to parent or not to parent remains prior to belong is prior to conception. I am personally very happy for the advancements in BC and abortion technology. May science give us advancements for men to be able to take the choice to royally **** with their hormones, moods and weight into their own hands! But I don't see the proposed legal remedies to this biological difference as being right.


Fortunately, it looks like a male birth control pill is making its way through research and may actually be available in a few years if it proves effective.

On the other hand, all of your discussions are still focused on post-birth conversations.

You are still missing this disconnect.

On what grounds do you deprive a male-citizen the right to avoid the legal and financial consequences of parentage when you advance those very protections to female-citizens?

I would be interested in the answer to that one.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> How about, if he doesn't want the baby, and she refuses to abort, she is accepting the responsibility as solely hers and he is not responsible for child support?
> 
> He certainly doesn't get any say the other way around. She gets a choice. He doesn't.


I like my male impregnation idea better. Less paperwork.


----------



## samyeagar

Icey181 said:


> Fortunately, it looks like a male birth control pill is making its way through research and may actually be available in a few years if it proves effective.
> 
> On the other hand, all of your discussions are still focused on post-birth conversations.
> 
> You are still missing this disconnect.
> 
> On what grounds do you deprive a male-citizen the right to avoid the legal and financial consequences of parentage when you advance those very protections to female-citizens?
> 
> I would be interested in the answer to that one.


I can take that question one step further...in my state, a married woman can terminate her pregnancy without consent of her husband, even if paternity is established, yet the same husband can't get a vasectomy without his wife's consent...


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> Fortunately, it looks like a male birth control pill is making its way through research and may actually be available in a few years if it proves effective.
> 
> On the other hand, all of your discussions are still focused on post-birth conversations.
> 
> You are still missing this disconnect.
> 
> On what grounds do you deprive a male-citizen the right to avoid the legal and financial consequences of parentage when you advance those very protections to female-citizens?
> 
> I would be interested in the answer to that one.


Since you have reasonable remedy prior AND you can't get pregnant, you don't. I already said I don't see a remedy, and I don't. I do see some very bad potential consequences of your proposed remedy. Which I have share with you.


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> I can take that question one step further...in my state, a married woman can terminate her pregnancy without consent of her husband, even if paternity is established, yet the same husband can't get a vasectomy without his wife's consent...


That is just clearly wrong.


----------



## Icey181

FrenchFry said:


> I also think it is interesting, but I also think other forces would oppose it because it puts more pressure on the government to support children, which is what it comes down to.


Coupled with aggressive Clinton-esque modifications to Federal and State welfare programs that would not be an issue.



FrenchFry said:


> If you want women to continue to have children without support a far greater support net would have to be in place otherwise we won't have enough kids to take care of us as we age out.


Personally, I plan on taking care of myself as I "age out" as it were. I am not looking to become a dependent of anyone as I get older.



FrenchFry said:


> We struggle enough as it is to provide enough support for women with kids as it is. A contract would only increase that.


No we do not. There is plentiful money for support systems at both the State and Federal level, let alone private charities and church groups.



FrenchFry said:


> Doesn't mean it isn't interesting but I don't know if it increases overall fairness.


I am not talking about "Social Justice" fairness.

I am talking about pure Equal Protection Under the Law.

As a country the United States has decided abortion is a right we will advance to all women who want it.

It is high-time men received the same protections.


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> Since you have reasonable remedy prior AND you can't get pregnant, you don't. I already said I don't see a remedy, and I don't. I do see some very bad potential consequences of your proposed remedy. Which I have share with you.


In other words, in your view women should receive special civil rights superior to that of men, because they are women?


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> That is just clearly wrong.


Not when your world view holds that pregnancy is a female right and a male obligation.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> Do you guys think that abortion is a non-issue simple thing? I am trying to understand how this would be the correct legal remedy. And I am thinking that you think termination is as simple as eating an ice cream cone.


I know that it can be, and I know that the "risk" is way over blown for the majority of abortions.

When I was a senior in high school I got my gf pregnant. SHE was adamantly opposed to having a baby so there was no discussion. She told me she was going to have an abortion, and asked me to pay for it, and be there to drive her home. I agreed. She came walking out fine a short time later, remarking that she thought it would be more involved and SHE drove ME back to my car at her house (we took her car being it was the more reliable of our two).

I'm also a long time supporter Planned Parenthood and this is not an uncommon experience. For all the hype on the right, complications are in fact rare. Less than 1 percent get various forms of infection which are usually easily handled with antibiotics, and less than 1 percent of first trimester abortions experience some form of damage or perforation of the uterus. The most common complications occur in late abortions, or are anesthesia-related.

If a woman is sexually active and not wanting to conceive, having abortion as an option regular pregnancy testing is prudent. I've bought plenty. Before getting snipped myself, I was clear with women that I wasn't interested in having children, so if she was anti-abortion we might as well go our separate ways.

I have never had sex with anyone who is anti-abortion.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Icey181 said:


> Actually, as an active member of the "Political Right" I would say you have it backwards. Even Rush Limbaugh has joked that this idea (termination of parental rights) is the logical endpoint of a liberal-pro-choice legal agenda and would represent a blow against Federal Abortion politics and would serve to protect men.
> 
> The issue is that liberals would absolutely argue that it is part of the "war on women," complete with discussions of "dead beat dads" who are oh-so morally repugnant…unlike strong women exercising abortion rights!
> 
> Mainly because I think the left is concerned with something other than legal-equality on this issue.
> 
> Overall, I do not think such a doctrine would be employed all that often.
> In my personal experience I only know of one individual who would have considered it and I doubt he would have pulled the trigger.
> 
> It would be a niche doctrine primarily reserved for those uncomfortable cases.


I definitely think the Left would have a field day with it, and I'm a registered Democrat. The writing would be on the wall with ration reaction.

I don't think initially it would be a niche doctrine. I think it would follow a similar path that abortion followed. Ratesincreased after legalization, then steadily declined until it stabilized. If I were to take a wild stab at it, I think that's what would happen, since termination of rights is the closest thing a man could get to abortion.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

NobodySpecial said:


> That is just clearly wrong.


Of course it is, and the prevailing rationale for requiring consent for the vas is even more wrong...getting a vas was interfering with her reproductive rights...

I have personal experience with this as after our third child, I wanted to get a vas, but my ex wife was opposed to it. Imagine my surprise when the urologist handed me a consent for...her.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> In other words, in your view women should receive special civil rights superior to that of men, because they are women?


Those were very much not my words. My words are that there is no legal remedy for addressing post conception pregnancy desire that does not inflict worse consequence. 

Our legal system is by no means perfect. There are unfortunately many people who don't really have equal rights under the law for which there is no great remedy. Kids whose guardians do not have their interest at heart, the disabled, veterans... Again, the remedies put in place oft times have consequences that the well meaninged solvers did not intend. We hear of cases of children being removed from their home for no decent reason which has become possible at the removal of due process for the perceived victim. The desire to protect the kids out ranked the rights of the accused. Leaving this pretty untenable situation that no one could have guessed at.

I am very, very skeptical about our legal system's ability to arbitrate this stuff, even when the laws ARE written properly. So when they start encroaching into deeply personal affairs like mental and physical health or the lives of children, yah I think them dummies are ill equipped to do that.

Let's hope the male BC pill is safe, effective and soon and/or someone comes up with a legal remedy without all the downsides.


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> Of course it is, and the prevailing rationale for requiring consent for the vas is even more wrong...getting a vas was interfering with her reproductive rights...
> 
> I have personal experience with this as after our third child, I wanted to get a vas, but my ex wife was opposed to it. Imagine my surprise when the urologist handed me a consent for...her.


These issues are not related to the bearing of human children. I would be 500% behind whatever even Steven proposal that either got married people IN their spouses decisions or all the way OUT which would be my preference.

But you should know, I am all for the dissolution of civil marriage.


----------



## Runs like Dog

toolforgrowth said:


> Then simply do not have sex unless you are willing to accept those consequences.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The apocryphal ghetto rat mom with 5 kids by 4 different men would not support your rules. Clearly the reason for having kids at all is far more nuanced than that.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Runs like Dog said:


> The apocryphal ghetto rat mom with 5 kids by 4 different men would not support your rules. Clearly the reason for having kids at all is far more nuanced than that.


Have you seen Idiocracy? Truly scary.


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> Those were very much not my words. My words are that there is no legal remedy for addressing post conception pregnancy desire that does not inflict worse consequence.


Which effectively maintains a civil and legal doctrine which provides a special civil right to one gender at the literal financial and legal expense of the other, simply due to gender.

It is no different in the end.

As it stands a women has the ability to unilaterally decide whether or not a man is financially and legally tied to her for 18-years.

There is a reason that a central complaint of the Red Pill rant phase is that men need to avoid impregnating women…the Beta Bux argument is multi-faceted and part of it is recognition that when it comes to Birth Control rights that matter, men have only 2 Options:

1) Do Not Have Sex
2) Surrender 18-years of your life to the whims of a woman

It is a bad gamble. Ergo the MGTOW movement.



NobodySpecial said:


> Our legal system is by no means perfect. There are unfortunately many people who don't really have equal rights under the law for which there is no great remedy. Kids whose guardians do not have their interest at heart, the disabled, veterans... Again, the remedies put in place oft times have consequences that the well meaninged solvers did not intend. We hear of cases of children being removed from their home for no decent reason which has become possible at the removal of due process for the perceived victim. The desire to protect the kids out ranked the rights of the accused. Leaving this pretty untenable situation that no one could have guessed at.


True enough.



NobodySpecial said:


> I am very, very skeptical about our legal system's ability to arbitrate this stuff, even when the laws ARE written properly. So when they start encroaching into deeply personal affairs like mental and physical health or the lives of children, yah I think them dummies are ill equipped to do that.


Ill equipped or no, the laws still exist and still mandate specific liabilities.

Which is the issue.



NobodySpecial said:


> Let's hope the male BC pill is safe, effective and soon and/or someone comes up with a legal remedy without all the downsides.


The only downside is that women would be forced to take responsibility for pregnancies in the same manner that men have had to since the decision in Roe v. Wade.

A male birth control pill will not be 100% effective and will do nothing to mitigate the issue of Parental Responsibilities.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Anyway aren't we slowly veering to the far left position that The State should and must have a preeminent in loco parentis role from birth anyway? They tell the 'parents' what to do what to feed their kids where to educate them how to educate them what rules the 'parents' have no voice in, sway over? 

Maybe the default position for all children should be, The State takes them FIRST and then the biological 'parents' have to assert their own positive rights before some certain time has elapsed. Maybe the notion that we credit anyone with being materially and morally responsible AT ALL should be superseded by our Regulatory and Bureaucratic Overlords.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Runs like Dog said:


> The apocryphal ghetto rat mom with 5 kids by 4 different men would not support your rules. Clearly the reason for having kids at all is far more nuanced than that.


If those four different men could terminate their legal rights to those children, how many of them do you think the apocryphal ghetto rat would have kept?

Let's take it a step further. If a woman chooses to bring a child into the world without the rights of the father intact (he chose to terminate them), do you think the state should foot the bill for said child? That question isn't only directed at you, anyone can chime in.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Icey181

Runs like Dog said:


> The apocryphal ghetto rat mom with 5 kids by 4 different men would not support your rules. Clearly the reason for having kids at all is far more nuanced than that.


Ironically, she would not support such a doctrine because it would eliminate any possible financial inducement for having those kids.

Honestly, anything that would prevent further out-of-wedlock pregnancies to low-income families would be a good thing. I am not generally a pro-abortion guy, but after teaching inner-city classes filled with these women's' children, I have to wonder at it…


----------



## Icey181

Runs like Dog said:


> Anyway aren't we slowly veering to the far left position that The State should and must have a preeminent in loco parentis role from birth anyway? They tell the 'parents' what to do what to feed their kids where to educate them how to educate them what rules the 'parents' have no voice in, sway over?
> 
> Maybe the default position for all children should be, The State takes them FIRST and then the biological 'parents' have to assert their own positive rights before some certain time has elapsed. Maybe the notion that we credit anyone with being materially and morally responsible AT ALL should be superseded by our Regulatory and Bureaucratic Overlords.


Basically, no. None of that is either true or legally possible in the United States.

The 9th & 10th Amendments and Federalism say hi. :nerd:


----------



## Anon1111

just don't have sex with crazy chicks who would have a baby without your input and try to stick you with the bill. anyone who would do that is psycho and you should be able to spot them a mile away.


----------



## samyeagar

Even when a mans parental rights are fully terminated, it does not eliminate his legally enforced financial liability, so basically, he is still legally required to pay while having no legal rights to the children.


----------



## Brigit

Icey181 said:


> Honestly, anything that would prevent further out-of-wedlock pregnancies to low-income families would be a good thing. I am not generally a pro-abortion guy, but after teaching inner-city classes filled with these women's' children, I have to wonder at it…


All kidding aside there is a huge upswing in teenage pregnancy and it's getting out of control. I have no idea why teenage girls feel that having a baby is a good idea but somehow they do.

Also, if someone is already receiving welfare for one child they have no business having another child...lets just say I'm not a big fan of liberals and leave it at that.


----------



## Married but Happy

I am for equal rights for men and women, but there have to be differences because of biology. As long as a woman can unilaterally decide to continue or abort a pregnancy without factoring in the father's rights or concerns, I believe a man should have the unilateral right to decide whether to be a parent to that child. If he does, he bears financial responsibilities, and should also have shared custody rights. If he does not, he should have no financial or custody responsibilities or rights.

I now feel that until the laws become fair in this way, I will move to and remain in the anti-abortion camp for all circumstances except danger to the mother, rape, and incest.


----------



## Muse1976

marduk said:


> For a father and his own kids, sure. But certainly not manditory.
> 
> I can think of lots of situations where a husband "knows but doesn't acknowledge" his wife's indescretions. Life is complex. Imagine having what you suspected was true and didn't want to know suddenly forced out in the open.
> 
> And take a giant step back and look at society in general. Who does that serve? What happens to that kid in a now broken home and no financial support from the husband? Where's that kid in 20 years?
> 
> And, besides, most of those numbers of "misattributed paternity" are overblown. Here's some data for you:
> Misattributed paternity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So, looks to be... around 1-3% of _kids that were DNA tested_. That includes sick kids, and what looks to be kids that were suspected not to be biologically the husbands.
> 
> If you're not sure, have your kid tested. If it's really what you want. And you can live with yourself not supporting that kid that you would have loved as a result of that.


I think you are a pretty rational person, so I hope you will excuse me if I come across a little overbearing. 

"If you're not sure, have your kid tested. If it's really what you want. And you can live with yourself not supporting that kid that you would have loved as a result of that."

That right there is a shaming tactic. Nothing more nothing less. I gotta call bullsh1t when I see it. 

Based upon the statistics that you supplied and using the words in the quoted text above, the current rate for sexual assault is about 293,000. That's sexual assaults. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I also didn't feel like digging for an exact number, because the numbers can be twisted to fit a given bias. 

https://www.rainn.org/statistics

So based on total births in the United States in 2013, that would make approximately 40,000 births that fall under false paternity. I calculated that using your 1% quote and the statistics for live births from the CDC. 

FastStats - Births and Natality

Now, you can do the math on how fast this crap adds up when you bump the percentage by just a point. I just gave you as much benefit of the doubt as I can. 

"I can think of lots of situations where a husband "knows but doesn't acknowledge" his wife's indescretions. Life is complex. Imagine having what you suspected was true and didn't want to know suddenly forced out in the open."

That right there is purely anecdotal evidence. Here is some of my own. I know plenty of guys who want to know if his wife gives birth to a child that not his. H3ll, I can start pulling up links to that crap left and right that show numerous times over the man is screwed if it's not his, because the assumption is that a child produced in wedlock is automatically assumed to be the husbands. 90% of the time he is screwed with support. He is liable for it regardless. Now does that mean things haven't changed, no,but they haven't changed enough. 


"And take a giant step back and look at society in general. Who does that serve? What happens to that kid in a now broken home and no financial support from the husband? Where's that kid in 20 years?"

Hmm, let's see. 1. The home was broken the instant she became impregnated by someone other than the husband. 2. I fail to see where that's any different that the other millions of example where the woman has no clue at all of who the father is of the child in question. What you just presented is a logical fallacy, nothing more.

The whole argument is really nothing more than "the good of the child" argument. That's the same bullsh1t argument the courts come up with because that don't want to be one the hook either.

As far as I'm concerned it's a choice between an innocent man who was duped in most cases and an innocent child. This isn't about justice, it's about finding the easiest scape goat. 

"And you can live with yourself not supporting that kid that you would have loved as a result of that."

Wrong. Requited love under false pretense. A father's love is different from the love of a stranger. I love children, but my love for my own biological children is far greater than that of a unknown child. 

I suggest that when you put the gun to the mans head that you look him in the eye and tell him it's for the child when you pull the trigger. 

We stand at an ideological divide on this one, and I'm not moving. 

On a side note, im willing to bet that under mandatory dna tests that the number of false paternity cases goes up, by that same token I'm willing to be called wrong if it don't.


----------



## EllisRedding

Brigit said:


> All kidding aside there is a huge upswing in teenage pregnancy and it's getting out of control. I have no idea why teenage girls feel that having a baby is a good idea but somehow they do.
> 
> Also, if someone is already receiving welfare for one child they have no business having another child...lets just say I'm not a big fan of liberals and leave it at that.


I thought teen pregancy was actually on the decline?



> Teen Pregnancy in the United States
> adolescent reproductive health logo: Healthy teens, healthy community
> 
> In 2013, a total of 273,105 babies were born to women aged 15–19 years, for a live birth rate of 26.5 per 1,000 women in this age group.1 This is a record low for U.S. teens in this age group, and a drop of 10% from 2012. Birth rates fell 13% for women aged 15–17 years, and 8% for women aged 18–19 years. Still, the U.S. teen pregnancy rate is substantially higher than in other western industrialized nations.2
> 
> While reasons for the declines are not clear, teens seem to be less sexually active, and sexually active teens seem to be using birth control than in previous years.3


----------



## Muse1976

EllisRedding said:


> I think with snipping some of the older methods allowed for your body to heal itself, effectively reversing the snip.
> 
> All I know, when I got snipped, that first month without protection, some of the scariest (and enjoyable :grin2 times in my life lol. Adding to the fun, my wife got her period a week or so later than normal of course ...


Some of the older methods maybe. The way I had it done there won't be. I made [email protected]mn sure he took a 3mm section completely out and then them sewed on top of the standard burning of the ends. That was my requirements for letting him do the surgery in the first place. If he wouldn't have followed my direction I would have found someone who would.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Icey181 said:


> Basically, no. None of that is either true or legally possible in the United States.
> 
> The 9th & 10th Amendments and Federalism say hi. :nerd:


The Bill of Rights is more of wish list now. Safe to ignore it.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Have you seen Idiocracy? Truly scary.


Except that it's whole premise is null and void because IQs are increasing over time, as is education.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I have so many problems with what you've said I scarcely know where to start. Nobody is educated about right and wrong by porn, and the vast majority of women in porn ARE enthusiastic. Female enthusiasm for sex and pleasure is generally a huge turn on for most men, and it is reflected in porn. Women should expect little pleasure?? Is that what you get from video after video showing eager women whooping it up in exaggerated ecstasy?


And this is exactly the problem. Porn teaches that women will be thrilled, ecstatic, no matter how they are treated. If you talk to actual, real women about what they expect from sex, you'll find that alarmingly often, what they expect (and get) from sex is not pleasure, but pain. Why is this? Young people who have learned their sex ed from porn learn that they don't need things like lube, do not need to take care with a partner's physical well-being, and all sorts of other messages that will frequently end up with a woman feeling pain rather than pleasure.




DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Inability to give consent while unconscious or stupid drunk is already covered without "enthusiastic consent".


Then how do you explain the prevalence of comments from people who say things like "I didn't know it was wrong", and "she didn't say no (because she was unconscious)"? 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're responsible for your wants. He's responsible for his. He wants to have sex. You don't. It's not his job to maintain your boundaries. If you don't like his continued influence, ditch him.


It's a dog-eat-dog world you live in Dvls. Too bad there is no room for empathy or compassion.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> All kidding aside there is a huge upswing in teenage pregnancy and it's getting out of control. I have no idea why teenage girls feel that having a baby is a good idea but somehow they do.
> 
> Also, if someone is already receiving welfare for one child they have no business having another child...lets just say I'm not a big fan of liberals and leave it at that.


No there isn't.



> In 2013, the teenage birth rate in the United States reached a historic low: 26.6 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19.[16] More than three-quarters of these births are to adult women aged 18 or 19.[16] In 2005 in the U.S., the majority (57%) of teen pregnancies resulted in a live birth, 27% ended in an induced abortion, and 16% in a fetal loss.[17]



Prevalence of teenage pregnancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Muse1976

Runs like Dog said:


> Anyway aren't we slowly veering to the far left position that The State should and must have a preeminent in loco parentis role from birth anyway? They tell the 'parents' what to do what to feed their kids where to educate them how to educate them what rules the 'parents' have no voice in, sway over?
> 
> Maybe the default position for all children should be, The State takes them FIRST and then the biological 'parents' have to assert their own positive rights before some certain time has elapsed. Maybe the notion that we credit anyone with being materially and morally responsible AT ALL should be superseded by our Regulatory and Bureaucratic Overlords.


[email protected] I hope that was sarcasm.


----------



## Muse1976

Anon1111 said:


> just don't have sex with crazy chicks who would have a baby without your input and try to stick you with the bill. anyone who would do that is psycho and you should be able to spot them a mile away.


I wonder how many times that has been said and it turn around and bit them in the @ss. foresight is not nearly as good as hind sight.


----------



## Runs like Dog

marduk said:


> Except that it's whole premise is null and void because IQs are increasing over time, as is education.


No all we're doing is lowering the reference standard. The average graduate student in the humanities could not pass a high school matriculation and graduation exam from 1899. They would need a working knowledge of Latin and Greek, Calculus, Geometry, Civics, History, Rhetoric, The (old dead white guys) great Literature.


----------



## Muse1976

marduk said:


> Except that it's whole premise is null and void because IQs are increasing over time, as is education.


Come on now, it might be slightly true in different parts of the world, but I would have to see numbers on this. 

At the rate things are going the United States is under full blown invasion and the the Catholic religion that follows that said invasion, plan on seeing sky high birth rates.

I will let you insinuate what you will from that post right there.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Muse1976 said:


> [email protected] I hope that was sarcasm.


About 50%. I'm very much a 'go hither and yon and prosper' type person. Like with these urban riots going on...I seriously think we need a real world social experiment to see if the radicals, militants and anarchists are right. Pick a mid sized city and suspend nearly all law enforcement and police activity across the board except for the most severe and serious crimes for a period of 2-3 years. See what happens. 

So no, I'm not entirely sarcastic - if our better moral angels really don't think that there's any workable construct for calling someone an adult with moral agency and the only solution is to impose more State Order down upon them, then fine. Alternatively shift the age of majority to age 30 and infantilize everyone below that. Just because you can breed doesn't mean you can parent. That's the "Commune" in Communism. You can't more progressive than that. Small Kibbutznik communities did that for decades and it worked well in most cases.


----------



## tech-novelist

toolforgrowth said:


> This is an excellent summation, and aligns with my prior arguments I've made.
> 
> I've maintained that women are people, just like men. They are flawed, imperfect, and fallible, just like men are. No human is perfect. That assessment includes women as well. This is not misogyny, nor is it saying women are less than men. It's saying that women are like every other human being; flawed, imperfect, fallible people.
> 
> To begin to understand this is to begin to shed the aptitude some men have for placing women upon a pedestal. It is not intended to "put women in their place". It is intended to give these men a dose of reality.
> 
> What I find interesting is the resistance we are encountering to this philosophical shift in the collective male psyche. No longer are men willing to worship at the gynocentric altar. We are expecting women to offer more than just their presence in a relationship; we expect contribution. This is not directed at any specific woman in this thread; I am speaking generally.
> 
> I don't see how any of this could be considered misogynistic. How can it be wrong for men to have standards?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It is wrong for men to have standards only if women don't approve of those standards.


----------



## Marduk

Runs like Dog said:


> No all we're doing is lowering the reference standard. The average graduate student in the humanities could not pass a high school matriculation and graduation exam from 1899. They would need a working knowledge of Latin and Greek, Calculus, Geometry, Civics, History, Rhetoric, The (old dead white guys) great Literature.


I'm talking IQ, not standardized reference tests. It's called the "Flynn Effect."


> The average rate of increase seems to be about three IQ points per decade in the United States, as scaled by the Wechsler tests. The increasing test performance over time appears on every major test, in every age range, at every ability level, and in every modern industrialized country, although not necessarily at the same rate as in the United States. The increase has been continuous and roughly linear from the earliest days of testing to the present.[8] Though the effect is most associated with IQ increases, a similar effect has been found with increases in attention and of semantic and episodic memory.[3]


IQ has problems, but the effect is there, and fascinating.

The education rate for the US has a general positive trend. 

Educational attainment in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Marduk

Muse1976 said:


> Come on now, it might be slightly true in different parts of the world, but I would have to see numbers on this.
> 
> At the rate things are going the United States is under full blown invasion and the the Catholic religion that follows that said invasion, plan on seeing sky high birth rates.
> 
> I will let you insinuate what you will from that post right there.


Except the data does not support this conclusion.

In fact, quite the opposite.



> as the number of babies born in the country declined for the sixth straight year since the peak in 2007, a new report finds.
> 
> The country's birth rate dipped to 62.5 births per 1,000 women between ages 15 and 44, according to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That is 10 percent lower than the birth rate in 2007, which was 69.3 per 1,000 women, and a record low since the government started tracking birth rates in 1909, when birth rate was 126.8.


US Birth Rate Hits All-Time Low


----------



## Runs like Dog

marduk said:


> I'm talking IQ, not standardized reference tests. It's called the "Flynn Effect."
> 
> 
> IQ has problems, but the effect is there, and fascinating.
> 
> The education rate for the US has a general positive trend.
> 
> Educational attainment in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


People are no smarter they're more specialized.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Except that it's whole premise is null and void because IQs are increasing over time, as is education.


It is fiction. I was joking.


----------



## Muse1976

Runs like Dog said:


> About 50%. I'm very much a 'go hither and yon and prosper' type person. Like with these urban riots going on...I seriously think we need a real world social experiment to see if the radicals, militants and anarchists are right. Pick a mid sized city and suspend nearly all law enforcement and police activity across the board except for the most severe and serious crimes for a period of 2-3 years. See what happens.
> 
> So no, I'm not entirely sarcastic - if our better moral angels really don't think that there's any workable construct for calling someone an adult with moral agency and the only solution is to impose more State Order down upon them, then fine. Alternatively shift the age of majority to age 30 and infantilize everyone below that. Just because you can breed doesn't mean you can parent. That's the "Commune" in Communism. You can't more progressive than that. Small Kibbutznik communities did that for decades and it worked well in most cases.



I don't really know where you are from, but that experiment has been done. It's called Australia, the prison continent. And take it easy with the communism comments, I don't want to give anybody anymore sh1tty ideas.


----------



## Marduk

Runs like Dog said:


> No all we're doing is lowering the reference standard. The average graduate student in the humanities could not pass a high school matriculation and graduation exam from 1899. They would need a working knowledge of Latin and Greek, Calculus, Geometry, Civics, History, Rhetoric, The (old dead white guys) great Literature.


Oh, forgot a point.

In 1899, a large component of what was thought of as education and intelligence was the ability to memorize. And the facts that they were taught to memorize was largely flawed -- at least in terms of science.

I can tell you in math, and math sciences particularly, the requirement has gone profoundly up, not down -- I was expected to have a working knowledge of calculus in grade 12, as an example, and was routinely doing proofs in my undergrad years that were considered thesus-level work 100 years prior.

And, of course, many subjects I took in the sciences, math, and even philosophy did not exist back then.

So, what we value in terms of 'education' has changed, but by no means do I think it's gotten all easier. We just expect everyone to have a higher level in it, so there's some bias there.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> It is fiction. I was joking.


But...

I wanted to argue!


----------



## tech-novelist

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not sure how screwing the kid over is "fair". I think that any father should be able to get a paternity test. I am not sure what is stopping them. The idea that someone is going to choose not to support their child, that they helped create, makes them just a complete loser of a human being in my book. There is literally nothing preventing a man for taking reproduction into his own hands.


The unfairness in the current situation is that the woman has utter and total control over whether she: has the baby and keeps it, has the baby and puts it out for adoption; or has an abortion.

Since the man has nothing to say about this decision, he should be able to elect a "financial abortion", if you prefer that term to "terminating parental rights and obligations".

Absent the man having some say in the results of the pregnancy, he is treated as a second-class citizen.

And as for your claim that nothing prevents a man from taking reproduction into his own hands, does this mean that a man cannot believe a woman who says she cannot get pregnant? I thought men were supposed to believe what women said...


----------



## NobodySpecial

technovelist said:


> The unfairness in the current situation is that the woman has utter and total control over whether she: has the baby and keeps it, has the baby and puts it out for adoption; or has an abortion.
> 
> Since the man has nothing to say about this decision, he should be able to elect a "financial abortion", if you prefer that term to "terminating parental rights and obligations".
> 
> Absent the man having some say in the results of the pregnancy, he is treated as a second-class citizen.
> 
> And as for your claim that nothing prevents a man from taking reproduction into his own hands, does this mean that a man cannot believe a woman who says she cannot get pregnant? I thought men were supposed to believe what women said...


You clearly are not speaking to me. Cheers.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> But...
> 
> I wanted to argue!


No!


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> Fortunately, it looks like a male birth control pill is making its way through research and may actually be available in a few years if it proves effective.
> 
> On the other hand, all of your discussions are still focused on post-birth conversations.
> 
> You are still missing this disconnect.
> 
> On what grounds do you deprive a male-citizen the right to avoid the legal and financial consequences of parentage when you advance those very protections to female-citizens?
> 
> I would be interested in the answer to that one.


You're not going to get an answer, other than "because women are the ones who get pregnant", which of course isn't an answer at all.

Because fairness doesn't matter to feminists.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> No there isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prevalence of teenage pregnancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Those numbers don't seem right. What are the 2014 numbers?


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> Those numbers don't seem right. What are the 2014 numbers?


I doubt they've released 2014 numbers given it's May of 2015.

However I highly doubt the trend would have dramatically changed.


----------



## Muse1976

marduk said:


> Except the data does not support this conclusion.
> 
> In fact, quite the opposite.
> 
> 
> US Birth Rate Hits All-Time Low


I suggest you look at that chart provided by the CDC. It was actually the exact same link I put in another post of mine. 

Products - Data Briefs - Number 175 - December 2014

Look at the exact numbers in the chart that divide things by ethnicity. While the over all population rate was lower, the actual birthrate was much higher for the previously discussed groups. As as you add more to those numbers you can expect a greater change in the resulting birthrate. 

So while you may be right to an extent, the numbers don't lie.


----------



## toolforgrowth

technovelist said:


> It is wrong for men to have standards only if women don't approve of those standards.


Pretty much, yeah. That's because if men are allowed to dictate their own terms, women then lose all the advantages they currently hold.

The bottom line is that any healthy person will have ideas of what they find acceptable and live according to those ideas. Thus, standards are born. I think that women (generally) have gotten used to holding all the cards, and are disliking the fact that some men are actively choosing not to play the game unless they have equal say in the creation of the rules by which the game is played.

I've been saying this since the prior thread; everyone is entitled to their opinions, but they're not entitled to everyone else agreeing with their opinions. I readily acknowledge that there are people who disagree with me. That's perfectly fine. But it doesn't change my behavior or the way I choose to live my life as a result.

"I have the *****, I make the rules" is no longer accepted as a social norm. I don't care what your sex organs are. What do you bring to the table? What do you offer? And most importantly, are you living your life through double standards?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toolforgrowth

Bugged said:


> regarding children. if you don't want a child either get a vasectomy or keep your **** in your pants and stop whining. Society doens't give a **** about you sex life, it protects what's valuable for society as a whole (like children for instance).
> Anyway I already have a low drive and this 3d is such a turn off that I'm leaving you to your gender wars. >:x


That is a two way street. If you don't want kids, keep your legs closed.

Women are just as responsible for accepting a penis into their vagina as men are for placing it there.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Brigit

toolforgrowth said:


> That is a two way street. If you don't want kids, keep your legs closed.
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is true and 100% effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy.


----------



## Melinda123

My Father told me, when I was 13, that it was ok to have sex with other partners provided you LOVED THEM. I thought it weird at 13 and weirder now. Obviously he was having multiple affairs then.

I have a very good friend that, to this day, loses her intelligence in front of a man. She goes completely vegetable brained. She told me her Mother told her to do that. My friend has never been married. Coincidence?
Same friend tells me my current marital issues can be solved by having sex as much as possible. I'll have sex if I want to, but it is not something I use as a tool and not something I can fake.

I always say thank you if anyone holds a door open for me, and I have held them open for men, who always walk thru and say thank you.


----------



## Muse1976

Bugged said:


> No?Even if everyone just wore white tunics you could still tell a woman from a man 99% of the times...


That was kind of my point. Regardless of what anyone says each gender has their only mannerisms and approaches to things as a general rule. Yes it can be said that it can be broken down to an individual level and in many cases it should be. But generally speaking, each gender has certain idiosyncrasies that segregate them. How they walk, talk, approach tasks, approach problems. 

In short there is more to gender than physical attributes and societal influences.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Bugged said:


> Laws protect children once they're born because they're valuable to societies generally speaking. So I'm sorry, but you' ll have to keep on paying if you impregnate a woman. That's what I meant, but since you want to turn this into a gender war, again: have fun guys!!!
> >>


The laws protect women, not children. Big difference. If the law had any interest in protecting children, they would be placed with the parent with the highest financial means of caring for them, regardless of which parent that may be.

The.child is merely a scapegoat for female privilege.

And if this post doesn't encourage every man here to get a vasectomy, I don't know what would.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Muse1976 said:


> I suggest you look at that chart provided by the CDC. It was actually the exact same link I put in another post of mine.
> 
> Products - Data Briefs - Number 175 - December 2014
> 
> Look at the exact numbers in the chart that divide things by ethnicity. While the over all population rate was lower, the actual birthrate was much higher for the previously discussed groups. As as you add more to those numbers you can expect a greater change in the resulting birthrate.
> 
> So while you may be right to an extent, the numbers don't lie.


If you think a very small subgroup is going to alter a population of over 300 million people and buck a > 50 year trend...

Well, I guess I don't know what to say to that. I'm a betting man, but those are long odds even for me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Bugged said:


> So Women are often depicted as enjoying acts that I'm pretty sure not a very large % of 'real' women would enjoy...:surprise:


Fair enough. Most men don't want to be cuckolds but yet that's an ever increasingly popular genre. I have no explanation save taboo.

I'm aware there are genres where it's pretty clear she couldn't be enjoying it. The relationship of power and sex perhaps? I'm not surprised by it, but it is far less common than the run of the mill porn with a woman moaning in faux ecstasy.

The majority of porn includes the illusion that she loves it (even the porn that casts her as a c*msl*t... the fantasy being that she loves c*m).

Oddly, a lot of the BDSM stuff it would seem she couldn't possibly enjoy, ranks high among female porn viewers. Hell if I know what that's all about. But the mainstream, most common porn involves women who are acting as if they love whatever it is. That does strongly imply that men want her to enjoy or get off on her seeming to enjoy (even if it's only an act; the porn caters to the desire).


----------



## Muse1976

Seeing as the current directon of this thread is running into child birth topics. Here's a couple of links. 

Vasalgel, a vasectomy without the permanence and it right around the corner. 

Parsemus Foundation » Vasalgel Home

As far as the whole abortion thing goes, woman wants to abort and the man does not, what about the artifical womb. People have been working on this one since the mid 90's. At some point you would think it would be making progress. Just look at what they have done with pre-natal units in hospitals now days. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=the...erizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8


----------



## always_alone

So much talk about men having the equal right to terminate parental responsibility, I wonder what about the equal right to have a child? 

I'm presuming there are some men who do want children? Or is that blue pill beta wuss?


----------



## RandomDude

Don't take the red pill, don't take the blue pill... is there a green pill? If we mix the red and blue do we get purple? Does the purple pill make us gay?


----------



## Runs like Dog

marduk said:


> Oh, forgot a point.
> 
> In 1899, a large component of what was thought of as education and intelligence was the ability to memorize. And the facts that they were taught to memorize was largely flawed -- at least in terms of science.
> 
> I can tell you in math, and math sciences particularly, the requirement has gone profoundly up, not down -- I was expected to have a working knowledge of calculus in grade 12, as an example, and was routinely doing proofs in my undergrad years that were considered thesus-level work 100 years prior.
> 
> And, of course, many subjects I took in the sciences, math, and even philosophy did not exist back then.
> 
> So, what we value in terms of 'education' has changed, but by no means do I think it's gotten all easier. We just expect everyone to have a higher level in it, so there's some bias there.


I you really believe that somehow brains are structurally superior now than 100 years ago you are mistaken. Sorry.


----------



## Muse1976

marduk said:


> If you think a very small subgroup is going to alter a population of over 300 million people and buck a > 50 year trend...
> 
> Well, I guess I don't know what to say to that. I'm a betting man, but those are long odds even for me.


A very small subgroup? Surely not. 

Census: White majority in U.S. gone by 2043 - U.S. News

Immigration Statistics | Homeland Security

Like I said, I'm willing to be wrong, but my eyes are on the long term ramifications. By the time the end game to this gets here, I may not have to worry about it at all. But you can sure bet my children will. 

And let's not take into account all the numbers that don't magically dont exist, because they are not even on the books to begin with. Now take into account the Catholic thought process and cultural influences of where they originate. 

Us birth rate 2013 - 12.6

Mexico birth rate - 18.87

Mexico - Birth rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year

Yes theirs has fallen like our has, but it was a much higher rate to begin with.


----------



## TiggyBlue

RandomDude said:


> Don't take the red pill, don't take the blue pill... is there a green pill? If we mix the red and blue do we get purple? *Does the purple pill make us gay*​?


possibly bi :scratchhead:


----------



## Marduk

Runs like Dog said:


> I you really believe that somehow brains are structurally superior now than 100 years ago you are mistaken. Sorry.


I didn't say they were.

I said IQs are increasing. Which is why the "Ideocracy" movie is in no danger of coming true.

People have theories why they are, but nobody is sure. It could be we are sexually selecting more for the things that IQ tests test for. It could be we are exposing children at an earlier age to complex concepts. It could be something else.


----------



## Marduk

Muse1976 said:


> A very small subgroup? Surely not.
> 
> Census: White majority in U.S. gone by 2043 - U.S. News
> 
> Immigration Statistics | Homeland Security
> 
> Like I said, I'm willing to be wrong, but my eyes are on the long term ramifications. By the time the end game to this gets here, I may not have to worry about it at all. But you can sure bet my children will.
> 
> And let's not take into account all the numbers that don't magically dont exist, because they are not even on the books to begin with. Now take into account the Catholic thought process and cultural influences of where they originate.
> 
> Us birth rate 2013 - 12.6
> 
> Mexico birth rate - 18.87
> 
> Mexico - Birth rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year
> 
> Yes theirs has fallen like our has, but it was a much higher rate to begin with.


The thing is... the more 'western' or 'democratic' or 'economically successful' a group is, the less they seem to breed.

I think it's an interesting thing. Mexican birth rates have also declined from 6.4 births in 1960 per woman to 2.2, as opposed to the US 1.8 (down from about 3.7 in 1960). I would suspect in a generation or so for it to flatten out more.

Italy's birth rate is 1.4. 87.8% of Italian nationals self identify as catholics.

Wait a generation or two.

Now, if you're worried about your children being up to their armpits in catholics... I'm going to have to make some sort of catholic school girl reference. Meaning, I'm sure they'll get by.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thanks for the lively discussion everyone. I will bow out of the thread but will keep reading. Quite a spirited debate you all have going on!


----------



## Thundarr

So what's the definition of blue pill after all this discussion? Not the extremes but the things that almost everyone agrees on regarding the definition.


----------



## Muse1976

marduk said:


> The thing is... the more 'western' or 'democratic' or 'economically successful' a group is, the less they seem to breed.
> 
> I think it's an interesting thing. Mexican birth rates have also declined from 6.4 births in 1960 per woman to 2.2, as opposed to the US 1.8 (down from about 3.7 in 1960). I would suspect in a generation or so for it to flatten out more.
> 
> Italy's birth rate is 1.4. 87.8% of Italian nationals self identify as catholics.
> 
> Wait a generation or two.
> 
> Now, if you're worried about your children being up to their armpits in catholics... I'm going to have to make some sort of catholic school girl reference. Meaning, I'm sure they'll get by.


All valid points. Of course things could all change tomorrow or even after the next election. I willing to wait it out and see, just basing my opinion based off of what I see everyday. Which was all based of the idiocracy comment. Strange how these discussions turn out. 

Catholic school girls?:slap: lol

Nice to have some levity.


----------



## Muse1976

Thundarr said:


> So what's the definition of blue pill after all this discussion? Not the extremes but the things that almost everyone agrees on regarding the definition.


Good question. I don't know. For me, the definition was I was told that I needed to treat women like princesses at all costs. Aka - pedastaling. When it wasn't implicitly said, it was always implied. Cause you know, a nice guy always wins in the end. Lol.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Thundarr said:


> So what's the definition of blue pill after all this discussion? Not the extremes but the things that almost everyone agrees on regarding the definition.


I can summarize what I think most would agree with:

1. Blue pill broadly represents a set of behavior that is widely considered undesirable on TAM such as being passive aggressive and needy. It is essentially everything beta and passive in male the male behaviors.

2. It represents, to Red Piller's, the 'wrong' belief that being sentimental, emotional, and "nice" to a women is desirable to women and get a man what they want. While this sounds rudiment to #1 RP tends to take this an extreme.

3. In counterpoint, many people in this thread find value to some of these "blue pill behaviors" and even Red Pill philosophy acknowledge the need for some Blue Pill behavior in long term relationships.

I guess in short, no one wants to defend Blue Pill but there is some disagreement on what Blue Pill is and is not.


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> The thing is... *the more 'western' or 'democratic' or 'economically successful' a group is, the less they seem to breed.*
> 
> I think it's an interesting thing. Mexican birth rates have also declined from 6.4 births in 1960 per woman to 2.2, as opposed to the US 1.8 (down from about 3.7 in 1960). I would suspect in a generation or so for it to flatten out more.
> 
> Italy's birth rate is 1.4. 87.8% of Italian nationals self identify as catholics.
> 
> Wait a generation or two.
> 
> Now, if you're worried about your children being up to their armpits in catholics... I'm going to have to make some sort of catholic school girl reference. Meaning, I'm sure they'll get by.


Because children are an economic drain, and the more children, the less over all ROI for the family, and societally.


----------



## naiveonedave

samyeagar said:


> Because children are an economic drain, and the more children, the less over all ROI for the family, and societally.


until there are 4 retirees per working person, all of whom expect it better than prior generations. Oh, wait, we are almost there.


----------



## Muse1976

One last post and I'm bowing out of this one. 

The decline in birth rates obviously has nothing to do with the worst recession since the great depression and the general overall grim economic outlook hovering over most of the globe. 

I mean if you can't afford to have kids you obviously just keep popping them out.


----------



## EllisRedding

Muse1976 said:


> One last post and I'm bowing out of this one.
> 
> The decline in birth rates obviously has nothing to do with the worst recession since the great depression and the general overall grim economic outlook hovering over most of the globe.
> 
> I mean if you can't afford to have kids you obviously just keep popping them out.


Add to the fact that people are waiting longer to get married which would as well most likely contribute to a declining birth rate (if you assume that still most kids are born within a marriage)


----------



## NobodySpecial

Bugged said:


> Actually no..in Europe has been like that for *DECADES*...
> 
> 
> 
> the above is also valid for most 'Club med' countries (Italy, Greece etc) and continental Europe generally speaking...:surprise:
> 
> How Europe is slowly dying despite an increasing world population - Telegraph


There is no puritanesque social or religious prohibition on birth control.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Muse1976 said:


> One last post and I'm bowing out of this one.
> 
> The decline in birth rates obviously has nothing to do with the worst recession since the great depression and the general overall grim economic outlook hovering over most of the globe.
> 
> I mean if you can't afford to have kids you obviously just keep popping them out.


The economic outlook through most of the world is stellar right now. Birth rates go down when women are educated and given alternatives to being dependent baby factories. You can see this at work in chana and India today. 

If that did not happen over the last 15 years, and birth rates keep up to pace what they where in the 90's, we would be poised for a greatest humanitarian disaster of history. Remember Ted Turner panicking about widespread global cannibalism in 90's?


----------



## tech-novelist

toolforgrowth said:


> The laws protect women, not children. Big difference. If the law had any interest in protecting children, they would be placed with the parent with the highest financial means of caring for them, regardless of which parent that may be.
> 
> The.child is merely a scapegoat for female privilege.
> 
> And if this post doesn't encourage every man here to get a vasectomy, I don't know what would.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If the interest of children were the point, then the custodial parent (almost always the woman) would have to be able to show that chilimony ("child support") payments were used for the children's benefit. She doesn't have to do that, of course, so we can safely conclude that the children are pawns.


----------



## Marduk

Thundarr said:


> So what's the definition of blue pill after all this discussion? Not the extremes but the things that almost everyone agrees on regarding the definition.


For me, it centers on being passive-aggressive and swallowing BS that you know isn't true.


----------



## toolforgrowth

technovelist said:


> If the interest of children were the point, then the custodial parent (almost always the woman) would have to be able to show that chilimony ("child support") payments were used for the children's benefit. She doesn't have to do that, of course, so we can safely conclude that the children are pawns.


Pretty much, yeah. I've resigned to myself that in going to paying child support to my cheating ex wife until my 7 year old daughter graduates college. It used to make very angry, but the reality is that even though my money is being extorted, I still have more money now than I did when I was married as the result of a combination of two factors: I have a much better job now, and my ex wife costed me more money than what I'm paying monthly in child support.

In spite of the unfairness of it all, life is still pretty damned good.

My GF is the sweetest woman I've ever met, and the sex is incredible. I'm sitting on a pile of cash. My career is taking off. My daughter is smart, beautiful, and well behaved. I worked really hard to recover from my divorce, and I'm proud of that.

But I do believe it's our responsibility to inform younger men of the truths about our society today, and prepare them for the reality of it. I would discourage any man from marrying, especially if he's got even a tiny amount of assets. And I would discourage any man from having children, unless he's willing to find a surrogate.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

At the end of the day, my kids are more important to me than my wealth.

I can always make more money.


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> At the end of the day, my kids are more important to me than my wealth.
> 
> I can always make more money.


Technically you could always make more kids as well :wink2:


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> At the end of the day, my kids are more important to me than my wealth.
> 
> I can always make more money.


Real man.


----------



## Marduk

EllisRedding said:


> Technically you could always make more kids as well :wink2:


15 minutes in the doctors chair and the smell of cauterized vas deferens say differently 

I've long forgotten the pain.

But that smell... of my burning reproductive system... I will never forget.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> 15 minutes in the doctors chair and the smell of cauterized vas deferens say differently
> 
> I've long forgotten the pain.
> 
> But that smell... of my burning reproductive system... I will never forget.


Baby. I had my entire uterus removed from a scope through my belly button and out my nethers. A snip is child's play.


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> 15 minutes in the doctors chair and the smell of cauterized vas deferens say differently
> 
> I've long forgotten the pain.
> 
> But that smell... of my burning reproductive system... I will never forget.


I had one side taken care of during hernia surgery lol.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Baby. I had my entire uterus removed from a scope through my belly button and out my nethers. A snip is child's play.


Boy, that was quick. I went from a real man to a baby in 10 minutes.

I should alpha up.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Boy, that was quick. I went from a real man to a baby in 10 minutes.
> 
> I should alpha up.


Oh, fickle woman.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Faithful Wife said:


> Thanks for the lively discussion everyone. I will bow out of the thread but will keep reading. Quite a spirited debate you all have going on!


Before you bail out can I ask you a question that has confused me? You state that your husband is highly desirable and yet in another post on the good men project you say your husband has a disfigurement that makes him quite unattractive to many females. Which is it?


----------



## Deejo

marduk said:


> Boy, that was quick. I went from a real man to a baby in 10 minutes.
> 
> I should alpha up.


I can't tell if you were sh!t tested or negged, but you have demonstrated social value by declaring your paternal responsibilities over financial gain, with a confident and can-do attitude.

Panties. Will. Drop.

True story.

You should totally get 'The Rational Male' by Rollo Tomassi


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> I can't tell if you were sh!t tested or negged,


Neither! You guys are so serious!


----------



## Deejo

NobodySpecial said:


> Neither! You guys are so serious!


I am seldom serious.

Nothing in my post above was intended to be serious.

I was just red pillin' and chillin'.


----------



## EllisRedding

Deejo said:


> You should totally get 'The Rational Male' by Rollo Tomassi


Another phenomenal movie ...


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Deejo said:


> I can't tell if you were sh!t tested or negged, but you have demonstrated social value by declaring your paternal responsibilities over financial gain, with a confident and can-do attitude.
> 
> Panties. Will. Drop.
> 
> True story.
> 
> You should totally get 'The Rational Male' by Rollo Tomassi


Good book until the end where he goes a bit over the top


----------



## Deejo

I declare my RP/PUA handle to be DyscoKnight.


----------



## Marduk

Deejo said:


> I can't tell if you were sh!t tested or negged, but you have demonstrated social value by declaring your paternal responsibilities over financial gain, with a confident and can-do attitude.
> 
> Panties. Will. Drop.
> 
> True story.
> 
> You should totally get 'The Rational Male' by Rollo Tomassi


Read her reply about being fickle.

I'm so damn alpha, the chicks neg themselves.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> I am seldom serious.
> 
> Nothing in my post above was intended to be serious.
> 
> I was just red pillin' and chillin'.


No. Now I am offended. You said I was neggin'. Or **** testing. I am so... offended. Imma gonna get leprosy.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> No. Now I am offended. You said I was neggin'. Or **** testing. I am so... offended. Imma gonna get leprosy.


Dammit you made me laugh out loud in a quiet meeting in front of my boss!


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Dammit you made me laugh out loud in a quiet meeting in front of my boss!


Bad, monkey, surfing the internet at work.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Julius Beastcavern said:


> Before you bail out can I ask you a question that has confused me? You state that your husband is highly desirable and yet in another post on the good men project you say your husband has a disfigurement that makes him quite unattractive to many females. Which is it?


Both. But it is not something anyone would know about upon seeing him in normal circumstances. 

You get 10 points for making this connection. :smile2:


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Faithful Wife said:


> Both. But it is not something anyone would know about upon seeing him in normal circumstances.
> 
> You get 10 points for making this connection. :smile2:


Thanks for the honest reply, I was wondering if he had to overcome something and yet still be 'alpha' if that makes sense :smile2:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes he has. But most of us have something like that. That is what makes us interesting people, right?


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Exactly right


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't mean Viagra.
> 
> The blue pill is a term made up by the red pill folks...it is an analogy from The Matrix. The blue pill represents the horrible advice men have been given over the years that ends up making women not respect them or be turned on by them. The red pill (to them) represents "the truth", which (to them) means that you must be alpha or die, and the rest of that stuff.
> 
> I had the red pill thread closed, but anyone who wants to continue or quote from that thread, that's fine with me. (I had asked a new guy a few questions for example, that he didn't have time to answer before the other thread was closed). Here's the old thread: http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/265130-please-dont-take-red-pill.html
> 
> On this thread though, I'd love to hear what you (anyone) considers bad relationship advice. For instance, some women were told when young to act stupid around men, because "men don't like it when you are smarter than them". Stuff like that is crappy advice, period.
> 
> It doesn't have to be male oriented advice. Just any advice that is counter productive or causes problems in relationships to arise or become worse.
> 
> So bad advice or blue pill advice (which is more specific to men and has a more specific slant to it)....please give me your thoughts.
> 
> Also I'd like to know what books would be considered blue pill.
> 
> I loved the original Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.
> 
> Does red pill consider that one blue pill? That's one example.


The worst marriage advice I got was the lack of advice I got. Even in our premarital counseling, we were basically told, "You seem old enough to figure it out." The Pastor recommended we read 5 Love Languages, and we did, but since we weren't yet married we had no context to apply to the advice we read about in the book. I don't know if any of that qualifies as "blue pill", or not, but as long as it's not any red pill garbage, I'm fine. 

One thing I wish I'd learned before marriage, was how to identify and use different listening styles. I spent years misunderstanding my husband's listening and communication styles, and he spent years expecting me to communicate only the way he wanted, without actually listening to what I was saying. If I was mad I could say so, but it better not sound like anger or he would withdraw from me emotionally and a fairly simple issue would extend into a massively toxic situation that would take weeks to get over, and more often than not leaked into the next argument. Nearly six years later, and we've finally gotten past that, but now we're having to learn how to build the foundation for good communication. That's a lot of time that I feel has been wasted between us, and caused unnecessary pain.


----------

